433 (1 Viewer)

BlueSkiesForever

Well-Known Member
We would never create anything, the front 3 would be marked out the game. Thomass doesnt deserve a starting place so in your line up id drop Latz back into Thomas's place and bring in Allen into midfield.
Personally though id have Latz RB, Fadz in place of Thomas and Godden ahead of Simms out of pure loyalty to Godden and Fadz to see how they cope in that system. I get there is no room for sentiment, but fuck it, i'll be sentimental for a couple of games.

I personally don’t see how Saka, Wright or Simms would be marked out of the game, particularly Saka who looks like he can shake almost anyone off him when he’s got the ball at his feet.

As for starting Fadz and Godden, no offence (and it’s just my opinion anyway) but I believe that’s exactly the sort of mentality that has gotten us to where we are, trusting favourites and making them the basis of our team rather than looking at what we’ve actually got to work with and which formations or styles suit us. I don’t think either of them should be starting if we played a 4-4-3 or a 4-2-3-1, they’re both too slow, we need to play at a higher and neither of them have looked great in the last 4-5 games.
 

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
I personally don’t see how Saka, Wright or Simms would be marked out of the game, particularly Saka who looks like he can shake almost anyone off him when he’s got the ball at his feet.

As for starting Fadz and Godden, no offence (and it’s just my opinion anyway) but I believe that’s exactly the sort of mentality that has gotten us to where we are, trusting favourites and making them the basis of our team rather than looking at what we’ve actually got to work with and which formations or styles suit us. I don’t think either of them should be starting if we played a 4-4-3 or a 4-2-3-1, they’re both too slow, we need to play at a higher and neither of them have looked great in the last 4-5 games.
TBF Fadz was one of our 3 most important players last season

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk
 

BlueSkiesForever

Well-Known Member
TBF Fadz was one of our 3 most important players last season

Yeah definitely agree with you that he’s been an absolute rock at the back for us over the last few years and I don’t think he’s past it yet but if we do play with a back 4 then I personally don’t think he’s got the pace to play in that role. The last few games as well he’s been at fault for a couple of goals and just looks a bit off it atm. He’s still a great asset to have, it’s just that I would choose Lati and Binks in a CB partnership over him and someone else.
 

Cally Fedora

Well-Known Member
Formations are a bit of a red herring in my mind. If it was my pick I’d have Kitching and Thomas in a flat back four with Ewijk and Bidwell. Sit Sheaf, Eccles and Allen in front of them. Put Wright and Simms up front and start O’Hare and tell him to play advanced but essentially in a free role
 

Hobo

Well-Known Member
In reality formations are irrelevant at the moment. Because our problem is ludicrous individual errors and weak one on one defending.

In attacking mode our passing needs more tempo. Rather than the safe, predictable, laboured approach looking for a perfect pass into a packed penalty area.

Sometimes against well organized defences you need to work the centre halves and make things happen by forcing a mistake. Crosses don't always mean a high ball in. Turn defenders towards their own goal and make them play the ball.

When we get behind a defence we turn back rather than play it in. Even Sakamoto likes to beat a man twice before putting the ball in.

Most of this is about confidence and players playing within themselves.
 

calibrase6

Well-Known Member
I personally don’t see how Saka, Wright or Simms would be marked out of the game, particularly Saka who looks like he can shake almost anyone off him when he’s got the ball at his feet.

As for starting Fadz and Godden, no offence (and it’s just my opinion anyway) but I believe that’s exactly the sort of mentality that has gotten us to where we are, trusting favourites and making them the basis of our team rather than looking at what we’ve actually got to work with and which formations or styles suit us. I don’t think either of them should be starting if we played a 4-4-3 or a 4-2-3-1, they’re both too slow, we need to play at a higher and neither of them have looked great in the last 4-5 games.
You are probably right about Fadz and Godden but i love them so much for all they have done id just like to give them every chance before moving on with Simms and Thomas who i think are good signings and the successors. Its a soft mentality but i do like to show loyalty to legends.
 

calibrase6

Well-Known Member
Latz is not a right back, Fadz and Godden are past it.
Latz will sit in the middle allowing Eccles/Sheaf and full backs to get forward more and not get out numbered in midfield. He can also drop back to a back 3 if needed.
Forget possession based football, we are not suited to it. Get the ball forward quickly.
I agree we are not a possesssion side and definitely think we should be getting it forward quicker. Wright would be much more dangerous. I know Latz isnt a RB as his preferred option, but im partly using him to punish MVE who has been a major disappointment so far and i am sure he is much better than what he has shown.
 

wingy

Well-Known Member
I agree we are not a possesssion side and definitely think we should be getting it forward quicker. Wright would be much more dangerous. I know Latz isnt a RB as his preferred option, but im partly using him to punish MVE who has been a major disappointment so far and i am sure he is much better than what he has shown.
Should be Burroughs.
 

