3-5-2 at home?

[nicholaldo]

One of the strengths of Parky, and something that particularly impresses me about him, is that he's ensured we've been able to garner the required number of points, especially at this level, at great economy, managing to eek out if not the maximum, then certainly a great deal from few shots on target and a minority of possession. And previously, I've been very attached to, and very much in favour of us playing a 4-2-3-1 because of the defensive solidity it offers us and frankly because, bar a fairly short run of fixtures towards the end of our promotion-winning season where we played a 3-5-2 to accommodate not having a proper right-back, it's been the only formation that's worked. He was right not to play le Fondre up front on his own, and he was right not to break away from playing four at the back and Henry and Pratley just in front.

Things don't remain the same forever though, and watching us today made me think that the time has come to try something different. A poster on here (from memory, it was GhostoftheBok) made what's turned out thus far to be a pretty pertinent point – we are likely to do better away from home than we are at home, due to us not being forced to take the game to the opposition when on our travels. With that in mind, and having sat in the stands despairing at our struggle to create meaningful chances in the last few home matches, I'm now wondering if we'd get more out of what we've got by playing a 3-5-2.

Watching Doidge today, my first impressions of him are that he makes the right runs and gets into the right areas, but he's not particularly strong and he's not particularly quick. To get the best out of him, I think we need to play him as one of a two alongside Magennis, which leaves us with a problem. We haven't up to now been able to accommodate a two up front because of the weaknesses that we've had in the centre of midfield. Make no mistake, the last time we tried a 3-5-2 in the second tier it was a disaster, and Parky rightly noticed this and brought in Henry to sit alongside Pratley, but a five of Noone, Lowe / O'Neill, Oztumer, Williams and Ameobi is surely more compenent than Taylor, Pratley, Cullen, Karacan and Morais? Not only that, but a 3-5-2 would allow us to solve the puzzle of how to get Oztumer into the starting eleven and also retains the width higher up the pitch that's been so succesful for us. With Williams, Ameobi and Noone around him and a front two in front of him, he might just find more joy than he would in any other line-up we might go with. Obviously, a 3-5-2 would (or in theory could) heighten the age old problem of us having a couple of cumbersome centre-backs, but then we might equally find that we retain more possession to compensate for that.

Prior to now, 4-2-3-1 with a target man up front has unquestionably been the most suitable formation for the squad of players we've had, but given our creative difficulties at home, most notably the lack of movement further forward, and considering some of the players that we've signed this summer, I'm beginning to think that that might no longer be the case.

TL;DR – with the players we have now, and because we're expected to take it to the opposition at home, we might do better in a 3-5-2 rather than a 4-2-3-1.

[Prufrock]

Jesus Christ not that 352! 3 central midfielders, 2 wingers and 2 strikers? Christ alive.

Not for me.

[nicholaldo]

Jesus Christ not that 352! 3 central midfielders, 2 wingers and 2 strikers? Christ alive.

Not for me.

Fairy muff.

It would obviously be a big risk, but it might just turned out to be inspired.

[officer_dibble]

No Olkowski?

Lack of a left wing back option makes it a no from me.

Potentially had we signed Robinson it could have worked...but Sami Ameobi playing behind a front two for me.

[nicholaldo]

I should add, it wouldn't be what I'd go for against the better teams.

[nicholaldo]

No Olkowski?

Lack of a left wing back option makes it a no from me.

Potentially had we signed Robinson it could have worked...but Sami Ameobi playing behind a front two for me.

Play him on the right of the three. It would naturally nullify his advances forward, but if it makes us better as a whole then it might be worth the sacrifice. Alternatively, play him on the right side of midfield, à la Andrew Taylor on the opposite flank last season, and move Ameobi to the other side. I accept that Ameobi is very strong coming in from the right so it's hardly ideal, but then neither is getting beat at home to a club that in some ways is in an even bigger mess than we are.

[nicholaldo]

No Olkowski?

Lack of a left wing back option makes it a no from me.

Potentially had we signed Robinson it could have worked...but Sami Ameobi playing behind a front two for me.

Alright then, Ameobi in behind and Olkowski on the right. Noone on the left.

[truewhite15]

I'm still not convinced that 2 up front is a magic pill to cure all our ills. Getting an extra striker in the side results in issues elsewhere. 3 at the back would scare me with the defenders we have, and we don't have what you would term "wing-backs" in the squad.

