| I see our formation mainly as a 3-4-3...agree/disagree? 09:03 - May 1 with 1073 views | MaySixth |
lot of tactical flexibility but we set up as this was Chaplin/Broadhead able to switch constantly to either side or drift into the middle
Clarke and Woolfenden able to bring the ball up the pitch if unoccupied by attacking opposition. Burgess tends to sit
Davis/Burns able to sit in a 5-3-2 if under pressure but mainly look to get on front foot
Luongo/Morsy sees Morsy as the more progressive of the double pivot but both adept in that position as well as one protecting the defence. Either can sit in as a midfield two
GK
Walton
CB
Clarke
Burgess
Woolfenden
LWB
Davis
RWB
Burns
CM
Luongo
Morsy
LAM
Chaplin
RAM
Broadhead
CF
Hirst [Post edited 1 May 2023 9:07]
|  |
| |  |
| I see our formation mainly as a 3-4-3...agree/disagree? on 09:05 - May 1 with 1040 views | SheffordBlue |
Think McKenna was asked this by someone recently and he said he saw it very much as a four at the back.
When you look at the players average positions for many games the formation ends up being a 2-5-3! |  |
| |
| I see our formation mainly as a 3-4-3...agree/disagree? on 09:23 - May 1 with 967 views | Epiphone |
For me it looks like a flexible 4 2 3 1/2 4 3 1 with the overlapping fullbacks,but it’s difficult to pin down because of the fluidity of the way we play.I don’t think we often end up with three CBs. [Post edited 1 May 2023 9:25]
|  | | |
| I see our formation mainly as a 3-4-3...agree/disagree? on 09:28 - May 1 with 944 views | Mookamoo |
Whatever we play, it's not symmetrical. I'm not sure it can be written down as a simple something-something-something diagram |  | | |
| I see our formation mainly as a 3-4-3...agree/disagree? on 09:31 - May 1 with 934 views | Guthrum |
In practical terms, it's pretty much a 0-2-8 in attack, with two CBs in midfield and everyone else well into the opposition half.
I don't think it can be thought of in traditional terms of a transverse grid. It's more about units operating in different zones of the pitch, with a lot of flexibility and some players in fairly free-roaming roles. Also the squad's high level of fitness allows people to get about the pitch a lot more than the average. It's that fluidity and pace which allows Town to dictate possession, pin back opponents and so rapidly develop our attacks. |  |
| |
| I see our formation mainly as a 3-4-3...agree/disagree? on 09:39 - May 1 with 890 views | LankHenners |
| I see our formation mainly as a 3-4-3...agree/disagree? on 09:05 - May 1 by SheffordBlue |
Think McKenna was asked this by someone recently and he said he saw it very much as a four at the back.
When you look at the players average positions for many games the formation ends up being a 2-5-3! |
He's always described it (slightly tongue-in-cheek to be fair) as a 3 1/2 at the back hasn't he? Plus is quite quick to say he doesn't think about the team in terms of positions as it's a very fluid system and as you point out if you started plotting it on a formation graphic it wouldn't look like a 'regular' formation! |  |
| |
| I see our formation mainly as a 3-4-3...agree/disagree? on 20:41 - May 1 with 711 views | Alberto_the_frog |
Could even be seen as a good old fashioned 1960s 4 2 4 |  | | |
| I see our formation mainly as a 3-4-3...agree/disagree? on 20:46 - May 1 with 694 views | SlippinJimmyJuan |
| I see our formation mainly as a 3-4-3...agree/disagree? on 09:31 - May 1 by Guthrum |
In practical terms, it's pretty much a 0-2-8 in attack, with two CBs in midfield and everyone else well into the opposition half.
I don't think it can be thought of in traditional terms of a transverse grid. It's more about units operating in different zones of the pitch, with a lot of flexibility and some players in fairly free-roaming roles. Also the squad's high level of fitness allows people to get about the pitch a lot more than the average. It's that fluidity and pace which allows Town to dictate possession, pin back opponents and so rapidly develop our attacks. |
I just wanted to say that "transverse" is an excellent word. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