Hincha

Well-Known Member
Should be Burroughs.
Clamour for Burroughs is ridiculous.

Thomas/Kitching both had very successful seasons in L1 last year and aren’t pulling up any trees in the Championship yet.

Burroughs has played 14 L1 games and has some experience in the SPL. He isn’t ready for the championship yet or we wouldn’t have let him go.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PVA

CJ_covblaze

Well-Known Member
Been thinking we need to go down this route for a while. Nothing wrong with having two holding midfielders. Sometimes that makes a side more attack minded as there are two to quarterback the play and sweep up any balls when they come out of the box. If there’s just one there’s more of a chance of the play breaking down and we’re on the back foot.
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Formation is not irrelevant. That’s just cope from all the people saying we could never change the system. We looked better because we had options ahead of us instead of everyone other than the CBs being marked. That’s down to formation.
 

Hobo

Well-Known Member
But the change in formation the other day made an enormous difference to our fluidity.
The formation has nothing to do with individual mistakes. It is individual mistakes that is really costing us and playing at a slow predictable tempo.
 

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
Formation is not irrelevant. That’s just cope from all the people saying we could never change the system. We looked better because we had options ahead of us instead of everyone other than the CBs being marked. That’s down to formation.
This point is true but it's also true that personnel played a big part as well. Eccles was significantly better in the midfield role than Allen had been and O'Hare much better than Ayari.

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk
 

mmttww

Well-Known Member
Simms and Wright starting from wider positions looked to work well esp. for Simms last time out.

If we do stick with three up top, who plays centrally is the unknown for me.

Do you go False 9 e.g. O'Hare, Palmer, Allen, Sakamoto, will Godden work, or do we need a loan in Jan?
 

Great_Expectations

Well-Known Member
Not convinced MR will change it yet, and to be honest I’m not entirely sure changing it helps that much, especially with the taxonomy of our squad i.e. a million centre backs.

The issue with our formation is the wing backs aren’t really playing as offensive players, so it does look and turn into a defensive formation pretty quickly. We’re also so slow at getting the ball up field.

Push MVE and JDS/Bidwell forward so they’re offering an outlet and forcing the opposition back. Look to play quicker through the midfield and look for runs behind the opposition defence, especially if Wright is up front - he constantly wants that ball over the top. Thomas and Kitching are both reportedly good footballers who want to play the call out and advance - let them.

I wouldn’t mind 3-5-2 or even the box, but we need to play quicker and on the front foot, and we’ll see improvements.

Equally, I’m not opposed to a change. We need something that works for the players MR has signed.
 

Hertsccfc

Well-Known Member
Not convinced MR will change it yet, and to be honest I’m not entirely sure changing it helps that much, especially with the taxonomy of our squad i.e. a million centre backs.

The issue with our formation is the wing backs aren’t really playing as offensive players, so it does look and turn into a defensive formation pretty quickly. We’re also so slow at getting the ball up field.

Push MVE and JDS/Bidwell forward so they’re offering an outlet and forcing the opposition back. Look to play quicker through the midfield and look for runs behind the opposition defence, especially if Wright is up front - he constantly wants that ball over the top. Thomas and Kitching are both reportedly good footballers who want to play the call out and advance - let them.

I wouldn’t mind 3-5-2 or even the box, but we need to play quicker and on the front foot, and we’ll see improvements.

Equally, I’m not opposed to a change. We need something that works for the players MR has signed.
Very much agree with this.

I think the plan was to play with wing backs much further forward this season and for them to be our main creative outlet together with the player in the number 10 position. This is why the criticism of Sheaf, Eccles and Kelly is unfounded. They have been doing the job expected of them, and doing it well in my view.

The problem is despite early promise van Ewijk and Dasilva have not delivered enough and the various players we have tried as no 10 have also not delivered.

I do wonder therefore if Robins loses patience with Dasilva and keeps the current formation, whether he will bring Sakamoto in at lwb rather than Bidwell. If we go to a back four Bidwell arguably makes more sense.

