4-5-1

[SStandUp]

I personally feel, with our set of players, this is our best formation.

I know to some fans it can seem a negative set up, especially at home. But I like it. It allows us to accommodate the likes of Reid/ Tomlin, Smith, Cotterill, O'dowda all in the same side. It can allow us to dominate the midfield, and in the championship this is vital, whoever wins the midfield battle tends to come out on top. 

It's also the formation we used at the start of the season, when we used to win! 

Whats others thoughts? 

[KURTZ]

Maybe, but I doubt if the 442 fundamentalists will agree.

[Guest ploppy]

I would agree it makes the most sense on paper but it hasn't worked too many times this season. Maybe that's due to Abraham not being the right type of player to play up front on his own. Maybe it takes a Wilbs target man type to hold up play and bring in the midfield, rather than leading to isolation.

Also I think if we are going to play that way our midfielders need to be well drilled in terms of their role. Too many times we've seen our centre midfielders play a very similar role (i.e. sitting back) leading to a situation where on the off chance we do get into a good position there is nobody in the box to capitalise. If Reid is going to be our attacking centre midfielder with, say, Pack and GON sitting back then he needs to be making lung bursting runs to get into goal scoring positions. 

Whilst 442 didn't work at all against Fulham (perhaps because we were just generally shite) it was very good in the first half against Derby. The players seemed to have much better understanding of their roles as it is a very simple way of playing. Too many times we over complicate with 451 and it doesn't work - Rotherham at home first half is a fantastic example of that. LJ will say we were ostensibly playing a 442 with Tomlin up top but he's not a striker - instead we set up in a confused system that really did not work.

I think 442 or 352 (if we are bold enough to try that system again) works better than 451 in my opinion. Two strikers on the pitch please!

[Strictly Obi]

With the squad we have now, 4-5-1 makes sense playing a top 6 side (especially playing away). But 4-4-2 must surely be the preferred option against lesser sides and home matches. 

[Taz]

The fact that we are a few days from March, and nobody seems to know our best formation  (including the head coach), is kind of worrying don't you think?

This is the sort of discussion we should be having at the beginning of the season, or if we had a sudden injury crisis. 

[Red-Robbo]

It's not my favourite formation, but it's horses for courses.Sometime it is the best option.

When you play it you need to have some forward-minded midfielders allowed to get upfield quickly, which, yesterday, we did.

[wendyredredrobin]

I wonder if chopping and changing players and formations is half of our problem.  A settled side and formation would get the players used to playing the same system and playing with each other.

Just draft in a like for like replacement where there are injuries, we have a big enough squad.

When things are settled, players know what their team mates will do and where they will be without thinking or looking.

We should play our own system and let our opponents worry about us rather than worrying too much about them.

 

 

 

[Red-Robbo]

12 minutes ago, wendyredredrobin said:

I wonder if chopping and changing players and formations is half of our problem.  A settled side and formation would get the players used to playing the same system and playing with each other.

Just draft in a like for like replacement where there are injuries, we have a big enough squad.

When things are settled, players know what their team mates will do and where they will be without thinking or looking.

We should play our own system and let our opponents worry about us rather than worrying too much about them.

 

 

 

That tactic didn't really work for Cotterill, did it?

I have no problem Lee's frequent formation changes - you see it all the time in the PL. Thinking players are more flexible position-wise than they are gives me more cause for concern. I often think that Johnson has little grasp on players' strengths and weaknesses.

[REDOXO]

Changing formation while we are in play is part and parcel of the game. BUT, as a bloke said on another thread today LJ seems to do it for no reason or the wrong reason, which is infuriating.

I am all for solidity and fast attack. The team gave us that in spades first half but could not win the ball second half forcing us to deep.

We have to get stuck in and win the ball as it is clear we can win if we have it and t be frank not having it only has one outcome!

What we could do if we had Gerry Gow right now!!!??

[redysteadygo1]

4 hours ago, john from high littleton said:

With the squad we have now, 4-5-1 makes sense playing a top 6 side (especially playing away). But 4-4-2 must surely be the preferred option against lesser sides and home matches. 

Although not my type of set up I feel it should have been used against Fulham, due to the passing style they play, in an effort to counter their dominance in possession and creating gaps in and around our area. The two up front did nothing and due to our league position should have taken a punt on getting a goal / goals through breaks or set pieces. 

As I said not idea but we were not in an idea league position or form.

[samo II]

For me we very much set up 4-1-4-1 yesterday, not 4-5-1, and while people might say I'm quibbling over details, I honestly felt we always had one of Smith or GO'N dropped in to cover Shalvey and/or pick up the option for the defence to pass out.

