@mooneyman said:
Hayes is unlikely to be a regular anymore, so it makes common sense to appoint someone who is guaranteed his place in the starting eleven.
Very succinctly put. Apologies for my coinciding dissertation!
One thought from me on the last night's changes of formation.
While the 3-5-2 was ok but unspectacular, with us failing to get enough players forward enough to pose any real threat, I though the 4-4-2 that we used for the last 20 minutes gave us better shape and balance than we've seen for a fair while.
It was nice to see us attacking with real purpose down both flanks and getting some crosses in. Its been a heck of a long time since we last saw that.
The combination of Harriman down one wing and Freeman down the other was a good mix and, as others have stated, Tyson looked more comfortable in a central role playing off either Hayes or Bayo.
Isn't the problem with a four man midfield that the two wide men can still get isolated leaving a two-man midfield getting overrun? My guess is that GA likes the 3-way combination of a defensive midfielder (Gape, Bean), a creator (Saunders) and a busy box-to-box type (O'Nien, Blooms) and it's tricky to fit that combination into a four man midfield without looking very lopsided. I don't think our recruitment generally suggests a return to 4-4-2 any time soon. I also don't think you should judge the success or failure of 3-5-2 on our inability to get the wingbacks forward against Fulham, when their duties would be inevitably more defensive. I think a formation which allows Harriman and JJ to get forward as wingbacks could have real potential against a League 2 side - certainly it would play to Harri's strengths.
4-4-2 can still work but you have to have wide players that can contribute to the midfield effort. Harriman in particular gives us that and having either Saunders or Freeman on the other flank to my mind would offer the right combination of flair and work rate across the midfield given you'd usually have one of Luke or Blooms in the middle running their socks off.
I agree that our recruitment wouldn't suggest an imminent return to 4-4-2 at all, but I do wonder whether last night's match might just make Gareth think again. We looked pretty good.
I'm open-minded about the use of 3-5-2 but I do wonder whether we have the personnel. I'm not certain JJ has the natural athleticism needed to play the wing-back role. Its a tough gig and he may just be that he's better suited to the left sided defensive role as per last night. That only leaves us the option of Jack Williams - who may of course prove an absolutely brilliant loan signing, like Alfie Mawson, but its a big ask to play that role week in week out at this stage.
Isn't part of the problem that it's really quite difficult to accommodate Bayo and Saunders in the same side but you can't really contemplate leaving either of them out? Part of the dip in form after WHL was I think due to the difficulty in working out how they could play with each other as Saunders settled in and improved his fitness; and the improvement in form towards the end of the season came as they worked it out. And in 4-4-2 you also need both forwards to be mobile, and for all his very considerable good points, surely not even Bayo would claim mobility was one of them.
Bayo was wonderful last season -and who's to say that he won't be again this season when he regains match fitness - but I do wonder if the time has come, in the interests of football, for him to revert to the impact sub role that he played in his last season at AFC.
Would personally like to have a look at a 4-4-2 on Saturday. Same back 5, Saunders and Freeman/ PCH on the wings, LO9 and Gape in the middle with Tyson feeding off Akinfenwa up front.
442 offers defensive cover for the full backs which 433 does not. On Saturday Harriman was having a torrid time against the Lincoln winger and needed help which a right mid in a 442 would have offered enabling them to double up on the winger. I am massively in favour at this level as width and pace is the way to get promoted I don't think u need to worry to much about being overrun in midfield as most teams play it long anyway
Always good to know the spirit of Mike Bassett is not completely dead, Mr Na.
All formations have strengths and weaknesses. None is a panacea. 433 has served this club well over the last couple of seasons. We will never know whether other formations would have done better or worse.
Dev - the 4-3-3 over the last two seasons when we finished mid-table didn't serve us as well as the 4-4-2 the previous season which saw us lead the table for significant periods and make it to the play-off final.
The reality is we need to have more than one way of playing so that we can shift our tactical approach if its not working.
The 4-3-3 can work really effectively. I can't think of a better example than the play-off semi final first leg down at Plymouth, when Argyle could barely get out of their half.
But sometimes it really doesn't work. Saturday's second-half being an obvious example when Lincoln had the measure of us tactically. When that happens we need another way of playing.
In the past we've seen GA go with a midfield diamond and this season we've seen 3-5-2 and 4-4-2. Personally I'd quite like to see a bit more of the latter given we looked well balanced and dangerous down both flanks and through the middle in the last 20 mins of the Fulham match.
Comments
Hayes is unlikely to be a regular anymore, so it makes common sense to appoint someone who is guaranteed his place in the starting eleven.
he can't talk but he can't run, sadly not much cop.
