| I don’t like our formation and never did. 15:04 - Aug 19 with 2159 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 16:00 - Aug 19 with 511 views | PioneerBlue |
The only thing worth extracting from this is a chat about low medium high possession. I would like us to have a bit more control of games at certain times through possession but I don’t stick that to formations. It’s players capabilities, instructions, and decision making and positions in game. | |
| |
| I don’t like our formation and never did. on 16:00 - Aug 19 with 519 views | bsw72 |
I would counter that the formation is not exactly groundbreaking and served us well with near record points and goals totals for 2 years.
Where we started having issues was coming up against physically stronger and more skilled opponents.
The formations being played in the Premier League were not that different to ours.
The formation is an element but without doubt the individual components (ie the players) who fulfil the roles are the key aspect.
In short, formation was less of an issue than quality of personel once we got promoted - we didn't recruit well to improve a squad which was just about good enough to get promoted. [Post edited 19 Aug 16:01]
|  | | |
| I don’t like our formation and never did. on 16:04 - Aug 19 with 486 views | Herbivore |
| I don’t like our formation and never did. on 15:50 - Aug 19 by PacittiJohn |
We nearly failed to gain promotion as the stronger sides Leicester and Southampton largely controlled possession against us home and away. It was the impact of our substitutions and late rallys that got us promoted and we could easily have ended up in the play offs. Our squad was strong but we got promoted in spite of our formation rather than because of it. |
This is patently boll0cks, mate. We got promoted despite the formation? So we finished ahead of Leeds and Saints purely through having a much better squad than them did we? That's just complete bobbins. |  |
| |
| I don’t like our formation and never did. on 16:07 - Aug 19 with 475 views | Dubtractor |
| I don’t like our formation and never did. on 15:50 - Aug 19 by PacittiJohn |
We nearly failed to gain promotion as the stronger sides Leicester and Southampton largely controlled possession against us home and away. It was the impact of our substitutions and late rallys that got us promoted and we could easily have ended up in the play offs. Our squad was strong but we got promoted in spite of our formation rather than because of it. |
The quality of posting on here is fooking dismal in recent times, it really is.
Jesus christ. |  |
| |
| I don’t like our formation and never did. on 16:11 - Aug 19 with 439 views | Joey_Joe_Joe_Junior |
We spent 50 odd millions on wide players, won't happen. Can't happen for this reason alone. |  |
| |
| I don’t like our formation and never did. on 16:11 - Aug 19 with 435 views | FrimleyBlue |
| I don’t like our formation and never did. on 16:07 - Aug 19 by Dubtractor |
The quality of posting on here is fooking dismal in recent times, it really is.
Jesus christ. |
See i'm not so bad afterall ;) |  |
| |
| I don’t like our formation and never did. on 16:26 - Aug 19 with 388 views | Maccaisgod |
I bet he doesn't tell you how to take the fries out the machine when you are doing lates at Maccy d's..  | | | |
| I don’t like our formation and never did. on 16:27 - Aug 19 with 385 views | TRUE_BLUE123 |
| I don’t like our formation and never did. on 15:50 - Aug 19 by PacittiJohn |
We nearly failed to gain promotion as the stronger sides Leicester and Southampton largely controlled possession against us home and away. It was the impact of our substitutions and late rallys that got us promoted and we could easily have ended up in the play offs. Our squad was strong but we got promoted in spite of our formation rather than because of it. |
Holy hell |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| I don’t like our formation and never did. on 17:36 - Aug 19 with 302 views | Vic |
| I don’t like our formation and never did. on 15:50 - Aug 19 by PacittiJohn |
We nearly failed to gain promotion as the stronger sides Leicester and Southampton largely controlled possession against us home and away. It was the impact of our substitutions and late rallys that got us promoted and we could easily have ended up in the play offs. Our squad was strong but we got promoted in spite of our formation rather than because of it. |
 |  |
| |
| I don’t like our formation and never did. on 17:43 - Aug 19 with 284 views | Metal_Hacker |
| I don’t like our formation and never did. on 15:50 - Aug 19 by PacittiJohn |
We nearly failed to gain promotion as the stronger sides Leicester and Southampton largely controlled possession against us home and away. It was the impact of our substitutions and late rallys that got us promoted and we could easily have ended up in the play offs. Our squad was strong but we got promoted in spite of our formation rather than because of it. |
Have you borrowed Wally's log in ? |  |
| |
| I don’t like our formation and never did. on 17:56 - Aug 19 with 247 views | Trequartista |
| I don’t like our formation and never did. on 15:50 - Aug 19 by PacittiJohn |
We nearly failed to gain promotion as the stronger sides Leicester and Southampton largely controlled possession against us home and away. It was the impact of our substitutions and late rallys that got us promoted and we could easily have ended up in the play offs. Our squad was strong but we got promoted in spite of our formation rather than because of it. |
Yes i can see you are an expert in formations
|  |
| |
| I don’t like our formation and never did. on 17:58 - Aug 19 with 237 views | itfcsuth |
You never liked our formation when we were producing the best football this club has seen in many many years where we achieved back to back promotions - certainly an interesting take.
