LeeWallaceRFC 3,920 Posted September 25, 2016 Share Posted September 25, 2016 Everybody can see that, bar Warburton. - Foderingham - - Hodson - Wilson - Hill - Wallace - Holt - Halliday* - - Windass - McKay - O'Halloran - - Waghorn - vs - Foderingham - - Tavernier - Wilson - Hill - Wallace - - Forrester - Halliday - Holt - - Waghorn - - McKay - - Garner - *Halliday replaceable with either Rossiter or Crooks as I know many dislike the way he slows the game. It's a no-brainer. The current formation is the problem, no support through the middle for the striker. Neither McKay or Waghorn are wingers. Tavernier was fucking shite today, could have cost us on more than the one occasion he did. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandyinroyalblue 16,478 Posted September 25, 2016 Share Posted September 25, 2016 If you play a 4-3-3 you need real pace and energy in all areas of the park and especially from your midfield,apart from Windass I don't really see who fits that type of midfield player to play that type of formation. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris182 6,260 Posted September 25, 2016 Share Posted September 25, 2016 It sure does. MW was up against it as soon as he said he would only play one way. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude 20,026 Posted September 25, 2016 Share Posted September 25, 2016 It's not the formation but the way it is executed that is the problem. We have no cutting edge going forward and are happy to keep the ball without ever doing anything with it. Pep Guardiola describes it best: "I loathe all that passing for the sake of it, all that tiki-taka. It's so much rubbish and has no purpose. You have to pass the ball with a clear intention, with the aim of making it into the opposition's goal. It's not about passing for the sake of it." Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Hilts 12,819 Posted September 25, 2016 Share Posted September 25, 2016 Rossiter, Halliday, O'Halloran, Holt, McKay, Waghorn. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandyinroyalblue 16,478 Posted September 25, 2016 Share Posted September 25, 2016 2 minutes ago, The Dude said: It's not the formation but the way it is executed that is the problem. We have no cutting edge going forward and are happy to keep the ball without ever doing anything with it. Pep Guardiola describes it best: "I loathe all that passing for the sake of it, all that tiki-taka. It's so much rubbish and has no purpose. You have to pass the ball with a clear intention, with the aim of making it into the opposition's goal. It's not about passing for the sake of it." On the face of it ball retention seems to take precedence over a cutting edge for Warburton,it's almost like he think the two are mutually exclusive when clearly both are possible. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
1NachoNovo 840 Posted September 25, 2016 Share Posted September 25, 2016 2 minutes ago, The Dude said: It's not the formation but the way it is executed that is the problem. We have no cutting edge going forward and are happy to keep the ball without ever doing anything with it. Pep Guardiola describes it best: "I loathe all that passing for the sake of it, all that tiki-taka. It's so much rubbish and has no purpose. You have to pass the ball with a clear intention, with the aim of making it into the opposition's goal. It's not about passing for the sake of it." The formation is a problem imo. It might work occasionally, but it's scottish football ffs. The only way to win in this shite league is to go 442 and just through bigger hammers than the opposition. Scottish football has got the reputation it has for a reason. About 90% of it can't play football and will chop down the players that try to. Odowa? How dare Nathan try to entertain the fans, that have paid to be entertained. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Jela 20,343 Posted September 25, 2016 Share Posted September 25, 2016 Windass has been superb for us in the middle, it would be so unnecessary to play him out wide. O'Halloran out on the left is a massive no for me, neither the intelligence or ability to play there as an 'inside forward'. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanoli 4,623 Posted September 25, 2016 Share Posted September 25, 2016 There's absolutely no difference between 4231 and 433. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dutchy 1,200 Posted September 25, 2016 Share Posted September 25, 2016 12 minutes ago, The Dude said: It's not the formation but the way it is executed that is the problem. We have no cutting edge going forward and are happy to keep the ball without ever doing anything with it. Pep Guardiola describes it best: "I loathe all that passing for the sake of it, all that tiki-taka. It's so much rubbish and has no purpose. You have to pass the ball with a clear intention, with the aim of making it into the opposition's goal. It's not about passing for the sake of it." It would be interesting to see how many times we pass the ball, inside the box. That is, these days, if we ever get there. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandyinroyalblue 16,478 Posted September 25, 2016 Share Posted September 25, 2016 2 minutes ago, Vanoli said: There's absolutely no difference between 4231 and 433. 3,798 on my calculator Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude 20,026 Posted September 25, 2016 Share Posted September 25, 2016 5 minutes ago, 1NachoNovo said: The formation is a problem imo. It might work occasionally, but it's scottish football ffs. The only way to win in this shite league is to go 442 and just through bigger hammers than the opposition. Scottish football has got the reputation it has for a reason. About 90% of it can't play football and will chop down the players that try to. Odowa? How dare Nathan try to entertain the fans, that have paid to be entertained. So we reduce ourselves to their level? No thanks. That helps us even less. Thats how teams go to Gibraltar or Malta and lose. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
