Dispelling the Naismaith to Midfield calls

[Silvio Dante]

I think the factor that’s been missed in the posts so far is Manning. His success (albeit over a short period) at Oxford was based on energetic box to box CMs AFAIK. For all of Kals qualities, he’s not that. If we’re building a side (as opposed to top six this season which was the noise when NP was sacked), you’d build from the back around Vyner/Dickie/Atkinson and perm two from three in view of age.

I have a fear he may be an odd man out, not fitting into Mannings preferred midfield setup and age meaning he isn’t seen as a long term option at CB against the other candidates.

[Davefevs]

11 minutes ago, Curr Avon said:

What about playing Naismith as the 1, in this formation?

https://jobsinfootball.com/blog/tactics/4-1-3-2-formation/

The 4-1-3-2 Formation: Its Uses, Benefits, and Weaknesses
11 Jun, 2022

In our ongoing series explaining some of the best soccer formations used in the modern game, we've tackled a wide range of systems. Some are currently being used by the world's best teams (the 4-3-3 formation, for instance), while others are a little less common or tied to a different footballing era.

The shape we're focusing on in this article falls into the second category. The 4-1-3-2 system isn't particularly common, and there aren't too many prominent examples of modern teams using it effectively. That being said, it has numerous benefits, and it can pose serious problems when an opposition team isn't sure how to defend against it.

In this article, we'll present you with a comprehensive guide to the fundamentals of the 4-1-3-2 formation, the strengths and weaknesses of this system, and some examples of clubs and managers that have been known to use it. Later on, we'll also explore the best ways to exploit and defend against this formation. But first, let's start with the basics.

 

How to play the 4-1-3-2 formation
Typically used by teams looking to dominate the final third of the pitch, 4-1-3-2 is generally seen as a very attacking formation. In a sense, it's a variation of the 4-4-2 shape, with the composition of the midfield tweaked a little bit.

4-1-3-2 starts with a back four of two center-backs, a right-back, and a left-back. It uses just one central defensive midfielder to shield this defensive line (sometimes referred to as a single pivot). The protection given by this central midfield player is super important, because the full-backs in this system will often be encouraged to get forward, leaving the middle of the defensive line a little exposed.

In front of the defensive mid pivot in a 4-1-3-2 are five relatively attack-minded players who concentrate largely on working the ball into advanced areas of the pitch. This emphasis on offensive play means 4-1-3-2 can be super effective when it comes to creating chances and exploiting opposition defenses. Let's drill into those 5 roles in a little more detail.

The 3 attacking midfielders in a 4-1-3-2 structure will often be relatively narrow, their focus on linking up with each other and feeding the two strikers in front of them. In the center of this 3, there will usually be a primary playmaker, with the left and right attacking midfielders on either side of them tasked with supporting them and engaging in more box-to-box play.

Finally, the two strikers at the head of this shape will be able to press opposition defenders aggressively and win the ball high up the pitch. Having two forwards will reduce the chance of isolation, particularly given that they're supported by 3 attacking midfielders. This plethora of offensive options means the 4-1-3-2 formation can run opponents ragged and create wave after wave of attack. But what other advantages does this formation have?

What are the strengths of the 4-1-3-2 formation?
Out of all the formations we've regularly seen used on the world stage, this is one of the systems most clearly crafted with attacking intentions in mind. Essentially, it's an attack-minded variation of 4-4-2 which ensures attacking power while also narrowing the midfield in order to reduce the risk of getting overrun in the center.

Out of possession, the 3 more attacking central midfielders can drop back to form a compact shape in the middle of the park. And even in these moments, it's possible for the front 2 to stay high, press opposition defenders, and provide an attacking outlet.

In possession, the space left out wide by the narrow midfield can be filled by full-backs, who are often relied upon to provide attacking width and play balls in behind the opposition defense. Meanwhile, the defensive support offered by the single central midfield pivot gives freedom to the 5 players ahead. While this CDM sits deep, cuts out attacks, and passes the ball forwards, the attacking midfielders and strikers can get high up the pitch and create dangerous chances.

