Formation Ideas (1 Viewer)

We seemed to go to a 4-3-3 last night at times with Mcsheffrey and O'donovan flanking Juke, earlier in the season we toyed with a 4-2-3-1 with Gael and Clingan holding.

Sky Blue Sheepy,think we could retain Conor in the formation @ the moment

How about this one....

Murphy

Keogh - Cameron - Cranie - Christie

Deegan - Clingan - Thomas

Jutkiewicz - Platt- McSheffrey

Alot of times last night there was no width and were playing through the middle. Id personally like to see McSheffrey on the wing and baker when fit. Otherwise a loanne winger.

Too many times we played through the middle and it was unaffective

The rule is to play a formation that suits the players at your disposal rather than decide on a formation and then try impliment.

Mumford and Daughter said:

Alot of times last night there was no width and were playing through the middle. Id personally like to see McSheffrey on the wing and baker when fit. Otherwise a loanne winger.

Too many times we played through the middle and it was unaffective

Click to expand...

Mcsheffery was good on the left in 2005-2007 before all his injuries sapped his pace. He's not quick enough to play there in a 442 in my opinion and is a liability when helping out defending with the fullback. He was woeful last season left wing and didn't show any form until we played him in the hole.

-----------Murphy/Dunn---------

Keogh Cameron Wood Cranie


-----Bigi--Thomas--Deegan----

Jutkiewicz--------------McDonald

--------------Platt-----------------

You don't need wingers if your full back can push on, both Keogh and Chirstie or good at this, just need to get it in the box instead of trying to beat the same player several times. This seems to be something the whole team is guilty of at times....

I don't like the 2 DMC formation-which is what we started this season with. It was just too deep with Gael and Sammy playing the same role and we didn't create much. Even worse, we tend to withdraw a striker so that it is effectively 4-2-2-1-1. The man in the hole ends up wasted and the main forward too isolated.

I do like the formation that has seen our best results and performances-the 4-1-2-1-2 Diamond. Thomas and Deegan are now giving us that vital MC who can tackle and pass-and drive forwards when required. The only downside is it lacks width and Sammy seems obsessed with sitting deep. But it only works if McSheffrey is on song-he is effectively both the RW and LW as well as ST depending on the situation. We don't have any one else with the movement and goal-pocing anticipation to do the role, but if he is lacklustre, knackered or unfit it leaves the midfield without options and the strikers without support.

Bell can't really play this role, he doesn't get into goalscoring positions enough. Sheff does constantly..he's been waiting for knock-downs unmarked in the penalty area 5 or 6 times this season-the only time he got it was the offside goal last night. Baker can't quite play the role either-he can score, but lacks the passing reliablity or intelligence at working the channels.

The other formation AT has used regularly is the one we switched to after Blackpool scored. This is provisionally a 433, with the strikers in theory concentrating on attacking but dropping back to challenge their FB when without the ball. Last night was a tailored version to try and preventing Blackpools RW murdering us-it saw Roy very wide, more as a winger than a wide striker, whose job was almost entirely defensive (and he did it well). Sheff was more in a free role, but covering the RW more than the left, and trying to join in with Lukas. It didn't work in an attacking sense as Lukas was left too isolated to really offer a goal threat. Whereas before the switch, Roy was getting into goal-scoring positions and he and Lukas showed signs of building up a big lad/quick lad understanding.

This was a decent Plan B, but entirely reactive and designed to keep us in the game (which it did). Last seasons version of it was much more attacking, with 3 out and out forwards-with some defensive responsibility, but less, and very fluid in movement, and more central and narrow than last night.

I think it would be nice to every so often lob a 442 into the equation. I don't like the idea of an opposition manager saying to his players "Coventry will never play 442, they don't have any wingers, so we don't have to prepare for that eventuality". As such, a fit Deegan and Sammy could see us go for it in some match situations to catch opponents out. Bell can do a job in that role for a short period, and I get the feeling that Cyrus may really be a more natural winger than FB anyway. Not a formation I want to see us use long-term, but adding it to the "Play Book" would make it a handy option.

Thought we ended last nights game more in a 4 4 2 than anything else. McSheffery was playing up along side Platt and Juke went left midfield with Thomas covering the right.

The diamond works when the team is confident and moves the ball quickly but so far this season we have not seemed a strong team when playing it. It seems to be AT's first choice but I query whether we have enough players capable of playing it properly.

Bottom line which ever formation we play - we lack pace ( both in speed and thought ) to realy consistently hurt teams in this division. God how many seasons have we come to that conclusion and still it hasnt been addressed !

Better than the 1-10 we seemed to play after we went 2-1 up I suppose.

For me you always start by choosing your best players, then work out a formation that fits.

For me that's: Murphy, Keogh, Cranie, Cameron, Christie, Deegan, Clingan, Thomas, Bigirimana, Jutkiewicz and one other.

So, how about 5-1-3-1:

---------------Murphy
------Keogh Cameron Cranie
Christie----------------------Hussey
--------------Clingan
----Bigirimana Deegan Thomas
-----------Jutkiewicz

?

Not sure that midfield looks right, and I don't think Hussey is in our top 11 players, but we need some balance.