|
|
Post by gasheadliam on Aug 15, 2014 11:13:21 GMT
Which formation do you think we should implement as our main "starting" formation?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2014 11:21:53 GMT
DC plays it as 5-3-2 though which means we have no chance of creating much. 3-5-2 with Gosling and our new signing as attacking wing backs may work but i would go 4-4-2
Gk Mildenhall
Lb Brown
cb Parkes
Cb McCrystal
Rb Leadbitter
Lw Martin
Cm Lockyer
Cm Mansell
Rw Gosling
Cf Brunt
CF Taylor
Subs
White
Harrison
Monkhouse
Trottman
Sinclair
|
|
|
|
Post by Gas Go Marching In on Aug 15, 2014 11:23:39 GMT
DC plays it as 5-3-2 though which means we have no chance of creating much. 3-5-2 with Gosling and our new signing as attacking wing backs may work but i would go 4-4-2 Gk Mildenhall Lb Brown cb Parkes Cb McCrystal Rb Leadbitter Lw Martin Cm Lockyer Cm Mansell Rw Gosling Cf Brunt CF Taylor Subs White Harrison Monkhouse Trottman Sinclair f**k me we would get destroyed in the middle with Lockyer and Mansell in there! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2014 11:25:37 GMT
Lockyer had rave reviews from centre mid last season. The only other central midfielder is Sinclair who may have a beard and run around a lot but is he up to it?
|
|
|
|
Post by gretschgas on Aug 15, 2014 11:30:47 GMT
Having McChrystal in a back 4 terrifies me. For 4-4-2 Parkes and Lockyer at the back for me. McChrystal in a back 3 is far more solid though. But Lee Brown at wing back doesn't seem to work either. Both systems have flaws with the current squad but I would probably start with the 3-5-2 and revert to 4-4-2 in the second half.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2014 11:38:17 GMT
Agree that both systems have problems but we kept 16 clean sheets last season at 4-4-2 with Parkes and McCrystal.
We could try 3-5-2 with Gosling and Martin ? As i said so far 3-5-2 has been 5-3-2 and that won win football matches.
|
|
|
|
Post by gasincider on Aug 15, 2014 11:43:12 GMT
DC said yesterday that if he got the winger in the door, which he has, we would go 4-4-2
|
|
|
|
Post by ganymede on Aug 15, 2014 11:46:52 GMT
Pros and cons for both systems; DC like to try and change things around (his idea of a Plan A, Plan B, Plan C) during a game with tactical substitutions and change in formation. Less tinkering during the game might be better long-term.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fetch on Aug 15, 2014 11:47:07 GMT
We keep possession better with 352, and we don't really win much in the air with 442, so I'd stick with 352 as it's our more creative formation at present.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2014 12:07:47 GMT
3-5-2, by a million miles.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gas Go Marching In on Aug 15, 2014 12:07:49 GMT
Lockyer had rave reviews from centre mid last season. The only other central midfielder is Sinclair who may have a beard and run around a lot but is he up to it? Lockyer is good at getting stuck in but nothing much more and Mansell is not creative enough. We wouldn't be getting very far with the ball with them two in there. |
|
|
|
Post by Gas-Ed on Aug 15, 2014 12:09:43 GMT
3-5-2 earned us a clean sheet, but we also never looked like scoring in that system. Brown and Leadbitter never attacked Grimsby's full-backs with any menace and from what I have seen their crossing ability is not a strength. I would stick with 3-5-2 as it sounds like we were really poor defensively against Barnet and at least you can build on a solid base.
We need to find a way of getting the ball into White/Taylor/Brunt without resorting to lumping it. We also need to make sure we are playing with wing-backs, not full-backs if we are going to use the 3-5-2 system otherwise it's an ultra-defensive back 5.
|
|
|
|
Post by stapletongas on Aug 15, 2014 12:16:02 GMT
4-2-3-1, and work it properly
Defend as a 4-5-1
Attack with 4 in and around the box, plus at least one full back if not both getting alongside the 2 central players.
Creates more triangles, stops opposition drifting between our lines unmarked, it's flexible and easy to coach
|
|
|
|
Post by seanclevedongas on Aug 16, 2014 7:51:36 GMT
Lockyer must be a doubt for the game having had dental surgery this week?
|
|
|
|
Post by Jon the Stripe on Aug 16, 2014 8:03:18 GMT
Lockyer must be a doubt for the game having had dental surgery this week? Good shout Sean, who do you think will fill the gap?  I'll get my coat. |
|
|
|
Post by socrates1978 on Aug 16, 2014 8:13:55 GMT
Agree that both systems have problems but we kept 16 clean sheets last season at 4-4-2 with Parkes and McCrystal. We could try 3-5-2 with Gosling and Martin ? As i said so far 3-5-2 has been 5-3-2 and that won win football matches. We kept the majority of those clean sheets while playing 4-2-3-1. Having Lockyer and someone else sat in front of back four made us solid. Ward switched back to 442 four games before Ckarke was brought in and we then shipped goals left right and center for the rest of the season. |
|
|
|
Post by socrates1978 on Aug 16, 2014 8:24:39 GMT
4-2-3-1, and work it properly Defend as a 4-5-1 Attack with 4 in and around the box, plus at least one full back if not both getting alongside the 2 central players. Creates more triangles, stops opposition drifting between our lines unmarked, it's flexible and easy to coach This. Our only run of decent form happened when we played this formation last season and the squad we've got now is more suitable to playing this way. Lockyer in front of the back four works best and we're usually very solid when we play this way. It also suits and encourages decent football as long as you haven't got Matt Harrold up front. Plymouth at home last season anybody ? |
|
|
|
Post by stigofthegas on Aug 16, 2014 12:14:11 GMT
Lockyer must be a doubt for the game having had dental surgery this week? Lockyer's teeth were all over the place on Tuesday. Fractured jaw, stitches, the lot. I heard he isn't travelling today but he did train Friday - non contact stuff. |
|
