| For those wanting a change of system and 2 up top 14:38 - Nov 29 with 891 views | Chocorange |
Which formation are you wanting to adopt to get this 2nd striker in?
442
352
3412
3142
We have a formation which has scored more goals in this division than other team …
If you choose 442 , then you lose a central midfielder versus what we have now , means less option and we go more direct ( The return of Hoofball) to resolve that.
Or any of the others you keep 3 men in the middle but lose a player on each wing , so the full backs/ wingers become wing backs … our full backs are already one of our weakest links.
Also ask yourself , how many top teams are playing 2 strikers at the moment ? Some of them don’t play any strikers at all.
|  | | |  |
| For those wanting a change of system and 2 up top on 14:40 - Nov 29 with 876 views | homer_123 |
Piggot and Bonne up top together by homer_123 24 Nov 2021 14:35I'm not convinced that they would make a good partnership as a front two.
A touch harsh, granted, as they haven't had the chance to really develop a relationship but I just don't see them complimenting each other - a bit too similar for my liking.
Rotherhams front two was a good mix of strength and hustle but with some proper ability in Ladapo.
Oddly, I can see Jackson as a foil to Piggot or Bonne, playing off the last shoulder of the defender for the flicks ons etc.
Or, maybe even Chaplin next to either of them - as a more tricky, skillful forward.
|  |
| |
| For those wanting a change of system and 2 up top on 15:20 - Nov 29 with 800 views | BlueForYou |
I would argue that this is League One not Champions League, & one lone striker up front doesn't put enough pressure on the opposing defence & indeed makes it harder for us. Two strikers up front running about & getting stuck in would give everyone a massive lift & provide far more pressure. Get their defence making mistakes rather than ours. Or maybe I'm a total dinosaur but I thought that scoring goals wins you matches. |  | | |
| For those wanting a change of system and 2 up top on 15:29 - Nov 29 with 783 views | JDB23 |
I wouldn’t mind keeping the current formation but giving Pigott a go in the 10 slot, even just trying it out in one of the cup games coming up. We’ve struggled with that position all season and Chaplin (who has performed the best there) was anonymous on Sunday. Would give us a bit more presence up top and maybe we would actually have bodies in the area when getting into attacking positions out wide. |  | | |
| For those wanting a change of system and 2 up top on 15:36 - Nov 29 with 764 views | DanTheMan |
I do find the knee-jerk reaction when things aren't going our way to just throwing an extra striker at it and things magically fixing themselves a bit silly. The formation isn't really the issue, it's how we're playing it.
The biggest issues for me if we switched to a 4-4-2 would be that we'd be left with a bunch of players who are utterly unsuited to that formation. Chaplin, Fraser and Celina and not really wingers although could do a job there.
We'd then also have to rely much more on Morsy and whoever their partner is to do a lot more work.
The only plus I can really see is that maybe we'd be a bit better on the wings. |  |
| |
| For those wanting a change of system and 2 up top on 15:42 - Nov 29 with 744 views | jayessess |
The only other formation I'd give a try to would be 3-4-2-1.
When we've put Burgess at left back (Wycombe, Lincoln), we've looked very solid, so I think Donacien - Edmundson - Burgess might make us very defensively sound. Have both wing backs as flyers (KVY/Burns/Coulson/Penney/Edwards even, with Burgess behind him?), get Chaplin/Celina/Aluko/Fraser off the striker and into the box as often as possible, but also a box of 4 midfielders that lets you play through teams centrally. |  |
| |
| For those wanting a change of system and 2 up top on 15:44 - Nov 29 with 741 views | Basuco |
For me it is not which formation I think would work best, it is when opposition mangers make a change, usually in the second half, PC does not appear to respond or attempt to make a change to make a difference, we just sit and wait for the inevitable goal to scored against us. Yesterday was typical of that, Crewe pushed forward after Mandron came on and we were holding on, but there seemed to be no attempt to change things to counter whatever David Artell did. I don't believe that Mandron was such a good midfielder that he was able to take control of the game on his own. More questions than answers I know but I would expect PC with the players we have, to be able to get hold of centre midfield again. Not sit back and hope that the defence holds out. |  | | |
| For those wanting a change of system and 2 up top on 16:20 - Nov 29 with 672 views | Basuco |
| For those wanting a change of system and 2 up top on 15:29 - Nov 29 by JDB23 |
I wouldn’t mind keeping the current formation but giving Pigott a go in the 10 slot, even just trying it out in one of the cup games coming up. We’ve struggled with that position all season and Chaplin (who has performed the best there) was anonymous on Sunday. Would give us a bit more presence up top and maybe we would actually have bodies in the area when getting into attacking positions out wide. |
The question is, was Chaplin anonymous or did Crewe use a system that worked on making him or that role anonymous? This is where changing shape rather than players can change a game. | | | |
| For those wanting a change of system and 2 up top on 16:41 - Nov 29 with 637 views | strikalite |
| For those wanting a change of system and 2 up top on 15:20 - Nov 29 by BlueForYou |
I would argue that this is League One not Champions League, & one lone striker up front doesn't put enough pressure on the opposing defence & indeed makes it harder for us. Two strikers up front running about & getting stuck in would give everyone a massive lift & provide far more pressure. Get their defence making mistakes rather than ours. Or maybe I'm a total dinosaur but I thought that scoring goals wins you matches. |
Indeed it is league One, when a team like Rotherham press in the way that they did there is no way we're good enough to play through it, in fact for all the tippy tappy stuff we play in our own half we also tend to go long, panic mode really, at least with two up front we'd have an extra man to play too, pick up the second ball from that etc, when we get pressed we are so deep that Bonne get's isolated...