What are the weaknesses of the 4-1-3-2 formation?
We've already mentioned the narrow nature of this formation, and while this can provide some advantages, it's also a potential area of weakness for any team that plays 4-1-3-2. If a midfield 3 becomes too narrow, it can be difficult to create moves via the wings, particularly if your central midfielders find themselves dropping into a diamond shape, or if you don't have fast, skillful attacking full-backs able to provide width.

This potential for exposure in wide positions means that teams who play with this formation can be vulnerable to fast counter-attacks. With only one defensive-minded central midfielder in action, it's possible for a defense to become overrun when faced with a swift, effective counter-attacking side.

Compared with 4-4-2, the 4-1-3-2 shape reduces the risk of surrendering possession to the opposition midfield, because with attacking central midfielders instead of wingers, there are more players in the middle of the pitch. Ultimately, though, it's still a midfield 4 in operation here; when coming up against a midfield 5, the risk of the opponents dominating possession is still very much present.

Which clubs and managers have used this formation?
We've mentioned how this isn't the most commonly used formation in world soccer, but there are a couple of interesting recent examples of how this shape can work brilliantly...

Croatia, Slaven Bilic
The Croatian coach, whose CV includes stints at Besiktas, West Ham United, and West Bromwich Albion, managed his national team between 2006 and 2012. During this time, one of the side's most memorable achievements was beating Steve McClaren's England team 3-2 at Wembley to top their Euro 2008 qualifying group and prevent England from making it to the tournament.

Croatia's triumph at Wembley came down partly to their employment of an innovative 4-1-3-2 system. This formation helped Bilic's team get the best out of a group of skillful players that included Luka Modric, Ivan Rakitic, Nico Kranjcar, and Ivica Olic. The use of 3 attacking midfield players allowed talents such as Modric and Rakitic to link up in a fluid playmaking system that gave great support to the team's two forwards, Olic and Eduardo.

Manchester City, Roberto Mancini
A few other well-respected managers have used this system at the highest level. Italian manager Roberto Mancini utilized the benefits of the 4-1-3-2 shape at various points during the 2011-12 season, in which he led Manchester City to their first ever Premier League title. This formation allowed him to squeeze in an abundance of attacking talents including Yaya Toure, David Silva, Samir Nasri, Edin Dzeko, and Sergio Aguero.

Sporting Benfica, Jorge Jesus
Portuguese coach Jorge Jesus has implemented a 4-1-3-2 system at various different clubs. The most successful example was at Lisbon heavyweights Benfica, where he managed between 2009 and 2015. During this spell, the 4-1-3-2 formation helped him win an array of domestic trophies.

How should you play against a 4-1-3-2 system?
Due to the lack of regularity with which you see this formation in action, it can be hard to know exactly what will work against it. There are a few different paths that can be taken.

One of the best ways to play against a 4-1-3-2 shape is to heavily overload the flanks and take advantage of the gaps left out wide by this formation. Getting attacking players down the flanks can lead to 1 v 1 situations against those in the right-back and left-back positions. If these areas are relatively weak for your opposition, utilizing the wings is one of the best tactics available to you.

Another area of the pitch to focus on is center defensive midfield. Pushing two midfielders or forwards into the hole where the deep central midfielder is sitting can leave them outnumbered and isolated. This will often cause the playmaker in a 4-1-3-2 to drop back in order to help their teammate, which stops this supposedly attacking midfielder from doing their offensive job.

Employing these strategies can expose the weaknesses of the 4-1-3-2 shape and give you a good chance of beating it. Even when the strengths of a given system appear to outweigh its weaknesses, there are always things that can be done to negate your opposition's threat and give them something to think about. If you're keen to find out more about the fundamentals of soccer tactics and positional play, you should check out our guide to the best books about football coaching and tactics.

 

This is something similar to what I’ve been discussing with @Harry and @redcherryberry on a WhatsApp group, together with the notion of being a lop-sided set up too.

My simplistic view is to (with reason) get your better players / better combos on the pitch together.  But you’ll know best-laid plans, and certainly best-elevens can quickly go out the window, so I tend to not get too drawn into those.

