WhosTheDado 32 Posted September 1, 2016 Share Posted September 1, 2016 OK we all know the gaffer loves his 4-3-3 and so do I. Some of the football last season was a joy and pleasure to watch. But I was just thinking with the players that we have, would we be more suited to a 3-5-2 formation ? Hopefully the signing of Senderos and the return to fitness for Holt, Crooks, Windass, Waghorn can fix our sluggish start to the season but if not then maybe another formation could be the answer. A 3-5-2 could possibly be the solution to both our defensive frailties and lack of goals. Our defence currently is basically the 2 centre backs with little cover from the full backs. The amount of times a long ball from the opposition gets flicked on and beats our defence is scary. A change to a back 3 would possibly cut that out and make us more secure. In turn this should allow Tav and Wallace to get up and down the park more freely. Also an extra CB can only be beneficial for defending set pieces which as we all know is another frailty of ours. Then we would have our centre mids like we do at the moment with one difference, I'd have Barrie McKay playing in there just in front of the other 2 midfielders. There seems to be a real lack of movement, energy and purpose in our central midfield since the end of last season which is continuing onto this season. I think McKay can play in there as a playmaker linking midfield with attack. Up front we would have the 2 strikers. They would thrive on the width still provided by Wallace and Tav and the passing of our playmaker either McKay/Kranjcar/Forrester. I could see a partnership between Waghorn and Garner hitting 50+ goals easy in this kind of setup. Oh aye and another thing, fuck international football pile a shite. Roll on the 10th Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WGOH 2,344 Posted September 1, 2016 Share Posted September 1, 2016 There needs to be an *****official formation suggestion***** thread fs Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turnberry18 3,204 Posted September 1, 2016 Share Posted September 1, 2016 We do 3-5-2 at certain points during a match; we don't do it rigidly, but we do at times in attack do it, sometimes we do 2- 5- 3. The beauty 4-3-3, certainly the way Warburton plays it, is that it is not rigid as such. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
theiconicman 3,127 Posted September 1, 2016 Share Posted September 1, 2016 4 minutes ago, Turnberry18 said: We do 3-5-2 at certain points during a match; we don't do it rigidly, but we do at times in attack do it, sometimes we do 2- 5- 3. The beauty 4-3-3, certainly the way Warburton plays it, is that it is not rigid as such. Don't agree with that. 352 has three CDs, 433 doesn't. Might put people in that position but you don't have the right skills. I don't think 433 suits us at all. We have no natural wingers and our midfield is lightweight. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inigo 33,338 Posted September 1, 2016 Share Posted September 1, 2016 No way. 3 at the back rarely works and that's probably why it doesn't get used much. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turnberry18 3,204 Posted September 1, 2016 Share Posted September 1, 2016 Just now, theiconicman said: Don't agree with that. 352 has three CDs, 433 doesn't. Might put people in that position but you don't have the right skills. I don't think 433 suits us at all. We have no natural wingers and our midfield is lightweight. I agree, I was just playing with the formation theme! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
theiconicman 3,127 Posted September 1, 2016 Share Posted September 1, 2016 1 minute ago, Inigo said: No way. 3 at the back rarely works and that's probably why it doesn't get used much. It works against a 433 but not so well against a 442 which is probably why you rarely see it. Hibs played it against us in final and league and had us flumoxed. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy1984 6,314 Posted September 1, 2016 Share Posted September 1, 2016 17 minutes ago, WGOH said: There needs to be an *****official formation suggestion***** thread fs Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wearethepeople72 1,859 Posted September 1, 2016 Share Posted September 1, 2016 We definitely need to find about something. Can't continue playing the same way all game, every game, like we have been recently. We need a plan B. Whether three at the back is the answer or not, I'm not so sure. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