Who plays one upfront in the Championship? I don't think any of them do. it's all 4-3-3 or 3-4-3 very high press....not pretty to watch, but this is what they play. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| For those wanting a change of system and 2 up top on 16:51 - Nov 29 with 608 views | Durovigutum |
We aren't a top team. One Man City midfielder is "worth" more than not just all of our players, but also the club, land, stadium and academy put together.
3-5-2.
The top up top can be foils. Bonne and Chaplin, Pigott and Celina. Imagine a double change on 70 to change that around.
Edwards and Burns could probably also be wing backs.
Harper, Morsey, Fraser, the middle three.
Isn't the definition of madness trying the same thing again and again and expecting different results? |  | | |
| For those wanting a change of system and 2 up top on 17:13 - Nov 29 with 531 views | HighgateBlue |
I'm not advocating a change to two up front necessarily, except that we should keep that option open as a change in tactics when we are losing, or particularly needing a goal. But as you say, we have scored plenty with our current system.
I do take issue with the idea that playing 442 automatically means more "hoofball" than at present. Celina's goal was probably the most obvious bit of magic from a season in which we have had a fair few nice goals. But it came from a direct hoof from big George right up to Santi, who somehow managed to control it with some scary quasi-magnetism. We were already 1-0 up, and the big lad saw an opening. By contrast, there have been plenty of games in which our 60+% of possession has not resulted in the same dominance on the scoreboard. In short, 442 doesn't have to mean hoof, and long passes don't necessarily have to be viewed with suspicion. |  | | |
| You're simplifying things a bit..... on 17:14 - Nov 29 with 527 views | Bloots |
....there.
The issue isn't just about the formation, and certainly not going to be solved just by switching to 442 and lobbing another striker on.
The issues are numerous:
1. We've been playing 7 (inc keeper) defensive players all season, do we really need to?
2. Sometimes we have been playing with 3 "number 10s" on the pitch
3. The 1st choice "attacking 4" is obviously totally unclear to the manager
4. The reluctance to switch formation to counteract the opposition
5. A lack of understanding between wide players
6. The chosen wide players not complementing the full backs
etc, etc..... |  |
| Elite Level Poster: Elite Level Supporter: Elite Level Human |
| |
| You're simplifying things a bit..... on 17:22 - Nov 29 with 506 views | AlanG296 |
| You're simplifying things a bit..... on 17:14 - Nov 29 by Bloots |
....there.
The issue isn't just about the formation, and certainly not going to be solved just by switching to 442 and lobbing another striker on.
The issues are numerous:
1. We've been playing 7 (inc keeper) defensive players all season, do we really need to?
2. Sometimes we have been playing with 3 "number 10s" on the pitch
3. The 1st choice "attacking 4" is obviously totally unclear to the manager
4. The reluctance to switch formation to counteract the opposition
5. A lack of understanding between wide players
6. The chosen wide players not complementing the full backs
etc, etc..... |
Imagine a team co managed by Cook and Mccarthy, a keeper, 6 centre backs, 3 number 10s, not sure where they would play the 11th player though. | | | |
| For those wanting a change of system and 2 up top on 17:49 - Nov 29 with 455 views | Wickets |
Honestly going 442 means the return of hoofball ??? |  | | |
| For those wanting a change of system and 2 up top on 18:16 - Nov 29 with 420 views | Swansea_Blue |
We could do a 3521 with wing backs pushed right up providing the width, but you'd need KVY and Coulson (or Penney would be ok in that role). Morsy sitting and Fraser slightly ahead. And then Celina and Chaplin playing as narrow forwards (wide no 10s in effect) just behind a lone striker.
That leaves no space for Burns though. Aluko would be a square peg too, although he might be ok in that system, but it really needs a couple of decent no 10s. And I'm not sure we've got the CBs to play a 3 at the back well either - you normally want mobile footballing CBs to get the most out of it. Or even full backs or DMs who can slot into that back 3.
I'm not sure Cook's go the formation too wrong. It plays to the strengths of our CBs as stoppers (Toto especially), of our fullbacks and to the likes of Burns. It's how it's implemented that's causing us some problems. |  |
| |
| For those wanting a change of system and 2 up top on 18:28 - Nov 29 with 399 views | chrismakin |
4 1 4 1
Walton
Burns
Toto
Edmundson
Burgess
Morsy
Aluko
Fraser
Celina
Edwards
Bonne |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