[NathanBS3]

The times Naismith has played in midfield he’s wanted the ball constantly and always looking to receive the ball. As well as being one of the better passers he likes to get forward and contribute in the opponents box, as he did against Oxford in the cup I think it was.

Players like Naismith I personally don’t put too much weight on pass completion percentage, as tends to risk a lot more at breaking the opponents defensive lines.

[Merrick's Marvels]

7 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

Good point but my perception would be that Luton were often quite direct, so maybe a mix of passes?

That would be my perception too, although I'm no expert on Luton's style.

But if accurate, he was playing a different game to the one we attempt. I'm sure someone could produce visuals or graphs showing his passing range for Luton in season 21-22. I bet that would look nothing like the same thing for his time here.   

Which is why the fact he was their player of the season is a red herring, for me.

In Scott's absence he's an absolute must-pick though

[Davefevs]

34 minutes ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

That would be my perception too, although I'm no expert on Luton's style.

But if accurate, he was playing a different game to the one we attempt. I'm sure someone could produce visuals or graphs showing his passing range for Luton in season 21-22. I bet that would look nothing like the same thing for his time here.   

Which is why the fact he was their player of the season is a red herring, for me.

In Scott's absence he's an absolute must-pick though

Very basic numbers:

The big difference is the number of passes made per 90, the splits are too dissimilar.

[MarcusX]

3 hours ago, Sir Geoff said:

There have been lots of mentions in threads and recent podcasts calling for Naismith to be played in midfield due to our lack of passing ability in that area. Whilst I understand the reasoning behind these calls, from a team perspective it makes no real sense.

Naismith, to my knowledge, has never played in midfield. He started his career as a winger and we signed him from Luton as a defender.

Regarding the lack of passing ability in midfield, I would guess that Naismith was the first name on NP's team sheet as a defender for this reason. It ensured that we had someone in the back 6 that was comfortable taking possession of the ball and either retaining it or picking out a good forward pass.

Yes, but Naismith has a rick in him, I hear people say. My reply would be, "Name me a Championship defender that doesn't have a rick in him." (ask QPR fans about Rob Dickie).

So who to leave out if Naismith is played at the back (back 4) ? Sorry Zak, but Naismith overall ability defending and extra quality on the ball means you will have to bide your time.

For those calling for Naismith to play midfield, I guess at the expense of Matty James, I would ask who is now going to be the disruptor and ball winner in midfield. Matty James has a great engine, gets through a ton of work not only winning the ball back but playing passes to ensure we retain possession. TGH imo is not a ball winner in the same sense. Knight can do it but  he should be part of the forward press so you don't want him too deep. This is not a role that Naismith can play and suddenly slot in to. 

For anyone that has played midfield, at any level, you will know that it is quite a specialist position and not one that can be easily adopted. If Naismith were to be played there I can almost guarantee that the game will pass him by and he will be nowhere near as effective as he would be taking the ball from the back and creating from there. 

Had Naismith started at the back (No way you could have brought him on when the game was going against us 60-70 mins as the two Centre halves knew their jobs and were attuned to the game) on Saturday in place of Zak then (midfield selections aside) I think we win that game, comfortably.

 

 

 

 

I stopped reading at "has never played in midfield"

He's played in midfield for us, let alone for previous clubs, and looked good there.

I'm a big fan of Naismith and he should be one of the first names on the teamsheet, in either defence or midfield. I think the main calls for midfield are because we have more options at the back with Atkinson, Vyner, Dickie and we're struggling with incisive, forward passing in the middle since Scott left.

[The Original OTIB]

54 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

I think the factor that’s been missed in the posts so far is Manning. His success (albeit over a short period) at Oxford was based on energetic box to box CMs AFAIK. For all of Kals qualities, he’s not that. If we’re building a side (as opposed to top six this season which was the noise when NP was sacked), you’d build from the back around Vyner/Dickie/Atkinson and perm two from three in view of age.

I have a fear he may be an odd man out, not fitting into Mannings preferred midfield setup and age meaning he isn’t seen as a long term option at CB against the other candidates.