Also agree about Wright. He wants the ball played quicker and maybe longer like we played to Gyokeres. I don't think he can hold the ball up very well but he is fast and direct when he gets the right service. What we need in January is an experienced striker alongside him who can hold onto the ball.
 
Last edited:

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Very much agree with this.

I think the plan this year was to play with wing backs much further forward this season and for them to be our main creative outlet together with the player in the number 10 position. This is why the criticism of Sheaf, Eccles and Kelly is unfounded. They have been doing the job expected of them, and doing it well in my view.

The problem is despite early promise van Ewijk and Dasilva have not delivered enough and the various players we have tried as no 10 have also not delivered.

I do wonder therefore if Robins loses patience with Dasilva and keeps the current formation, whether he will bring Sakamoto in at lwb rather than Bidwell. If we go to a back four Bidwell arguably makes more sense.

Also agree about Wright. He wants the ball played quicker and maybe longer like we played to Gyokeres. I don't think he can hold the ball up very well but he is fast and direct when he gets the right service. What we need in January is an experienced striker alongside him who can hold onto the ball.

Bidwell offers nothing less going forward than da silva - playing Sakamoto there is just ridiculous
 

fatso

Well-Known Member
Yeah definitely agree with you that he’s been an absolute rock at the back for us over the last few years and I don’t think he’s past it yet but if we do play with a back 4 then I personally don’t think he’s got the pace to play in that role. The last few games as well he’s been at fault for a couple of goals and just looks a bit off it atm. He’s still a great asset to have, it’s just that I would choose Lati and Binks in a CB partnership over him and someone else.
Just as a point of balance, Fadz was the last man in a goal that should of been disallowed for offside against WBA.

and he also gave away a penalty that should never of been given at Preston.

And also, that 3rd goal winer (the free header from 6 yards) against Preston would never of been conceded if Fasz was still on the pitch.

He may not be the quickest, and he's not getting any younger, but I think some of the observations are a bit harsh (imo)
I still say he's our best CH.
 

BlueSkiesForever

Well-Known Member
Just as a point of balance, Fadz was the last man in a goal that should of been disallowed for offside against WBA.

and he also gave away a penalty that should never of been given at Preston.

And also, that 3rd goal winer (the free header from 6 yards) against Preston would never of been conceded if Fasz was still on the pitch.

He may not be the quickest, and he's not getting any younger, but I think some of the observations are a bit harsh (imo)
I still say he's our best CH.

Yeah tbf I do agree with you on those points, I really rate Fadz but I’d just generally be a bit concerned if he was playing in a back 4. I agree that the penalty was ridiculous but maybe if we had a quicker CB in that position he might have gotten back quicker and been able to put the striker off in another way or maybe gotten a tackle in or just something at least.

My concern isn’t really with Fadz as a player, it’s more just his pace, but I think it’s a very minor debate tbf, I think anyone of Fadz, Thomas, Lati, Kitching or Binks would do a decent job in CB. I just really hope Robins goes with a back 4 this week, I think we’ve played our most attacking football when we played with a back 4, unfortunately I get the feeling Robins will revert to type and stick with the back 5.
 

Hobo

Well-Known Member
Not convinced this is the long term solution? I said some weeks ago it could be an option for the last 20-30 minutes when really going for it.

Especially in the first half v Stroke, we were struggling in midfield and other teams may have took more advantage of that? But it was better in second half. It will take time to adapt so prepared to give it a go overa few games

The clean sheet was a big boost for confidence and much needed defensively. We created several good chances in each half while Stoke really created nothing.

The game was quite stretched yesterday creating space for both side. Stoke didn't come just to sit behind the ball out of possession. Despite not creating much I think they came believing they could win. It creates an entertaining game despite the 0-0 score. But again makes it hard to judge the 433 formation?

Bidwell showed what a good solid professional he is. Astute in defence and creates stuff on the attack Da Silva may look more athletic and neat on the ball but is porous defensively and Bidwell put more crosses in yesterday than Da Silva has all season. I still think there is good player in DaSilva, but based on what I have seen so far he has been playing within himself. Taking too many safe options and not brave enough on the ball in attack.