The formation certainly wasn’t our problem in the PL, the personnel was. |  | | |
| I don’t like our formation and never did. on 18:03 - Aug 19 with 209 views | Kievthegreat |
| I don’t like our formation and never did. on 15:50 - Aug 19 by PacittiJohn |
We nearly failed to gain promotion as the stronger sides Leicester and Southampton largely controlled possession against us home and away. It was the impact of our substitutions and late rallys that got us promoted and we could easily have ended up in the play offs. Our squad was strong but we got promoted in spite of our formation rather than because of it. |
Possession is meaningless if you do nothing with it.
Let's take our 3 home games against Saints under McKenna.
1st game, we had 34% possession and won
2nd we had 57% possession and lost
3rd, we have 50% possession and drew.
Also it worth remembering our 2 games have had us with a possession of 49.3% and 49.6%. we've had practically the same amount of the ball as our opponents each game in the toughest matchups we may well face. There's absolutely no need to be worried about not having enough possession. |  | | |
| I don’t like our formation and never did. on 18:18 - Aug 19 with 170 views | ArnieM |
OP: Glad someone else sees it as I do. |  |
| |
| I don’t like our formation and never did. on 18:18 - Aug 19 with 169 views | Axeldalai_lama |
So against the weaker teams we're playing now, you'd have 3 centre mids and 2 tight in supporting a main striker? That seems very congested and narrow for no real gain. Maybe something to think about when back in the prem and with bigger hitters in the team, but I'd say we need that space and width that you decry. |  | | |
| I don’t like our formation and never did. on 18:20 - Aug 19 with 161 views | JakeITFC |
| I don’t like our formation and never did. on 18:18 - Aug 19 by ArnieM |
OP: Glad someone else sees it as I do. |
Not sure that this is the alliance you think it is. |  | | |
| I don’t like our formation and never did. on 18:36 - Aug 19 with 138 views | benrhyddingblue |
| I don’t like our formation and never did. on 15:29 - Aug 19 by Reuser_is_God |
You never liked our formation? We pretty much won every game in an 18 month period & you didn’t like it? |
They probably didn’t see most of those games | | | |
| I don’t like our formation and never did. on 18:44 - Aug 19 with 123 views | FrimleyBlue |
| I don’t like our formation and never did. on 18:18 - Aug 19 by ArnieM |
OP: Glad someone else sees it as I do. |
Think it's more that the formation was fine. But perhaps against the more agile and attacking sides we needed a different version rather than it didn't work as a formation. | |
| |
| I don’t like our formation and never did. on 19:29 - Aug 19 with 82 views | NthQldITFC |
| I don’t like our formation and never did. on 16:00 - Aug 19 by PioneerBlue |
The only thing worth extracting from this is a chat about low medium high possession. I would like us to have a bit more control of games at certain times through possession but I don’t stick that to formations. It’s players capabilities, instructions, and decision making and positions in game. |
And how often do we look anything like 4-2-3-1 in possession anyway?
If you're gonna put any numbers on what we look like in possession it's something like 2½-3-3-1½ I would say, but that's almost as pointless as calling it 4-2-3-1. As so many people keep having to point out, it's about responsibilities and a dynamic and self-aware shape.
Show your workings, boy!:
LCB+RCB+½RB = 2½
½LB+CM+CM+½RB = 3
½LB+L10+½R10+RW = 3
½R10 + CF =1½ [Post edited 19 Aug 19:40]
|  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
