Now we have a two-week break, this time will allow those carrying a knock time to rest.
But I believe Warne, and he probably is looking at a formation where we don't have a proper left back playing wiles there is good for the team, but he is best in midfield running at defences.
Also a formation that allows us to get the best out of our strikers. The one man up front wont score goals at this level from open play.
Lets hope we can get some good debate going on this thread as opposed to the shocker on the 'suspicion' thread. It's getting to be a bit of an old chestnut this formation Hillsborough and a boring old g** like me loves talking about it.
You say the one man up front won't score goals at this level from open play. Well, ten clubs on Saturday in this division feel you are wrong as they all used the one striker. Only six sides used two strikers and only Stoke and Bournemoth played the classic 4.4.2 formation. There isn't a right or wrong and just because you have only one striker doesn't mean you are not going to score goals imo.
Many teams in all divisions claim to play 4.3.3. but in reality it is more like 4.5.1 (Millwall a classic example of this ). I am a keen advocate for having an extra man in midfield for us. Whether that be 4.2.3.1 or 4.4.1.1.. Yes it gives us that insurance and some believe it makes us defensive and invites teams on. I think it depends on who is playing the advanced midfield role especially in the 4.4.1.1 formation. Vassell played the role on Saturday and did ok and might be given a run in that position. He is very hit and miss imo and is more miss than hit. I would like to see Sadlier given that role as i believe the pace Of Josefzoon and Miller out wide are superior in that role than Sadlier.
The striker role is something i have talked about before and do not believe we have a championship striker. With that in mind i think using two of them would be detrimental to the team. Play one up top (possibly Ladapo) but get the wide men involved in a higher up the field position with pace and energy in midfield. In a 4.2.3.1 set up i would play Johansson... Olosunde, Ihiekwe, Wood.. Harding..... Lindsay. Barlaser.... Josefzoon, Wiles. Miller.. Ladapo. In a 4.4.1.1. set up . Same Gk and back four.... Wiles. lindsay. Barlaser. Miller..... Sadlier.. Ladapo. I would bring Josefzoon on if Wiles or Miller were struggling. Sorry about the length of the post yet again.
It's either 4-5-1 or 4-4-1-1. Got to play 3 in midfield even though Wiles plays out wide. Swansea game I'm going latter formation Vickers; Olosunde Icky A Mack Harding; Flo Lindsay Barlaser Wiles; Crooks; Ladapo. Couple of aspects of Johannson's keeping last Saturday were dodgy to me.
Lets hope we can get some good debate going on this thread as opposed to the shocker on the 'suspicion' thread. It's getting to be a bit of an old chestnut this formation Hillsborough and a boring old g** like me loves talking about it.
You say the one man up front won't score goals at this level from open play. Well, ten clubs on Saturday in this division feel you are wrong as they all used the one striker. Only six sides used two strikers and only Stoke and Bournemoth played the classic 4.4.2 formation. There isn't a right or wrong and just because you have only one striker doesn't mean you are not going to score goals imo.
Many teams in all divisions claim to play 4.3.3. but in reality it is more like 4.5.1 (Millwall a classic example of this ). I am a keen advocate for having an extra man in midfield for us. Whether that be 4.2.3.1 or 4.4.1.1.. Yes it gives us that insurance and some believe it makes us defensive and invites teams on. I think it depends on who is playing the advanced midfield role especially in the 4.4.1.1 formation. Vassell played the role on Saturday and did ok and might be given a run in that position. He is very hit and miss imo and is more miss than hit. I would like to see Sadlier given that role as i believe the pace Of Josefzoon and Miller out wide are superior in that role than Sadlier.
The striker role is something i have talked about before and do not believe we have a championship striker. With that in mind i think using two of them would be detrimental to the team. Play one up top (possibly Ladapo) but get the wide men involved in a higher up the field position with pace and energy in midfield. In a 4.2.3.1 set up i would play Johansson... Olosunde, Ihiekwe, Wood.. Harding..... Lindsay. Barlaser.... Josefzoon, Wiles. Miller.. Ladapo. In a 4.4.1.1. set up . Same Gk and back four.... Wiles. lindsay. Barlaser. Miller..... Sadlier.. Ladapo. I would bring Josefzoon on if Wiles or Miller were struggling. Sorry about the length of the post yet again.