A big positive yesterday was our attack had more pace and tempo. At times we just chucked the ball in and worked their centre backs better. We still kept possession through poor clearances and gaining corners. We almost got a couple of lucky breaks through the pressure

At least we now have two formation options
 

mmttww

Well-Known Member
Anyone else feel like Simms and Wright should be on opposite sides from what they have been so far? Full backs are there to put the crosses in from build up, strikers should be on the flank opposite to their strongest foot I'd have thought.
 

Hertsccfc

Well-Known Member
Anyone else feel like Simms and Wright should be on opposite sides from what they have been so far? Full backs are there to put the crosses in from build up, strikers should be on the flank opposite to their strongest foot I'd have thought.
I don't think either of them should be playing wide but if we do i agree from what we have seen, Simms looks better on the left and Wright on the right. Seemed strange that they lined up the way they did on Saturday.
 

skybluecam

Well-Known Member
Anyone else feel like Simms and Wright should be on opposite sides from what they have been so far? Full backs are there to put the crosses in from build up, strikers should be on the flank opposite to their strongest foot I'd have thought.
They're both right footed?

Simms shouldn't be playing out wide full stop.
 

edgy

Well-Known Member
Not convinced this is the long term solution? I said some weeks ago it could be an option for the last 20-30 minutes when really going for it.

Especially in the first half v Stroke, we were struggling in midfield and other teams may have took more advantage of that? But it was better in second half. It will take time to adapt so prepared to give it a go overa few games

The clean sheet was a big boost for confidence and much needed defensively. We created several good chances in each half while Stoke really created nothing.

The game was quite stretched yesterday creating space for both side. Stoke didn't come just to sit behind the ball out of possession. Despite not creating much I think they came believing they could win. It creates an entertaining game despite the 0-0 score. But again makes it hard to judge the 433 formation?

Bidwell showed what a good solid professional he is. Astute in defence and creates stuff on the attack Da Silva may look more athletic and neat on the ball but is porous defensively and Bidwell put more crosses in yesterday than Da Silva has all season. I still think there is good player in DaSilva, but based on what I have seen so far he has been playing within himself. Taking too many safe options and not brave enough on the ball in attack.

A big positive yesterday was our attack had more pace and tempo. At times we just chucked the ball in and worked their centre backs better. We still kept possession through poor clearances and gaining corners. We almost got a couple of lucky breaks through the pressure

At least we now have two formation options

One of my main early observations from 433 is that we obviously have less men to play out from the back or playing side to side awaiting the press. However, especially in the first half we still tried to do it. Made for some very uncomfortable moments.

I'd think we just need to start hitting channels and turning full backs/centre halve towards their own goal early. Certainly until we regained some sort of form and confidence.
 

mmttww

Well-Known Member
They're both right footed?

Simms shouldn't be playing out wide full stop.
Wright seems to favour his left.

Agree - they're not wide players.

Starting wide is fine though, I think.

Vik did most damage starting left.
 

mmttww

Well-Known Member
Setting up like we did on Sat makes sense if their role is to provide for Godden and runners from midfield. That feels like a waste, though. You want O'Hare, Palmer or a new signing central making space and chances for Wright and Simms?
 
Last edited:

Nuskyblue

Well-Known Member
Wright seems to favour his left.

Agree - they're not wide players.

Starting wide is fine though, I think.

Vik did most damage starting left.
Wright favours his left or playing from the left?

It matters not a jot if they start central or from wide tbh. Wright holding the ball out wide on the left has enabled Bidwell to sneak on on the overlap and fire in some dangerous crosses (Simms should be busting a gut to meet these at the back post). This has enabled Bidders to be super effective, I'd like to see MvE given the same opportunity on the right (of a back 4), he could and should be a real threat.
 

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
They're both right footed?

Simms shouldn't be playing out wide full stop.
In old money they'd be classed as inside forwards.

It's not a wide position, it's central but giving them a bit more space to turn and run towards goal with their stronger foot
 

skybluecam

Well-Known Member
In old money they'd be classed as inside forwards.

It's not a wide position, it's central but giving them a bit more space to turn and run towards goal with their stronger foot
They’re still playing wide(r). The problem for me is that Simms looks very awkward when he has to receive the ball facing away from goal, and can’t beat a man or cross.
 

SBAndy

Well-Known Member
They’re still playing wide(r). The problem for me is that Simms looks very awkward when he has to receive the ball facing away from goal, and can’t beat a man or cross.

Beat his man on a few occasions on Saturday. Agreed that he can’t cross and it’s a waste of his skillset.

We need to get the ball in front of Simms in the box.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top