My thoughts on the “433”

[Davefevs]

Posted this in twitter earlier.

Here’s the pics if you can’t be arsed to look at twitter.

We went back three at the end too as Brum pressed.

[BCFCGav]

Oooh I actually noticed that! My tactical eyes finally growing in.

Well managed tactics today from NP - good stuff. 

[Sir Geoff]

4123 is how I saw it too. Had to laugh at some of the suggestions people were making around me today. None of them correct.

[Open End Numb Legs]

A pleasant drive through Tetbury to Cirencester. 

[petehinton]

I saw it as a clear 352, reverted to 433 once we went 1-0 up. Thought Pearson got every tactical tweak spot on today, yet people genuinely still think he’s ‘past it’ as a coach because he’s over the age of 40. You don’t manage in the PL and put together the bulk of a PL winning side without knowing the structure needed to get through an unflattering championship game or two.  

[W-S-M Seagull]

I hope Naismith is given time to grow into that role. A deep playmaker role seems well suited to his style. 

[italian dave]

13 hours ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

I hope Naismith is given time to grow into that role. A deep playmaker role seems well suited to his style. 

And when he gives the ball away there’s someone behind him

[LondonBristolian]

59 minutes ago, Percy Pig said:

There's an obsession with shape and tactics that doesn't fully take into account the fluidity of football. 

As you've demonstrated, there were a number of variations within the midfield three and as Pete alludes to, Naismith dropped into the back line to make a three a number of times depending on how Birmingham attacked. 

I think we adjusted well throughout, there was an immediate response to Birmingham replacing Sanderson with a forward for example. 

There were times where Sykes was playing central, times he dropped to a traditional RM and we went Asymmetrical with Antoine as a out and out Left forward. 

It's why I never understand people's complaints about the 352 set up, it's never been rigid and has a billion variances each game all depending on how we are playing and where we have identified opposition weaknesses. 

It's bloody nice to see our coaching staff and players making in game adjustments. Something sadly lacking for a while. Very "modern". 

I agree with this. I think people fixate on the difference between a back 3 and midfield 2 and a back 2 and midfield 3 when there’s not really much difference a back 3 with the central player coming into midfield and a midfield 3 with the central player dropping into defence.

That said, what I do think makes a difference shape-wise is playing with a front three rather than a number 10 behind a front two.

This season we have tended to do the latter to suit - at various points - Weimann or Scott as a ten or Conway as a 9 but I do think a front 3 gives us more width, more options and more threat. Obviously this isn’t clear-cut either - last season Weimann ostensibly played behind Martin and Semenyo but the formation frequently shifted into a front 3 whereas I don’t think we have done that as much in recent weeks. So it is again about fluidity rather than rigid systems but an alternative attacking shape yesterday fees like a factor in the result.

[Davefevs]

9 minutes ago, Percy Pig said:

 

Yeah agreed, although I'm a massive fan of a central two consisting of Wells and Conway. Think it suits them both to have a partner, one to drop the other to run the channel. Also makes pressing a lot easier to hunt as a pack. One down side to the 433 yesterday was it felt like Birmingham could beat the press quite easily and it was their lack of composure that stopped them taking advantage of those gaps between the lines. 

But Semenyo cutting in  from the left was very dangerous and our ability to double up on either flank against their wingbacks gave us numerous overloads.

Pros and cons to both "shapes". Being fluid and adaptable is the key to any decent team. Yesterday was very positive on that front 

…and I think this might be one reason why Nige hadn’t switched to a back 4 previously.

Lets also not forget he had Naismith out injured (and James too for half of that period), Atkinson having his confidence built-up, the re-emergence of Pring, Vyner really settling into his best football, etc.

And also Semenyo (Left Forward) has only just started to capture his form again.

I most definitely don’t think Nige was being stubborn. Maybe certain things fell into line recently. 

[italian dave]

1 hour ago, Percy Pig said:

There's an obsession with shape and tactics that doesn't fully take into account the fluidity of football. 

As you've demonstrated, there were a number of variations within the midfield three and as Pete alludes to, Naismith dropped into the back line to make a three a number of times depending on how Birmingham attacked. 

I think we adjusted well throughout, there was an immediate response to Birmingham replacing Sanderson with a forward for example. 

There were times where Sykes was playing central, times he dropped to a traditional RM and we went Asymmetrical with Antoine as a out and out Left forward. 

