Ok very disappointing today the 4-2-3-1 formation worked very well so I can understand TM not wanting to change it
however I think he needs to - we all think changes are needed the question is assuming we have no new players what can we/would you do.
It is difficult I personally am a little Mike Bassett England manager so love 4-4-2 not sure squad works in this way.
I think given squad I would try a 3-5-2 with wing backs though it isn't easy but this is what I would try.
RCC GK
Stokes LWB
Phillips RWB
Ricketts CB
Martin CB
Cargill CB
Vincelot DCM
Cole CM
Maddison ACM
Tudguy ST
Armstrong ST
What are people's thoughts, what would you do, who would you play, would you change formation.
It is easy to criticise but must admit not as easy to come up with different formation. team with our current
personnel.
Fair comment Nick but would would you actually do! I would personally be very interested on Grendel's take on this one.
I know he is a bit of a panto villain on this one so would like him to put his formation and team for next game!
Fair enough Stupot so what would you do ......Dong and I do not agree but at least he has put something on paper.
Still looks like one up top though? Lots complaining about it - Nick fair enough but are you talking 4-4-2 in which case who are your midfield 4?
Fair enough Stupot so what would you do ......Dong and I do not agree but at least he has put something on paper.
Still looks like one up top though? Lots complaining about it - Nick fair enough but are you talking 4-4-2 in which case who are your midfield 4?
I think one of the problems is Cole, lamieres and Maddison are all too similar. I don't think Cole and Maddison should play in the same 11. Looking at the personal, the dreaded diamond looks more suited to the players we have.
---------------RCC
Lorentzson- Martin- whoever - stokes
-------------Vincelot
------rose------------fleck
-------------no. 10
-----tudguy-----Armstrong
Any of Stephens/Ricketts/cargill partnering martin
And 1 of Cole or Maddison in the number 10 role
A tad narrow at times but at least Armstrong would have a partner and Rose can make late runs into the box.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
The only worry would be the wide men in the diamond for me Fleck and Rose but yep the 4-4-2 diamond may work well given our squad. It is still a formation change to learn like my 3-5-2 but maybe not as extreme granted!
The only worry would be the wide men in the diamond for me Fleck and Rose but yep the 4-4-2 diamond may work well given our squad. It is still a formation change to learn like my 3-5-2 but maybe not as extreme granted!
The thing is though, these are pro footballers who train for hours a day. I don't think changing a formation is that much of a big deal.
You say that....but they can't make the managers favoured formation work when other teams do?
I think one of the problems is Cole, lamieres and Maddison are all too similar. I don't think Cole and Maddison should play in the same 11. Looking at the personal, the dreaded diamond looks more suited to the players we have.
---------------RCC
Lorentzson- Martin- whoever - stokes
-------------Vincelot
------rose------------fleck
-------------no. 10
-----tudguy-----Armstrong
Any of Stephens/Ricketts/cargill partnering martin
And 1 of Cole or Maddison in the number 10 role
A tad narrow at times but at least Armstrong would have a partner and Rose can make late runs into the box.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?