Also depends if Sykes is put into central midfield, the place he prefers, and, to be honest, where I think he could shine under the new regime.

Edited November 15, 2023 by The Original OTIB

[DaveInSA]

Nais-myth

[The Original OTIB]

1 minute ago, DaveInSA said:

Nais-myth

Nais-sayer.

[NathanBS3]

6 minutes ago, The Original OTIB said:

Also depends if Sykes is put into central midfield, the place he prefers, and, to be honest, where I think he could shine under the new regime.

Good point. Neat and tidy on the ball, plenty of stamina. This didn’t even cross my mind. 

[miketh2nd]

1 hour ago, NathanBS3 said:

The times Naismith has played in midfield he’s wanted the ball constantly and always looking to receive the ball. As well as being one of the better passers he likes to get forward and contribute in the opponents box, as he did against Oxford in the cup I think it was.

Players like Naismith I personally don’t put too much weight on pass completion percentage, as tends to risk a lot more at breaking the opponents defensive lines.

I think him and James would make a perfect 2 cms playing in front of the defence and Knight playing ahead being the box to box midfielder 

[Harry]

Some myths even need dispelling on this thread

In the Luton season prior to his arrival here, they sometimes played with 3 CB’s and sometimes 2 CB’s.  Here’s his split :

LCB (in a 3) 56%
CB (in a 2) 22%
DM 12%
MCB (middle in a 3) 8%
LB 2%
 

So he was predominantly the left sided CB in a 3. This is a position we rarely played him in last season. When we were playing 3 at the back we mostly played Naismith as the middle CB. Which he’d only played 3 times at Luton. 
 

I first watched Naismith many years ago when he was at Accrington. He mostly played as a left winger or attacking midfielder. To be honest, I was actually very surprised when he converted to a defender, which only happened quite late in his time at Wigan. 
 

I think Naismith is our most comfortable ‘ball player’. I think we need to find a way to start him. 
I mentioned on another thread that I think we need to strengthen the midfield and to do this we need to get more bodies in there. It’s the central midfield areas where I think most teams have been stronger than us this season. 
 

I would play a 4-2-2-2 box midfield. With James & TGH as the 2 deep CM’s and Naismith & Knight as the 2 higher CM’s. 
Manning played this sometimes at Oxford. 
It allows Naismith to operate higher and act as the creative number 10. He used to play there for Accrington. 
If the full backs are Tanner & Pring then with the 2 deep CM’s this allows a lopsided attack with Pring advancing higher than Tanner. 
 

That’s my solution. Put Naismith in an AM role to allow him to receive passes between the lines and be able to turn and create. 

Edited November 15, 2023 by Harry

[Merrick's Marvels]

29 minutes ago, miketh2nd said:

I think him and James would make a perfect 2 cms playing in front of the defence and Knight playing ahead being the box to box midfielder 

One carthorse is one too many, never mind two. I like them both incidentally!

But this would be the opposite of "front foot football".

How about all our centre mids are mobile, capable of getting in the opposition's faces, pushing high up the pitch to win the ball? (As well as having nous and technique, obviously).

Roll on the summer. 

Edited November 15, 2023 by Merrick's Marvels

[Davefevs]

@Curr Avon this was the kind of stuff we were discussing last night….Harry’s

[Merrick's Marvels]

54 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Very basic numbers:

The big difference is the number of passes made per 90, the splits are too dissimilar.

Thanks.

I guess it's only a meaningful comparison if you compare his stats when playing the same position as well but, even then, he'll have played a lot more at LCB in a 3 for Luton than here, more as a LCB in a 2 here etc which will skew the figures.

All I know is we're better with him playing than without but, whichever position that is, he doesn't really fit - Atkinson must play LCB in a back 4, we don't play a back 3, I'd never pick him and James together for the reasons above (ditto with Williams) and Harry's a brave man if he wants to play 4-2-2-2 for an entire season (it worked well for LJ once (home to WBA?) for about.... 30 minutes). 

[Curr Avon]

54 minutes ago, The Original OTIB said:

Nais-sayer.

Nai bother.