We rarely used all three central players going forward, instead they sat in, allowing the full backs to head forward (though usually Vyner held back from bombing on, thanks to the threat of getting caught by Atsu's pace).

This formation also allowed either Korey Smith or O'Neil to press higher up (which Reid ably assisted in BTW), which Newcastle struggled with first half.

I'd persist with it at Villa.  If Djuric is back; even better, as Wilbs might be willing to grind himself into the dirt for the shirt (God bless that lad), but I'd suggest being able to replace him at some point second half would be beneficial.

And Josh Brownhill; I could see his energy fitting with the way that midfield ticked over, though think the 'authority' and awareness of Smith and GO'N is something Brownhill might lack, and was a key to making the formation work.

Feel a little sorry for Taylor, as with two goals in just a handful of appearances, he's done little wrong, but right now I think away to sides like Villa, we need more of a solid base to work from.

It also allows someone like Patterson to be brought in for Reid to add more pace to an attack, or Pack in for GO'N to break up attacks.

I'd hope we go for that approach against Villa, and that we hit them with the intensity out the gate we did at this weekend; as I've mentioned elsewhere, I do not think Villa have the same mental strength or level of quality Newcastle could call upon to push us back.

Should be very interesting to see what happens Tuesday; unfortunately I'm at a work event, so won't have any idea what is going on until after the fact!

[SStandUp]

1 minute ago, samo II said:

For me we very much set up 4-1-4-1 yesterday, not 4-5-1, and while people might say I'm quibbling over details, I honestly felt we always had one of Smith or GO'N dropped in to cover Shalvey and/or pick up the option for the defence to pass out.

We rarely used all three central players going forward, instead they sat in, allowing the full backs to head forward (though usually Vyner held back from bombing on, thanks to the threat of getting caught by Atsu's pace).

This formation also allowed either Korey Smith or O'Neil to press higher up (which Reid ably assisted in BTW), which Newcastle struggled with first half.

I'd persist with it at Villa.  If Djuric is back; even better, as Wilbs might be willing to grind himself into the dirt for the shirt (God bless that lad), but I'd suggest being able to replace him at some point second half would be beneficial.

And Josh Brownhill; I could see his energy fitting with the way that midfield ticked over, though think the 'authority' and awareness of Smith and GO'N is something Brownhill might lack, and was a key to making the formation work.

Feel a little sorry for Taylor, as with two goals in just a handful of appearances, he's done little wrong, but right now I think away to sides like Villa, we need more of a solid base to work from.

It also allows someone like Patterson to be brought in for Reid to add more pace to an attack, or Pack in for GO'N to break up attacks.

I'd hope we go for that approach against Villa, and that we hit them with the intensity out the gate we did at this weekend; as I've mentioned elsewhere, I do not think Villa have the same mental strength or level of quality Newcastle could call upon to push us back.

Should be very interesting to see what happens Tuesday; unfortunately I'm at a work event, so won't have any idea what is going on until after the fact!

Yeh you're right it was more 4-1-4-1. And I agree with your points regarding it. Hope LJ sticks with it, especially for villa. It would suit Djuric a treat too and can accommodate Tomlin if needed, although I wouldn't drop Reid. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Was it not  more of a 4-3-3?

Had a sort of perfect balance. Probably was 4-3-3 at times, 4-1-4-1 at others and 4-5-1 when up against it.

[Flagon]

Whichever formation we go for, and I think with the current squad there are a number of options, there has to be an intensity to it. For whatever reason there are usually a couple of players that are far too casual in their play which either results in a surprise loose pass completely outfoxing our own team as it's so unexpected or just easily brushed off the ball when in decent positions. There has to be a desire to win the ball at all times, to anticipate where it's going when they haven't got the ball. To move and support each player when we are in possession. 

[Davefevs]

8 hours ago, ForeverRes said:

I personally feel, with our set of players, this is our best formation.

I know to some fans it can seem a negative set up, especially at home. But I like it. It allows us to accommodate the likes of Reid/ Tomlin, Smith, Cotterill, O'dowda all in the same side. It can allow us to dominate the midfield, and in the championship this is vital, whoever wins the midfield battle tends to come out on top. 

It's also the formation we used at the start of the season, when we used to win! 

Whats others thoughts? 

I think too much is made of formations.  They look good on paper and FM17, but apart from goal-kicks and kick-offs, the game is too fluid to see the rigidity of the formation listed on the team sheet.  I accept you hear commentators saying "they're trying to break down the two banks of 4", but in the modern game you rarely see two left up top when you haven't got the ball, so it often is 9 outfield behind the ball.

Early season we were more 4231 than 451, and I think yesterday was 4141.  But as above they are variants on a theme.

It is more about the players and their mentality with and without the ball, their discipline to hold their position or be fluid according to the coaches orders.

