I'm not saying we aren't creating chances or that we haven't taken them, but the improved performance was down to the change in system, it allowed us to stay in the game, we looked much better, yes it's lovely that our strikers actually hit the target but to say its just down to the fact that the strikers scored is the reason for our win is just plain daft mate
He's going to be gone almost the second these new owners come in, it's one of the reasons why you saw a 3-5-2 yesterday, he knows he won't be sacked for going against the "philosophy". It was a really good performance yesterday, gritty and imperfect, but still better than what we've seen. As long as he's here, that's what I want to see in terms of set up.
Likewise and those who don't recognise the improved performance was down to the change in systems really need to give their heads a shake, mind blowing at times some of these people!
Well it's the same squad of players, the same manager, the same level of football, the formation was the only thing that changed in the last ten games. Would he have done it if he had the likes of Elder and Honeyman fit? Probably not. But now, why would you change a winning team?
Ehab's a moron with an inflated opinion of himself, but I don't believe for a second that he actually cares what formation we play. In fact I doubt he can tell the difference. This is a rumour based on something ambiguous McCann once said which has been Chinese whispered to the point that many people now think it's established fact. I don't believe we play 4-3-3 for any reason other than that it's McCann's preferred shape. As Grant pointed out yesterday, the shape wasn't really that different yesterday with Greaves bombing forward as a left back half the time and KLP supposedly playing wing back but actually being an attacker most of the time like normal. We got a bit of luck at both ends, that was the key difference between that game and some others we've had this season. We certainly didn't have any more men in midfield than usual as another poster is insisting.
Both Emmanuel and KLP were playing advanced roles thereby filling the midfield, with a central 3 at the back, he even accepted that it was a different shape, but tried to cover it by saying it wasn't too different to what we've already played. It was his way of covering his back for criticism about his rigid formations. It was 3 5 2 .. simples, worked as well !
Funny lot (some) on this board. I post something, no likes, The very next post agrees and repeats what I said and gets 8 likes. Weird eh? (Not that I'm bothered or counting like!!). BTW, of course we had more bodies in midfield!!! And we cut out unnecessary 'middle men', meaning for example, normally one CB passes to another (or to Smallwood who joins the back 4, becoming a back 5, to get the ball), then the CB passes to the LB who then passes to the left 'wing'. Yesterday, 1 of the 3 back line passes direct to the left 'wing' (KLP) and we are on the attack. Or a CB actually brings the ball out coz he has midfielders in front of him to pass to. And the striker actually has someone near him to lay off / knock on to (didn't happen successfully enough, but still way better than of late). The formation made all the difference
BTW, of course we had more bodies in midfield!!! And we cut out unnecessary 'middle men', meaning for example, normally one CB passes to another (or to Smallwood who joins the back 4, becoming a back 5, to get the ball), then the CB passes to the LB who then passes to the left 'wing'. Yesterday, 1 of the 3 back line passes direct to the left 'wing' (KLP) and we are on the attack. Or a CB actually brings the ball out coz he has midfielders in front of him to pass to. And the striker actually has someone near him to lay off / knock on to (didn't happen successfully enough, but still way better than of late). The formation made all the difference
Your 3-5-2 is someone else's 5-3-2. Is there a difference? While you're saying 4-3-3 leaves the midfield 3 "overrun", other people say it leaves the central striker "isolated". Makes me wonder where exactly the two wingers are if they're not close to the midfield nor to the attack. I don't think our midfield were particularly any better or worse than they were against say Bournemouth, when we had a bit less luck than yesterday and didn't win.
I commend Grant for switching things up and it paid off. Does that change my opinion of him as not being a Championship-standard manager? Not really. I think he’ll be gone if and when the takeover happens. That being said, I echo what others have said in that for as long as he’s here, that’s the sort of performance I’d like to see more of. We can argue the toss about formations but I don’t think the particular formation matters all that much. I think playing a tight front-two does make a big difference than a front-three in which the wingers are too far wide that they isolate the centre-forward though. Someone like Eaves paired up with a pacey forward like KLP or Tyler Smith or even Wilks seems more effective than a target man being left isolated in a front-three because he’s got no **** to knock balls down to when the wingers are hugging the touch-line. I’d still like to see KLP play in a front-two alongside a bigger centre-forward like Eaves. I think he’d do well as a Michael Owen-type striker.
Out of posession, were a 451 anyway. Same number of bodies in midfield when it comes to being overrun. I do agree that having a KLP/Wilks/Smith type in close support helps the central striker out, but it's possible to do that in the normal formation - KLP and Wilks didn't score 35 between them from the flanks last season did they? Pretty sure most were from in the box.
Irrespective of how many we had in midfield, looking at the highlights Boro' managed to take them out of the game with one pass on half a dozen occasions... BUT, we kept going and for once got something out of a game we could have lost 0-2, 0-3...
Isn't that the whole idea of a 352 formation ? To have flexibility when in and out of possession ? To flood the midfield when required or to bolster the defence similarly ? But it does allow 2 forwards to play closer together .. by the by .. the changes made the difference, instead of being out on their feet for the last 20 we came on strong, for me it's a formation that suited our players, you may have differing opinions, but the resulting win says it all for me.
Ehab Allam on playing 4-3-3... “If you keep on chopping and changing and it still doesn’t work, where’s that got you?” “We need to have a style of play which we’ve been working on and we are developing that, improving where we can. We’ve recruited for a certain style and that’s how we’ve set out our stall. “That (4-3-3) is the style of the football club and the style he (McCann) buys into. That is his style and part of the recruitment process is to make sure we are fully aligned with the head coach “We’ve bought into this, recruited for this is our best opportunity of survival. We are not at panic stations, thinking let’s try anything.”
And that’s it in a nutshell. Ehab buys players to play 433, which is fair enough. But if he scrimps and buys players that aren’t quite up to standard, the manager is set up to fail. We have a lower end of the Championship squad at best. Which dictates that that’s where we will finish. Formations don’t matter, quality counts.