The issue we have is that we haven't found the right blend in midfield of players to cover the back four AND support the striker. I'd question whether we actually have the players to work that - I haven't seen enough from Oz at this point to suggest that he's the messiah, and all the other midfielders we have are what you'd call "functional". Sticking Ameobi in the middle of the three solves some of the problems, but then who do you play in his position? Buckley, Noone and Wildschut are even more hit-and-miss than Sammy is.

[nicholaldo]

I'm still not convinced that 2 up front is a magic pill to cure all our ills. Getting an extra striker in the side results in issues elsewhere. 3 at the back would scare me with the defenders we have, and we don't have what you would term "wing-backs" in the squad.

The issue we have is that we haven't found the right blend in midfield of players to cover the back four AND support the striker. I'd question whether we actually have the players to work that - I haven't seen enough from Oz at this point to suggest that he's the messiah, and all the other midfielders we have are what you'd call "functional". Sticking Ameobi in the middle of the three solves some of the problems, but then who do you play in his position? Buckley, Noone and Wildschut are even more hit-and-miss than Sammy is.

As above, if we're not having Ameobi on the right then Olkowski. He could even drop in to form at four at the back when we lose possession in certain areas.

This might all sound fanciful, but I do think we might need to change something at home. We're very predictable as it stands, and with arguably a stronger midfield than we've had for at least a few years, we're perhaps now in a position to try things.

Ps. I don't think that two up front is a magic pill to cure all our ills, or that Oztumer is the messiah, but I would argue that Williams has quite a bit more about him in a "footballing" sense than any of our other functional central midfielders.

[officer_dibble]

Ps. I don't think that two up front is a magic pill to cure all our ills, or that Oztumer is the messiah, but I would argue that Williams has quite a bit more about him in a "footballing" sense than any of our other functional central midfielders.

I would argue that on the basis of today! I wasn’t at Preston but for anyone who was can they confirm it was the same Williams who played today as he looked lost out there!

[nicholaldo]

Ps. I don't think that two up front is a magic pill to cure all our ills, or that Oztumer is the messiah, but I would argue that Williams has quite a bit more about him in a "footballing" sense than any of our other functional central midfielders.

I would argue that on the basis of today! I wasn’t at Preston but for anyone who was can they confirm it was the same Williams who played today as he looked lost out there!

That's unfair in my opinion. He clearly has ability and I thought that he tried to get us going more than once, but that he had also had an air of frustration about him brought on by the majority of his teammates not being on his wavelength. It's in that sense that I think Oztumer might be able to help.

Perhaps we don't have to be so drastic as to change formation completely. A 4-2-3-1, with Williams as one of the middle two, Oztumer in behind Magennis, and Ameobi and Noone wide could create enough movement in the opposition half and stability further back? That leaves Doidge without a starting berth though, and in which case, I'm not sure why we've signed him. He's only played the once, of course, but from what I've seen and know of him, he's better placed to complement Magennis than replace him.

[Prufrock]

Given our struggles to find a left-winger it wouldn't surprise me to see Magennis start there (as he has done a lot for NI) or Donaldson. Allows us to get another striker in the side without sacrificing the shape. Also gives us another option particularly at home to try to pin a full-back against one of the big lads.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Given our struggles to find a left-winger it wouldn't surprise me to see Magennis start there (as he has done a lot for NI) or Donaldson. Allows us to get another striker in the side without sacrificing the shape. Also gives us another option particularly at home to try to pin a full-back against one of the big lads.

Good shout, that. I do think Parky takes everyone on merit but it'd be hard to justify leaving Doidge out for long; similarly, Magennis has done such a good job that it'd be tough to drop him. We might end up with more than one striker on the pitch but in the same 433/451 formation, and if the 'wide attacker' sweats enough to make it work, that might not be a bad thing – he'd still be there-or-thereabouts for the sharp end of moves and, perhaps crucially, set-pieces (who would you rather have in the box at a corner: Magennis or Buckley?)