The FIFA17 term of CAM, the FM17 Treqartista, the DM bug the hell out of me.  They do help describe, but they do not define the player's role imho.  Players have played those roles for years.

I usually use Liverpool as my example.  But Look at the Everton team/midfield from the 80s.

Southall

Stevens, Mountfield, Ratcliffe, Van den Hauwe

Steven, Reid, Bracewell, Sheedy

Sharp or Heath with Lineker

What were Reid and Bracewell?  DMs, CMs, Holding Midfielders , etc?

They were good midfielders, Reid, box to box, ball winner, who could play, Bracewell, not box to box, but closed well, and a lovely passer over short to mid-range.  You didn't need to further define their roles, they were central midfielders who complimented the way Everton played.

So, in our 4231 early season, most people tend to see it as two holders to allow Tomlin to play in the 10.  Yet some of our better games were with Reid and O'Neil as the two.  Reid is no holder is he?  O'Neil was box to box, not dynamic box to box, but gets about

Then Pack came in, with O"Neil, suspended and niggly injuries.  He's not box to box, more the screen, and passing midfielder.

The changes went on. I honestly don't know what best formation is.  If everyone was fit and in form, I'd go one up front, because I like the quality we could maximise from 5 midfielders.  Tammy is my frontman in that one.

Pre-game yesterday, people said you can't play 1 up top when it's Wilbs.  But if 4141 meant Wilbs had 4 midfielders closer to him, then it can.  Perhaps the dedicated midfielder (O'Neil) gave the 4, especially the central 2 to get around Wilbs.

2 up top does not equal more attacking. Nor do I subscribe that you play 2 up top at home and 1 away.

The other thing that comes into the equation, is what the opposition do.  There's not one side out there.

[SStandUp]

14 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I think too much is made of formations.  They look good on paper and FM17, but apart from goal-kicks and kick-offs, the game is too fluid to see the rigidity of the formation listed on the team sheet.  I accept you hear commentators saying "they're trying to break down the two banks of 4", but in the modern game you rarely see two left up top when you haven't got the ball, so it often is 9 outfield behind the ball.

Early season we were more 4231 than 451, and I think yesterday was 4141.  But as above they are variants on a theme.

It is more about the players and their mentality with and without the ball, their discipline to hold their position or be fluid according to the coaches orders.

The FIFA17 term of CAM, the FM17 Treqartista, the DM bug the hell out of me.  They do help describe, but they do not define the player's role imho.  Players have played those roles for years.

I usually use Liverpool as my example.  But Look at the Everton team/midfield from the 80s.

Southall

Stevens, Mountfield, Ratcliffe, Van den Hauwe

Steven, Reid, Bracewell, Sheedy

Sharp or Heath with Lineker

What were Reid and Bracewell?  DMs, CMs, Holding Midfielders , etc?

They were good midfielders, Reid, box to box, ball winner, who could play, Bracewell, not box to box, but closed well, and a lovely passer over short to mid-range.  You didn't need to further define their roles, they were central midfielders who complimented the way Everton played.

So, in our 4231 early season, most people tend to see it as two holders to allow Tomlin to play in the 10.  Yet some of our better games were with Reid and O'Neil as the two.  Reid is no holder is he?  O'Neil was box to box, not dynamic box to box, but gets about

Then Pack came in, with O"Neil, suspended and niggly injuries.  He's not box to box, more the screen, and passing midfielder.

The changes went on. I honestly don't know what best formation is.  If everyone was fit and in form, I'd go one up front, because I like the quality we could maximise from 5 midfielders.  Tammy is my frontman in that one.

Pre-game yesterday, people said you can't play 1 up top when it's Wilbs.  But if 4141 meant Wilbs had 4 midfielders closer to him, then it can.  Perhaps the dedicated midfielder (O'Neil) gave the 4, especially the central 2 to get around Wilbs.

2 up top does not equal more attacking. Nor do I subscribe that you play 2 up top at home and 1 away.

The other thing that comes into the equation, is what the opposition do.  There's not one side out there.

You good sir speak a lot of sense. I enjoy reading your posts !

[Davefevs]

4 minutes ago, ForeverRes said:

You good sir speak a lot of sense. I enjoy reading your posts !

Ta.

This post might make a bit of sense of the post I badly worded last night.

[JoeAman08]

3 hours ago, Red-Robbo said:

It's not my favourite formation, but it's horses for courses.Sometime it is the best option.

When you play it you need to have some forward-minded midfielders allowed to get upfield quickly, which, yesterday, we did.

Well we had Bobby who is forward thinking. It was nice to see Korey get up the pitch as I think it suits him to play around the box with his good close control and eye for a short pass. O'Dowda and Cotterill make it work so much better as they sprint forward and back. 