You make a good argument as always Whiston 01
But personally with our current injuries and Warne preferred starting 11i would go for 3 5 2 or 3 1 4 2 as i believe having a two man attack gives us more of a chance of scoring with players available
in goal johannson he is our goalie and on his performance saturday deserves a run out
3 man defence ihiekwe wood macdonald
harding and josefoon as wing backs
barlaser playing in middle with miller and wiles either side of him
then ladapo and hirst/vassell
3 1 4 2
same defence
in the middle lindsey holding midfielder
then either harding olosonde on right wiles and barlaser in middle with either josefoon or harding on left
front two same players
but on bench crooks miller smith plus the players not picked to. start
Does it not depend quite a lot on who is fit, who is in form, who we are playing and what their strengths and weaknesses are? We have got a number of players who are versatile. One of Warne's many strengths as a Manager is that he isn't afraid to change things if needs be. I always hark back to the League One playoffs a couple of years ago. We played 451 in both of the semi final games when beating Scunny (David Ball was left out) but played 442 when beating Shrewsbury at Wembley (Smith and Ball started up front). Broadly speaking I think playing a proper 442 will be the exception because we will be rightly wary of being outnumbered in midfield and losing our foothold in games. I dont think we actually played 442 against Preston. Vassell was very deep lying. It worked quite well. The fact that eleven games in we have a goal difference of -2 suggests that we are doing a lot right.
Absolutely agree Smiler, whilst we can plan how we want to play against teams, whose strengths/favoured ways of playing are known, much depends on the fitness, mood, confidence etc of both teams in carrying out whatever tactics we intend to play. Sometimes that works spectacularly well, sometimes it goes badly wrong, often it becomes cat and mouse. That's what makes football such a fascinating game, there are so many variables that can't all be controlled.
It is a fact that we cannot afford the extra levels of skill that demand premium prices, but skill alone does not get you to the top, as numerous clubs can attest, Derby being a good example at this moment in time. However, skill can be overcome with enthusiasm, togetherness and sheer bloodymindedness, and the playing field levelled somewhat. It is fascinating, watching the various match ups panning out, and seeing the way managers try to influence a change in outcome in their substitutions. Most teams in this division are capable of winning games, it is the way in which the cream eventually comes to the top that is what the season is all about.
I fully expect us to keep fighting for each other ( I'm talking about the players on the pitch, not the participants on this forum), and early indications are that we seem better prepared than in previous seasons at this level. But make no mistake, it will be a long term effort required to become established at this level, and potentially get a foothold to the upper levels of this league.
One of Warne's many strengths as a Manager is that he isn't afraid to change things if needs be.
Totally agree with this, I think one of the biggest misconceptions about Paul Warne is that he always play a rigid 4-5-1 and doesn't have the bottle to change. This couldn't be further from the truth in my opinion.
I think people get a bit too hung up on systems anyway. One of the greatest teams of all time was the Spanish team that beat Holland to win the world cup. They played with one forward and sometimes (like the Barcelona club side that provided many of the players) what became known as a 'false nine' I.e. no recognised striker at all. They scored sackfuls of goals. Rigid set-ups can result in predictability. Really good sides move the ball at pace at the right times and have lots of movement/rotation however they might line up on paper.
I'm of a similar mind regarding formations. Football is a dynamic game and whatever formation a team kicks off with, it changes immediately the ball is kicked. Players then respond to the way the game develops, who's marking who, where space can be found, how quickly wingers can get forward or defend etc etc. Managers can select a team to play in a certain way, but once the game commences it's up to the intelligence of the players to play in the optimum way to get the better of the opposition. (PS. this is a direct quote from the manual of football coaching for those who know sod all about football tactics)!
You are very modest Glenn. You talk a lot of football sense, particularly after a pint or two of New York Pale! I remember Euro 96 when Terry Venables had England playing 352. When asked he said that too much was made of systems and that at any given moment the formation could be anything. Indeed in that team one of the two strikers (Sheringham) often used to drop back and get the ball from the centre backs. He was asking the other sides' defenders a question - were they going to let him go and he would create an extra man in midfield, or would they go with him and potentially leave space for other players to exploit? On a similar note, in some European game this week I saw a graphic showing the average player positions of a team that in theory was playing 433. The reality was a long way from it. Generally speaking players win or lose football matches with extra effort, moments of quality or errors. Having said that, I am just an armchair fan like most of us are and I probably know nowt.
The major problem. Is that one individual., who considers himself to be some sort of tactical expert who, in his own words, 'weren't much good at football, doesn't have a clue. Football isn't played in little pre-defined boxes it's a wonderfully fluid game. You see a space, an opportunity, and away you go. It's not played by computer controlled robots.
I've not got any strong opinions on the formation one way or another, as long as if we don't play 2 up front at home, we have one sat behind the front man and support from wings and midfield, as goals have been our issue mostly.
So, in answer, i'd like to see:
- Practice a formation(s)/ moves that break down a defence and gets balls to FEET in the box
- Practice tactics that help us see out the last 10 minutes when we have a lead or draw (away)
- and although I don't agree with cheating - Some adult discussion about our naivety when conceding 'fouls' and realising that other teams players will fall over if you touch them in any way, AND learn to exaggerate injury when we get fouled - as every other team does, but we don't - and we miss out on decisions because of it.
Really getting some work into the strikers we have.
Get them more fluid in whatever formation we play and get them moving, must be frustrating as a midfielder in our side to see whoever plays up front be so static.
And also need some rest. Sadlier now needs an operation and is out while the new year. We can’t afford anymore injuries.