Very succinctly put. Apologies for my coinciding dissertation!
Must try harder!
To be honest, that's left even me speechless.
One thought from me on the last night's changes of formation.
While the 3-5-2 was ok but unspectacular, with us failing to get enough players forward enough to pose any real threat, I though the 4-4-2 that we used for the last 20 minutes gave us better shape and balance than we've seen for a fair while.
It was nice to see us attacking with real purpose down both flanks and getting some crosses in. Its been a heck of a long time since we last saw that.
The combination of Harriman down one wing and Freeman down the other was a good mix and, as others have stated, Tyson looked more comfortable in a central role playing off either Hayes or Bayo.
Hopefully its given Gareth food for thought.
Isn't the problem with a four man midfield that the two wide men can still get isolated leaving a two-man midfield getting overrun? My guess is that GA likes the 3-way combination of a defensive midfielder (Gape, Bean), a creator (Saunders) and a busy box-to-box type (O'Nien, Blooms) and it's tricky to fit that combination into a four man midfield without looking very lopsided. I don't think our recruitment generally suggests a return to 4-4-2 any time soon. I also don't think you should judge the success or failure of 3-5-2 on our inability to get the wingbacks forward against Fulham, when their duties would be inevitably more defensive. I think a formation which allows Harriman and JJ to get forward as wingbacks could have real potential against a League 2 side - certainly it would play to Harri's strengths.
El Abd has taken over from Hayes as "team captain", Bloomfield remains "club captain."
4-4-2 can still work but you have to have wide players that can contribute to the midfield effort. Harriman in particular gives us that and having either Saunders or Freeman on the other flank to my mind would offer the right combination of flair and work rate across the midfield given you'd usually have one of Luke or Blooms in the middle running their socks off.
I agree that our recruitment wouldn't suggest an imminent return to 4-4-2 at all, but I do wonder whether last night's match might just make Gareth think again. We looked pretty good.
I'm open-minded about the use of 3-5-2 but I do wonder whether we have the personnel. I'm not certain JJ has the natural athleticism needed to play the wing-back role. Its a tough gig and he may just be that he's better suited to the left sided defensive role as per last night. That only leaves us the option of Jack Williams - who may of course prove an absolutely brilliant loan signing, like Alfie Mawson, but its a big ask to play that role week in week out at this stage.
Isn't part of the problem that it's really quite difficult to accommodate Bayo and Saunders in the same side but you can't really contemplate leaving either of them out? Part of the dip in form after WHL was I think due to the difficulty in working out how they could play with each other as Saunders settled in and improved his fitness; and the improvement in form towards the end of the season came as they worked it out. And in 4-4-2 you also need both forwards to be mobile, and for all his very considerable good points, surely not even Bayo would claim mobility was one of them.
Bayo was wonderful last season -and who's to say that he won't be again this season when he regains match fitness - but I do wonder if the time has come, in the interests of football, for him to revert to the impact sub role that he played in his last season at AFC.
Would personally like to have a look at a 4-4-2 on Saturday. Same back 5, Saunders and Freeman/ PCH on the wings, LO9 and Gape in the middle with Tyson feeding off Akinfenwa up front.
no chance sadly
442 offers defensive cover for the full backs which 433 does not. On Saturday Harriman was having a torrid time against the Lincoln winger and needed help which a right mid in a 442 would have offered enabling them to double up on the winger. I am massively in favour at this level as width and pace is the way to get promoted I don't think u need to worry to much about being overrun in midfield as most teams play it long anyway
Always good to know the spirit of Mike Bassett is not completely dead, Mr Na.
All formations have strengths and weaknesses. None is a panacea. 433 has served this club well over the last couple of seasons. We will never know whether other formations would have done better or worse.
Dev - the 4-3-3 over the last two seasons when we finished mid-table didn't serve us as well as the 4-4-2 the previous season which saw us lead the table for significant periods and make it to the play-off final.
The difference might be less to do with the formation and more to do with the personnel - Mawson in particular.
Let peace break out in the 4-3-3 vs 4-4-2 debate.
The reality is we need to have more than one way of playing so that we can shift our tactical approach if its not working.
The 4-3-3 can work really effectively. I can't think of a better example than the play-off semi final first leg down at Plymouth, when Argyle could barely get out of their half.
But sometimes it really doesn't work. Saturday's second-half being an obvious example when Lincoln had the measure of us tactically. When that happens we need another way of playing.
In the past we've seen GA go with a midfield diamond and this season we've seen 3-5-2 and 4-4-2. Personally I'd quite like to see a bit more of the latter given we looked well balanced and dangerous down both flanks and through the middle in the last 20 mins of the Fulham match.