I still have nightmares about Cardiff away where Korey and GON just sat next to each other and it caused Tomlin to drop deep as they didn't look forward and it isolated Tammy badly. Was refreshing to see Korey got the instruction to go forward. 

Funnily enough, it was shown as 4-1-4-1 which is the second time I remember it and we've played well both times. The other the first 70 min against Reading. Both times though we've conceded possession and we tired badly though. It's a formation i wouldn't mind seeing more of, especially with Tammy out. It requires two mobile and plucky midfielders though. Korey and Bobby were that. Joe and Josh I think could both play that as well. Leaving Pack, Hegeler and GON to play the holding role. We've got the midfielders for it. We've got two brilliant target man types we can utilise and with Cotterill on the right and O'Dowda on the left we get wingers who help going forward and defending. Just have to know when to make the substitutions. 

[bpexile]

4 hours ago, Taz said:

The fact that we are a few days from March, and nobody seems to know our best formation  (including the head coach), is kind of worrying don't you think?

This is the sort of discussion we should be having at the beginning of the season, or if we had a sudden injury crisis. 

Thats the exact reason we find ourselves in this predicament.

We've been to unsettled all season with senior/costly players underperforming. I can understand LJ's confusion to some degree but it shouldn't have led to the miss match selections. Just when players seem to get a handle on their role they go missing from selection.

Hopefully the squad that played Newcastle have earned their spot at last.

[JasonM88]

4-4-2 is an outdated formation imo. It means we'll get over powered in midfield against those that play either a 433 or 451.

[Charlie BCFC]

9 hours ago, ForeverRes said:

I personally feel, with our set of players, this is our best formation.

I know to some fans it can seem a negative set up, especially at home. But I like it. It allows us to accommodate the likes of Reid/ Tomlin, Smith, Cotterill, O'dowda all in the same side. It can allow us to dominate the midfield, and in the championship this is vital, whoever wins the midfield battle tends to come out on top. 

It's also the formation we used at the start of the season, when we used to win! 

Whats others thoughts? 

I agree and the three CMs should be Hegeler for defensive reasons, Brownhill and GON but we definitely have a lot of players who can play in those positions whether they're defensive (Pack and Hegeler), Box to box  ( GON and Smith) or fairly attacking (Brownhill and Reid).

[JasonM88]

9 minutes ago, Flint says No said:

I agree and the three CMs should be Hegeler for defensive reasons, Brownhill and GON but we definitely have a lot of players who can play in those positions whether they're defensive (Pack and Hegeler), Box to box  ( GON and Smith) or fairly attacking (Brownhill and Reid).

Hegeler is hardly a defensive midfielder.

[Davefevs]

12 minutes ago, JasonM88 said:

4-4-2 is an outdated formation imo. It means we'll get over powered in midfield against those that play either a 433 or 451.

Those formations against each other are really interesting.

442 us vs 433 them.  Out full backs should occupy their wide forwards, and therefore our 4 should outmatch their 3.  So what's the drawback....their full-backs, if they get up against our wide midfielders, means their central 3 against our central 2.  But then they have to go 2 v 2 against our forwards.  Pros and cons for each side.  At this level it's often the players performance that makes the difference.

442 us vs 451 them.  Their 5 in midfield outnumber our 4.  So once again, how do we get our full-backs to get the overload.  You start to see the same arguments in reverse of above.

As I say, every formation has its strengths and weaknesses it itself and different strengths and weaknesses depending on the formation it's up against.

Also, how can Barcelona play 4-6-0, and still be a wonderful attacking threat?  Players is the answer.

[JasonM88]

1 minute ago, Davefevs said:

Those formations against each other are really interesting.

442 us vs 433 them.  Out full backs should occupy their wide forwards, and therefore our 4 should outmatch their 3.  So what's the drawback....their full-backs, if they get up against our wide midfielders, means their central 3 against our central 2.  But then they have to go 2 v 2 against our forwards.  Pros and cons for each side.  At this level it's often the players performance that makes the difference.

442 us vs 451 them.  Their 5 in midfield outnumber our 4.  So once again, how do we get our full-backs to get the overload.  You start to see the same arguments in reverse of above.

As I say, every formation has its strengths and weaknesses it itself and different strengths and weaknesses depending on the formation it's up against.

Also, how can Barcelona play 4-6-0, and still be a wonderful attacking threat?  Players is the answer.

Barca play without a formation in a way. They have their 4, and then the 1 in front of them. Ahead of that it's everyone where they want to be. 

[SStandUp]

14 minutes ago, JasonM88 said:

Hegeler is hardly a defensive midfielder.

He's a CB that can also play midfield. There's no doubt that he is regarded as a defensive minded midfielder! 