It's why I never understand people's complaints about the 352 set up, it's never been rigid and has a billion variances each game all depending on how we are playing and where we have identified opposition weaknesses. 

It's bloody nice to see our coaching staff and players making in game adjustments. Something sadly lacking for a while. Very "modern". 

What you say makes perfect sense: I’m not disagreeing with you but an observation is that we just seem to be more rigid when we line up 3-5-2 from the outset and with the personnel to fit that formation. 

Naismith, for example, could move forward but that rarely happens, and certainly not even further forward with James dropping back (as yesterday).

Sykes has played RWB in a 3-5-2 and just never drifts centrally the way he did yesterday. Or has the right back to double up with. 

And our game plan in a 3-5-2 always seems quite predictable - central defender either out wide of central defender and long punt over the top. Yesterday we seemed to have the flexibility to try something different, and certainly with the extra man in midfield we threatened all over the pitch.

As I say, it’s just an observation, and wonder if it’s just that we stick to rigidly to the 3-5-2 when we do play it? 

[steviestevieneville]

15 hours ago, petehinton said:

I saw it as a clear 352, reverted to 433 once we went 1-0 up. Thought Pearson got every tactical tweak spot on today, yet people genuinely still think he’s ‘past it’ as a coach because he’s over the age of 40. You don’t manage in the PL and put together the bulk of a PL winning side without knowing the structure needed to get through an unflattering championship game or two.  

We started with a back  four 

[Davefevs]

10 minutes ago, Percy Pig said:

I think both our views are right here, Dave. On the one hand the variations within the 352 are not as pronounced as we saw yesterday, on the other they are still there even if slightly more subtle.

Examples being the differences in approach depending on KN or RA playing central. Becomes more of a sweeper system with Kal central, with Rob and Zak pushing higher and wider and carrying the ball often. 

We've played 532 352 334 and 343 in spells this season depending on the situation in a game. 

As I said, think there's a fixation with shape, at the end of the day it's all about how we best utilise the attributes of the players on the pitch at any given moment

Also depends on how the opposition counter it too!!  Brum didn’t seemed too fussed about defending yesterday.

[David Brent]

Football is like a game of chess sometimes…and a lot of people don’t know how to play chess. 

[The Dolman Pragmatist]

18 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Posted this in twitter earlier.

Here’s the pics if you can’t be arsed to look at twitter.

We went back three at the end too as Brum pressed.

I think this is overanalysing.  What is unarguable is that we started with a back four; three central midfielders; and three forward players.  The fact is that 4-3-3 will become 4-1-2-3 or 4-1-4-1 , or any number of other permutations, as the players move around.  No one can maintain a rigid shape during play.  Pearson’s intention, by his own admission, was to play four at the back, three in midfield, and three up front.

I thought the spell when Antonine stayed wide on the left in the second half was interesting, as that was when he really seemed to tear the Brum defence apart.  No wonder their right back was the first player to be subbed.

 

Edited January 15, 2023 by The Dolman Pragmatist

[Davefevs]

8 minutes ago, The Dolman Pragmatist said:

I think this is overanalysing.  What is unarguable is that we started with a back three; three central midfielders; and three forward players.  The fact is that 4-3-3 will become 4-1-2-3 or 4-1-4-1 , or any number of other permutations, as the players move around.  No one can maintain a rigid shape during play.  Pearson’s intention, by his own admission, was to play four at the back, three in midfield, and three up front.

I thought the spell when Antonine stayed wide on the left in the second half was interesting, as that was when he really seemed to tear the Brum defence apart.  No wonder their right back was the first player to be subbed.

 

I assume that was a typo?

No, it’s not over-analysing at all, it’s just analysing…4 photos and some words, pretty basic stuff really.

It’s showing how we adapted the midfield three (and others) throughout the game, some of it in game fluidity (as you state), some of it purposely in response to where Brum were finding little holes.  Nobody is suggesting rigidity, least of all me.

[KegCity]

Moving away from wingbacks was a breath of fresh air yesterday and I hope it continues. We were able to move the ball up the pitch so much faster by having Semenyo and Sykes as readily available outlets to have the ball fed in behind on the floor rather than hoofed up to Conway and Wells. Been needed for a while a nice to finally see it (apologies if that's bleating but this change could have been made earlier in the season when we only had two fit centre backs in the first place).

[The Dolman Pragmatist]

10 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I assume that was a typo?

