Squad and formation

[nzlatic]

There's been a lot of chat about formation and I really don't want to make this another Unsworth in/out thread. But I was thinking about what formation would best suit this squad as it stands. In other words, how to get the best 11 players on the pitch in a coherent formation with no square pegs in round holes.

 

This will give a lot of folk cold sweats (especially the phone in and podcast crew!), but for me it has to be 3 at the back. Players at this level should be able to play it. Coaches at this level should be able to coach it. So for the purpose of this exercise I've assumed all players fit and available and have not taken our coaching team's preferences/abilities into account. But it would be nice if this could be a thread about what formation suits our squad rather than the current manager's ability to deliver it!

 

This could be any of 352, 343, 3412, 3142...

 

CB: Hobson, Hogan, Raglan to start with Sutton, McGahey and Sheron as decent cover

LWB/LM: Kitching or Dickenson

RWB/RM: Freeman or Green with Shelton, Sutton as cover

CM: from Lundstram, Gardner, Shelton, Ward, Sheron, Dickenson

Forwards to use in a front 3: Ward, Tollit, Hope, Green plus all the strikers

 

I think that gives us good options in each position, with a nice balance of defensive and attacking players in the starting 11. 

 

In my opinion 442 isn't right for us because I don't think that those who would play the winger role are among the better players in the squad. So we're leaving out better players just to accommodate the formation. With no real cover out wide either as the only players who you'd say are wide players in a midfield 4 are probably just Green, Tollitt and Dickenson.

 

I'll now take cover!... 

 

 

[Monty Burns]

defo 433 with an aggressive high press. Reid or Willoughby and Green either side of Norwood. 

Sheron CDM with Dickenson and Gardner in front of him.

defence should be easy with that calibre of player in there.

and either Keeper is fine by me.

[Monty Burns]

its fuckin easy to pick a team don't get why we makin it so difficult.

Rhino doing the business for us infrastructure ladz, but he's fuckin up the whole point of the club on matchdays.

 

[Handsy]

For me not knowing what is our best formation after nearly 12 months in charge and numerous players through the door.  shows that we don’t have an identity on the pitch  look at our opponents this weekend we all know that they will play with a high press in a formation that they are all used to. The amount of people around me at home games that are trying to work out what formation we will be playing before kick off  is unbelievable he needs to stop tinkering from game to game and play to our strengths

[Steve_R]

26 minutes ago, nzlatic said:

There's been a lot of chat about formation and I really don't want to make this another Unsworth in/out thread. But I was thinking about what formation would best suit this squad as it stands. In other words, how to get the best 11 players on the pitch in a coherent formation with no square pegs in round holes.

 

This will give a lot of folk cold sweats (especially the phone in and podcast crew!), but for me it has to be 3 at the back. Players at this level should be able to play it. Coaches at this level should be able to coach it. So for the purpose of this exercise I've assumed all players fit and available and have not taken our coaching team's preferences/abilities into account. But it would be nice if this could be a thread about what formation suits our squad rather than the current manager's ability to deliver it!

 

This could be any of 352, 343, 3412, 3142...

 

CB: Hobson, Hogan, Raglan to start with Sutton, McGahey and Sheron as decent cover

LWB/LM: Kitching or Dickenson

RWB/RM: Freeman or Green with Shelton, Sutton as cover

CM: from Lundstram, Gardner, Shelton, Ward, Sheron, Dickenson

Forwards to use in a front 3: Ward, Tollit, Hope, Green plus all the strikers

 

I think that gives us good options in each position, with a nice balance of defensive and attacking players in the starting 11. 

 

In my opinion 442 isn't right for us because I don't think that those who would play the winger role are among the better players in the squad. So we're leaving out better players just to accommodate the formation. With no real cover out wide either as the only players who you'd say are wide players in a midfield 4 are probably just Green, Tollitt and Dickenson.

 

I'll now take cover!... 

 

 

I think this is where our recruitment has been flawed. We seemed to have collected centre forwards and now have no idea what to do with them all. We can’t play three of them as that just doesn’t work attacking wise. 
For 4 3 3 you need one centre forward (Norwood for me) and two buzzing around beside him who can drop back into midfield when needed. Nobody plays three out and centre forwards in a front three, but we seem to be trying to shoehorn players in there.

With the strikers we have 4 4 2 would suit is best, but the two in midfield get swamped and aren’t good enough anyway, and we lack the quality out wide.

I think we get bogged down with systems at times. Any formation will work if you play it right, and all can be attacking or defensive depending on how it’s utilised. 
Unfortunately we seem all over the place whichever formation we use.

