Was a bit surprised with the trio of Barton, Faurlin and Derry all on the pitch at the same time for a home match... Others on here had pretty much predicted this so i know others won't be. It seemed to work brilliantly in the first half, it looked solid and gave us a great platform from which to launch attacks. An argument could be made we may have been more likely to score with one less defensive player and more attacking players though... At the end of the day it was our first game with basically a new team and they played very well and you can understand a more defensive set up - which actually produced a lot of attacking football and allowed both full backs to come forward. Do you think we were looking at our away formation last night, we seemed to play a 4,3,3, which looked very solid and the interchanging movement of the front 3 was very effective, but will this formation score enough goals at home? Do you think we will revert to the 4,2,3,1 with 2 out of Faurlin, Derry and Barton and DJ/Buz/Smith starting as an extra attacking player when we play at home against the weaker premiership teams?
Agree with Northolt plus I can not see us reverting back to the 4,2,3,1 formation to start any game, however we may use this tactic if chasing a game.
Agreed i thought this formation worked well last night and with a bit more luck in front of goal would have won comfortably
i would stick with that formation as looked pretty good going forward & not defensive at all only when we had to be which was not often.
Our performance last night was nigh on perfect with the one obvious exception that we could not stick away any of the myriad chances we created. That being the case why on earth would you consider changing the formation? Bothroyd needs to sharpen up for sure and I'm not sure he is entirely comfortable in the lone front man role but that is a reason to consider changing the player rather than the formation.
Yea, that's how I saw it too. Derry and Faurlin holding as usual, with SWP, Barton and Taarabt all swapping around in the 3.
Nah.. Defo saw it as 4-3-2-1 last night. Worked a treat, tho I think Buz/Campell couldv'e come on earlier for say, Derry.
Definitely not a defensive trio, Derry is the one of the three that stays behind the ball, Faurlin also brakes up play, but last night there was so much movement and running of the ball it was a joy to watch.
Not what I saw. Barton and SWP were on wings mostly with Adel the more central of the 3, although they swapped around alot and interchanged so was hard to notice a definite formation. Definitely didn't see it as 3 central midfielders though (Derry, Faurlin, Barton).
i saw it more as 4 - 2 - 3 - 1 also. Barton sat in when needed but def had liscence to go, either down the left or right. I think with regards to subs NW must have been reluctent to change things as it looked like we were going to score . To be fair we did not create much when campbell and puncheon came on ( still not sure about the puncheon signing ! )
What do I think?? - CLASS!! Barton will be more box to box in future with Faurlin and Derry doing most of the holding.
Like a poor man's Barcelona at times with Barton as Iniesta, Derry holding á la Busquets and Faurlin keeping it ticking over as Xavi. I thought the front 3 all switched and linked well and on another day we could have had three or four. If anything I think a 442 would make us more defensive as removing Derry makes Barton and Faurlin sit deeper and Taarabt and SWP more conventional up and down wide players which isn't their game.
It was definitely the same formation as always....4-2-3-1. Derry and Faurlin holding, with Barton/SWP/Tarrabt interchanging positions behind Betty. Having watched the highlights programme I noted Garry Neville didn't get the formation right either. I liked it, but I do wonder where Campbell can fit in and he may be the best bet for goals! Just a thought!!