[Davefevs]

9 minutes ago, JasonM88 said:

Barca play without a formation in a way. They have their 4, and then the 1 in front of them. Ahead of that it's everyone where they want to be. 

Exactly....formations are over-rated.  I'm a bit out of touch with Spanish footie, but they've played Mascerano and Cocu at centre half over the years too.

[BobBobSuperBob]

1 hour ago, JasonM88 said:

Barca play without a formation in a way. They have their 4, and then the 1 in front of them. Ahead of that it's everyone where they want to be. 

They used to ( I havnt watched them this season ) push their two full backs up and tucked in to flood the midfield with one of the central midfield dropping in between the centre halves

Guardiola has been doing similar at Man City

[BobBobSuperBob]

2 hours ago, Davefevs said:

I think too much is made of formations.  They look good on paper and FM17, but apart from goal-kicks and kick-offs, the game is too fluid to see the rigidity of the formation listed on the team sheet.  I accept you hear commentators saying "they're trying to break down the two banks of 4", but in the modern game you rarely see two left up top when you haven't got the ball, so it often is 9 outfield behind the ball.

Early season we were more 4231 than 451, and I think yesterday was 4141.  But as above they are variants on a theme.

It is more about the players and their mentality with and without the ball, their discipline to hold their position or be fluid according to the coaches orders.

The FIFA17 term of CAM, the FM17 Treqartista, the DM bug the hell out of me.  They do help describe, but they do not define the player's role imho.  Players have played those roles for years.

I usually use Liverpool as my example.  But Look at the Everton team/midfield from the 80s.

Southall

Stevens, Mountfield, Ratcliffe, Van den Hauwe

Steven, Reid, Bracewell, Sheedy

Sharp or Heath with Lineker

What were Reid and Bracewell?  DMs, CMs, Holding Midfielders , etc?

They were good midfielders, Reid, box to box, ball winner, who could play, Bracewell, not box to box, but closed well, and a lovely passer over short to mid-range.  You didn't need to further define their roles, they were central midfielders who complimented the way Everton played.

So, in our 4231 early season, most people tend to see it as two holders to allow Tomlin to play in the 10.  Yet some of our better games were with Reid and O'Neil as the two.  Reid is no holder is he?  O'Neil was box to box, not dynamic box to box, but gets about

Then Pack came in, with O"Neil, suspended and niggly injuries.  He's not box to box, more the screen, and passing midfielder.

The changes went on. I honestly don't know what best formation is.  If everyone was fit and in form, I'd go one up front, because I like the quality we could maximise from 5 midfielders.  Tammy is my frontman in that one.

Pre-game yesterday, people said you can't play 1 up top when it's Wilbs.  But if 4141 meant Wilbs had 4 midfielders closer to him, then it can.  Perhaps the dedicated midfielder (O'Neil) gave the 4, especially the central 2 to get around Wilbs.

2 up top does not equal more attacking. Nor do I subscribe that you play 2 up top at home and 1 away.

The other thing that comes into the equation, is what the opposition do.  There's not one side out there.

Good post again mate

Agree - most plans formations (And there are numerous) will have success if

You have the players to play it

You coach it well and the players ' buy in' and understand it

The danger and problem with LJ is he seems to think the players are capable of switching formation up to three times a game

As I've said on other threads that's a lot to ask players to do successfully - it might work on FM17 but the genera principle of follow / do what you know is often better

 

[1bristolcity]

Yes this formation would have helped us not concede 50 goals thus far. With Bryan and now Cotts making it a 4-3-3 it would seem a better formation. But who plays the 1 up... Tammy, Duric, or  Wilbs? All could do a job I reckon.  

[JasonM88]

1 hour ago, ForeverRes said:

He's a CB that can also play midfield. There's no doubt that he is regarded as a defensive minded midfielder! 

Have you ever watched him play? He's most definitely not a defensive mid.

[Mr Popodopolous]

4-5-1/4-3-3 hybrid.

We can look again at replacing some next season or adding depth but until then how about:

Giefer

Little Wright Magnusson Bryan

Brownhill O'Neil Smith

Cotterill Djuric O'Dowda

Now I know it doesn't have Tammy but we don't know when he will be back. Djuric is like Wilbraham stylistically- but much younger! Dunno how many full games in a demanding role Wilbs can play at his age at this level, despite how he played Saturday.

Dropping Flint- hero for us, that great season- but maybe take him out the firing line. I think Hordur and Wright could work rather well, a good combination of stopper and ball player.

Midfield- looks quite well balanced to me, Hegeler, Reid and Pack are more than decent options as backup but those who know the division best at this time. There are good range of options in that midfield though.

