Question Our formation - should it change sometimes?

[Tommy2holes]

We seem to play the same formation every week.

I get that we are not man city, with playing ability to play all sorts but is it wrong to play the same formation week in and week out ?

 

[SHRIMPERR]

Nothing wrong with playing the same formation. Name a successful team that change formation weekly.

 

[GBJ]

Arguably, we’ve played our best football under Kev when we’ve played 3-4-3. Of course, you need to right elements to do that though.

With what we’ve got right now, we probably suit a 3-5-2 formation.

 

[Tommy2holes]

Nothing wrong with playing the same formation. Name a successful team that change formation weekly.

My point being that we aren't a winning team and teams are sussing us out.

 

[Strykr]

Our formations fine and cant see maher changing it, we just need to switch the bloody ball more. At least start off attacks down the other side before it inevitably ends up with wes and bridge..

 

[shrimpled]

I think there have been some massive overreactions on here tonight.

We’ve lost our last two games, one against the league leaders and the other to a decent side in and around the play-offs.

Before that in January we’d won two successive games to nil, outplaying both sides comprehensively.

We’re a decent side. We’ve played most of the season with a squad of 16 players. We had three games running postponed to knock us out of rhythm. We have key players returning from injuries. We have some new faces to bring upto speed.

I think a little perspective will help more than anything else.

 

[Medway Blue]

My point being that we aren't a winning team and teams are sussing us out.

Got absolutely nowt to do with the formation. We lost today because we weren't at the races mentally. Switching to 343 or 4231 or whatever would not have changed that.

Anybody wanting a flat back four also needs to accept it's not going to happen. As @GBJ , perhaps an argument for 343 if we had the personnel, but our entire philosophy and style rests on 3 at the back. We were crying out for years for an identity on the football front and one is now being embedded.

 

[stewart]

stop worrying we just 2 points of the relegation zone with 17 to play ,we can get there especially as we have strikers not striking and an inability to put in a decent cross ,why worry We too good to go down ,its been said on here many times .

 

[Strykr]

I think there have been some massive overreactions on here tonight.

We’ve lost our last two games, one against the league leaders and the other to a decent side in and around the play-offs.

Before that in January we’d won two successive games to nil, outplaying both sides comprehensively.

We’re a decent side. We’ve played most of the season with a squad of 16 players. We had three games running postponed to knock us out of rhythm. We have key players returning from injuries. We have some new faces to bring upto speed.

I think a little perspective will help more than anything else.

Agree. Dont get me wrong i love this squad, and wont ever forget how theyve performed against the odds, but have thought all along that we are an upper mid table side, you have to ask yourself how many of our squad would get into chesterfields first team....

The nucleus is there and its all in place moving forward, but we need to stay up and next season find some goalscorers.

 

[Dutch Branch]

Many would argue we’ve been to predictable far too long but the reality is that we now languish 2 points off the drop zone and although we now have a decent sized squad Kev is going to have to work out what works best PDQ.

Had to suffer it on the radio today and it didn’t sound good but for me survival has always been priority numero uno.

We just can not afford to lose anymore home games though because that is a recipe for disaster.

 

[TheSouthendUnitedRunner]

stop worrying we just 2 points of the relegation zone with 17 to play ,we can get there especially as we have strikers not striking and an inability to put in a decent cross ,why worry We too good to go down ,its been said on here many times .

No side is “too good to go down”.

 

[Tommy2holes]

No side is “too good to go down”.

I'm pretty sure his post was sarcasm.

I hope the team don't become complacent.

 

[Liam AAS]

The team changed formation when Morton came on. Didn't help.

Formations are used very loosely these days, players have roles and areas of influence on the pitch. The game is very fluid nowadays.

 

[Piledriver]

Yes and no , the shape and players need to be fairly flexible and KM needs to react quicker to our teams failings during periods of games! but also an opposition that plays more direct ie missing out the midfield for example.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Haven’t seen the last two games but haven’t we subtly changed shape with Cardwell and Dackers as the forward pairing?

Dackers plays higher than Sandat who is more of a second striker playing off the centre forward and linking the midfield and attack.

 

[Lincoln Shrimp]

Haven’t seen the last two games but haven’t we subtly changed shape with Cardwell and Dackers as the forward pairing?

Dackers plays higher than Sandat who is more of a second striker playing off the centre forward and linking the midfield and attack.

Yes, spot on. Consequently it's made us far more easier to defend against as Dackers is much more static. Unless we get more first time balls into the box from wide areas then the frustrations of Saturday will continue.

 

[hlane17]

Still think we need to return to 3-4-3 at some point. That additional wide forward/winger overwhelmed our opposition. It also relieves the pressure on the wing-backs to constantly get forward. We need more firepower on the pitch to genuinely worry the better teams.

I think our best football was played with this formation when we were dragging ourselves out of the **** after Kev first came in.

At the very least, we looked like scoring on almost every attack during this time. Granted, a fair bit of that was down to a mercurial Matty Dennis.

 

[Shrimpergonzo]

Still think we need to return to 3-4-3 at some point. That additional wide forward/winger overwhelmed our opposition. It also relieves the pressure on the wing-backs to constantly get forward. We need more firepower on the pitch to genuinely worry the better teams.

I think our best football was played with this formation when we were dragging ourselves out of the **** after Kev first came in.

At the very least, we looked like scoring on almost every attack during this time. Granted, a fair bit of that was down to a mercurial Matty Dennis.

I guess the signing of Morton and Crowther gives us more of a 3-4-3 option:

Collin

Taylor Kensdale Crowther

Gus Miley Morton Ralph

Waldron Cardwell Bridge​

 

[bluethroughandthrough]

I really don't think 343 is the way to go. We were consistently found out and overrun in midfield. Most teams have moved away from this.

We will never go 4 at the back with Maher to get 3 in the middle or upfront either like Liverpool or any of the 4231 formations currently popular

Whilst formations are fluid there are still some fundamental structures which also dictate the players picked. Ie left right footed, attacking, defensive, creative, goal scoring, quick tall etc

Man city have done well with 3 at the back with the wide midfielders more attacking and 2 defensive mids. Could be an option and maybe a sandat can play in attacking mid. Great box midfield too. I felt we were moving in this direction but then we signed the big fellar and went 2 upfront and start lumping it

Colin
Taylor kensdale Ralph
Morton Miley
Gus husin fonguck bridge
Cardwell

A 3421 is popular too

Colin
Taylor kensdale Ralph
Gus Morton Miley bridge
Coker sandat
Cardwell

Then there's the old school 532/352 how we played on saturday but I think whilst we control play it's lacking in creativity, we can get too defensive and we focus too much on bridge as the only outlet to create. Prior to the embargo this was an issue but then it became about survival. seriously how many times have we seen comments about being flat up front. Now things are moving forward it's back to the same issues perhaps even exacerbated by signing dackers.

Still Better than Phil browns 532 !

 

[ShrimperStats]

I really don’t think a change of formation is necessary, but naturally it gets suggested after a couple of defeats.

We can forget about switching from a back three, and if we went for a 3-4-3, we don’t really have anyone who can play on the right-side of the front three — with the possible exception of Jack Wood, who’s yet to really break into the side. Even if we inverted the wingers to make it more of a 3-4-2-1, it would be easier for sides to overload the midfield against us, and would change the dynamics of how we attack down our left-side — which is particularly strong.

We already have a very strong defence, and are strong down our left-side. I think the issue is that we aren’t particularly strong in the final-third down our right-side, which makes us more predictable. GSM/Husin/Taylor doesn’t have the same dynamic as Bridge/Fonguck/Ralph does.