| Could we play 3 at the back? 10:17 - Jul 8 with 2060 views | DecageBruce |
GK
Woolfenden/Tuanzebe (CBR) Greaves (CB) Burgess (CBL)
Burns (RWB) Davis (LWB)
Morsy (CM) MF (CM)
Hutchinson/Chaplin (LIF/#10) Philogene/Broadhead (RIF/#10)
Hirst/Delap/ST (ST) |  | | |  |
| Could we play 3 at the back? on 10:21 - Jul 8 with 2006 views | textbackup |
Ben Johnson, Harry Clarke… both able to play RWB/ LWB too |  |
| |
| Could we play 3 at the back? on 10:21 - Jul 8 with 2006 views | surreyblue |
We certainly could. It wouldn't surprise me too much to see a bit more formation flexibility this season. I can see us starting in a 433 formation with 3 "proper" central midfielders in some games as well - which also means it wouldn't surprise me if we signed two new CMs in this window. |  | | |
| Could we play 3 at the back? on 10:22 - Jul 8 with 1997 views | PaphosBlue |
I'm gonna assume you missed Luongo out by mistake and are not expecting Morsy to cover him as well! Ah I guess that is the space for a new CM (Sheaf)
[Post edited 8 Jul 2024 10:30]
|  |
| |
| Could we play 3 at the back? on 10:25 - Jul 8 with 1925 views | DecageBruce |
| Could we play 3 at the back? on 10:21 - Jul 8 by textbackup |
Ben Johnson, Harry Clarke… both able to play RWB/ LWB too |
Totally forgot about Johnson!
But yes, you are right on both. As much as I love him I think Harry's minutes may be limited but will get time to help lock things up with pure passion at times I'm sure | | | |
| Could we play 3 at the back? on 10:27 - Jul 8 with 1895 views | DecageBruce |
| Could we play 3 at the back? on 10:22 - Jul 8 by PaphosBlue |
I'm gonna assume you missed Luongo out by mistake and are not expecting Morsy to cover him as well! Ah I guess that is the space for a new CM (Sheaf)
[Post edited 8 Jul 2024 10:30]
|
As with Harry C, my assumption is that there will be others bought in that will limit his time hence me leaving him out of my pick but I've been wrong before and in Keiran I trust | | | |
| Could we play 3 at the back? on 10:32 - Jul 8 with 1841 views | Guthrum |
We certaily could do that. The question is whether it would overly dilute our powerful attack by losing someone at the sharp end. Also there is the matter of fitting Johnson into the setup.
I very much doubt we will be going particularly defensive in the coming season. It's not in the team's DNA - or McKenna's thinking, from what we've seen. I'm not convinced it will be very productive, either. We need to win games when we can, which comes by scoring goals. Trying simply to frustrate the division's strongest attacks is likely not to work anyway - we are better off testing their defences. Drawing 3 - 3 gains you no fewer points than 0 - 0. A 4 - 3 win is as good as 1 - 0. |  |
| |
| Could we play 3 at the back? on 10:50 - Jul 8 with 1704 views | homer_123 |
We already play with three at the back and at times with two at the back with Morsy and Luongo providing cover. |  |
| |
| Could we play 3 at the back? on 11:51 - Jul 8 with 1505 views | PioneerBlue |
I agree with the last post by Homer. Our formation was at pretty fluid (and asymmetrical). Towards the end of the season we saw moments when Burgess Wolf Tuanzebe were clearly a stay back three when on the build up or attack whilst other times it was more 4321 and even then different with and without the ball. What we’ve come to learn with KMcK is that starting formation is meaningless, it’s about the players and where on the pitch we want to do the most harm or stop the other team harming us. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Could we play 3 at the back? on 12:23 - Jul 8 with 1375 views | Chrisd |
Speaking with a lot of my WH mates, Johnson is far better defensively than he is going forwards. Attacking isn’t something that comes naturally. [Post edited 8 Jul 2024 12:26]
| |
| |
| Could we play 3 at the back? on 12:49 - Jul 8 with 1276 views | Cheltenham_Blue |
We already do play with three at the back, whenever we have the ball, Tuanzebe becomes a right sided CB. Without the ball we play as a four. |  |
| |
| Could we play 3 at the back? on 12:59 - Jul 8 with 1245 views | Libero |
| Could we play 3 at the back? on 12:49 - Jul 8 by Cheltenham_Blue |
We already do play with three at the back, whenever we have the ball, Tuanzebe becomes a right sided CB. Without the ball we play as a four. |
This.
More often than not Tuanzabe was playing as an inverted full back or wide centre back with all our width being offered on that side by Wes, who does some great defensive work too! |  | | |
| Could we play 3 at the back? on 13:13 - Jul 8 with 1210 views | GlasgowBlue |
I fully expect us to do so. We will need that extra defender in there for our first year.
Tuanzebe/Woolf/Greaves
with Johnson and Davis as wing backs. This also plays to Davis attacking strengths. |  |
| |
| Could we play 3 at the back? on 14:02 - Jul 8 with 1128 views | BlueBoots |
Calling it now...if we sign Greaves, can see him being used in some games in the double pivot with Morsy
(Current players + Greaves only - obviously may sign others that would replace others in that line up)
Walton
Johnson Woolf Burgess
Morsy Greaves
Burns Hutchinson Chaplin Davis
Hirst |  |
| |
| Could we play 3 at the back? on 14:18 - Jul 8 with 1098 views | MK1 |
We have played many games with 3 at the back during the 90 mins. We tend to change when with or without the ball. McKenna doesn't really do set formations. We are very fluid in that department. If we play 3 at the back, Johnson and Davis would be playing wide MF anyway I assume, so not a huge difference, just a bit more defence minded when we haven't got the ball, which makes total sense. That would give us a 3-4-3 formation so a current front line of Hutchinson, Hirst and Broadhead. Think I prefer a 4-2-3-1, but like I say, we don't really have a set formation. |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