I think this would suit us quite well but the one small problem is that Tammy as a lone striker in this format- unsure he would be all that good. Shame really as I think 4-3-3 could suit us really quite well, but you gotta fit him in!

[Nibor]

If you look at our personnel, our weaknesses are:

• both full backs are shit at defending
• our centre halves struggle to cope with the better forwards in the division
• we haven't managed to use width to any real effect all season

Because of this I'd play 532/352 - and you won't hear me say that often.

---------------------------Giefer----------------------------

-----------Wright--------Flint-----Magnusson----------

-Cotterill-----O'Neill---Smith---Hegeler---------Bryan-

--------------------Tomlin-------Abraham------------------

Right now with confidence low and Tammy injured, Djuric and Taylor up front is probably a better bet.  Maybe with Tomlin in the midfield at home - it's ridiculous that a player of his quality is left out.

I think that team is strong in the middle, gets rid of the weak full backs and can probably keep a lot of possession.  You could play Brownhill in the middle over Smith if he doesn't find his form.

It also gives us a bit more margin for (inevitable) error in the back line with a left footer to the left of Flint and Wright on his right foot.  I'd hope that meant less hoofing.

All else aside though, what's far more important than formation and selection is that whatever ones are chosen, we don't ******* change them every game and every 30 minutes during a game.  

[Guest]

I'm not wedded to formations, more play what's in front of you and play to your strengths.

Faffing around probably confuses the shit out of everyone.

[Red-Robbo]

12 hours ago, JoeAman08 said:

Well we had Bobby who is forward thinking. It was nice to see Korey get up the pitch as I think it suits him to play around the box with his good close control and eye for a short pass. O'Dowda and Cotterill make it work so much better as they sprint forward and back. 

I still have nightmares about Cardiff away where Korey and GON just sat next to each other and it caused Tomlin to drop deep as they didn't look forward and it isolated Tammy badly. Was refreshing to see Korey got the instruction to go forward. 

Funnily enough, it was shown as 4-1-4-1 which is the second time I remember it and we've played well both times. The other the first 70 min against Reading. Both times though we've conceded possession and we tired badly though. It's a formation i wouldn't mind seeing more of, especially with Tammy out. It requires two mobile and plucky midfielders though. Korey and Bobby were that. Joe and Josh I think could both play that as well. Leaving Pack, Hegeler and GON to play the holding role. We've got the midfielders for it. We've got two brilliant target man types we can utilise and with Cotterill on the right and O'Dowda on the left we get wingers who help going forward and defending. Just have to know when to make the substitutions. 

Spot on, Joe. LJ just needs to realise the difference between defensive midfielders, attacking midfielders and wingers and we actually have the men for the job.

I remember that Cardiff nightmare - and others like it. Tomlin is another character who if you're not playing him in an advanced role, is totally wasted.

[David Brent]

It's not unacceptable to change formation for certain games. 

I agree we need a best formation / lineup but 4-5-1 was surely wiser than 4-4-2 away to the league leaders.

[JoeAman08]

9 hours ago, Nibor said:

If you look at our personnel, our weaknesses are:

• both full backs are shit at defending
• our centre halves struggle to cope with the better forwards in the division
• we haven't managed to use width to any real effect all season

Because of this I'd play 532/352 - and you won't hear me say that often.

---------------------------Giefer----------------------------

-----------Wright--------Flint-----Magnusson----------

-Cotterill-----O'Neill---Smith---Hegeler---------Bryan-

--------------------Tomlin-------Abraham------------------

Right now with confidence low and Tammy injured, Djuric and Taylor up front is probably a better bet.  Maybe with Tomlin in the midfield at home - it's ridiculous that a player of his quality is left out.

I think that team is strong in the middle, gets rid of the weak full backs and can probably keep a lot of possession.  You could play Brownhill in the middle over Smith if he doesn't find his form.

It also gives us a bit more margin for (inevitable) error in the back line with a left footer to the left of Flint and Wright on his right foot.  I'd hope that meant less hoofing.

All else aside though, what's far more important than formation and selection is that whatever ones are chosen, we don't ******* change them every game and every 30 minutes during a game.  

Every time I've seen us play 3-5-2 in the championship, even under Cotterill, the wing back gets exposed with 2 on 1. The opposition then gets crosses in and score a number of goals. I don't think our wing backs are good enough and I am not sure our centre halves are quick enough to help out there. Saw it at Newcastle when Magnusson come on. We saw the game out but poor Callum was on his own against Ritchie and Yedlin time and time again. I don't think it's a great formation for this league. It leaves you outnumbered against wingers which is probably the deepest and most talented position in the league. 

[spudski]

17 hours ago, Red-Robbo said:

That tactic didn't really work for Cotterill, did it?

