God, I hate formations

[Davefevs]

Just pondering.

I know LM isn’t wedded by formations, he sees things as very different, and I tend to agree.

But…

in going to a back three type system, imho we are losing out at the top end of the pitch.  I know that number of strikers on the pitch doesn’t equal more goals, but it’s more subtle implications than that.

As it stands if we play the system we played yesterday we have:

McCrorie, Tanner, Vyner, Dickie, Pring as our “back line” (ignore their FIFA positional references)

And five “attackers”

I wonder how Mehmeti felt yesterday, firstly as Twine started, but then not getting on to the pitch.  I, not suggesting Twine shouldn’t start, it’s now wondering how LM will man-manage Anis, because he’ll likely start against Forest, then be back on the bench for Coventry.  This is off the back of a mini-resurgence under LM.  A situation to man-manage.  Not saying LM can’t do it, just wondering how it will play out.  The same might occur for Mark Sykes too.  Sykes has been one of our best players this season.

Secondly, LM has said that he’s had to play his back four every minute of every game since he’s been here.  The return to fitness of McCrorie allows him opportunity to rest / rotate, but he can’t do that if all 5 start each game.  One to watch play out too.

Finally, as a back four we’ve been very solid.  What thinking necessitated the change.  A one-off gameplan for West Ham, extended to Watford?

Thoughts?

[Jose]

I don’t like yesterday’s formation. If you actually look at it we only had two “ attacking” players in Twine and Conway. This will change with Sykes coming back who I assume would take Knights position?! And then Knight moving back in to the midfield perhaps? I like Knight and can’t fault his endeavour but he does lack a little quality in the final third at times.

LM also seems to be hesitant to change formation during the game. All very like for like. 

It is strange as we have looked anything but solid at the back since LM has come in.  Something I could accept if we looked better going forward but I don’t think we overly do. 
 

I do think it’s going to take alot more time than I thought for him to shape this team. Which isn’t a massive problem but I don’t think a big reset was needed. We never hadthe quality to play the football he wants to play. Hopefully Twine and another addition may help. 

[2015]

5 at the back never works for us. We look better with a 4.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Not a fan of the back 3/5.

When we have Naismith and Atkinson back and in form, that could be worth revisiting but it feels a bit unbalanced and uncomfortable to me.

Albeit West Ham..it did work somewhat there but for more regular games, it brings more questions than it solves IMO.

[And Its Smith]

A back 5 can be attacking. Look at us in league one or Sheffield United under Wilder the first time.  We are more reserved.  I don’t mind if it’s a back 5 or 4 as long as the balance is fine in defence and attack. Certainly at the moment it isn’t 

[myol'man]

2 minutes ago, And Its Smith said:

A back 5 can be attacking. Look at us in league one or Sheffield United under Wilder the first time.  We are more reserved.  I don’t mind if it’s a back 5 or 4 as long as the balance is fine in defence and attack. Certainly at the moment it isn’t 

Cotterell used overlapping centre backs, crazy but it worked 

[Kibs]

I agree it’s not an about formations, but those 5 “attackers” included Williams and James. 

I like them both as players but how many real goal contributions are they and the “defenders” likely to provide? 

If you listed the players from our starting XI yesterday, and looked at the goals/assist across their careers, how many are going to  contribute and pop up with a goal/assist. I bet it doesn’t make pretty reading.

I was really hoping to see some attacking intent at home with Mehmeti and Twine in the same team.

Edited January 21 by Kibs

[And Its Smith]

1 minute ago, myol'man said:

Cotterell used overlapping centre backs, crazy but it worked 

As did Wilder 

Just now, Kibs said:

I agree it’s not an about formations, but those 5 “attackers” included Williams and James. 

I like them both as players but how many real goal contributions are they and the “defenders” likely to provide? 

Actually, I wonder if you listed the players from our starting XI yesterday, and looked at the goals/assist across their careers, how many are going to  contribute and pop up with a goal/assist. I bet it doesn’t make pretty reading.

I was really hoping to see some attacking intent at home with Mehmeti and Twine in the same team.

The attackers need to include Pring and McCrorie as well or it’s never going to be good enough 

[ChrisJ]

2 minutes ago, myol'man said:

Cotterell used overlapping centre backs, crazy but it worked 

In L1

[Kibs]

1 minute ago, And Its Smith said:

The attackers need to include Pring and McCrorie as well or it’s never going to be good enough 

Yep, both good players, but defenders by their very nature. We’ve struggled to score and create all season, and relying on Pring and McCrorie to solve that won’t see any improvement IMO.

