| Formation evolution 14:56 - May 14 with 2832 views | GavTWTD |
There have been many debates about our formation and there are many legitimate answers. For me, we play with 2 number tens behind a front striker with Burns playing pretty level with the 10s at times, on the right.
Is this "the McKenna way' or was this a.way of incorporating Burns into our team?
I think it's pretty likely that Jackson will move on and we'll get another in and continue this formation but does anyone see an evolution to give us a bit of unpredictability? Could Burns or Burns2 become more of a No 10 and Broadhead have more of position on the left. Not permanently, just switching it up a bit.
Edit: remove mentions about OCD as really not relevant, insulting and distracting
This post has been edited by an administrator |  |
| |  |
| Formation evolution on 15:17 - May 14 with 2736 views | giant_stow |
Not insulting at all Mr. I think there's lots of ways ocd can reveal itself and lots of shades of grey in terms of severity. I type this as someone who was once the topic of a local community groups freak of the week for my odd behaviour, so I think I can absolve you! |  |
| |
| Formation evolution on 15:49 - May 14 with 2658 views | Mullet |
Probably fixating on it when we have the ball vs when we don't.
It is fluid and asymmetrical in many phases of play so it becomes really obvious when a player like Burns or Davis hits the byline as one will have overlapped etc.
When Broadhead cuts inside to join the striker or Clarke does it to bolster the CMs it's probably not as noticeable due to where the ball is. We're so overconditioned to seeing formations on screens before, during and after coverage on computer games etc. we expect it in real life too. |  |
| |
| Formation evolution on 15:51 - May 14 with 2672 views | Guthrum |
As I've said before, for me the mistake is trying to think of how we play in traditional notation of formations. In much the same way positional numbers do not now mean what they originally did (e.g. having two number 10s), perhaps the old 4-4-2, 4-2-3-1, etc. should also be set aside.
It's more a matter of having different "units" around the pitch, able to move up and down, join forces and separate, not necessarily balanced left to right.
Thinking in military terms, if you want one wing of the army to be stronger than the oyther, the general will often give them extra troops. Perhaps because they are not as high quality, or are facing a particularly tough enemy (c.f. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Leuctra ). From what I've read, Alf Ramsey's setups were not always balanced across the pitch.
I believe it's a flexibility of thought and approach, one of the things which raises McKenna above many of his League One contemporaries "doing things by numbers". Perhaps a result of having worked with more highly skilled players and under innovative managers at the very top level.
Perhaps it is we the fans who need to change our way of thinking, in order to better understand what's going on? |  |
| |
| Formation evolution on 15:54 - May 14 with 2637 views | GavTWTD |
| Formation evolution on 15:17 - May 14 by giant_stow |
Not insulting at all Mr. I think there's lots of ways ocd can reveal itself and lots of shades of grey in terms of severity. I type this as someone who was once the topic of a local community groups freak of the week for my odd behaviour, so I think I can absolve you! |
Sorry, I've removed me referring to OCD as I really don't have it and isn't appropriate. I know people who have it and there is no comparison | |
| |
| Formation evolution on 15:56 - May 14 with 2630 views | Mullet |
| Formation evolution on 15:51 - May 14 by Guthrum |
As I've said before, for me the mistake is trying to think of how we play in traditional notation of formations. In much the same way positional numbers do not now mean what they originally did (e.g. having two number 10s), perhaps the old 4-4-2, 4-2-3-1, etc. should also be set aside.
It's more a matter of having different "units" around the pitch, able to move up and down, join forces and separate, not necessarily balanced left to right.
Thinking in military terms, if you want one wing of the army to be stronger than the oyther, the general will often give them extra troops. Perhaps because they are not as high quality, or are facing a particularly tough enemy (c.f. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Leuctra ). From what I've read, Alf Ramsey's setups were not always balanced across the pitch.
I believe it's a flexibility of thought and approach, one of the things which raises McKenna above many of his League One contemporaries "doing things by numbers". Perhaps a result of having worked with more highly skilled players and under innovative managers at the very top level.
Perhaps it is we the fans who need to change our way of thinking, in order to better understand what's going on? |
Only you would make a parallel with Leuctra! You'll be comparing the runs of Cresswell and Davis to the evolution of the pike and sarissa next!
Ramsay obviously had the WM era grounding in formation too which I've always felt was similar to how Pep has revolutonised movement on the pitch, such as full backs into midfield etc.