I have no problem Lee's frequent formation changes - you see it all the time in the PL. Thinking players are more flexible position-wise than they are gives me more cause for concern. I often think that Johnson has little grasp on players' strengths and weaknesses.

I think a problem Coach's and managers have, that we don't, is that they see the players every day in training. They see the players progression, what they can do without the match day pressure on. When they see this...they give a player a chance. We've seen it a couple times recently. LJ mentioned that Matthews had worked hard in training to get his fitness back again. That O'dowda was amazing in training, but a 'bit of a rabbit' in headlights when it came to match day. What they do in training, can obviously effect what a Coach thinks when choosing his match day squad.

If you were to purely judge players on what they have done over 90 mins on match day, and not see what goes on in training, then the likelihood is that you would never choose to play them again. Matthews for example...must be bloody amazing in training...because match day's he's been worse than useless on most occasions.

The same goes for players on match day...Magners has been tremendous for us...we question why he was dropped etc.

Then the whole coaching staff will analyse the opposition stats, and footage and scout reports...we don't see that either...so it often baffles us why certain players have been chosen.

 

[Nibor]

10 minutes ago, JoeAman08 said:

Every time I've seen us play 3-5-2 in the championship, even under Cotterill, the wing back gets exposed with 2 on 1. The opposition then gets crosses in and score a number of goals. I don't think our wing backs are good enough and I am not sure our centre halves are quick enough to help out there. Saw it at Newcastle when Magnusson come on. We saw the game out but poor Callum was on his own against Ritchie and Yedlin time and time again. I don't think it's a great formation for this league. It leaves you outnumbered against wingers which is probably the deepest and most talented position in the league. 

I don't like it much but it is hard to imagine we could concede more goals from play on the wing than we are currently with the two worst defending full backs I can remember seeing in a City shirt and I've been watching since the 80s.  I don't like this as a formation generally but it is the only way with the current squad we can get the better players into the XI and leave the likes of Golbourne, Little, Vyner and Matthews out and that has to be the priority.  How we got through January without signing a full back is beyond me.

 

[Red-Robbo]

4 minutes ago, spudski said:

I think a problem Coach's and managers have, that we don't, is that they see the players every day in training. They see the players progression, what they can do without the match day pressure on. When they see this...they give a player a chance. We've seen it a couple times recently. LJ mentioned that Matthews had worked hard in training to get his fitness back again. That O'dowda was amazing in training, but a 'bit of a rabbit' in headlights when it came to match day. What they do in training, can obviously effect what a Coach thinks when choosing his match day squad.

If you were to purely judge players on what they have done over 90 mins on match day, and not see what goes on in training, then the likelihood is that you would never choose to play them again. Matthews for example...must be bloody amazing in training...because match day's he's been worse than useless on most occasions.

The same goes for players on match day...Magners has been tremendous for us...we question why he was dropped etc.

Then the whole coaching staff will analyse the opposition stats, and footage and scout reports...we don't see that either...so it often baffles us why certain players have been chosen.

 

Quite right, Spud. 

Playing Wilbs as a lone striker looked like madness to me before the Newcastle game. But I have to give it to Johnson, he must have seen enough to know the old campaigner was ready to put in a bloody good shift.

We do have to trust coaches and managers over such matters. At the same time, we don't want players who "train well" but lose it in the spotlight of the real deal being selected: the sad case of a certain Mr L Fontaine springs to mind there. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

10 hours ago, Nibor said:

If you look at our personnel, our weaknesses are:

• both full backs are shit at defending
• our centre halves struggle to cope with the better forwards in the division
• we haven't managed to use width to any real effect all season

Because of this I'd play 532/352 - and you won't hear me say that often.

---------------------------Giefer----------------------------

-----------Wright--------Flint-----Magnusson----------

-Cotterill-----O'Neill---Smith---Hegeler---------Bryan-

--------------------Tomlin-------Abraham------------------

Right now with confidence low and Tammy injured, Djuric and Taylor up front is probably a better bet.  Maybe with Tomlin in the midfield at home - it's ridiculous that a player of his quality is left out.

I think that team is strong in the middle, gets rid of the weak full backs and can probably keep a lot of possession.  You could play Brownhill in the middle over Smith if he doesn't find his form.

It also gives us a bit more margin for (inevitable) error in the back line with a left footer to the left of Flint and Wright on his right foot.  I'd hope that meant less hoofing.

All else aside though, what's far more important than formation and selection is that whatever ones are chosen, we don't ******* change them every game and every 30 minutes during a game.  

I like that setup, also think Bryan as a wingback would be more productive than as a left back with potential for growth too.

Only snag I can see is that under Cotts it didn't quite work out with a 3-5-2- though we had some good games but overall it didn't work.

