Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
Or not, because McSheffrey is poor, in fairness does have few good moments and Baker, I'd try him 'in the hole', in the absence of Fleck.
The system is not broke, why fix it?
Line up v Sheffield United? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Mucca Mad Boys
- Start date
Or not, because McSheffrey is poor, in fairness does have few good moments and Baker, I'd try him 'in the hole', in the absence of Fleck.
The system is not broke, why fix it?
Reynolds_121
New Member
We got relegated using it and we were shocking yesterday. I wouldn't say it's in great condition, would you?
Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
And when we tried 4-4-2 last season we somehow did worse what a great alternative?
We played 4-2-3-1 in pre-season, we got spanked by ICT and Wrexham, and beat by Nuneaton and Ross County, condeding 9 goals! Another great alternative! :facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:
OH! Then we spank Accrington Stanley, beat Brzzle Rovers, Port Vale, condeding 2, and they're better than the teams above (bar ICT).
Hmmm, think about it
Give it a chance, Norwich used it!
skyblue1523
New Member
sheffers is a striker and baker is attacking midfield none are wingers
skyblue1523
New Member
A team that wins will do me weather its 442 4321 433 not bothered as long as we win
SkyBlue_Bear83
Well-Known Member
I like formations like 4-3-3 and 4-2-3-1 on paper but I am just not convinced it would work in our division. You need to have very accurate passing and be very good in possession as you only have one striker now as a target so any wayward or long passes are likely to be gobbled by the opponents defence.
Also i don't know weather Mcdonald would be up to the lone striker role against two 6 foot centre halves. He may just be kicked out of games by the opposition
QUICKER_THAN_WRIGHTY
New Member
Barton will play on Tuesday, Daniels wont :jerkit:
RichieGunns
New Member
-----------------Murphy----------------
Clarke--Brown/Malaga--Wood--Hussey
------------------Jennings-------------
---------Barton ------------Kilbane-----
----------------Fleck/Baker--------------
-----------Cody-------------Ball--------
Clarke--Brown/Malaga--Wood--Hussey
------------------Jennings-------------
---------Barton ------------Kilbane-----
----------------Fleck/Baker--------------
-----------Cody-------------Ball--------
Last edited:
RichieGunns
New Member
There are plenty of people that could play at left back...Kilbane, Edj to name but two who can play in that position. Though I do think we need to get someone else in on the left.
Nonleagueherewecome
Well-Known Member
You might be right, but at the moment, do either get into our best team? An on-form, confident Sheff would, but at the moment he isn't. Barton, Jennings, Fleck, Kilbane and Thomas (if fit) would be ahead of them right now, and only one of them might be able to play wide (Kilbane?).
---------------------Murphy---------------------
Clarke-------Brown------Wood---------Hussey
-------------------Jennings---------------------
-----------Barton-----------Kilbane------------
---------------------Fleck------------------------
-----------McSheffrey----Elliott-----------------
McDonald on for Sheffers if it doesn't work out. I for one would like to see him back up front though. The few games he got there last season during the striker shortage, he looked a decent player again. At this level I'm confident he'd deliver. Well, sort of confident.
Clarke-------Brown------Wood---------Hussey
-------------------Jennings---------------------
-----------Barton-----------Kilbane------------
---------------------Fleck------------------------
-----------McSheffrey----Elliott-----------------
McDonald on for Sheffers if it doesn't work out. I for one would like to see him back up front though. The few games he got there last season during the striker shortage, he looked a decent player again. At this level I'm confident he'd deliver. Well, sort of confident.
ampthill_sba
New Member
Formation is more important than the personnel in determining our style of play...
So long as we are set up to pass, overlapping full backs, runs into the channels; we will do well with most combinations of midfielders available.
I would play Murphy, Clarke, Wood, Malaga and Hussey in defence. With a conventional 4-4-2 set up I'd have (from left to right) McSheffrey (despite poor show au Yeovil), Fleck, Jennings and Barton. Upfront Ball and McDonald.
Subs most likely to bring on: Elliott, Baker, Jeffers
So long as we are set up to pass, overlapping full backs, runs into the channels; we will do well with most combinations of midfielders available.
I would play Murphy, Clarke, Wood, Malaga and Hussey in defence. With a conventional 4-4-2 set up I'd have (from left to right) McSheffrey (despite poor show au Yeovil), Fleck, Jennings and Barton. Upfront Ball and McDonald.
Subs most likely to bring on: Elliott, Baker, Jeffers
Diehard Si
New Member
Id give Baker a shout over McSheffrey. Sheffers had his chance to stake a claim and didn't take it. Bakers turn now.
I'm assuming of course Fleck is injured.
I'd give Hussey one last chance.
Jennings in for Daniels.
I'm assuming of course Fleck is injured.
I'd give Hussey one last chance.
Jennings in for Daniels.
Loughborough Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Based on Saturdays performances, Murphy, wood, Clarke, Barton and McDonald need to be in the team. build the rest around them with whoever is fit and looking sharp in training.
Astute
Well-Known Member
Add Jennings to this list and I will fully agree.
Black6Osprey
New Member
Are you always this sharp?
You think 4-3-1-2 is a diamond?
Are you sponsored by diamond formations or something?
