Our formation

[Worthy4England]

There's a lot of threads where we talk about formation and associated topics (like people we have in it). But I do think it might sit well on it's own thread. I've previously said I don't have a "preferred" - just go with best match for the players you have - and I think Ghost said something similar. We believe Evatt's preferred is 433, rather than our current.

For me, when we moved to our current formation (our starting point, before we flitted with 433 then reverted and went all-in), I was pretty worried, in a "not my day job" sense, average Joe watching football, about our ability to get players of the right calibre (at the right price) to play the system well enough, often enough that it gets us out of the division (maybe not as much of a goal for some, as others). There's a decent narrative on the tonight's football thread, and Pru's post - gold star that man - managed to sum up two years of my rambling concerns into one post - no wonder legals are expensive per word, the value is in the brevity. Even the luddite 442 for City, conjouring up the spirit of forwards of yesteryear and hoofed balls, gets a mention as "very modern" - amazing what context does. So Pru's post.

Don't necessarily disagree, as you've mentioned, formations are starting points. City are often 442 off the ball. Very modern. (And 325 on it, how super very modern).

The issue has largely been the two isolated. How do you stop the full back being the easy out? If there's three of you (a front three, or a 2 and a 10) it's workable. If there's a front two AND the wing backs have a good starting position AND there's legs in all of them AND the midfield come with and have the brains then you have half a chance. That's a lot to expect a league one team to do consistently. You're also then really reliant on 4 quality strikers, two quality wing backs (or with a tweak, a quality 10). Plus cover over a season. It's a big ask.

All for a bit more notional solidity in a 5. Not worth the trade offs for me.

The way we set up is reliant on too many bits all working together and anyone failing is borderline catastrophic. I mentioned around the Barnsley game, we have no middle ground. If the wing backs are slightly off it it all falls apart and we're truly horrible. If we can't control it we just can't get out. Playing with two wide lads (one of who is arguably the best attacking player in the division) allows you to be a threat even in games where you aren't playing particularly well.

This is really how I've felt about our set-up for most of 3 years. Whilst it's great when we're on top and flat-track, it's great (other than when we slow it down). But that last para sums it up perfectly for me. It's not resilient enough, often enough and to make plan A a better plan A would take dosh we don't have or players we can't sign when we've done our research. There isn't much point in saying this works with player X, if player x is playing for someone else and not us.

We're told it's too costly to change, too hard to adapt, we're too deep in to change (some) - not necessarily talking the throw it out and put a call into Super Kev option now. And this is what strategy looks like. Strategy looks at risk mitigations too, and I don't feel these get enough attention, because we're impressed putting a shed load past a well under-par Exeter and not worried enough to weed out when it's clearly not working. The Exeter game is great but still only gets you three points, Carlisle who couldn't spell "win" last year, is three we're not ever seeing again.

So whilst I say I'm not to fussed about formations - and I'm still not in the sense that if I think it gets us up, I'll live with it - I am fussed about us trying to do something that is so complicated and at the same time has the single points of failure, Pru suggests.

[Prufrock]

Cheers worthy, I'll *try* not to derail every other thread, but no promises.

The "modern" description of City was slightly tongue in cheek. It's both obviously true, but also I think interesting in how things come around.

On the ball on Sunday City essentially had a front 5 of Silva, De Bruyne, Haaland, Foden, Doku.

For which you could read Finney, Taylor, Lofthouse, Haynes, Perry. Or winger, inside forward, centre forward, inside forward, winger.

Nothing new under the sun!

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

I've posted a few times that I think we're trying to do too much and need to simplify. Therefore I'm in agreement.

Where I'm in agreement with Insano is that you have to get the basics right. We're clearly not getting the basics right often enough and I think the reason is we're trying to do too much. I think we're all in agreement as to the problem, just differ in solutions and whether Evatt can fix them. I think he can, just not sure if he will.

[BWFC_Insane]

Yeah brilliant thread worthy. I don’t think this is purely the system. As in 352 vs 433 or whatever. Those are just numbers. It’s the system combined with how we play.