No, it’s not over-analysing at all, it’s just analysing…4 photos and some words, pretty basic stuff really.

It’s showing how we adapted the midfield three (and others) throughout the game, some of it in game fluidity (as you state), some of it purposely in response to where Brum were finding little holes.  Nobody is suggesting rigidity, least of all me.

Yes it was! it rather undermined my point

[And Its Smith]

7 minutes ago, Percy Pig said:

Who's the third central midfielder who was available earlier in the season? When Naismith was out so was James for a large portion. Williams often unavailable too. So it would have been what, King Scott and either Weimman out of position or Kadji?

We hoofed it yesterday too. Its a legitimate part of the game. Territory is a thing. When we didn't hoof at the start of the season everyone demanded Naismith do that rather than take risks. 

 

Massengo, who was getting in the side at the time 

[22A]

18 hours ago, Sir Geoff said:

4123 is how I saw it too. Had to laugh at some of the suggestions people were making around me today. None of them correct.

4123? 

In 1986 the London Midland Society left the Mid-Hants Railway, and the various items of rolling stock, including 4123, were moved to the Avon Valley Railway at Bitton, near Bristol, where the locomotive is still based, and where the restoration to working order is proceeding.

[Davefevs]

18 minutes ago, KegCity said:

Moving away from wingbacks was a breath of fresh air yesterday and I hope it continues. We were able to move the ball up the pitch so much faster by having Semenyo and Sykes as readily available outlets to have the ball fed in behind on the floor rather than hoofed up to Conway and Wells. Been needed for a while a nice to finally see it (apologies if that's bleating but this change could have been made earlier in the season when we only had two fit centre backs in the first place).

It’s interesting stuff isn’t it, because after Brum got back to 2-1 we went through a real sticky patch up to half-time, where we couldn’t get the ball forward, was a lot of sideways and backwards passing.  Crowd went a bit quiet, few moans too.

What changed?

A goal, Brum raised their intensity for a period?  Ours dropped a tad?

The big difference (from my point of view) was the tempo of our passing.  We passed it crisply opening 25-30 mins, moved it at a good pace, control - pass, control - pass.  As you said.

So even with a back four we couldn’t get the ball forward.  My view was that Scott started to drift into the left channel too much also, and therefore blocked Pring’s space.  It got stodgy.  Be did keep the ball ok, but it wasn’t like the opening period of the game.  We made 441 passes overall in 101 minutes.  We made 133 in that period (19 mins)…a disproportionate amount.  Maybe we went a bit “safe” having seen our two-goal lead halved?  At least we kept it.  Birmingham made just 56 passes in that period, but we also we also happy to sit in behind rather than press heavy.

The above graph points to us setting up to get behind the ball.  Credit that we kept the ball so as to limit Brum’s opportunities.

Maybe good game management, take the sting out of Brum, because we came back out after half-time strongly.  Maybe those few groaning fans need to recognise we can be a bit fragile, and accept that it was important to not let Brum get right back into it

Back to your original point…tempo is so important for us.  If we pass slow, any system is easily defended.  We did very well yesterday overall.

 

[And Its Smith]

43 minutes ago, Percy Pig said:

His last game was the game Naismith was injured, wasn't it? The reasons for having him unavailable are well documented. Agree or not, its the reality.

Add to that, Tanner wasn't deemed ready and needed more time/work, Wilson was injured, Pring was out of the side or playing central. So you would all have wanted a back 4 of Dasilva, Atkinson, Vyner and Sykes? As that was what was available and worthy of selection at the time. 

It's revisionism to suggest we could have at any point changed formation and all our results would have been better. And that's another key point. Results. Because performances have been fine, we've lost and drawn games we deserved to win playing 352. 433 isn't the change people think it is. Yesterday was us putting in another good performance and scoring the chances we created. (Sykes scored two tap ins that weren't as easy as Weimann's chance/s at Millwall for instance). 

 

Time will tell if it’s a coincidence or not that we scored four playing a back four.  If Pearson gives it enough games then we will have enough evidence either way.  To answer your question, I haven’t been advocating a back 4 all season, only when we have had the personnel to play it.   So it’s not revisionism either, at least not on my part.  I regularly put my preferred line up on this forum as I enjoy working out in my head what I would do with the players available. I started talking 4-3-3 when we had the players available to play that way as I thought it suited the players better. As I say, time will tell.