Jump to content

4-3-3 has to go


LeeWallaceRFC

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, 1NachoNovo said:

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.

Where does 442 suit our players? We have no natural widemen to exploit the flanks. It would leave our central midfield outnumbered constantly and would limit our full-backs ability to get forward and supplement our attacks as it would leave our defence far too exposed for them to go forward as often as they do.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, The Dude said:
18 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Where does 442 suit our players? We have no natural widemen to exploit the flanks. It would leave our central midfield outnumbered constantly and would limit our full-backs ability to get forward and supplement our attacks as it would leave our defence far too exposed for them to go forward as often as they do.

 

We have no natural wide men, yet play strikers/cf's out wide, with one in the box. In a 442, at least we could have McKay and Forrester out wide, with LB/RB overlapping and have 2 strikers to aim at with crosses etc.. CM with one pushing forward and one sitting back. Instead, we are lightweight in midfield and that is why our defenders are constantly being made to look stupid. What is the point of 3 front men if we are struggling to defend? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, 1NachoNovo said:

We have no natural wide men, yet play strikers/cf's out wide, with one in the box. In a 442, at least we could have McKay and Forrester out wide, with LB/RB overlapping and have 2 strikers to aim at with crosses etc.. CM with one pushing forward and one sitting back. Instead, we are lightweight in midfield and that is why our defenders are constantly being made to look stupid. What is the point of 3 front men if we are struggling to defend? 

We are lightweight in midfield and your solution is to take a midfielder out? We're not struggling to defend. We've conceded 11 goals in 7 games and 5 of those were at Celtic Park. Take that one shambles out and we have the best defence in the country. By comparison Celtic have conceded 8 in 6 games so far.

Link to post
Share on other sites

55 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. 

Oduwa was a time waster. I don't care for fancy flicks when there is no end product 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, gkb10127 said:

Oduwa was a time waster. I don't care for fancy flicks when there is no end product 

The point I'm trying to make. Players like Odowa and the fantasy 433 as long as we score more goals than them shite just doesn't work in scottish football. I wish it did, but it doesn't. Scottish football is scottish footballs biggest downfall, because we have retarded wannabe's in charge and on the park and bringing in a vision that will improve the game will be attacked at every opportunity. The only way to succeed is to break out the big hammers! If Ian Ferguson and Souness were in our midfield today, the mutton molesters would have been shiting themselves to turn up for the second half. Instead, we shat it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, 1NachoNovo said:

What formation did we play 92/93 when we had an awesome champions league run?

That was also when the 3 foreigner's rule was in place and we had to have the majority of our squad home based, for the life of me I can't equate any of our current line up  to Gorum, Gough, Durrant, Ferguson, McCoist ect. Our current team has a very long way to go to be mentioned in those guys lofty status imo :pipe:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Imho We have to abandon the 4-3-3 or at least use it against the weaker teams. I would go with a back 5 of Tav, Senderos, Wilson, Hill and Wallace. Wallace and Tav obviously acting as the wingbacks.

Something like this:

5-3-2

57e7ff8c145ff.jpg

Would be worth giving it a shot anyway, if results don't start to pick up, Would even have another attacking player in there instead of Halliday, seen we have 5 defenders.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If there's no difference then how's there never anybody in the box? Everybody was saying the same thing when Dodoo scored a tap-in at the far post, the fact that there was actually somebody there when the ball was played in.

Whenever we get the ball in a wide area with the chance to cross, there's only ever really 1 player in the middle. Playing 3 behind the striker would allow there to always be players following up. At the minute they're just standing on the touchline and essentially being a waste of a man.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, johanhentze said:

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.

Totally agree - spot on.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, LeeWallaceRFC said:

If there's no difference then how's there never anybody in the box? Everybody was saying the same thing when Dodoo scored a tap-in at the far post, the fact that there was actually somebody there when the ball was played in.

Whenever we get the ball in a wide area with the chance to cross, there's only ever really 1 player in the middle. Playing 3 behind the striker would allow there to always be players following up. At the minute they're just standing on the touchline and essentially being a waste of a man.

When Mckay cuts it back today, Waghorn should score - when Tav (?) swings it in last week MOH should score from a yard (or two) out - the list goes on. I honestly do not consider us a team not creating chances, we are all of a sudden awful at taking them.

Game should have been done by HT today.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I'd like to see us set up in a 3-4-3 or a 3-5-2. It would first of all help us cope a little better with the obvious issues at centre half. It would then mean we would play with two wing backs which would mean Wallace and Tav could go up the park as much as they like. I felt last season our best football was played with Dom Ball in the side when he was playing as a third centre back or a defensive midfielder. See Dundee 4-0.

That small change for me would give us much more protection at the back and give our two most dangerous outlets the chance to do what they like. In midfield for me in midfield halliday and holt at the minute and bed in Rossiter and Windass when they are fit. Up top this formation means the rotation between Waghorn, Garner and Miller on and off the bench would be much easier. In bigger games Forrester could feature as one of the front 3, supporting the midfield and helping us keep the ball (see the 5-1 game why two strikers doesn't work) I also think a 3-4-3/3-5-2 would get the best out of McKay as he would have a free role and could supply the strikers as well as getting more goals himself.

Just a thought, but i'm not the manager.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LeeWallaceRFC said:

If there's no difference then how's there never anybody in the box? Everybody was saying the same thing when Dodoo scored a tap-in at the far post, the fact that there was actually somebody there when the ball was played in.

Whenever we get the ball in a wide area with the chance to cross, there's only ever really 1 player in the middle. Playing 3 behind the striker would allow there to always be players following up. At the minute they're just standing on the touchline and essentially being a waste of a man.

The striker needs to be in the box.. thats nothing to do with formation - this isnt football manager or FIFA. Its to do with their role. A 4231 is essentially the same as a 433 - wouldn't change the amount of players in the box when crosses are fired in.

Link to post
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, johanhentze said:

The striker needs to be in the box.. thats nothing to do with formation - this isnt football manager or FIFA. Its to do with their role. A 4231 is essentially the same as a 433 - wouldn't change the amount of players in the box when crosses are fired in.

Exactly. The player who is the central frontman often comes too deep to try get involved or finds himself drifting out wide to find some space. There's also rarely a runner from deep gong beyond the last man (which Holt done so well last season) and whether that's because they've been instructed not to or don't have the physical capability to do so as effectively.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The 4-3-3 isn't the problem, the problem is not buying players that suit the formation and not picking players in form, and incredibly bad decision making from high paid professional footballers. We have no pace at the back with a high line, signed players who can't get about in midfield and the form book is thrown out the window when picking the starting eleven. Wallace is one of the first names on the team sheet despite his bad performances, same goes for McKay who also seems to be allergic to any challenge that is less than a 70/30. It took an injury to Kiernan for MW to finally take his name off the team sheet and the golden boy Waghorn is shoehorned into wide right despite the plethora of wide players that MW has signed since he came. The players should fit the system not the other way around.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...