1NachoNovo 840 Posted September 25, 2016 Share Posted September 25, 2016 1 minute ago, The Dude said: So we reduce ourselves to their level? No thanks. That helps us even less. Thats how teams go to Gibraltar or Malta and lose. What formation did we play 92/93 when we had an awesome champions league run? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingKirk 25,577 Posted September 25, 2016 Share Posted September 25, 2016 hahahaha absolutely no difference between the two OP but if you say so. Formation ain't the issue its the pish within it. Not one good enough to be playing for us. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesRFC__ 172 Posted September 25, 2016 Share Posted September 25, 2016 I'm not saying this to be a smart-ass but how is that first formation going to change us in any way? A 4-2-3-1 is a slightly more defensive and less flexible version of a 4-3-3. We effectively were playing a 4-2-3-1 in the first few games anyway with both Barton and Rossiter in the midfield together and that was even more abysmal to watch. We can't score from open play at the moment so the last thing we need is to sit a midfielder further back. We can talk about formations all day and what should/shouldn't be played but the simple fact is if we can't do the basics, e.g defend properly or score a goal from open play then it doesn't matter if we play a 4-4-2, 4-5-1, 4-2-3-1, 3-5-2 or a fucking 6-6-9. The basics just simply have to be done properly. Formation isn't the problem it's the team selection. He got it horribly wrong at the start of the season with Barton, Niko and Kiernan playing. The midfield has got better with Holt and Windass in there but he HAS to drop McKay now. And I do agree with Waghorn not being effective on the wing. Should be him/Garner fighting for a spot through the middle. The only formation change I would be happy to see is a 3-5-2 getting played when we're struggling to break down teams with 9 behind the ball. Wilson, Hill and Senderos should be able to deal with a single striker that teams leave up against us. This gives Wallace and Tav the freedom to get further up and also the rest of the players the ability to flood the box without worrying about a counter-attack. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
To Be A Ranger 4,032 Posted September 25, 2016 Share Posted September 25, 2016 11 minutes ago, sandyinroyalblue said: On the face of it ball retention seems to take precedence over a cutting edge for Warburton,it's almost like he think the two are mutually exclusive when clearly both are possible. It's like water retention without being able to piss Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scottyarf37 963 Posted September 25, 2016 Share Posted September 25, 2016 How about two Strikers and two wingers. Just for a laugh ---------------------- FOD----------------------- Tav-----Wilson----Senderos(Hill)--Wallace ----------------------Rossiter-------------------- MOH---- -------Windass------------------Mckay --------------Garner----------Waghorn ------ Let's get all out better players in the pitch at the same time. Garner is good in the air Waghorn seems better through the middle. Gives the wingers options to cross or have Garner hold it up, or Waghorn run in behind. We are giving the opposition it far to easy to defend against one Striker. I have never been a fan of one up front, we create a lot of chances let's have two players who can hopefully convert them Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude 20,026 Posted September 25, 2016 Share Posted September 25, 2016 3 minutes ago, 1NachoNovo said: What formation did we play 92/93 when we had an awesome champions league run? That was almost a quarter of a century ago. What formation did we play the season we won every league game? Should totally go with that. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johanhentze 14,057 Posted September 25, 2016 Share Posted September 25, 2016 33 minutes ago, LeeWallaceRFC said: Everybody can see that, bar Warburton. - Foderingham - - Hodson - Wilson - Hill - Wallace - Holt - Halliday* - - Windass - McKay - O'Halloran - - Waghorn - vs - Foderingham - - Tavernier - Wilson - Hill - Wallace - - Forrester - Halliday - Holt - - Waghorn - - McKay - - Garner - *Halliday replaceable with either Rossiter or Crooks as I know many dislike the way he slows the game. It's a no-brainer. The current formation is the problem, no support through the middle for the striker. Neither McKay or Waghorn are wingers. Tavernier was fucking shite today, could have cost us on more than the one occasion he did. There is absolutely no difference between those two formations in reality. Exactly what changes with the 4231? The 433 isnt at fault, in my opinion.. We DO create goal scoring chances - we just need to put them away. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
