| Would you go to a back 5? 15:35 - Apr 6 with 690 views | Kentish_Tractor |
With Burns injured and our starting wingers seemingly strugging in most matches, I might be tempted to start games with a back 5 (which worked so well for us at the start of McKennas reign).
Hladky
Clarke Tuanzebe Woolf Burgess Davis
Morsey Luongo/Taylor
2 of Broadhead/Chaplin/Hutch
Moore
Solves the Clarke vs Tuanzebe debate and plays to their relative strengths.
Can always revert to the 4-2-3-1 if needed and still have those options from the bench.
Until Burns comes back I think it could work. |  |
| |  |
| Would you go to a back 5? on 15:36 - Apr 6 with 675 views | pointofblue |
You can now type out Hladky again then? 
Seriously, yes I would switch to a back three with wing backs now. | |
| |
| Would you go to a back 5? on 15:38 - Apr 6 with 660 views | Herbivore |
No, I wouldn't be changing a system that has seen us take 87 points from 41 games as a knee jerk reaction to a disappointing 1-0 defeat in a local derby. |  |
| |
| Would you go to a back 5? on 15:40 - Apr 6 with 645 views | smithy69 |
We aren’t going to change the formation we have had for 2 years which has seen us go from League 1, to Top of the league before today
No chance | | | |
| Would you go to a back 5? on 15:41 - Apr 6 with 634 views | pointofblue |
| Would you go to a back 5? on 15:38 - Apr 6 by Herbivore |
No, I wouldn't be changing a system that has seen us take 87 points from 41 games as a knee jerk reaction to a disappointing 1-0 defeat in a local derby. |
I wouldn't if Burns was fit. But with Hutchinson seemingly burned out I think the choice is replacing him with Jackson or changing formation. I think I'd prefer the latter. | |
| |
| Would you go to a back 5? on 15:45 - Apr 6 with 604 views | Kentish_Tractor |
| Would you go to a back 5? on 15:38 - Apr 6 by Herbivore |
No, I wouldn't be changing a system that has seen us take 87 points from 41 games as a knee jerk reaction to a disappointing 1-0 defeat in a local derby. |
However I would argue we did far better in those games with Wes Burns starring on that RW. Without him we've struggled. We've been relying on subs and sheer mental strength to pull us through those games - how many times have we had to come back from losing positions.
I genuinely think a formation change at this time would help us control games more from the start with the better attacking/defensive balance it would give us down that right hand side. | |
| |
| Would you go to a back 5? on 15:46 - Apr 6 with 601 views | Herbivore |
| Would you go to a back 5? on 15:41 - Apr 6 by pointofblue |
I wouldn't if Burns was fit. But with Hutchinson seemingly burned out I think the choice is replacing him with Jackson or changing formation. I think I'd prefer the latter. |
Madness. Genuinely. | |
| |
| Would you go to a back 5? on 15:48 - Apr 6 with 583 views | Herbivore |
| Would you go to a back 5? on 15:45 - Apr 6 by Kentish_Tractor |
However I would argue we did far better in those games with Wes Burns starring on that RW. Without him we've struggled. We've been relying on subs and sheer mental strength to pull us through those games - how many times have we had to come back from losing positions.
I genuinely think a formation change at this time would help us control games more from the start with the better attacking/defensive balance it would give us down that right hand side. |
You don't change a system that has you top of the league after 41 games. Madness. Absolute madness. | |
| |
| Would you go to a back 5? on 15:49 - Apr 6 with 572 views | pointofblue |
| Would you go to a back 5? on 15:46 - Apr 6 by Herbivore |
Madness. Genuinely. |
Maybe. I just don't think we've really turned up, performance wise, since Burns' injury, and now IMO Hutchinson needs a break. So, we either go with Jackson on the right or change formation. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Would you go to a back 5? on 15:51 - Apr 6 with 557 views | Herbivore |
| Would you go to a back 5? on 15:49 - Apr 6 by pointofblue |
Maybe. I just don't think we've really turned up, performance wise, since Burns' injury, and now IMO Hutchinson needs a break. So, we either go with Jackson on the right or change formation. |
Then we go with Jackson or Sarmiento on the right. Makes much more sense than changing formation at this stage. Not sure Hutchinson is burnt out, if he was he wouldn't have stayed on for the full 90 minutes. He just made some poor choices on the ball today. | |
| |
| Would you go to a back 5? on 15:52 - Apr 6 with 546 views | Churchman |
No. In 87 games we’ve taken 185 points in two seasons.
For goodness sake don’t change how we set up. Just do it better. Continuous improvement and all the other cliches but don’t rip it up on the basis of today. |  | | |
| Would you go to a back 5? on 15:52 - Apr 6 with 545 views | Kentish_Tractor |
| Would you go to a back 5? on 15:48 - Apr 6 by Herbivore |
You don't change a system that has you top of the league after 41 games. Madness. Absolute madness. |
You can if you're missing a key player.
Hirst got injured in December. We kept the same system. We started losing and drawing games. The reason we got out of that situation is because we could buy in someone who fit into the system.