Clearly though we need another idea when teams sit in. Preston were never going to do that so the 433/451 works, but by the sounds of it, QPR weren't coming at us and we didn't have the gorm to cut through. Strikes me that in those situations we don't need the midfield triangle to have three Very Hard Workers in the Lowe/O'Neil/Williams(?Vela) mould, we need a bit more creative nous. Can't blame Parky for bringing on Magennis for Lowe after an hour, but it's not necessarily about chucking forwards on: if you go two up top against a deep defence it's all behind them, they'll have their backs to goal and that's what the defence will want. It's more often better to bring on someone who asks them questions, pulls them out of position. I would hope – especially with Sammy out – that Oztumer is that man, but he'll need longer than eight minutes to do owt.

One other thing. Attempts on goal isn't a perfect metric but it can certainly show patterns. In our three league away games this season we've got 4, 4 and 7 (at PNE) efforts on target. Our home games, in order, have produced 2, 4, 2 and 2. We managed four points from the first two home games – arguably, somewhat luckily in the Bristol example – but bugger all since, so something has to change, whether it's personnel, formation or mindset.

Screen Shot 2018-09-18 at 08.55.26.png (27.01 KiB) Viewed 3721 times

[Jugs]

PP doesn't adjust his tactics according to the team we're playing. It was the same stuff against QPR - a team third bottom, playing away - as it was against everyone else. He adjusts 60 mins in when he realises "shit, QPR are playing differently to Preston, they're sitting in, let's 'av 'em!" I mean, fancy leaving a non-league striker so isolated for an hour on his home debut. Is 3-5-2 the answer? Not sure, but something has to change.

[BWFC_Insane]

PP doesn't adjust his tactics according to the team we're playing. It was the same stuff against QPR - a team third bottom, playing away - as it was against everyone else. He adjusts 60 mins in when he realises "shit, QPR are playing differently to Preston, they're sitting in, let's 'av 'em!" I mean, fancy leaving a non-league striker so isolated for an hour on his home debut. Is 3-5-2 the answer? Not sure, but something has to change.

Nah. He works on things during the week as he said he wanted the wingers running in behind but it didn’t happen. Or when it did the ball wasn’t right.

The system is the right one for us. It’s a question of how we play in it. We might need to look at how to get Oztumer into it. I also like the idea at home of big Clayton out wide with Sammi missing. We need options to hold the ball beyond the striker. Oztumer was poor against Brum let us not forget that. But at home he might unlock doors. And more brute force up front and out wide allows for a less subtle approach when the situation dictates.

[Jugs]

PP doesn't adjust his tactics according to the team we're playing. It was the same stuff against QPR - a team third bottom, playing away - as it was against everyone else. He adjusts 60 mins in when he realises "shit, QPR are playing differently to Preston, they're sitting in, let's 'av 'em!" I mean, fancy leaving a non-league striker so isolated for an hour on his home debut. Is 3-5-2 the answer? Not sure, but something has to change.

Nah. He works on things during the week as he said he wanted the wingers running in behind but it didn’t happen. Or when it did the ball wasn’t right.

The system is the right one for us. It’s a question of how we play in it. We might need to look at how to get Oztumer into it. I also like the idea at home of big Clayton out wide with Sammi missing. We need options to hold the ball beyond the striker. Oztumer was poor against Brum let us not forget that. But at home he might unlock doors. And more brute force up front and out wide allows for a less subtle approach when the situation dictates.

It's been the same tactic all season, regardless of the opposition. Massive gap from midfield to lone striker and 3 CM's who pass sideways. Only exception was Birmingham when Otz started.

Not only is it ineffective, it's dour stuff to watch.

[Prufrock]

That's not really about working on things in the week, it's having a glacial back 4. Sounds like they spend the whole game trying to get them up but it's hard to change habits and, more importantly, there's only so far you can squeeze that back 4 before it becomes suicidal.

[TANGODANCER]

Not a diatribe, more comment:

The "English" game, with two full backs, three half-back and five forwards (two wingers, two inside forwards and a centre forward) , got lost initially( along with the Home Internationals) because of the crowd-pleasing Harlem Globe Trotters style of individual skill merchants from "abroad" replacing the team game along with the demise of the Home internationals (although the Irish problems deterred players from wanting to go to Northern Ireland back then) . The South Americans great in individual skills but ever controversial were always crowd-pleasers but in Europe it was initially the Italians, then the Spanish who made the passing/possession techniques a whole new er, ball game! The Germans brought in a disciplined version of the same with a midfield general/sweeper like Franz Beckenbaur controlling things with skill and ease. It was also the reason our game was so often shown to be lacking almost right up to the 66 World Cup when Alf Ramsey used George Cohen and Ray Wilson as wing backs and significantly changed our game. Bobby Moore (from West Ham who, as everyone knows won the World Cup for us) was our Beckenbaur and our goals in the tournament were hardly the result of Brazil style play even then, despite our success.