[And Its Smith]

4 minutes ago, ChrisJ said:

In L1

Why does the league matter?  It’s not like the tactic of overlapping centre backs has only worked in league one 

[Davefevs]

4 minutes ago, Kibs said:

I agree it’s not an about formations, but those 5 “attackers” included Williams and James. 

I like them both as players but how many real goal contributions are they and the “defenders” likely to provide? 

If you listed the players from our starting XI yesterday, and looked at the goals/assist across their careers, how many are going to  contribute and pop up with a goal/assist. I bet it doesn’t make pretty reading.

I was really hoping to see some attacking intent at home with Mehmeti and Twine in the same team.

That’s kinda part of my post, ta.  Personnel and their type, rather than their positions per se, and how to use them effectively.

[marcofisher]

To play devil’s advocate, I think the back 3 suits Tanner very well, I’d be curious to see if it would work better with Skyes in front of him. I also like the diagonal ball out to Pring pushing up high.
 

 

[GrahamC]

What was interesting to me was Manning said pre match that Twine was best utilised centrally then played him largely on the left of a front three.

It isn’t impossible that we could be out of the cup on Friday which would then mean every player is available for every game we have left, which would suggest that Manning will probably look at a settled formation.

You mention Mehmeti, Roberts is another to come into the mix, Pring has been excellent but it is unreasonable to expect him to play 90 after 90 week in, week out.

Certainly once the window has closed it will be instructive to see how we line up.

[And Its Smith]

One could easily argue that 3 centre backs plays to our strengths.  We have two attacking wing backs in Pring and McCrorie.  We have 5 centre backs who are at worst decent on the ball.  We aren’t blessed with talented wingers, Sykes aside who can play wing back.  As always, it’s not the formation but the strategy that is important 

[Mr Popodopolous]

2 minutes ago, marcofisher said:

To play devil’s advocate, I think the back 3 suits Tanner very well, I’d be curious to see if it would work better with Skyes in front of him. I also like the diagonal ball out to Pring pushing up high.
 

 

To a degree but think Sykes is a bit wasted at WB.

I prefer him higher up in a front 3 really.

[IAmNick]

I liked the idea we saw for a while of a back 4 - Tanner, Vyner, Dickie, Pring. Then as we build forwards Pring moves up and it becomes more of a back 3 - and that also allows the left hand side of our formation to be wonky/lopsided which has always appealed as a concept to me and I think can be extremely difficult to prepare for. That then gives the players on the forward left of the pitch ahead of Pring license to move more infield and join Conway to stop him being so isolated. It's flexible and unpredictable.

We saw it a bit, but now we seem to have stopped, I'm not sure why. I found it interesting!

[marcofisher]

2 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

To a degree but think Sykes is a bit wasted at WB.

I prefer him higher up in a front 3 really.

Can also see that working. Knight has been quiet recently, Sykes and Twine behind the striker may be exciting too.

[Mr Popodopolous]

5 minutes ago, marcofisher said:

Can also see that working. Knight has been quiet recently, Sykes and Twine behind the striker may be exciting too.

Sykes  Knight  Twine

          Conway

 Could be one way to go. Perm 2 from James, Williams, TGH and if he is back in the swing anytime soon Naismith.

[And Its Smith]

1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Sykes  Knight  Twine

          Conway

 Could be one way to go. Perm 2 from James, Williams, TGH and if he is back in the swing anytime soon Naismith.

Twine left wing? Would be a no from me. Seems much better centrally. Get Knight into midfield 

[BCFCGav]

I like the 3-4-3 (early days). The removal of wingers and use of split 10’s means rather than being very light on the right wing, we’re suddenly well stocked (as those split 10’s can be Twine, Knight, Mehmeti, Sykes, even TGH or Conway in a bind). We’ve looked a little more dangerous going forward, some good chances against WHU and 6 SoT against Watford (albeit set-piece driven - granted). 
 

Depth in the WB positions is my main concern - but I think Sykes for the right and Roberts for the left is good cover. Roberts looked very good high up the pitch in the League Cup (small sample size).

On Anis - I too think he’ll start against Forest where Twine was. We’ve got a small squad but with players back to fitness there are some who will miss out. Hopefully he smashes it against Forest and gives LM no choice but to drop Knight/Twine against Cov. I hope that’s Anis’ mindset. You’ve got the shirt, play to keep it.

[Mr Popodopolous]

3 minutes ago, And Its Smith said:

Twine left wing? Would be a no from me. Seems much better centrally. Get Knight into midfield 

Flexible, doesn't have to be wide wide left...Sykes could be wider, Twine nip in and out a bit.