[REDOXO]

3 hours ago, frenchred said:

If everyone is fit Naismith doesn't get in back 4, in fact he struggles to get in if we play 3 Cb's when all fit

When everyone is fit hell has frozen over!

Edited November 15, 2023 by REDOXO

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 hour ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

One carthorse is one too many, never mind two. I like them both incidentally!

But this would be the opposite of "front foot football".

How about all our centre mids are mobile, capable of getting in the opposition's faces, pushing high up the pitch to win the ball? (As well as having nous and technique, obviously).

Roll on the summer. 

I dunno, the security of James and range of Naismith could give Knight real licence knowing there is the extra security behind.

I periodically look back and wonder, about a Naismith, Scott, Knight midfield had we somehow been able to gets in him and keep Naismith and Scott fit. A daydream granted..

[cidered abroad]

3 hours ago, Curr Avon said:

What about playing Naismith as the 1, in this formation?

https://jobsinfootball.com/blog/tactics/4-1-3-2-formation/

The 4-1-3-2 Formation: Its Uses, Benefits, and Weaknesses
11 Jun, 2022

In our ongoing series explaining some of the best soccer formations used in the modern game, we've tackled a wide range of systems. Some are currently being used by the world's best teams (the 4-3-3 formation, for instance), while others are a little less common or tied to a different footballing era.

The shape we're focusing on in this article falls into the second category. The 4-1-3-2 system isn't particularly common, and there aren't too many prominent examples of modern teams using it effectively. That being said, it has numerous benefits, and it can pose serious problems when an opposition team isn't sure how to defend against it.

In this article, we'll present you with a comprehensive guide to the fundamentals of the 4-1-3-2 formation, the strengths and weaknesses of this system, and some examples of clubs and managers that have been known to use it. Later on, we'll also explore the best ways to exploit and defend against this formation. But first, let's start with the basics.

 

How to play the 4-1-3-2 formation
Typically used by teams looking to dominate the final third of the pitch, 4-1-3-2 is generally seen as a very attacking formation. In a sense, it's a variation of the 4-4-2 shape, with the composition of the midfield tweaked a little bit.

4-1-3-2 starts with a back four of two center-backs, a right-back, and a left-back. It uses just one central defensive midfielder to shield this defensive line (sometimes referred to as a single pivot). The protection given by this central midfield player is super important, because the full-backs in this system will often be encouraged to get forward, leaving the middle of the defensive line a little exposed.

In front of the defensive mid pivot in a 4-1-3-2 are five relatively attack-minded players who concentrate largely on working the ball into advanced areas of the pitch. This emphasis on offensive play means 4-1-3-2 can be super effective when it comes to creating chances and exploiting opposition defenses. Let's drill into those 5 roles in a little more detail.

The 3 attacking midfielders in a 4-1-3-2 structure will often be relatively narrow, their focus on linking up with each other and feeding the two strikers in front of them. In the center of this 3, there will usually be a primary playmaker, with the left and right attacking midfielders on either side of them tasked with supporting them and engaging in more box-to-box play.

Finally, the two strikers at the head of this shape will be able to press opposition defenders aggressively and win the ball high up the pitch. Having two forwards will reduce the chance of isolation, particularly given that they're supported by 3 attacking midfielders. This plethora of offensive options means the 4-1-3-2 formation can run opponents ragged and create wave after wave of attack. But what other advantages does this formation have?

What are the strengths of the 4-1-3-2 formation?
Out of all the formations we've regularly seen used on the world stage, this is one of the systems most clearly crafted with attacking intentions in mind. Essentially, it's an attack-minded variation of 4-4-2 which ensures attacking power while also narrowing the midfield in order to reduce the risk of getting overrun in the center.

Out of possession, the 3 more attacking central midfielders can drop back to form a compact shape in the middle of the park. And even in these moments, it's possible for the front 2 to stay high, press opposition defenders, and provide an attacking outlet.