The point of all this regarding Bolton is that passing the ball meaninglessly to keep possession looks fine, but achieves nothing if it doesn't have an end product. Whether we use the wallop method (we used to call it "kick and rush" in schoolboy football), actually pass it forth from midfield (rarely), or have wingers sending balls boxwards, we still need bodies forward to take any chances created. I know it's singing the same old song, but probably one of our best ever ariel ball winners, Kev Davies, was all too often a "Billy no mates" player on the end of Jussi's goal kicks. Not one single team I can remember in our leagues uses wallop ball as much as we do or gives the ball back to offensive attacking sides as many times. Not since Mark Davies have we had anybody charging forth down the middle (to some effect) and when we do sally forth it's with all the speed of a "Tipping Point" disc pusher. With the players we have now, things may change (although Sammi's loss is a real kick in the gnashers) , I sure hope so. It will be criminal if we give away our great start. We need to get forth and multiple (points)

Okay, back to my headphones, sound version and highlights two-pennyworth. I have no doubt contradictory views may be aired (and heard) ..

[Jugs]

Not a diatribe, more comment:

The "English" game, with two full backs, three half-back and five forwards (two wingers, two inside forwards and a centre forward) , got lost initially( along with the Home Internationals) because of the crowd-pleasing Harlem Globe Trotters style of individual skill merchants from "abroad" replacing the team game along with the demise of the Home internationals (although the Irish problems deterred players from wanting to go to Northern Ireland back then) . The South Americans great in individual skills but ever controversial were always crowd-pleasers but in Europe it was initially the Italians, then the Spanish who made the passing/possession techniques a whole new er, ball game! The Germans brought in a disciplined version of the same with a midfield general/sweeper like Franz Beckenbaur controlling things with skill and ease. It was also the reason our game was so often shown to be lacking almost right up to the 66 World Cup when Alf Ramsey used George Cohen and Ray Wilson as wing backs and significantly changed our game. Bobby Moore (from West Ham who, as everyone knows won the World Cup for us) was our Beckenbaur and our goals in the tournament were hardly the result of Brazil style play even then, despite our success.

The point of all this regarding Bolton is that passing the ball meaninglessly to keep possession looks fine, but achieves nothing if it doesn't have an end product. Whether we use the wallop method (we used to call it "kick and rush" in schoolboy football), actually pass it forth from midfield (rarely), or have wingers sending balls boxwards, we still need bodies forward to take any chances created. I know it's singing the same old song, but probably one of our best ever ariel ball winners, Kev Davies, was all too often a "Billy no mates" player on the end of Jussi's goal kicks. Not one single team I can remember in our leagues uses wallop ball as much as we do or gives the ball back to offensive attacking sides as many times. Not since Mark Davies have we had anybody charging forth down the middle (to some effect) and when we do sally forth it's with all the speed of a "Tipping Point" disc pusher. With the players we have now, things may change (although Sammi's loss is a real kick in the gnashers) , I sure hope so. It will be criminal if we give away our great start. We need to get forth and multiple (points)

Okay, back to my headphones, sound version and highlights two-pennyworth. I have no doubt contradictory views may be aired (and heard) ..

That's it for me - PP didn't capitalise on our great start on Saturday. We've had a fantastic start but the we never took the game to QPR. People can say all they want about how the 2 wingers were meant to support the new lad but to start with 3 CDM's at home against a team 3rd bottom was criminal IMO. I said all last season that we lacked a playmaker, someone in the middle who can support the striker and make things happen. We still lack it, it's not been addressed. Can't say Otz has addressed it because we've barely seen him. The midfield is flat. No creativity, no ideas, no excitement at home. We have to do better.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

For the record, and not aimed at any poster in particular, I suspect Williams may have more about him than merely being another defensive midfielder. But let's see, this season and beyond.