Team sheet Tactics & Formation

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
I don't get why we can't go 5-3-2 (or more like 5-4-1)
If Cook wants to stick with the full backs bombing forward, then would make sense to have three CB's. Edmundson and Burgess to do the dirty work, with Wolfy in the the middle to tidy things up and start the attack again. Morsy and Evans in the middle, then Celina and Edwards out wide to supply our forward, whoever that may be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bigalreigned and Buckyohare
I do wonder if Wolfy could do a job sitting in front of the back 4 but I guess now we have Morsy....

I think 532 (when defending) 352 (when attacking) would deffo work stretchy. I just feel PC is too stuck in his ways to change formation and he will stick with his way until it works or he gets sacked!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Southcoastoldgaffer and Buckyohare
Formations are also a basic starting position for players. Yes there’s one up top, but if we’re holding on for dear life he should be in the box defending in the trenches with the rest. Alisson scoring that winner for Liverpool. That’s not part of the formation but needs must!

I think there’s a lot to be said for adding 3 in midfield as we’ve been so bad there. However, I don’t get how Carol can help. I could see wolf in a anchor position until Morsy is fit. Ideally Harper would but he’s looked incapable of tackling to date…

when everyone is fit cook has to solve:

1. the full backs going forward and who tucks in to cover them. the cbs are left too exposed. And those two cb’s can only improve. Hard to look worse than they did v Bolton..

2. The midfield inability to tackle, defend, create chances or join the attack themselves. For two DCMs they have failed so far. Dereliction Of duty.

3. the no10. This guy needs to be in the box smashing in loose balls, creating chances and feeding off the striker. So far it’s been so ineffective it’s felt like we’re playing with 10 men each game. The wingers need to also to be a confident there’s more than 1 bloke to aim for in the box…

given Morsy was an after thought/unexpected surprise I have no idea how we were hoping to play this way without him and not a single other midfielder in his mould…I just assume cook has a master plan…I still think he’s good for us and this level but I remain of the view we need to have an eye on the next Bielsa if/when we ever get out of this nightmare of a division….
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Evesham and itfcptc
Wondering about this problem no10 position and whether we need to re think who plays there and the role. We keep trying a classy, ball playing forward type in the conventional 10 sense, but maybe this isn’t right for this league? Wigan are playing will Keane in the 10 who we know is a conventional CF and he must be moving up into the box to receive the wingers crosses. Given the wings are the biggest part of cooks system I wonder if Piggot would be best there behind Bonne as he’s also got the class to play the ball in centrally and move up to receive crosses in the air or on the deck?

Or we junk it and use three in midfield with (Carol presumably) playing higher to do the clever passes for the forwards to connect with. Hard to imagine cook doing that though…
 
  • Like
Reactions: Evesham
Buckyohare said:
Wondering about this problem no10 position and whether we need to re think who plays there and the role. We keep trying a classy, ball playing forward type in the conventional 10 sense, but maybe this isn’t right for this league? Wigan are playing will Keane in the 10 who we know is a conventional CF and he must be moving up into the box to receive the wingers crosses. Given the wings are the biggest part of cooks system I wonder if Piggot would be best there behind Bonne as he’s also got the class to play the ball in centrally and move up to receive crosses in the air or on the deck?

Or we junk it and use three in midfield with (Carol presumably) playing higher to do the clever passes for the forwards to connect with. Hard to imagine cook doing that though…
Click to expand...

Just to repeat myself. I would play Norwood when fit then Chaplin then Piggot. Cook doesn’t favour Norwood so good luck to him.

Carroll isn’t an attacking midfielder in any sense and we have plenty of attack minded midfielders. I’d stick to rotating Morsy and Carroll in CDM and as emergency defensive cover.
 
Buckyohare said:
Formations are also a basic starting position for players. Yes there’s one up top, but if we’re holding on for dear life he should be in the box defending in the trenches with the rest. Alisson scoring that winner for Liverpool. That’s not part of the formation but needs must!

I think there’s a lot to be said for adding 3 in midfield as we’ve been so bad there. However, I don’t get how Carol can help. I could see wolf in a anchor position until Morsy is fit. Ideally Harper would but he’s looked incapable of tackling to date…

when everyone is fit cook has to solve:

1. the full backs going forward and who tucks in to cover them. the cbs are left too exposed. And those two cb’s can only improve. Hard to look worse than they did v Bolton..

