**** sake.. everyone was happy when bruce set us up with this "new" formation, which lets koren have his preferred position and play with 2 strikers... now just because we've lost 3 on the bounce we should change it ? get a grip please..
How come we start by playing three at the back, play outstanding football, including beating Leeds away and everyone thinks we are brilliant. Then we lose three by stupid individual mistakes ( the players & manager agree on this) and all of a sudden the system is wrong.
I refer you to my post, dated 1st September 2012... Myself and plenty of others have stated our dislike of the formation. I still hope it works, but I feel it could soon be time for the Tickler to make an official statement, admitting his error in judgement
All of Peterborough's goals and Blackpool's opener would not have come about if we were playing with 4 defenders. I haven't even seen the goals from Leicester and I can't be arsed to think back to the previous games, but I'm betting that applies to a fair few of them as well.
if we win again with it saturday, the people who like it will claim there right, until the next time we lose.. all i know is even when we lose at the minute its still enjoyable, opposed the other mentioned formations in previous seasons when games seemed to last 4 days..for that reason im happy for it to stay at the moment.
It's a formation that makes for exciting football, though unfortunately it makes the chances of a loss more likely, particularly if the players don't really like it, or don't know what they are supposed to be doing. Chester obviously doesn't like it, he was one of the best defenders in the league last season and he isn't this season. For the first goal on Tuesday nobody seemed sure what they were supposed to be doing, Dudgeon was caught in two minds and the attacking players ended up with acres of space. The players might get used to the formation over time and these errors might be cut out, but we looked more comfortable on Tuesday when we switched to four at the back.
As has been said, I agree we need a tough tackling midfielder to sit in front of the defense if we're going to continue with this formation. I think Koren was having to sit far too deep on Tuesday - The 442 diamond Brownie played in the 08 season may work; ------------Amos------------ Rosenior-Chester-Hobbs-Dudge ----------- *DM* ----------- Elmo--------------------Quinn ------------Koren------------ --------Simpson Aluko-------- Midfield is the problem and I think we need to go back to a 442\451; ------------Amos------------ Rosenior Chester Hobbs Dudge -------- *DM* *DM* <- McKenna??? Elmo-------------------Quinn ---------Koren\Aluko-------- ----------Simpson---------- The problem we had last year with 451 was the wingers and CAM wasnt supporting the striker, Simpson has been showing some real strength on the ball and we have Elmo, Quinn and Aluko to provide us that power now.
That is bang on the money. I thought we looked a much better side when we played 4 at the back on Tuesday night. It also meant that Elmo and Rosenior played very well supporting each other down the right. I don't think the players we have look comfortable in a 3 at the back formation, which is what it is when Elmo and Dudgeon are always bombing on up front.
You need 3x Chester's to play 3 at the back IMO. Bruce and Faye just aren't agile enough. They could easily get exposed without the protection of the fullbacks covering behind. Adding to which the midfield we are playing dont offer them enough protection either, its just not in Koren\Oli's game. It's disappointing that we have gone from having a solid defense to leaking stupid goals - Build from the back and all that.
Stop making out like everyone else is stupid, when the extent of your logic is that because we've lost the system must be ****. But we still conceded two ****e goals. I think Tuesday showed that the formation makes little difference compared to massive individual errors, which can swing the result of a game on their own.
I dont think Bruce planned to go 442 on Tuesday, if we were to go 442 from the start, I would pray to god he wouldn't stick Oli and Koren in as the midfield pair!!
Still trying to make out that formations don't win or lose games? Of course they do! Like someone has already said, if we started 4-4-2 we wouldn't of had Oli and Koren in the middle, well I'd assume he wouldn't, he should of taken off one of these two and swapped them with McKenna or Evans, but what do we know? We're just fans.
Which is exactly the point I was trying to make when I said on the other thread that you could hardly blame switching to a 4-4-2 for their 2nd and 3rd goals. The players didn't seem to know what they were doing defensively (if Bruce and McShane ever do anyway) and even once we switched from a 3-5-2 they were still all over the shop. Rosenior - who somehow kept being dragged into the middle - and Elmohamady - who always wanted to get forward and so provided less defensive cover than I'd have liked - together on the right will just not work.
Can't question the line-up or formation today, a nice solid 4-5-1/4-3-3 formation with McKenna back playing, none conceded and come away with 3 points.
