If You Could Talk Warburton Into A Plan B..

[K.A.I 36,183]

Drop this 3 inter changeable forwards pish 

[LaudrupsPatrickBoots 13,540]

Come up with a game plan that the opposition won't have sussed out before they arrive at the stadium.

[Ryan_1 1,136]

Warburton won't change formation. 

Look at it from this POV and that's Warburtons. 

You come into a club and preach from the minute you walk in the door, this is how we are going to play and we will play this formation. We will use this formation as a template across the board from the first team down to our under 11s so that when a player makes the jump to the first team what's asked of him at senior level is no different in terms of tactically than what he's done for years at youth level. That's what Warburton set out his blueprint for the club to be based around. 

Now because things have went wrong we expect him to change what he believes wholeheartedly is the right way forward and how can you preach something to your under 11s and upwards when at senior level it doesn't work and you've changed it? 

It's a double edged sword for Warburton, for me he's too stubborn to go back on his philosophies and ultimately he will receive his P45. 

[giffnockger 4,840]

bigotry!

[jackrfc95 4,255]

Teams all over the world play a 4-3-3 and do it just fine. Its nothing to do with the formation, its what the players are doing within that formation. Very rarely do you see a team playing with 2 strikers.

[Bruno's Manbun 2,631]

On 9/17/2016 at 10:31 PM, ben51 said:

What formations would you put forward to him to try out. Not necessarily from the start of games, but when things aren't going our way? 

Wes

Tav Wilson Hill Wallace

Windass Holt Rossiter McKay

O'Halloran Garner

Or

Wes

Tav Wilson Hill Wallace

Rossiter

Holt ------------------------Windass

McKay

O'Halloran Garner

Are my ones I'd like to see us line up with.

Maybe bring in Halliday, Forrester, Crooks, Waghorn, Hodson and Miller. But I'm more discussing formations. Because to me, I think we know Warburton gets us playing the football we want. But our formation/philosophy has become so predictable anyone with a decent set of players can manage us out the game. 

Also, please do not place too much emphasis on our defence. It's a nightmare, that won't change. Like I said this is more relating to formation. Unless you go for a 3 at the back.

 

 

I think it would be interesting to try a sort of 3-2-3-2 (3-5-2), something along the lines of...

 

                                    Fodderingham

 

    Tavernier                      Wilson                         Wallace

 

                     Rossiter                         Halliday

Waghorn                                                            Forrester

                                        Windass

 

                         Garner                        Miller

 

Rossiter and Halliday can offer plenty moving forward, but also drop back to effectively form a back 5 when being pressed, and also still provide cover if Tav/Wallace go for a run, as well as supply attacking support. Windass can also drop from CAM to CM if the DM's are forced back. Waghorn and Forrester would have no problem advancing the wings and breaking into the box, or supplying the forwards. Keep Kenny and Garner as out and out strikers, non of this switching around. Kenny can handle it okay but Garner is more effective in the box as proven against the tims.

Thoughts on the above anyone?

[graeme_4 34,972]

On 17/09/2016 at 10:44 PM, ben51 said:

Didn't realise I was on a Barcelona forum. 

Youre right. Formations mean nothing. Everyone just plays a 9-1. 

If you were at the game at the weekend, you'd see that at times we were in a 4-4-2  shape, with Garner and Wagorn up top and McKay at LM. 

[jackrfc95 4,255]

1 minute ago, 55Bear said:

I think it would be interesting to try a sort of 3-2-3-2 (3-5-2), something along the lines of...

 

                                    Fodderingham

 

    Tavernier                      Wilson                         Wallace

 

                     Rossiter                         Halliday

Waghorn                                                            Forrester

                                        Windass

 

                         Garner                        Miller

 

Rossiter and Halliday can offer plenty moving forward, but also drop back to effectively form a back 5 when being pressed, and also still provide cover if Tav/Wallace go for a run, as well as supply attacking support. Windass can also drop from CAM to CM if the DM's are forced back. Waghorn and Forrester would have no problem advancing the wings and breaking into the box, or supplying the forwards. Keep Kenny as out and out strikers, non of this switching around. Kenny can handle it okay but Garner is more effective in the box as proven against the tims.

Thoughts on the above anyone?

Would never work.

3 at the back hardly ever works, hence hardly any team plays it.

You cant have full backs as the 3 at the back - it has to be 3 solid centre backs for it to have any chance of working.

You need people prepared to come back to play as the wide players - Waghorn and Forrester have 0 interest in coming back to defend.

[graeme_4 34,972]

Just now, jackrfc95 said:

Would never work.