Players like Scowcroft, Whitton, Skuse, Ledbitter are all players who lent themselves to tactical quirks in ITFC sides thanks to their abilities and attributes. | |
| |
| Formation evolution on 16:02 - May 14 with 2585 views | GavTWTD |
| Formation evolution on 15:56 - May 14 by Mullet |
Only you would make a parallel with Leuctra! You'll be comparing the runs of Cresswell and Davis to the evolution of the pike and sarissa next!
Ramsay obviously had the WM era grounding in formation too which I've always felt was similar to how Pep has revolutonised movement on the pitch, such as full backs into midfield etc.
Players like Scowcroft, Whitton, Skuse, Ledbitter are all players who lent themselves to tactical quirks in ITFC sides thanks to their abilities and attributes. |
Yes, our use of Whitton especially was lop-sided wasn't it and used to great effect. | |
| |
| Formation evolution on 16:18 - May 14 with 2520 views | Keno |
| Formation evolution on 15:56 - May 14 by Mullet |
Only you would make a parallel with Leuctra! You'll be comparing the runs of Cresswell and Davis to the evolution of the pike and sarissa next!
Ramsay obviously had the WM era grounding in formation too which I've always felt was similar to how Pep has revolutonised movement on the pitch, such as full backs into midfield etc.
Players like Scowcroft, Whitton, Skuse, Ledbitter are all players who lent themselves to tactical quirks in ITFC sides thanks to their abilities and attributes. |
DONT TELL HIM ……… |  |
| |
| Formation evolution on 18:00 - May 14 with 2339 views | Garv |
I can see it evolving. You have to adapt if you want to keep improving.
He started by playing two strikers (Bonne and Norwood) ahead of Celina or Chaplin, until he found a way of playing with both of them in the 10 position. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Formation evolution on 19:36 - May 14 with 2188 views | rickw |
I would say it's a 4-2-3-1 which at times turns into a 3-4-2-1 with Clarke becoming the right side CB, Davis pushing forward more as a wing back and Burns dropping back a little and Broadhead moving inside as a second no. 10
The most successful systems these days seem to be those where the formation changes or certain player's positions are hard to pin down. Obviously this season we've seen Stones move from right back to midfield for Man City, but going back 15 years Ronaldo was really a false right winger for Man Utd, he started there but then moved into attack with Park moving into midfield |  |
| |
| Formation evolution on 19:42 - May 14 with 2173 views | southnorfolkblue |
I think we start as a 4-2-3-1, but with Burns tending to hug the touch line more than Broadhead who looks to cut in at every opportunity |  |
| |
| Formation evolution on 20:25 - May 14 with 2092 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
I think it will continually evolve and will become known as Suffolk Total Football. Someone will point out that the Dutch got there first but it will rapidly be countered with us having brought Dutch football to the UK 50 years ago. |  |
| |
| Formation evolution on 20:44 - May 14 with 2044 views | BigCommon |
Personally think we "shape shift" all the time during games. It's a big part of our effectiveness in moving opp out of their positions, to create a moment where we have a pass on to break their lines. Be that a short or long pass..
Look, how nomadic Hirst is.... Leif is sometimes our most forward player... Our right sided CB can sometimes be bombing on and cutting a cross back..Our 10's drop deep to wide positions on the halfway line, sometimes.
Tbf, I don't think we have a designated shape. Probably why we've scored 100 plus goals. A rigid shape/ style can be more easily countered and snuffed out.
I mean, you could stick a formation down, on paper. Based on players " natural" positions. But then you could freeze frame a game at any time. And some of those players will be a long way from where the formation says they should be.. |  | | |
| Formation evolution on 21:14 - May 14 with 1973 views | kiwiblue |
| Formation evolution on 20:44 - May 14 by BigCommon |
Personally think we "shape shift" all the time during games. It's a big part of our effectiveness in moving opp out of their positions, to create a moment where we have a pass on to break their lines. Be that a short or long pass..
Look, how nomadic Hirst is.... Leif is sometimes our most forward player... Our right sided CB can sometimes be bombing on and cutting a cross back..Our 10's drop deep to wide positions on the halfway line, sometimes.
Tbf, I don't think we have a designated shape. Probably why we've scored 100 plus goals. A rigid shape/ style can be more easily countered and snuffed out.
I mean, you could stick a formation down, on paper. Based on players " natural" positions. But then you could freeze frame a game at any time. And some of those players will be a long way from where the formation says they should be.. |
Shapeshifter or fluid formation with a flexible shape and a high energy style matched by superb levels of fitness is my take on this.