2. The midfield inability to tackle, defend, create chances or join the attack themselves. For two DCMs they have failed so far. Dereliction Of duty.

3. the no10. This guy needs to be in the box smashing in loose balls, creating chances and feeding off the striker. So far it’s been so ineffective it’s felt like we’re playing with 10 men each game. The wingers need to also to be a confident there’s more than 1 bloke to aim for in the box…

given Morsy was an after thought/unexpected surprise I have no idea how we were hoping to play this way without him and not a single other midfielder in his mould…I just assume cook has a master plan…I still think he’s good for us and this level but I remain of the view we need to have an eye on the next Bielsa if/when we ever get out of this nightmare of a division….
Click to expand...
What do you mean by that, mate?

Congrats on your first win, btw. You should be able to kick on, now.
 
YorkieLancsHampyLondoner said:
He means a manager who is a strategist and tactician. As opposed to PC who slings a lot of mud knowing that some of it will stick.
Click to expand...
Ah right, get it now <ok> - I thought he was talking about bringing in a world class manager. I was just thinking 'steady on', I understand what he meant now.

I still don't understand how Leeds were able to get Bielsa when they were in the Championship. Fair play to them, though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Buckyohare
As of surrendering another 2 goal advantage today at Cambridge and from the easiest of set pieces to defend against, it appears we’re not coached, We’re tactically naive, and the team is not balanced. even at 2-0 up we lool vulnerable. We’ve thrown away leads far too often.

Is cook simply being out thought and/or failing to coach them?

I’d prefer a 451 modified to 424 as we attack and 631 as we defend (no formation is static throughout a game) and i’d like Fraser in as a midfield no.8 as he was at Dons where he he did so well attacking from there and Celina and either chaplin or burns in a three with Bonne up top. He’s a proper target man and no wonder he’s hoovering up goals given the service he gets. It’s elsewhere we’re poor.

And any formation is wholly irrelevant if the players picked to go on the field aren’t properly coached to beat the teams they are due to play in the system the manager chooses. Eg there’s no point plying 541 if you pack it with strikers you’ll still concede goals because it’s the wrong formation for the players selected. It’s doing a keegan, who literally did just that: Steve howey was a striker used in central defence. It’s not a recipe for success. Incidentally keegan was also a manger that did zero coaching..

So I wonder if Cook is simply unable to out think his peers who all use his system so much more effectively than he seems able to now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Southcoastoldgaffer and Evesham
I haven't seen or heard much of the past few games but from what I've seen all season it's not necessarily about a defensive coach, it's about how we are set up, too many gaps in the same areas and on the face of it tactical naivity on Paul Cook's behalf which is why I feel he needs someone to challenge him like an experienced assistant coach, maybe Peter Reid can do that, however good you are in your job it's important to have people around you who challenge you to bring the best out of you. Or the other theory/contributing factor rather than tactical naivity is that we simply have had too many changes at the club meaning its difficult to get the message across to the players consistently. He's also got too many players to chose from, he's gone from saying he likes to have a small squad to saying he likes a squad with lots of competition.

I agree about Fraser, from the little I've seen he's very good on the ball and we need to bring the best out of him whether thats as an 8 next to Morsey or in the 10, I feel if he's in those positions we'd keep possession better and take the pressure off.

Whilst we have an array of talent to play in the 3 positions behind the striker i would say alot of those players are luxury players or players who take risks which you need, the problem is those types of players are more likely to lose possession. Whilst you need players like that, I feel it can put pressure on the rest of the team, despite their talent I've always felt anxious about having Edwards and Celina in the same team especially in this division.

We definitely need to find the right balance in the team/squad, I think he needs to sacrifice some of the attacking intent and luxury sometimes for a but of pragmatism.
 
  • Like
Reactions: San Diego and Southcoastoldgaffer
Good points ptc.

His mantra of wanting to sub attacking players like for like was his undoing yesterday. If he'd just been a bit more defensive and brought someone like Nsiala and went three at the back we could have seen that game out easily. Sticking rigidly to 4-2-3-1 may not work in every match and he needs to be a bit more flexible in his thinking and his use of subs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Southcoastoldgaffer and itfcptc
San Diego said:
Good points ptc.

His mantra of wanting to sub attacking players like for like was his undoing yesterday. If he'd just been a bit more defensive and brought someone like Nsiala and went three at the back we could have seen that game out easily. Sticking rigidly to 4-2-3-1 may not work in every match and he needs to be a bit more flexible in his thinking and his use of subs.
Click to expand...