3 at the back hardly ever works, hence hardly any team plays it.

You cant have full backs as the 3 at the back - it has to be 3 solid centre backs for it to have any chance of working.

You need people prepared to come back to play as the wide players - Waghorn and Forrester have 0 interest in coming back to defend.

This is where the lines between FIFA and real life become too blurred. 

Playing with 1 centre back  

[jackrfc95 4,255]

2 minutes ago, graeme_4 said:

This is where the lines between FIFA and real life become too blurred. 

Playing with 1 centre back  

Our centre backs are that good we only need 1

[Bruno's Manbun 2,631]

4 minutes ago, jackrfc95 said:

Would never work.

3 at the back hardly ever works, hence hardly any team plays it.

You cant have full backs as the 3 at the back - it has to be 3 solid centre backs for it to have any chance of working.

You need people prepared to come back to play as the wide players - Waghorn and Forrester have 0 interest in coming back to defend.

Yeah fair point. It's something I'd been mulling over a couple of weeks now but your points make sense. 

Of course, the other option (and this may seem too obvious) would be to try the old 4-4-2. 

One thing's for sure, we NEED a plan B, maybe even a plan C too. 

 

To quote Einstein:

"The definition of insanity is doing the same over and over again and expecting different results."

 

Maybe Warbs is just a bit unhinged 

[Mr Soprano 13,964]

On 17/09/2016 at 10:51 PM, ForeverAndEver said:

Foderingham

Tav Wilson Hill Wallace

Rossitter Holt

Forrester Windass McKay

Garner

 

I love the look of this.

[simplythebest 11,453]

3 hours ago, graeme_4 said:

This is where the lines between FIFA and real life become too blurred. 

Playing with 1 centre back  

Big Clint can do it all himself!

[ranger/rochy 4]

Barca played 3-4-3 at weekend and Man City went 4-1-4-1.

Forget" it is all about the squad" and just getting a winning team out there.

Rest McKay and Wallace.Drop Miller(for ever).

Now just get on with it.

 

[writingranger 1,426]

On ‎17‎/‎09‎/‎2016 at 10:34 PM, gsa said:

Only brainless pricks who listen to football punditry talk about "plan b". It's a load of shot that didn't exist until jealous people starting slating Barcelona for "too much possession". 

couldn't agree more. Minus the inflammatory language of course. There's nowt wrong with the formation or philosophy, it's the execution that's the problem.

[ranger/rochy 4]

3 hours ago, ranger/rochy said:

Barca played 3-4-3 at weekend and Man City went 4-1-4-1.

Forget" it is all about the squad" and just get a winning team out there.

Rest McKay and Wallace.Drop Miller(for ever).

Now just get on with it.

 

 

[Turnberry18 3,204]

Do plan A better.This team will come good, and this League is in no way over. We are never out of contention till it is mathematically impossible.

[cumnockbear 2,446]

Flat 4-4-2, 2 wingers

                     Wes

Tav  Sendero/Hill  Wilson Wallace 

Forrester  Windass  Holt  O'Halloran

             Waghorn   Garner 

4-4-2 midfield diamond

                     Wes

Tav  Senderos/Hill  Wilson  Wallace

                    Rossiter

          Windass            Holt

                       MOH

           Waghorn   Garner

 

3-5-2  full backs 

                        Wes

          Senderos  Hill  Wilson

Tav    Windass   Crooks   Holt   Wallace

               Waghorn   Garner

 

 

 

[plumbGER 24,518]

Change his defending tactics from tactical to legacy.

[ranger/rochy 4]

3-5-2                Wes

           Senderos   Wilson   Hill

Tav  Windass  Rositer   Forrester Wallace

               Waghorn Garner

      

[glasgow argyle 1,093]

On 17/09/2016 at 11:00 PM, DMax399 said:

I'm not sure that the problem is that our formation has become too predictable as many say, because most teams play one formation only.

I would imagine you should base your formation on the strengths of your players - then it is up to the players to execute this on the park.

If MW believes he has the players to work 4 3 3 then you have to go with it.

Leaving the CB pairing to one side, I still question if we have/or he is playing the correct wide men to make this work.  

4 1 4 1 might be a more pragmatic approach.

But then again what do I know.  In simple terms if we can't execute a 4 3 3 and win the majority of games you have to change to suit your personnel.

4.3.3. is not working this season. and should be scrapped especially away from home

i suggested 4.1.4.1 before the septic game, and the response to that was pretty negative.

i suggest again before we play the sheep that system will give us a better chance of prevailing.