When you write 4-1-2-1-2 down on a piece of paper what does it look like to you? I'll tell you as your clearly not paying attention. Its very narrow and match after match teams keep getting loads of space out wide and putting pressure on our full backs and getting balls into the box. You need to keep the ball and work very hard in midfield and have very solid full backs for the diamond to work defensively which is why we have struggled and with Hussey as left back we will continue to struggle. He's a good potential but he makes basic errors every game and leaving him and Clarke exposed all the time isn't very fair. Seeing as you keep banging on about our midfielders and what system suits them why don't you stretch your tiny mind to think about the back four and the pressure they keep coming under due to this narrow formation that you're so in love with.
Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
It is the pretty much the diamond, but with the DM pushing up CM, there isn't that much a noteable difference to ditch the diamond and replacing it with 4-3-1-2, as 4-3-1-2, still has the narrow midifield just, the DM is moved up slightly.
Clarke and Hussey would still be susceptible to being exposed.
This is what the Dimond looks like:
RB---CB---CB---LB
---------DMC--------
----RCM-----LCM
---------AMC-------
------ST-----ST----
Now 4-3-1-2:
RB----CB----CB----LB
---RCM--CM--LCM
----------AMC-----
------ST-------ST
There we go, all we've done is move the DM up a little bit, so to suggest we should ditch the diamond and replace it with 4-3-1-2 is laugable. So don't call me small minded! As there is a small difference between the 2 systems...
For the record, I think the diamond is the best formation for us as the AMC suits Fleck, and we need 2 strikers imo, and because we have sh!t wingers, play with out them. Oh and I forgot, we have 2 very taltented young talents in Barton + Thomas, but because niether are particularly great defensively, we need a DM, Jennings... Oh and a flat 4 defence is the best imo, So what formation does that give you?
Gaz
Well-Known Member
Tactical genius. ....
Hateley's Heed
New Member
Too may anal references for my liking but i get the point.
Black6Osprey
New Member
Yes but to follow your logic, on another thread you stated that 4-3-3 wouldn't work with the players we've got. So how close is 4-3-1-2 to 4-3-3? Using your thinking they are so close its laughable. Like I've said already I don't have an issue with the diamond if you've got the players to play it (and I dont mean against a couple of pub teams during preseason) but 2 competitive games in and it looks like we have the same problems but with different players. Now I'm sure as you've been at both games so far you can at least agree it hasn't looked very good so far.
Nonleagueherewecome
Well-Known Member
I like the idea of shoving the DMC forwards so he's on the same "line" as the other two, then it's a three spread out enough to get some width.
On what planet is 4-3-1-2 similar to 4-3-3?
If you can find me some wingers in a 4-3-1-2 I'll retract that statement.
SkyBlue_Bear83
Well-Known Member
Well I guess they both play with a goalkeeper and 11 players :thinking about:
stupot07
Well-Known Member
SkyBlue_Bear83
Well-Known Member
I meant including the goalkeeper, not 11 players + the goalkeeperA goalkeeper and 11 players? I hope the ref can't count!
According to the telegraph we had 14 players vs Yeovil so maybe the refs can't count
Or maybe Thorn can't count which is why he sent 14 players out
Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
I stated 4-3-3 wouldn't suit us, and 4-3-1-2 is basically the diamond, as, assuming we play with* Jennings would naturally drop back so Thomas/Kilbane and Barton can advance with the ball, therefore, if you looked at the shape during the match, you will find that it looks like the diamond, with that in mind, 4-3-1-2 is basically the diamond, also, playing 4-3-1-2 would NOT provide more width as in the diamond, the 2 CMs would obviously leave space between them for the DM. :claping hands:
* Barton Jennings Kilbane/Thomas
-------------Fleck----------
4-3-1-2 and 4-3-3 are not similar, 4-3-3 plays with wingers whereas 4-3-1-2 does not. :facepalm:
Before I start, saying Accrington, Bristol Rovers, Port Vale are pub teams is ignorant and shows you are detatched from reality as they are a division below us, with that in mind... Are we a semi-pro team?
On that point we beat Accrington, Bristol Rovers, Port Vale with the diamond whereas we lost to; Ross County, ICT, Nuneaton & Wrexham when playing 4-2-3-1, therefore, judging on results, the diamond suits us.
Astute
Well-Known Member
We have brought Jennings in to be the DM in the diamond. When he starts playing for us I will make my own mind up, not listen to others arguing about what is best without the right players in the right position. His experience should make a big difference. Son says he has a good calming influence. All we can do is wait and see.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
I stated 4-3-3 wouldn't suit us, and 4-3-1-2 is basically the diamond, as, assuming we play with* Jennings would naturally drop back so Thomas/Kilbane and Barton can advance with the ball, therefore, if you looked at the shape during the match, you will find that it looks like the diamond, with that in mind, 4-3-1-2 is basically the diamond, also, playing 4-3-1-2 would NOT provide more width as in the diamond, the 2 CMs would obviously leave space between them for the DM. :claping hands:
* Barton Jennings Kilbane/Thomas
-------------Fleck----------
4-3-1-2 and 4-3-3 are not similar, 4-3-3 plays with wingers whereas 4-3-1-2 does not. :facepalm:
Before I start, saying Accrington, Bristol Rovers, Port Vale are pub teams is ignorant and shows you are detatched from reality as they are a division below us, with that in mind... Are we a semi-pro team?
On that point we beat Accrington, Bristol Rovers, Port Vale with the diamond whereas we lost to; Ross County, ICT, Nuneaton & Wrexham when playing 4-2-3-1, therefore, judging on results, the diamond suits us.
We got relegated playing the diamond whereat stayed up where we mostly used a standard 4-4-2, and?
