| I don’t like our formation and never did. 15:04 - Aug 19 with 3989 views | PacittiJohn |
Our formation lends itself to surrendering possession too easily and not having cover when teams break on us. Would like to see Matusiwa and Cajuste joined in midfield by a new signing, and playing Chaplin behind Hirst and Sammie. Both fowards would benefit from playing closer together in a partnership. Having three in midfield would allow more cover when our full backs bomb forward, and enable us to retain more possession for the first 60 to 70 mins. We could then revert to Mckenna’s usual formation in the last quarter and widen the gaps with Clarke and Philogene. So 4 -3-1-2 and then 4-2-3-1. Obviously, these changes will be dependent upon whether we’re defending a lead or chasing the game, but starting with three midfielders and leaving out the wide men for the first hour should ensure that we control possession from the start in more games. We got spanked in the Premier League so many times because our midfield could not control much possession. Admittedly, this wasn’t solely due to the formation. Apart from Cajuste and Morsy we were short of Premier League talent, but in preparation for next year in the Premier League I would hope that Kieran would be more concerned with midfield strength than tricky wide men. It ain’t gonna happen though… |  | | |  |
| I don’t like our formation and never did. on 10:54 - Aug 20 with 407 views | FrimleyBlue |
| I don’t like our formation and never did. on 07:47 - Aug 20 by The_Flashing_Smile |
"despite 2 promotions"
LOL. Oh Frimmers.
The other shock here is that you have positive arrows on this. |
Probably because the posters took the post for what it was. At times we looked like we needed 3 midfielders. I dont think that's a bad comment is it?
Doesn't change the fact what we did was good enough overall but there were individual games that looked like we needed it and if done it may have changed the result in our favour further adding more points to our promotion campaign. |  |
| |
| I don’t like our formation and never did. on 11:10 - Aug 20 with 342 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| I don’t like our formation and never did. on 10:54 - Aug 20 by FrimleyBlue |
Probably because the posters took the post for what it was. At times we looked like we needed 3 midfielders. I dont think that's a bad comment is it?
Doesn't change the fact what we did was good enough overall but there were individual games that looked like we needed it and if done it may have changed the result in our favour further adding more points to our promotion campaign. |
My point is whatever we were doing worked - we got a very rare double promotion - so I think it's a bit churlish to say things could've been better. We didn't need to add more points to our promotion campaign, we had enough to be promoted - twice - with the system we were using.
And if you pop another midfielder in there you have to lose someone from somewhere else, which may have meant we didn't get enough points for promotion. Essentially, why fix what ain't broke? |  |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| I don’t like our formation and never did. on 11:13 - Aug 20 with 321 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
The idea that you never liked our formation despite back-to-back promotions marks you down as a Budgie, a troll or a fool. | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| I don’t like our formation and never did. on 11:22 - Aug 20 with 288 views | Chris_ITFC |
| I don’t like our formation and never did. on 10:54 - Aug 20 by FrimleyBlue |
Probably because the posters took the post for what it was. At times we looked like we needed 3 midfielders. I dont think that's a bad comment is it?
Doesn't change the fact what we did was good enough overall but there were individual games that looked like we needed it and if done it may have changed the result in our favour further adding more points to our promotion campaign. |
I agree - 98 and 96 points in consecutive seasons really should’ve been higher.
Have you considered sending an email into the Club?
k.mckenna@itfc.com |  |
| |
| I don’t like our formation and never did. on 11:25 - Aug 20 with 262 views | Kievthegreat |
| I don’t like our formation and never did. on 11:13 - Aug 20 by The_Flashing_Smile |
The idea that you never liked our formation despite back-to-back promotions marks you down as a Budgie, a troll or a fool. |
I'll bet £10 that it's all 3! |  | | |
| I don’t like our formation and never did. on 11:34 - Aug 20 with 239 views | FrimleyBlue |
| I don’t like our formation and never did. on 11:10 - Aug 20 by The_Flashing_Smile |
My point is whatever we were doing worked - we got a very rare double promotion - so I think it's a bit churlish to say things could've been better. We didn't need to add more points to our promotion campaign, we had enough to be promoted - twice - with the system we were using.