Knight has started to provide a bit of end product of late- Goals and Assists- would dropping him back negate that or would it be better for the side.

Edited January 21 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Dunno how in-date this is but..

[marcofisher]

9 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Sykes  Knight  Twine

          Conway

 Could be one way to go. Perm 2 from James, Williams, TGH and if he is back in the swing anytime soon Naismith.

I can’t see Twine not playing as a 10. 

[Silvio Dante]

It’s all about the best team as opposed to the best eleven players in x formation or y formation isn’t it? Formations aren’t overrated - you have to have a “base” formation to understand how you are setting up, and even if you don’t want to say you’re playing 4-4-2 etc then you are setting up with x defenders etc. There can be fluidity - take Birmingham where Mehemti came central and it more became Pring on the wing, but a “formation” (or jobs) is a basic.

Yesterday is a great example. We were looking often for a ball to a left midfielder. There wasn’t one. You can be as fluid as you like but if not everyone knows their job, it ain’t gonna work. And what you can’t do, unless a player by himself is a needle mover, is change your formation for his “best” position if it takes 20% from other players…

[Robbored]

Tanner has been the regular RB with Sykes in front of him and on the opposite side there’s Pring with either Memeti or Knight supporting him. Sykes in particular bombs on and has a goal in him. Twine looked very versatile and his set plays were excellent.

Manning regularly mentions width and with McCrorie fit again he has more defensive options. McCrorie can play at RCB or RB and has also played as a DM. 

My question is what Will Manning do when Atkinson, Nailsmith and Roberts are available again? He’ll certainly have plenty of options.

City have missed decent ‘presence’ as a CF. Conway doesn’t fit that bill and nor does Wells but I doubt we’ll see any incoming until the summer.

LM uses the individual players strengths in the position that he feels will that they’ll have the most impact and probably why he’s doesn’t put much emphasis of formations. Three basic pitch areas defence, midfield and forwards seem as if thats all he needs - football is a simple game after all!

 

[cidercity1987]

It seems like a formation to shoehorn Knight into the team in a somewhat attacking position, along with Twine, which seems a little bizarre to me.

In Twine we have the player we actually needed in the summer as opposed to Knight who has much less threat going forward.

In saying that I would actually have started Knight yesterday instead of Twine against a possession heavy team like Watford to press them high. 

Knight and Twine to me shouldn't be playing in the same team unless Knight drops back but even then I prefer one of the more CDM type players plus TGH in the middle 

[1960maaan]

It looks ( and sounds ) like we will be going to a 3 for the most part and to show my working out ..

Sykes has to play, big goal threat and been a regularly good performer.
Pring & McCrorie pick themselves.
Balance means a left & right CB and as Dickie has been like the Bemmy Beckenbauer he plays central.
Williams has been brilliant lately & I feel Knight is better deeper.
Twine, teachers fav
TC , Obvs.

so , my theory, which means nothing.

[Lrrr]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

Just pondering.

I know LM isn’t wedded by formations, he sees things as very different, and I tend to agree.

But…

in going to a back three type system, imho we are losing out at the top end of the pitch.  I know that number of strikers on the pitch doesn’t equal more goals, but it’s more subtle implications than that.

As it stands if we play the system we played yesterday we have:

McCrorie, Tanner, Vyner, Dickie, Pring as our “back line” (ignore their FIFA positional references)

And five “attackers”

I wonder how Mehmeti felt yesterday, firstly as Twine started, but then not getting on to the pitch.  I, not suggesting Twine shouldn’t start, it’s now wondering how LM will man-manage Anis, because he’ll likely start against Forest, then be back on the bench for Coventry.  This is off the back of a mini-resurgence under LM.  A situation to man-manage.  Not saying LM can’t do it, just wondering how it will play out.  The same might occur for Mark Sykes too.  Sykes has been one of our best players this season.

Secondly, LM has said that he’s had to play his back four every minute of every game since he’s been here.  The return to fitness of McCrorie allows him opportunity to rest / rotate, but he can’t do that if all 5 start each game.  One to watch play out too.

Finally, as a back four we’ve been very solid.  What thinking necessitated the change.  A one-off gameplan for West Ham, extended to Watford?

Thoughts?

I don’t think anything necessitated the change, I said since he’s come in that I think he wants to play the back 3 with the box as his preferred shape 

[Dullmoan Tone]

44 minutes ago, And Its Smith said:

Why does the league matter?  It’s not like the tactic of overlapping centre backs has only worked in league one 

I’m not sure many teams have got out of the Championship playing 5 at the back - obviously Wolves did, but they had an embarrassment of quality at the time.