For me if you're winning a game and want to sure it up a bit without going on the back food you don't bring on a load of flair luxury players, you bring on a midfield enforcer to set the tempo and keep the ball or a striker with a bit of energy to stretch the defence and offer an out ball. I realise as writing this we didn't have that type of player on the bench yesterday...what's happened to Norwood and Carroll?
 
itfcptc said:
For me if you're winning a game and want to sure it up a bit without going on the back food you don't bring on a load of flair luxury players, you bring on a midfield enforcer to set the tempo and keep the ball or a striker with a bit of energy to stretch the defence and offer an out ball. I realise as writing this we didn't have that type of player on the bench yesterday...what's happened to Norwood and Carroll?
Click to expand...

The option he had was Nsiala in a back three and move the full backs forward a bit to push Cambridge back. He chose to try and score again instead. All out attack for the whole game is not a strategy that will always work.
 
You know, looking at the subs bench I think Cook considered Cambridge were going to be easy and he didn't take a full strength squad. Portsmouth on Tuesday may have something to do with it too. He started with Aluko and Idris as well, which surprised most of us.
 
I just don't think Paul Cook is a good strategist. He's consistently made some baffling in-game decisions and substitutions which has allowed the opposition back into the game. Also, if we're up against a good opposition manager, they find ways to tweak their system to break us down. Now Mark Bonner - Cambridge's manager - isn't experienced and has only been managing for a couple of years, but he switched to 4-4-2 in the second half and the game changed. And our response was too put on Celina and Edwards - great attacking players, but they aren't going to help defend a lead.

It's a problem of his own making, but I feel a bit sorry for Cook in-game, because when he's struggling to think of a solution, who does he turn to? Franny Jeffers? Gary Roberts? The old kit man from Wigan? Jesus wept.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Southcoastoldgaffer, Buckyohare and Evesham
Nuggets said:
I just don't think Paul Cook is a good strategist. He's consistently made some baffling in-game decisions and substitutions which has allowed the opposition back into the game. Also, if we're up against a good opposition manager, they find ways to tweak their system to break us down. Now Mark Bonner - Cambridge's manager - isn't experienced and has only been managing for a couple of years, but he switched to 4-4-2 in the second half and the game changed. And our response was too put on Celina and Edwards - great attacking players, but they aren't going to help defend a lead.

It's a problem of his own making, but I feel a bit sorry for Cook in-game, because when he's struggling to think of a solution, who does he turn to? Franny Jeffers? Gary Roberts? The old kit man from Wigan? Jesus wept.
Click to expand...

There’s not just one right way to be a football manager and strategy is not the only attribute needed. Nobody who has been around this level for a while is a master tactician.

I would trade the tactical element for Paul Cook’s character, energy and eye for a player all day long. He is working as part of a team so as long as they can find a way to win - and that might mean that someone else is doing analysis or coaching tactics.

That all said, I don’t think that’s where we’re going wrong.

1) We are making basic mistakes, particularly in defence / goal. Whenever our pass completion drops we start inviting the opposition onto us. That’s as much up to the players to cut out as to be drilled in and we need to strengthen the playing staff there.

2) The formation we like to assign as a formation means very little at this level. Sure, there are 3, 4 or 5 in defence but assigning a formation to midfield and attack is not so straight forward. There are never clear lines, players chase the ball / passage of play and get dragged all over the pitch. The momentum of the game and decision making of individuals affects the formation far more than any numbers we care to assign. Paul Cook’s 4-5-1 bears no resemblance to Paul Hurst’s or Paul Lambert’s. There are always attackers in support of Bonne and getting into the box. Just by making a different team selection or substitution Paul Cook alters the formation.

Our spine right now is so weak. We fix it by signing a leader at CB and a far stronger goalkeeper.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Bigalreigned
Does anyone know where to get reliable fitness/injury news on our players? San Diego you seemed to establish when the illness struck pre the last match was that jungle drums or some public source?

I’m wondering if Fraser is injured?can’t fathom his exclusion otherwise.
 
Buckyohare said:
Does anyone know where to get reliable fitness/injury news on our players? San Diego you seemed to establish when the illness struck pre the last match was that jungle drums or some public source?

I’m wondering if Fraser is injured?can’t fathom his exclusion otherwise.
Click to expand...

Fraser is apparently out injured but with a mystery injury.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back