[yarddog73]

Playing two defensive midfielders kills us, personally I like the four at the back with Sheron doing the donkey work in front, you then have to decide how you want to structure the front five, personally I like a midfield four with the players we have and one upfront but Unsworth doesn't seem to favour that particularly at home but I think at the level we are at we lose the midfield battle week in week out.

 

Keeper 

Traditional back four

Sheron

Ward Lundstrum Gardner Green

Norwood

[LightDN123]

Absolutely no. Bored of saying it but wing back is such a specialist role and they have to be players at a very high standard. I trust Kitching to play it, but if you play Freeman or Green there is will effectively see what happens at Southend. 
 

They focus on Kitching knowing full well that the RWB won’t be able to press forward. You then can’t get out your half. Please do not play 5 at the back. Absolutely no. 

[Monty Burns]

4 minutes ago, Steve_R said:

I think this is where our recruitment has been flawed. We seemed to have collected centre forwards and now have no idea what to do with them all. We can’t play three of them as that just doesn’t work attacking wise. 
For 4 3 3 you need one centre forward (Norwood for me) and two buzzing around beside him who can drop back into midfield when needed. Nobody plays three out and centre forwards in a front three, but we seem to be trying to shoehorn players in there.

With the strikers we have 4 4 2 would suit is best, but the two in midfield get swamped and aren’t good enough anyway, and we lack the quality out wide.

I think we get bogged down with systems at times. Any formation will work if you play it right, and all can be attacking or defensive depending on how it’s utilised. 
Unfortunately we seem all over the place whichever formation we use.

can't agree 

 

Reid Norwood Green

Willoghby Norwood Green

Willoughby Norwood Reid

 

would all be ace with the correct tactics behind them

[oafc1955]

40 minutes ago, Monty Burns said:

defo 433 with an aggressive high press. Reid or Willoughby and Green either side of Norwood. 

Sheron CDM with Dickenson and Gardner in front of him.

defence should be easy with that calibre of player in there.

and either Keeper is fine by me.

No Nuttall?

[Monty Burns]

3 minutes ago, yarddog73 said:

Playing two defensive midfielders kills us, personally I like the four at the back with Sheron doing the donkey work in front, you then have to decide how you want to structure the front five, personally I like a midfield four with the players we have and one upfront but Unsworth doesn't seem to favour that particularly at home but I think at the level we are at we lose the midfield battle week in week out.

 

Keeper 

Traditional back four

Sheron

Ward Lundstrum Gardner Green

Norwood

Yep l could see this.

l dont think formation is the problem. having people guessing is completely fine.

 

its the tactics.

 

l so wanted to use caps lock then.

[Monty Burns]

1 minute ago, oafc1955 said:

No Nuttall?

about 15-20 starts and the rest from the bench unless Norwood gets injured unfortunatley.

 

but l'd also be fine going 433 high press

 

Willougbhy/Reid Nuttall Willougby/Reid/Greeen

 

if we hadnt signed Norwood. but we did

[yarddog73]

Raglan and Norwood signings were unexpected and I think that is now part of the problem, as good as both are likely to end up being for us they weren't part of the plans initially which is part of the reason for the imbalance in the squad.

[nzlatic]

29 minutes ago, LightDN123 said:

Absolutely no. Bored of saying it but wing back is such a specialist role and they have to be players at a very high standard. I trust Kitching to play it, but if you play Freeman or Green there is will effectively see what happens at Southend. 
 

They focus on Kitching knowing full well that the RWB won’t be able to press forward. You then can’t get out your half. Please do not play 5 at the back. Absolutely no. 

Freeman has played wing back at a lot higher level than Kitching. 

[LightDN123]

1 minute ago, nzlatic said:

Freeman has played wing back at a lot higher level than Kitching. 

Yeah fully aware, but that’s when he could move. The guys hardly played for 2 years. Looks absolutely goosed since he has come in with a winger infront of him and you want him to bomb up and down that wing all game ? No chance. 

[nzlatic]

4 minutes ago, yarddog73 said:

Raglan and Norwood signings were unexpected and I think that is now part of the problem, as good as both are likely to end up being for us they weren't part of the plans initially which is part of the reason for the imbalance in the squad.

This is why I was looking for a way of making it more balanced.  Playing 3 at the back keeps the promotion winning experienced captain on the pitch and plays Hobson and Raglan. And 2 up front for me would be Norwood and Nuttall as they looked to be developing a decent partnership in the time they've had together. Reid and Willoughby as back up or rotating depending on form.

 

And also we have limited options for wing in a 442.

[nzlatic]

1 hour ago, nzlatic said:

So for the purpose of this exercise I've assumed all players fit and available

 

4 minutes ago, LightDN123 said:

Yeah fully aware, but that’s when he could move. The guys hardly played for 2 years. Looks absolutely goosed since he has come in with a winger infront of him and you want him to bomb up and down that wing all game ? No chance. 

