I know, I'm enjoying it while it lasts. If we play 3-5-2 and lose I'll find some things to throw at SB. I'd throw Cabbages, Hot Bovril and Gravel.
I am going along with the 2 Juniors. So that's 4 with PLT No idea how many tickets City have sold Best go to bed iv got to be up at 5 am to go pick Juniors up in Hull COYH
I don't see why people are against 3-5-2? It didn't work in the PL, but the last time in the Championship it worked a treat!
It's not the amount of positions, it's the way they played. It was just endless crosses into the box. It worked fine when we first used it because nobody else bothered with it. It was almost like having a secret weapon; it was something the opposition wasn't expecting and something they didn't really know how to defend against. But in a division famed for big centre halves, it isn't going to work. Fast forward three seasons and at least half the 92 teams in the top divisions have used it at some point, which is why I got so frustrated when we kept persisting with it at top level. Teams now know it's weaknesses and can set up accordingly to nullify it. Plus we have two attack minded full backs who seem to suffer a little bit from defensive naivety, which can be very costly against teams that play with pacy wingers.
The purpose of the 3-5-2 is to maintain a fluid transition from defence to attack; when we have possession, the WB's pile forward making a 5 man midfield. When defending, they drop back to form a 5 man defence. Our problem was that our WB's didn't get back quick enough, leaving a gaping hole in the wide areas. This meant a CB had to come across and cover, leaving us a man short in the middle. We're less likely to get punished for it at this level, but it doesn't mean we won't altogether. I don't know why we don't play 4-2-3-1, we've had the personnel for it for ages and it seems to work for a lot of teams without much in the way of drawbacks. Norwich played it today against Sunderland and blew them away.
It amazes me when fellow "ditch-diggers" like myself can come on here and criticize Steve Bruce and his selection panel on their choice of players and tactics always with the benefit of hindsight. Steve and his panel will have done their homework and will field the best team that they feel will get a result. If we win we will praise whoever scores the goal(s) and ignore Steve Bruce and his panel. If we lose then Steve Bruce and his panel will be a useless pack of "See You Next Tuesday's" and we will tell all who will listen what WE would have done if WE were in charge! My opinion on so-called 'strikers' is well documented on these boards but, after a mere one F-Bombing game, some have written Jelly off as a 'primadonna' who couldn't give a r@ts @rse whether he plays or not. Do people honestly think that a professional footballer will don his Clubs shirt and go on to the pitch and decide that he 'couldn't be bothered' and let his Club down, the Fans down, his team-mates down and himself down? I don't think so folks! I will be watching our new blokes for the first time later this evening and, although I have forecast a 2-1 win to us, it is 'early doors' and the team is yet to 'bond' so I am not expecting too much. There used to be an old Hull City saying (from an old Army motto I would think) "Not for me to question why, just cheer them on until I die". On the 31st of this month it will be exactly 70 years since my Granddad took me to see my first Hull City game and I have been hooked ever since. Thanks to the miracle of satellite TV I continue to watch from 12,500 miles away with the same enthusiasm.
I think Bruce will probably stick with four at the back, he tends to not change things until we lose.
Every formation has pro's and con's. I don't think a formation that puts you on the front foot should be viewed badly. I think we have the players to change formation during a game - which is something I would like to see. 4-4-2 can be just as dull - every club has or does play it currently. It's like it is set in stone - we're English and we play 4-4-2. Two banks of four, big and small centre forward.
No wonder you're against it, you don't understand it. So, all of the other formations (4-4-2; 4-4-1-1; etc.) that were used before the so-called discovery of 3-5-2 have never been sussed then? Are they all not more useless for having been around for longer (apparently)? Is that really how you think it works? How about looking at it differently: when we have possession, the WB's pile forward making a 5 man midfield. Usually it is just one of the WBs who piles forward to create a three man attack; he should already be in a midfield position. When defending, they drop back to form a 5 man defence. Yes they might well do that, occasionally, when we are well and truely under the cosh, but the manner of defence that should be the aim is something different. There are three CBs and three CMFs for a reason, they, along with one of the WBs should be the options to drop in to cover; those players that do not (and should not) drop in are your counterattack, your aggressive defence. When you play a team that puts you under so much pressure (under the cosh) you end up using both WBs as FBs and having CMF compressed back then you have the wrong shape - change your shape, but will all players then be in their natural positions? We have seen Bruce do this to good and bad effect. Our problem was that our WB's didn't get back quick enough, leaving a gaping hole in the wide areas. It's why there is the luxury of three CBs.
Any formation is as attacking or defensive as a team makes it. In our case it became a very pragmatic one because we didn't commit men forward; we could easily end up being just as defensive while employing a back four (although it's unlikely in this division - a big part of our defensiveness in the previous two years was down to the quality of opposition).
Not saying you're wrong, Tuckin, but I think you need to take it further. I agree a formation is as attacking or defensive as a team makes it, but some formations definitely lend themselves more one way than the other - or should do. The should do part can be and normally is dependent on the players involved; which is why I touched on players in their natural positions - ineffective players squander a position as we have often seen with target men who aren't target men. But that is pretty much what you said. The element unsaid is the opposition, as they can make your formation something you never dreamt of. You kind of touched on that with your last line. Formation is important, it being predictable is the same for them all, it is the players who add the unpredictability, not always as we would want. Managers, especially Bruce, are just as responsible for the effectiveness of a formation and can be equally responsible for making players less effective in delivering its success - round and square pegs become to mind, the holes are plain to see.
Bruce returns to the past and goes 2 -3 - 5 McGregor hat trick playing as fly goalie 3-0 city Mr Hat does a streak