In possession, the space left out wide by the narrow midfield can be filled by full-backs, who are often relied upon to provide attacking width and play balls in behind the opposition defense. Meanwhile, the defensive support offered by the single central midfield pivot gives freedom to the 5 players ahead. While this CDM sits deep, cuts out attacks, and passes the ball forwards, the attacking midfielders and strikers can get high up the pitch and create dangerous chances.

What are the weaknesses of the 4-1-3-2 formation?
We've already mentioned the narrow nature of this formation, and while this can provide some advantages, it's also a potential area of weakness for any team that plays 4-1-3-2. If a midfield 3 becomes too narrow, it can be difficult to create moves via the wings, particularly if your central midfielders find themselves dropping into a diamond shape, or if you don't have fast, skillful attacking full-backs able to provide width.

This potential for exposure in wide positions means that teams who play with this formation can be vulnerable to fast counter-attacks. With only one defensive-minded central midfielder in action, it's possible for a defense to become overrun when faced with a swift, effective counter-attacking side.

Compared with 4-4-2, the 4-1-3-2 shape reduces the risk of surrendering possession to the opposition midfield, because with attacking central midfielders instead of wingers, there are more players in the middle of the pitch. Ultimately, though, it's still a midfield 4 in operation here; when coming up against a midfield 5, the risk of the opponents dominating possession is still very much present.

Which clubs and managers have used this formation?
We've mentioned how this isn't the most commonly used formation in world soccer, but there are a couple of interesting recent examples of how this shape can work brilliantly...

Croatia, Slaven Bilic
The Croatian coach, whose CV includes stints at Besiktas, West Ham United, and West Bromwich Albion, managed his national team between 2006 and 2012. During this time, one of the side's most memorable achievements was beating Steve McClaren's England team 3-2 at Wembley to top their Euro 2008 qualifying group and prevent England from making it to the tournament.

Croatia's triumph at Wembley came down partly to their employment of an innovative 4-1-3-2 system. This formation helped Bilic's team get the best out of a group of skillful players that included Luka Modric, Ivan Rakitic, Nico Kranjcar, and Ivica Olic. The use of 3 attacking midfield players allowed talents such as Modric and Rakitic to link up in a fluid playmaking system that gave great support to the team's two forwards, Olic and Eduardo.

Manchester City, Roberto Mancini
A few other well-respected managers have used this system at the highest level. Italian manager Roberto Mancini utilized the benefits of the 4-1-3-2 shape at various points during the 2011-12 season, in which he led Manchester City to their first ever Premier League title. This formation allowed him to squeeze in an abundance of attacking talents including Yaya Toure, David Silva, Samir Nasri, Edin Dzeko, and Sergio Aguero.

Sporting Benfica, Jorge Jesus
Portuguese coach Jorge Jesus has implemented a 4-1-3-2 system at various different clubs. The most successful example was at Lisbon heavyweights Benfica, where he managed between 2009 and 2015. During this spell, the 4-1-3-2 formation helped him win an array of domestic trophies.

How should you play against a 4-1-3-2 system?
Due to the lack of regularity with which you see this formation in action, it can be hard to know exactly what will work against it. There are a few different paths that can be taken.

One of the best ways to play against a 4-1-3-2 shape is to heavily overload the flanks and take advantage of the gaps left out wide by this formation. Getting attacking players down the flanks can lead to 1 v 1 situations against those in the right-back and left-back positions. If these areas are relatively weak for your opposition, utilizing the wings is one of the best tactics available to you.

Another area of the pitch to focus on is center defensive midfield. Pushing two midfielders or forwards into the hole where the deep central midfielder is sitting can leave them outnumbered and isolated. This will often cause the playmaker in a 4-1-3-2 to drop back in order to help their teammate, which stops this supposedly attacking midfielder from doing their offensive job.

Employing these strategies can expose the weaknesses of the 4-1-3-2 shape and give you a good chance of beating it. Even when the strengths of a given system appear to outweigh its weaknesses, there are always things that can be done to negate your opposition's threat and give them something to think about. If you're keen to find out more about the fundamentals of soccer tactics and positional play, you should check out our guide to the best books about football coaching and tactics.

 

Thanks a million, Mr. Manning.