My assumption meant match fit. 

[LightDN123]

5 minutes ago, nzlatic said:

 

My assumption meant match fit. 

Fair enough! Will Freeman ever be fit enough to play that position ?

I doubt it after his recent injury record. 

[Gentleman]

9 minutes ago, nzlatic said:

This is why I was looking for a way of making it more balanced.  Playing 3 at the back keeps the promotion winning experienced captain on the pitch and plays Hobson and Raglan. And 2 up front for me would be Norwood and Nuttall as they looked to be developing a decent partnership in the time they've had together. Reid and Willoughby as back up or rotating depending on form.

 

And also we have limited options for wing in a 442.

 

I completely agree with your reasoning here and I'm not adverse to a 3-5-2/3-4-3 when coached properly as it can actually be quite an expansive system and has players in defensive areas that frustrate sides that keep the ball, however I just don't trust our current coaching team to be able to get the necessary performances in that system out of these players/adapt in-game to guide them through it when there's a bit of adversity. Suits Kitching as the overload but comes down to intent first and foremost for me.

[League one forever]

1 hour ago, nzlatic said:

There's been a lot of chat about formation and I really don't want to make this another Unsworth in/out thread. But I was thinking about what formation would best suit this squad as it stands. In other words, how to get the best 11 players on the pitch in a coherent formation with no square pegs in round holes.

 

This will give a lot of folk cold sweats (especially the phone in and podcast crew!), but for me it has to be 3 at the back. Players at this level should be able to play it. Coaches at this level should be able to coach it. So for the purpose of this exercise I've assumed all players fit and available and have not taken our coaching team's preferences/abilities into account. But it would be nice if this could be a thread about what formation suits our squad rather than the current manager's ability to deliver it!

 

This could be any of 352, 343, 3412, 3142...

 

CB: Hobson, Hogan, Raglan to start with Sutton, McGahey and Sheron as decent cover

LWB/LM: Kitching or Dickenson

RWB/RM: Freeman or Green with Shelton, Sutton as cover

CM: from Lundstram, Gardner, Shelton, Ward, Sheron, Dickenson

Forwards to use in a front 3: Ward, Tollit, Hope, Green plus all the strikers

 

I think that gives us good options in each position, with a nice balance of defensive and attacking players in the starting 11. 

 

In my opinion 442 isn't right for us because I don't think that those who would play the winger role are among the better players in the squad. So we're leaving out better players just to accommodate the formation. With no real cover out wide either as the only players who you'd say are wide players in a midfield 4 are probably just Green, Tollitt and Dickenson.

 

I'll now take cover!... 

 

 

 

Quite simply. 
 

The proof is in the results. 
 

David Unsworth is not a good enough coach to implement 352 433 or anything other than 442. 
 

I’m baffled as to why people would consider formations that under this manager are an almost guaranteed loss. 

[deyres42]

13 minutes ago, LightDN123 said:

Fair enough! Will Freeman ever be fit enough to play that position ?

I doubt it after his recent injury record. 

From what I've read he wasn't injured for much of last season, just found himself out of favour.

[nzlatic]

1 hour ago, nzlatic said:

But it would be nice if this could be a thread about what formation suits our squad rather than the current manager's ability to deliver it!

 

 

 

1 minute ago, League one forever said:

 

Quite simply. 
 

The proof is in the results. 
 

David Unsworth is not a good enough coach to implement 352 433 or anything other than 442. 
 

I’m baffled as to why people would consider formations that under this manager are an almost guaranteed loss. 

[deyres42]

1 minute ago, League one forever said:

 

Quite simply. 
 

The proof is in the results. 
 

David Unsworth is not a good enough coach to implement 352 433 or anything other than 442. 
 

I’m baffled as to why people would consider formations that under this manager are an almost guaranteed loss. 

I don't believe that is true. A back three is trickier as you need specialists in certain positions but to say we couldn't play 4-2-3-1 or 4-3-3 is silly.

[League one forever]

1 minute ago, nzlatic said:

 

I knew you would say that.

 

But it’s like asking can we talk about the squad but not mention the players.  And to be fair I’m talking about his ability as a coach and how it affects formations- which is the thread title. 

[League one forever]

2 minutes ago, deyres42 said:

I don't believe that is true. A back three is trickier as you need specialists in certain positions but to say we couldn't play 4-2-3-1 or 4-3-3 is silly.

Results unfortunately say otherwise. 
 

 

[LightDN123]

5 minutes ago, deyres42 said:

I don't believe that is true. A back three is trickier as you need specialists in certain positions but to say we couldn't play 4-2-3-1 or 4-3-3 is silly.

Bloody hell, we agree on the wing back situation.