theiconicman 3,127 Posted September 1, 2016 Share Posted September 1, 2016 Just now, Wearethepeople72 said: We definitely need to find about something. Can't continue playing the same way all game, every game, like we have been recently. We need a plan B. Whether three at the back is the answer or not, I'm not so sure. Imo we don't have any natural wingers so I'd drop any formation that tries to play them. So I'd go 3-5-2 or 4-4-2 diamond. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turnberry18 3,204 Posted September 1, 2016 Share Posted September 1, 2016 2 minutes ago, theiconicman said: It works against a 433 but not so well against a 442 which is probably why you rarely see it. Hibs played it against us in final and league and had us flumoxed. That was as much to do with the quality of our midfield in some way. Formations are not everything, and last season we played with a virtually non-existent midfield for much of it. Holt was injured and then came back but not in the same form. We were heavily reliant on Halliday, and we had no creative edge in midfield. Forrester was injured, Waghorn was still not fully fit. Those were important factors. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForeverAndEver 73,943 Posted September 1, 2016 Share Posted September 1, 2016 2 cbs is bad enough. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
He's blue he's white 717 Posted September 1, 2016 Share Posted September 1, 2016 Just now, theiconicman said: Don't agree with that. 352 has three CDs, 433 doesn't. Might put people in that position but you don't have the right skills. I don't think 433 suits us at all. We have no natural wingers and our midfield is lightweight. Mckay not natural enough Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inigo 33,338 Posted September 1, 2016 Share Posted September 1, 2016 12 minutes ago, theiconicman said: It works against a 433 but not so well against a 442 which is probably why you rarely see it. Hibs played it against us in final and league and had us flumoxed. IMO it's weak against either. It's too easy to adapt any system to exploit it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chineseboy 1,563 Posted September 1, 2016 Share Posted September 1, 2016 I would play Tav as a winger. Gareth bale started life as a defender before moving forward, so why not Tav! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhosTheDado 32 Posted September 1, 2016 Author Share Posted September 1, 2016 35 minutes ago, WGOH said: There needs to be an *****official formation suggestion***** thread fs Haha ffs !!! I've just saw the other thread Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rambo1872 4,065 Posted September 1, 2016 Share Posted September 1, 2016 Tweet the suggestion to Warburton he will probably listen Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangersMedia 35,962 Posted September 1, 2016 Share Posted September 1, 2016 Didn't we try 3-5-2 against Hibs last season and it just didn't work? Not sure if that was down to a lack of appropriate personnel or whatever. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MasterD 7,457 Posted September 1, 2016 Share Posted September 1, 2016 56 minutes ago, He's blue he's white said: Mckay not natural enough What makes him a natural winger? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reformation Bear 6,453 Posted September 1, 2016 Share Posted September 1, 2016 I think we should move to a simple 6/5. 6 whose predominant job is to defend and not let in any goals. Interchangeable 5 whose job it is to go and create havoc in the opposition half and score bags of goals. When we are 2 up then switch to 5/6 and let someone like Crooks play as one of the attacking 6. There you are. Sorted. A defence that sticks to defending and defending well. An interchangeable front 5 whose job it is to create goal scoring chances aplenty.....and take them. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
A.T.G 10,773 Posted September 1, 2016 Share Posted September 1, 2016 Whatever happened to the 442, simple effective Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moody Blue Legend 63,444 Posted September 1, 2016 Share Posted September 1, 2016 Tbh I've wondered what formation we're trying for a while. Looks fine on paper but we seem to have no shape, especially when we don't have possession. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NixonRFC 1,586 Posted September 1, 2016 Share Posted September 1, 2016 I'll be surprised if the gaffer changes his formation, he seems so set in his way and his belief in the system he's used seems unwavering, I'd like him to be a bit more flexible but don't think it's in his make up to suddenly change the system Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
giffnockger 4,840 Posted September 1, 2016 Share Posted September 1, 2016 Tactical game of chess incoming - NOT Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluenose_n1 536 Posted September 1, 2016 Share Posted September 1, 2016 433 when we have the ball but a tight 451 when we dont but if we don't move the ball quickly and hunt it down even quicker then we will let them get into the game in there faces from 1st whistle to last we need to win the midfield as early as possible but we need the correct players in the midfield to do that 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.