[And Its Smith]

Nothing has been dispelled

[Clutton Caveman]

5 hours ago, 2015 said:

This team needs Naismith in the side one way or the other. He's one of the only players capable of passing the ball between the lines and potentially opening up a defence. 

I think Dickie has the ability to step out of defence. Vyner is the perfect foil for Dickie and Atkinson when he's back fit. 

Naismith good cover CB when needed, but ideally i'd have him in Midfield right now.

If we put him and Williams in the same slot based on their injury record, hopefully one would always be available. Drop Wiemann, play Knight further forward and have James and one of these two with him.

[Son of Fred]

6 hours ago, 2015 said:

This team needs Naismith in the side one way or the other. He's one of the only players capable of passing the ball between the lines and potentially opening up a defence. 

I think Dickie has the ability to step out of defence. Vyner is the perfect foil for Dickie and Atkinson when he's back fit. 

Naismith good cover CB when needed, but ideally i'd have him in Midfield right now.

I'd not be surprised when Atkinson returns to the fold if Captain Mannering sets us up as three at the back...

[Curr Avon]

49 minutes ago, cidered abroad said:

Thanks a million, Mr. Manning.

Please, call me Liam.

[Merrick's Marvels]

37 minutes ago, Clutton Caveman said:

If we put him and Williams in the same slot based on their injury record, hopefully one would always be available. Drop Wiemann, play Knight further forward and have James and one of these two with him.

Knight further forward? Look where he presses from -  look where he robbed the mighty Barry Bannan!

Play him any further forward and he'd have been in the away end!

7 minutes ago, Son of Fred said:

I'd not be surprised when Atkinson returns to the fold if Captain Mannering sets us up as three at the back...

Nor me.

But have we been recruiting for this?

In that system, do we have "2 for every position" which isva phrase Jonboy and Tinnion have used repeatedly recently in their desperate justifications for the dismissal of Nigel Pearson?

[Mr Popodopolous]

A return to a back 3 would be a bit absurd given we have been solidly 4-3-3 or similar since early January, since that 2nd half vs Swansea.

Are Tanner or McCrorie wing backs as such? The closest we came was some of the 1st half v Coventry and we looked all at sea until the change back to our regular shape.

I'm not saying it is totally terrible if there are switches in game such as Naismith periodically dropping between the CBs, that flexibility can be good but overall it would seem a backward step.

[Davefevs]

I hope we keep a back four, think our defenders get their positional play and relative spacing between each other better in a four.

For me, the focus should be on improving our play with the ball, and that’s not just confined to the front six, e.g. can Tanner and / or Pring invert at times.

[GrahamC]

4 hours ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

Knight further forward? Look where he presses from -  look where he robbed the mighty Barry Bannan!

Play him any further forward and he'd have been in the away end!

Nor me.

But have we been recruiting for this?

In that system, do we have "2 for every position" which isva phrase Jonboy and Tinnion have used repeatedly recently in their desperate justifications for the dismissal of Nigel Pearson?

Suppose you could make an argument Sykes or McCrorie RWB & Pring LWB, don’t think he’d displace him but Roberts looks like a LWB rather than a LB.

Presumably it also means two up top which might help TC, too.

 

[Merrick's Marvels]

10 hours ago, GrahamC said:

Suppose you could make an argument Sykes or McCrorie RWB & Pring LWB, don’t think he’d displace him but Roberts looks like a LWB rather than a LB.

Presumably it also means two up top which might help TC, too.

 

Not sure what Roberts is!

Diffident? Disinterested? A curate's egg.

He's hardly hit the ground running,  that'sfor sure.

Edited November 16, 2023 by Merrick's Marvels

[GrahamC]

1 hour ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

Not sure what Roberts is!

Diffident? Disinterested? A curate's egg.

He's hardly hit the ground running,  that'sfor sure.

People said he was excellent v Oxford but certainly seen not much since & definitely one who needs to see the change of manager as a chance to impress.

[Shauntaylor85]

Kal needs to be in the team. I’ve said before he should even play in goal to have him out there, he is technically the best footballer at the club and we are a better offensive side when he plays. Sadly I can see him and King being let go.