Formation

[He's blue he's white 717]

Should Warburton consider changing our formation?

Last season we seen a very successful 4-3-3, over running teams and playing triangles all over the park. Existing players adapted to the changes and done well and recruitment was surely influenced to this end.

However this season we haven't got going any where near the expectations or standard already set.

Barton will start every game if fit and available, it's who partners him and is that a midfield 3 or not?

Warburton has always said do plan A better, the academy all play 4-3-3 etc.  

But do we need to tweak the formation to get the best out of the players?  

I would like to see a 4-2-3-1 formation 

[RFC55 108,801]

It'll be 4 3 3. It's what's played throughout the club. Under him it won't change imo. We may get slight variations but it will in essence be a 4 3 3

[WGOH 2,344]

Don't really know why people want 4231 4321 or whatever because it is basically 433 ? Hardly any different, the entire shape would have to change for the formation to change, 2 upfront for instance and Warburton would never do that 

[born a blue nose 90,754]

Our formation is 433, it won't change until we have a new management team in place. 

 

[jackrfc95 4,255]

It will be 4-3-3 no matter what. The issue right now is there's no one with real energy playing in the midfield 3 e.g. Holt, Windass

[Goianegra 4,682]

We pretty much play a 4-2-3-1 anyway.

[RFC55 108,801]

We now play a 4 3 3 in the proper way. We used to play a 4 5 1. When defending that's what a 4 3 3 turns to. But we never had the attacking outlets to go a  4 3 3. We now play this the correct way. Sadly I don't think some of our personnel are quite up to it 

[cushynumber 25,178]

08001111

[born a blue nose 90,754]

It's the way forward In my eyes, aye we're frustrated the now but when it clicks, and although Warburton said we don't have a first 11 but I reckon we will have, then we have the players and the pace to blow teams away.

[He's blue he's white 717]

Just now, jackrfc95 said:

It will be 4-3-3 no matter what. The issue right now is there's no one with real energy playing in the midfield 3 e.g. Holt, Windass

Or playing 2 players at same time to the same job 

[He's blue he's white 717]

Just now, WGOH said:

Don't really know why people want 4231 4321 or whatever because it is basically 433 ? Hardly any different, the entire shape would have to change for the formation to change, 2 upfront for instance and Warburton would never do that 

That was kinda the point I was alluding too mate, although we see variations of the 4-3-3.  I guess the majority of us want our best players on the park and I don't think a 4-3-3 allows us to do so.

 

[He's blue he's white 717]

Just now, born a blue nose said:

It's the way forward In my eyes, aye we're frustrated the now but when it clicks, and although Warburton said we don't have a first 11 but I reckon we will have, then we have the players and the pace to blow teams away.

Yeah I agree mate, I hope Windass and Holt get back into the team again quickly.  

[Big Al 55 9,248]

The formation is irrelevant to me, the philosophy should be pressing high up the park in packs when we don't have the ball. High tempo short passing, lots of movement when we do have the ball.

We have stopped doing both. That's the problem.  

[He's blue he's white 717]

Just now, Goianegra said:

We pretty much play a 4-2-3-1 anyway.

Don't think we do 

[WGOH 2,344]

3 minutes ago, He's blue he's white said:

That was kinda the point I was alluding too mate, although we see variations of the 4-3-3.  I guess the majority of us want our best players on the park and I don't think a 4-3-3 allows us to do so.

 

Although it would never happen under Warburton, I'd love to see us just go for a 4 diamond 2 in one game just to see how it would suit our style 

[He's blue he's white 717]

Just now, Big Al II said:

The formation is irrelevant to me, the philosophy should be pressing high up the park in packs when we don't have the ball. High tempo short passing, lots of movement when we do have the ball.

We have stopped doing both. That's the problem.  

Formation has everything to do with it I reckon.  Who covers who we we 'hunt in packs' who sits and covers, who is box to box.  Formation is key not only for our own understanding but also in how we approach opponents and individuals. 

Just hope we get things right and I'm having doubts a 4-3-3 suits us the best with the players we now have. 

[VladimirWeiss69 802]

With a 4-3-3 you cant have two slow centerbacks with fullbacks that push forward, you also need quick players up top which we dont have when playing Miller there and the quickest player at the club we don't utillise. I would consider changing to a 5 at the back or 5 in midfield, it will never happen but if we are consistently struggling in games like we have been then something will need to change

The Formation we play at this present time is okay if you have players who can play the formation but there is no point shoehorning a striker or a midfielder in to that rightwing spot when clearly it doesn't work.

[Prso's headband 35,428]

It isn't the formation or philosophy its the players. The know how to play it, they work on it daily they just cannot produce on the park at the moment

[Big Al 55 9,248]

28 minutes ago, He's blue he's white said:

Formation has everything to do with it I reckon.  Who covers who we we 'hunt in packs' who sits and covers, who is box to box.  Formation is key not only for our own understanding but also in how we approach opponents and individuals. 

Just hope we get things right and I'm having doubts a 4-3-3 suits us the best with the players we now have. 

The formation hasn't changed, the style of play and personnel has.

[He's blue he's white 717]

Just now, Big Al II said:

The formation hasn't changed, the style of play and personnel has.

That's my point though mate, do we have the personnel to meet the demands that formation brings or do we need to change it 

[He's blue he's white 717]

Just now, OhW said:

Warburton has said before 'We'll always play a 4-3-3, whether that be with two sitting midfielders or one, that depends on the situation (paraphrasing)'. A 4-3-3 with two sitting midfielders (Barton and Rossiter) is basically a 4-2-3-1. 

It's not really a 4-2-3-1 though as we hardly ever stick with a central striker. Right now Barton, Rossiter and Niko just ain't mobile enough to be the mid 3, although arguably our best players.  

 

???

[Turnberry18 3,204]

52 minutes ago, Big Al II said:

The formation hasn't changed, the style of play and personnel has.

I think there has been a slight variation at the back when we go forward. We have three at the back, and depending on the play one of the CBs appears to occupy the full-back position on his side with either Wallace or Tavernier coming in to the middle to cover the open side.

[He's blue he's white 717]

4-2-3-1

Wes. 

Tav. Senderos. Wilson. Wallace. 

Rossiter. Barton. 

Waggy. Niko. Mckay

Garner. 

[Big Al 55 9,248]

11 minutes ago, He's blue he's white said:

That's my point though mate, do we have the personnel to meet the demands that formation brings or do we need to change it 

Either he plays the those players who can play that formation or he changes the formation...yes.

What he is trying to do now if way off the mark, indeed I've been pretty surprised by it.

[The Blue 413]

6 hours ago, He's blue he's white said:

Or playing 2 players at same time to the same job 

Yeah, can't play barton and rossiter at the same time. Barton should play and let rossiter learn and develop to take over next mid season.