Now we have an injury to another key part of that system. We are struggling. We can't buy anyone in this time. Therefore in my view a slight formation tweak to restore balance to that right hand side which we are missing. | |
| |
| Would you go to a back 5? on 15:54 - Apr 6 with 535 views | pointofblue |
| Would you go to a back 5? on 15:51 - Apr 6 by Herbivore |
Then we go with Jackson or Sarmiento on the right. Makes much more sense than changing formation at this stage. Not sure Hutchinson is burnt out, if he was he wouldn't have stayed on for the full 90 minutes. He just made some poor choices on the ball today. |
I love Hutchinson coming off the bench ahead of starting. His pace and flare against tiring full backs gives us a spark late on which we lacked today, despite Sarmiento's best efforts on his weaker side.
Jackson is possibility and I appreciate what you're saying about not chaning something which has worked so well this season, but I think we've been looking too open in the centre of midfield and not consistently getting enough out of the wings of late. | |
| |
| Would you go to a back 5? on 15:54 - Apr 6 with 538 views | nrb1985 |
| Would you go to a back 5? on 15:38 - Apr 6 by Herbivore |
No, I wouldn't be changing a system that has seen us take 87 points from 41 games as a knee jerk reaction to a disappointing 1-0 defeat in a local derby. |
at this point I agree with you however, I think nothing wrong with changing formation in game to a back 5 for an extra man in the middle.
The Blackburn game was crying out for that in my opinion once they got on top of that.
If it is to be play offs then perhaps KM may need to demonstrate slightly more flexibility given anything can happen in tournament football vs. a 46 game season.
The only (tiny!) criticism I think I would have over the last 2.5 incredible years is that he does stick religiously to his principles including the 4 2 3 1. I concede though that has got us to this position today though in spite of the result today. So it's hard to criticise but I hope if it is to be play offs then we can be a bit more flexibility. | | | |
| Would you go to a back 5? on 16:02 - Apr 6 with 509 views | Herbivore |
| Would you go to a back 5? on 15:52 - Apr 6 by Kentish_Tractor |
You can if you're missing a key player.
Hirst got injured in December. We kept the same system. We started losing and drawing games. The reason we got out of that situation is because we could buy in someone who fit into the system.
Now we have an injury to another key part of that system. We are struggling. We can't buy anyone in this time. Therefore in my view a slight formation tweak to restore balance to that right hand side which we are missing. |
It's not a slight formation tweak, it's completely changing the system. We sacrifice one of the front 4 for a CB and lose a lot of our threat. It means working out different patterns of play. We beat Saints and Blackburn without Burns, today we came up short and we missed him but I really don't see any argument that changing formation makes sense. | |
| |
| Would you go to a back 5? on 16:04 - Apr 6 with 496 views | Herbivore |
| Would you go to a back 5? on 15:54 - Apr 6 by pointofblue |
I love Hutchinson coming off the bench ahead of starting. His pace and flare against tiring full backs gives us a spark late on which we lacked today, despite Sarmiento's best efforts on his weaker side.
Jackson is possibility and I appreciate what you're saying about not chaning something which has worked so well this season, but I think we've been looking too open in the centre of midfield and not consistently getting enough out of the wings of late. |
And yet despite being poor through the middle and on the wings we're on a run of 9 wins from 11 games. I'm glad we're not genuinely sh!t as I dread to think how negative you'd be then. | |
| |
| Would you go to a back 5? on 16:06 - Apr 6 with 489 views | pointofblue |
| Would you go to a back 5? on 16:02 - Apr 6 by Herbivore |
It's not a slight formation tweak, it's completely changing the system. We sacrifice one of the front 4 for a CB and lose a lot of our threat. It means working out different patterns of play. We beat Saints and Blackburn without Burns, today we came up short and we missed him but I really don't see any argument that changing formation makes sense. |
My argument would be there were warning signs against Blackburn and Southampton, which came to roost here - a lack of wing threat and control in the middle. With three at the back, Clarke and Davis will be able to push up more, assisted by the two tens.
I don't think he'll change it but I can appreciate the argument why it should be considered. | |
| |
| Would you go to a back 5? on 18:05 - Apr 6 with 435 views | Churchman |
| Would you go to a back 5? on 16:06 - Apr 6 by pointofblue |
My argument would be there were warning signs against Blackburn and Southampton, which came to roost here - a lack of wing threat and control in the middle. With three at the back, Clarke and Davis will be able to push up more, assisted by the two tens.
I don't think he'll change it but I can appreciate the argument why it should be considered. |
Not really. The system serves us well. Leave it alone.
Injuries and illness plus the sheer number of games in a short period hasn’t served us so well. Could we have played AAH from the start and left out Moore? Jackson? Taylor? Possibly. But I’m not sure it’d have made much difference. We look a bit leggy, as we did after the Dec schedule. Same for everyone, I know. It’s just how I see it.
We could really do with Burns and Hirst back, but the situation is what it is. I looking forward to seeing how we respond on Wednesday. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