[JoeAman08]

34 minutes ago, Nibor said:

I don't like it much but it is hard to imagine we could concede more goals from play on the wing than we are currently with the two worst defending full backs I can remember seeing in a City shirt and I've been watching since the 80s.  I don't like this as a formation generally but it is the only way with the current squad we can get the better players into the XI and leave the likes of Golbourne, Little, Vyner and Matthews out and that has to be the priority.  How we got through January without signing a full back is beyond me.

 

That I can't argue with. Maybe if it was a 5-4-1 but many would go mental at that. Formations are silly though. You can be attacking in any formation just have to be willing to commit those bodies forward. 

[Davefevs]

3 hours ago, Red-Robbo said:

Quite right, Spud. 

Playing Wilbs as a lone striker looked like madness to me before the Newcastle game. But I have to give it to Johnson, he must have seen enough to know the old campaigner was ready to put in a bloody good shift.

We do have to trust coaches and managers over such matters. At the same time, we don't want players who "train well" but lose it in the spotlight of the real deal being selected: the sad case of a certain Mr L Fontaine springs to mind there. 

Wasn't there on Saturday. The formation said 4141, my question is did Wilbs get isolated?  I suspect not, in that Reid and Smith tried to get around him. The very brief stacking highlights indicate he wasn't a lonesome attacker.   What are others views who were there?

[SStandUp]

6 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Wasn't there on Saturday. The formation said 4141, my question is did Wilbs get isolated?  I suspect not, in that Reid and Smith tried to get around him. The very brief stacking highlights indicate he wasn't a lonesome attacker.   What are others views who were there?

Yeh it was either Reid, Smith or O'Neil who joined the attack. But no matter what either Smith or O'Neil sat in if the other had joined the attack. 

Both very disciplined. I also liked the fact who ever it was from midfield in the attack, O'Neil/ Smith/ Reid, they all worked their arse off to get back in ! 

[Davefevs]

6 minutes ago, ForeverRes said:

Yeh it was either Reid, Smith or O'Neil who joined the attack. But no matter what either Smith or O'Neil sat in if the other had joined the attack. 

Both very disciplined. I also liked the fact who ever it was from midfield in the attack, O'Neil/ Smith/ Reid, they all worked their arse off to get back in ! 

Thanks, shows what a bit of desire to join up and discipline for one to stay home can achieve.

How many on here have said get rid of Korey in the summer.  We jump to conclusions / opinions far too easily.  The bloke played 1/3 of last season with a ankle injury and went through the pain barrier for us...gradually his performances got dragged down.  He had his op, but had struggled to get fully fit, further affecting his oerformance.  By the same token I'm not gonna jump in and say "Korey is back", but he deserves the rest of this season and a proper pre-season to get back and warm us with his energy and passion next season.  

[BobBobSuperBob]

2 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Thanks, shows what a bit of desire to join up and discipline for one to stay home can achieve.

How many on here have said get rid of Korey in the summer.  We jump to conclusions / opinions far too easily.  The bloke played 1/3 of last season with a ankle injury and went through the pain barrier for us...gradually his performances got dragged down.  He had his op, but had struggled to get fully fit, further affecting his oerformance.  By the same token I'm not gonna jump in and say "Korey is back", but he deserves the rest of this season and a proper pre-season to get back and warm us with his energy and passion next season.  

Well said 

If he can get back to his best - right up there as one of the very best in our squad IMHO

[SStandUp]

36 minutes ago, BobBobSuperBob said:

Well said 

If he can get back to his best - right up there as one of the very best in our squad IMHO

Agreed 

[BobBobSuperBob]

If he could regain fitness and towards his best - Would also be My skipper

[samo II]

11 minutes ago, BobBobSuperBob said:

If he could regain fitness and towards his best - Would also be My skipper

His absence has been notable; delighted he's back, and think getting as many minutes out of him as we can over the next 13 games could be vital for our survival.

[cidered abroad]

13 hours ago, Nibor said:

I don't like it much but it is hard to imagine we could concede more goals from play on the wing than we are currently with the two worst defending full backs I can remember seeing in a City shirt and I've been watching since the 80s.  I don't like this as a formation generally but it is the only way with the current squad we can get the better players into the XI and leave the likes of Golbourne, Little, Vyner and Matthews out and that has to be the priority.  How we got through January without signing a full back is beyond me.

 

Have you got a selective memory? Nicky Hunt, Brian Mitchell, Marvin Harriott are better than Mark Little?

[Nibor]

9 hours ago, cidered abroad said:

Have you got a selective memory? Nicky Hunt, Brian Mitchell, Marvin Harriott are better than Mark Little?

No, but I'm talking about the two of them at the same time and defending only.