And if you pop another midfielder in there you have to lose someone from somewhere else, which may have meant we didn't get enough points for promotion. Essentially, why fix what ain't broke? |
Things can always be better flash.
I agreed earlier in the thread I get the whole point about losing a player from another position.. hence why I've made it clear I'm not saying we needed to change things when it worked and it worked well enough as we got promoted.
There were however times. Not many of them but there were times when a 3 man midfield did look needed. Obv even more so last season but that's a different level so another conversation.
But for me. In those minimal experiences of where we werent flourishing, absolutely something different could have worked differently. There's been many posters over the past few years mentioning the lack of a 3 man midfield... on occasions. | |
| |
| I don’t like our formation and never did. on 11:43 - Aug 20 with 221 views | FrimleyBlue |
| I don’t like our formation and never did. on 11:22 - Aug 20 by Chris_ITFC |
I agree - 98 and 96 points in consecutive seasons really should’ve been higher.
Have you considered sending an email into the Club?
k.mckenna@itfc.com |
I don't believe i said anywhere that it should have been higher. Not sure why but it seems you're trying to turn my post into something it's not.
Tbh I can see what certain people are trying to do here. So I'll leave it there. | |
| |
| I don’t like our formation and never did. on 11:47 - Aug 20 with 207 views | Chris_ITFC |
| I don’t like our formation and never did. on 11:43 - Aug 20 by FrimleyBlue |
I don't believe i said anywhere that it should have been higher. Not sure why but it seems you're trying to turn my post into something it's not.
Tbh I can see what certain people are trying to do here. So I'll leave it there. |
“there were individual games that looked like we needed it and if done it may have changed the result in our favour further adding more points to our promotion campaign.” | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| I don’t like our formation and never did. on 11:53 - Aug 20 with 186 views | FrimleyBlue |
| I don’t like our formation and never did. on 11:47 - Aug 20 by Chris_ITFC |
“there were individual games that looked like we needed it and if done it may have changed the result in our favour further adding more points to our promotion campaign.” |
'May' have changed the result adding further points
That's not saying we 'should'have got more points.
Could. May. Perhaps. Possibly. Maybe. Potentially.
Nowhere near should.
For example. The two leeds games. Perhaps. Maybe. Could etc we played with a 3 man midfield it may have resulted in a better result. Maybe. Perhaps. Could etc. | |
| |
| I don’t like our formation and never did. on 12:01 - Aug 20 with 167 views | Horsham |
| I don’t like our formation and never did. on 11:53 - Aug 20 by FrimleyBlue |
'May' have changed the result adding further points
That's not saying we 'should'have got more points.
Could. May. Perhaps. Possibly. Maybe. Potentially.
Nowhere near should.
For example. The two leeds games. Perhaps. Maybe. Could etc we played with a 3 man midfield it may have resulted in a better result. Maybe. Perhaps. Could etc. |
Could argue that if we’d just been a bit more compact within the normal formation or slightly less adventurous at times that would have made a difference. Playing 2 in midfield doesn’t necessarily mean vacating the midfield. The 10 or 10’s can drop into midfield for example. [Post edited 20 Aug 12:02]
|  | | |
| I don’t like our formation and never did. on 13:07 - Aug 20 with 101 views | LeoMuff |
| I don’t like our formation and never did. on 10:54 - Aug 20 by FrimleyBlue |
Probably because the posters took the post for what it was. At times we looked like we needed 3 midfielders. I dont think that's a bad comment is it?
Doesn't change the fact what we did was good enough overall but there were individual games that looked like we needed it and if done it may have changed the result in our favour further adding more points to our promotion campaign. |
In the prem it often looked like we needed 3 in midfield to get some form of control, however I never doubted our formation in the champ or league 1 |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