1NachoNovo 840 Posted September 25, 2016 Share Posted September 25, 2016 1 minute ago, JamesRFC__ said: I'm not saying this to be a smart-ass but how is that first formation going to change us in any way? A 4-2-3-1 is a slightly more defensive and less flexible version of a 4-3-3. We effectively were playing a 4-2-3-1 in the first few games anyway with both Barton and Rossiter in the midfield together and that was even more abysmal to watch. We can't score from open play at the moment so the last thing we need is to sit a midfielder further back. We can talk about formations all day and what should/shouldn't be played but the simple fact is if we can't do the basics, e.g defend properly or score a goal from open play then it doesn't matter if we play a 4-4-2, 4-5-1, 4-2-3-1, 3-5-2 or a fucking 6-6-9. The basics just simply have to be done properly. Formation isn't the problem it's the team selection. He got it horribly wrong at the start of the season with Barton, Niko and Kiernan playing. The midfield has got better with Holt and Windass in there but he HAS to drop McKay now. And I do agree with Waghorn not being effective on the wing. Should be him/Garner fighting for a spot through the middle. The only formation change I would be happy to see is a 3-5-2 getting played when we're struggling to break down teams with 9 behind the ball. Wilson, Hill and Senderos should be able to deal with a single striker that teams leave up against us. This gives Wallace and Tav the freedom to get further up and also the rest of the players the ability to flood the box without worrying about a counter-attack. We can't defend with 4 defenders, even when we are dominating. Someone said in the match thread, we are so much on top, but look like conceding. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gandhi1872 186 Posted September 25, 2016 Share Posted September 25, 2016 The 4-3-3 is working I think. We managed to play the ball very well up until the final third Aberdeen tried to press a little at times but we just passed it round them. Also, quite often we were able to find Holt or Forrester as the spare man in lots of space. It's the final third that's the issue. We are so static in the around and on the edge of the box. We are getting very little from our wide players. I thought we were at our best last season when we had the likes of Mckay and Oduwa running past players but we don't seem to do that now. Everything is so slow and we make too many side-ways passes. I was an advocate of Waghorn playing on the right last season because he used to breeze by players so easily and he had a real burst of pace but I can't remember the last time I saw him go past someone. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MasterD 7,435 Posted September 25, 2016 Share Posted September 25, 2016 It doesn't work. Either the players aren't good enough to play it or the manager isn't good enough to coach it. The front 3 rarely ever play as a front 3. Fed up saying it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesRFC__ 172 Posted September 25, 2016 Share Posted September 25, 2016 1 minute ago, 1NachoNovo said: We can't defend with 4 defenders, even when we are dominating. Someone said in the match thread, we are so much on top, but look like conceding. In games like today then no I wouldn't go anywhere near 3 at the back. More talking about games at Ibrox where the other team is offering nothing up top but we're struggling to break them down. Take the Ross County game as an example. They had a chance from a set piece and a chance from a lose bit of play from Wallace if I'm remembering that correctly. Apart from that they never made much of an attempt to get near our goal. That's the type of game I'm talking about where having 3 at the back and effectively keeping Wallace and Tav further up for the most part can really benefit us by just flooding players at them. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
1NachoNovo 840 Posted September 25, 2016 Share Posted September 25, 2016 2 minutes ago, The Dude said: That was almost a quarter of a century ago. What formation did we play the season we won every league game? Should totally go with that. I would rather go with a formation that suits the players and lets them play in their natural position. Picking a formation and sticking players into it willy nilly is more hit and hope than anything. A good manager will set up a team based on players available and form. We have so many attacking players, yet we play with one guy in the box. 442 would give us more to aim at and still have the wings putting the ball in the box. Heaven forbid we try that though, it might work. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Avenger 22,567 Posted September 25, 2016 Share Posted September 25, 2016 37 minutes ago, LeeWallaceRFC said: Everybody can see that, bar Warburton. - Foderingham - - Hodson - Wilson - Hill - Wallace - Holt - Halliday* - - Windass - McKay - O'Halloran - - Waghorn - vs - Foderingham - - Tavernier - Wilson - Hill - Wallace - - Forrester - Halliday - Holt - - Waghorn - - McKay - - Garner - *Halliday replaceable with either Rossiter or Crooks as I know many dislike the way he slows the game. It's a no-brainer. The current formation is the problem, no support through the middle for the striker. Neither McKay or Waghorn are wingers. Tavernier was fucking shite today, could have cost us on more than the one occasion he did. TBH it's not the formation, as any change to it, will only result in the same amount of square and back passes. MW is all about possession and a control freak in that, which means we would continue to go forward at a snail's pace. We just have no cutting edge. Whilst we could be doing with a better quality of player, those that we have are stifled and not allowed to express the natural ability and talent that they have. Watching the ball constantly passed out from our keeper to a defender to a midfielder, is a bomb scare and the players look very uncomfortable in it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.