Like a Starwars Jedi team.... |  | | |
| Formation evolution on 21:18 - May 14 with 1952 views | giant_stow |
| Formation evolution on 15:54 - May 14 by GavTWTD |
Sorry, I've removed me referring to OCD as I really don't have it and isn't appropriate. I know people who have it and there is no comparison |
Obviously can't speak for everyone, but it certainly didn't offend me. | |
| |
| Formation evolution on 05:03 - May 15 with 1669 views | BigCommon |
| Formation evolution on 21:14 - May 14 by kiwiblue |
Shapeshifter or fluid formation with a flexible shape and a high energy style matched by superb levels of fitness is my take on this.
Like a Starwars Jedi team.... |
I've likened it to the "total football" that the Dutch played in the 70s..Which was a system/ style whereby , all players were comfortable playing in any area of the pitch, and would often swap positions, drop in, cover each other. Which was ground breaking stuff at the time.
Think top coaches, go way beyond developing players. Imo, they also develope new positions.
Quite telling, imo, how many of KMs signings can already play in multiple positions. Which is a good sign, that a player can be adaptable in learning new roles..... Doesn't hurt to have half a dozen "Swiss Army knife", types. Which greatly increase your bench and in game options, too. Even down to our keeper, who effectively gives us an 11th outfield player, at times.
Agree also, our pressing and fitness levels have been insane in L1. [Post edited 15 May 2023 5:07]
| | | |
| Formation evolution on 05:13 - May 15 with 1637 views | shady |
Proof of the fluidity/evolution:
Our goal of the season
Walton to Broadhead on the Right Wing
to Burns as Centre forward
to Chaplin....Goal |  | | |
| Formation evolution on 06:42 - May 15 with 1576 views | PioneerBlue |
I think this is the KMcK way. Nothing is fixed in perpetuity. Burns is a bit of a one off at the level we’ve been at therefore we all wait to see if what he does translates at a higher levels, it’s a bit untested. I don’t know what the next evolution will look like but there doesn’t currently look like there is a natural heir to Burns. I always throught Harness was going to be the player but we’ve never seen it. It is certainly a position and role that can be strengthened/ upgraded this summer, it’s been such a source of goals and assists. Important signing this one for the Champ to have Burns with genuine competition and rotation. [Post edited 15 May 2023 13:22]
| |
| |
| Formation evolution on 07:48 - May 15 with 1493 views | CityBlue |
I write this as a EUFA A license holder...
Our formation is an evolution of the double pivot and is a squad based shape shifting formation that has the ability to flex based upon the phase of player, the type of players in the field of play and adapts to the opposition changes. I could probably type for hours on this subject but you would only get bored. LOL.
Happy to dive into different facets of our game to help you see where potential targets are for next season as well as a fairly good idea what K McK's 2024 strategy plan will look like. |  |
| |
| Formation evolution on 07:56 - May 15 with 1476 views | BlueBoots |
| Formation evolution on 06:42 - May 15 by PioneerBlue |
I think this is the KMcK way. Nothing is fixed in perpetuity. Burns is a bit of a one off at the level we’ve been at therefore we all wait to see if what he does translates at a higher levels, it’s a bit untested. I don’t know what the next evolution will look like but there doesn’t currently look like there is a natural heir to Burns. I always throught Harness was going to be the player but we’ve never seen it. It is certainly a position and role that can be strengthened/ upgraded this summer, it’s been such a source of goals and assists. Important signing this one for the Champ to have Burns with genuine competition and rotation. [Post edited 15 May 2023 13:22]
|
I think with KMcK and the players we already have available, we have so many options. In nearly every player interview I've read, when they're asked about KMcK, always a mention of his attention to detail and how they know exactly what is required of them; They're all flexible enough to adapt...an example...if Burns is unavailable for any reason and KMcK decides he wants width on both sides (rather than a player cutting in from the left), I could see Broadhead switched to the right, Davis pushed on to play the "Burns role" on the opposite side, and Leigh coming in at left-back; probably never happen, but I would trust the manager and players to make that work!
I really don't think there are going to be wholesale changes this summer - worked too hard to create a group who currently have good morale and momentum. I think nearly all our players will be given the chance to prove if they can step up - unless a big obvious upgrade is available in the summer, could see us repeating this season with 3-4 signings in the winter window once we've identified any weaknesses in the squad due to ability or injury. |  |
| |
| Formation evolution on 08:17 - May 15 with 1439 views | RobTheMonk |
I've always wondered how Burns would perform up top in a Jamie Vardy type role.
I don't want it to happen as he's instrumental in how we play. His workrate is insane. |  | | |
| Formation evolution on 12:15 - May 15 with 1278 views | chicoazul |
I strongly suspect Burns is off this summer, and that we will see an evolution as you put it towards more of a classical 433. You need at least 5 players behind the ball in the Championship. |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