Sheffield United under Wilder sort of did the 352 thing best for a while with wide centre halves stepping out and under lapping the wing backs creating overloads. I think that eventually people worked it out a bit.

But even that we don’t really do. Jones does sometimes but noticeably less than he used to. I think part of it always comes back to a complete lack of quality wing backs.

It’s rare that we can do that controlled and compact performance where I feel like we are in total control. Barnsley in the play offs away is one of the rare times we managed it but even then almost let it slip. Mostly though we are on the half way line playing slowly against a team who is happy with that, or we are having to stretch the game wide open and I’d say progressively as the game goes on have less and less control. The midfield for me is far too ‘nice’ to play against. As Thommo tired through the season we basically had no bite in there and became at times pretty passive off the ball. Notably the second leg of the play off semi being a good example. Didn’t get near their midfield for large parts.

What we try and do I think is genuinely too much for what we have available. Make it simpler compact the team a bit and be more solid - we have threats we will score goals but we don’t need to constantly be defending so high and thinking we need defenders to both get their defensive job right and make the play. Nor can we just keep thinking Sheehan as the instigator in midfield will work. It’s too easy to stop. Too predictable and he’s definitely no good once a team presses him .

[TANGODANCER]

What we try and do I think is genuinely too much for what we have available. Make it simpler compact the team a bit and be more solid - we have threats we will score goals but we don’t need to constantly be defending so high and thinking we need defenders to both get their defensive job right and make the play. Nor can we just keep thinking Sheehan as the instigator in midfield will work. It’s too easy to stop. Too predictable and he’s definitely no good once a team presses him .

Way we're going we'll need a whole new team to do anything. If Charles goes and with Jon Bod and Jerome already gone and Maghoma unlikely, we'd better get something done sharpish.

[BWFC_Insane]

What we try and do I think is genuinely too much for what we have available. Make it simpler compact the team a bit and be more solid - we have threats we will score goals but we don’t need to constantly be defending so high and thinking we need defenders to both get their defensive job right and make the play. Nor can we just keep thinking Sheehan as the instigator in midfield will work. It’s too easy to stop. Too predictable and he’s definitely no good once a team presses him .

Way we're going we'll need a whole new team to do anything. If Charles goes and with Jon Bod and Jerome already gone and Maghoma unlikely, we'd better get something done sharpish.

We are likely to be weaker than last season, that’s simply because we missed our chance last season (it wasn’t one game we should have gone up automatically blew that then blew the play offs). This is the consequence of not going up. I expect we will sell one or two to try and balance the finances.

Happened to us in 2000 after losing to Ipswich we lost all our stars for the next season but then went up the next year anyway. That is likely the scenario now. Hopefully we aren’t in quite such financial turmoil but we lost £5.6M the last financial year assuming it’s likely to be similar or higher for the next one….they can’t keep covering those losses without some return.

[Worthy4England]

Yeah brilliant thread worthy. I don’t think this is purely the system. As in 352 vs 433 or whatever. Those are just numbers. It’s the system combined with how we play.

Sheffield United under Wilder sort of did the 352 thing best for a while with wide centre halves stepping out and under lapping the wing backs creating overloads. I think that eventually people worked it out a bit.

But even that we don’t really do. Jones does sometimes but noticeably less than he used to. I think part of it always comes back to a complete lack of quality wing backs.

It’s rare that we can do that controlled and compact performance where I feel like we are in total control. Barnsley in the play offs away is one of the rare times we managed it but even then almost let it slip. Mostly though we are on the half way line playing slowly against a team who is happy with that, or we are having to stretch the game wide open and I’d say progressively as the game goes on have less and less control. The midfield for me is far too ‘nice’ to play against. As Thommo tired through the season we basically had no bite in there and became at times pretty passive off the ball. Notably the second leg of the play off semi being a good example. Didn’t get near their midfield for large parts.

What we try and do I think is genuinely too much for what we have available. Make it simpler compact the team a bit and be more solid - we have threats we will score goals but we don’t need to constantly be defending so high and thinking we need defenders to both get their defensive job right and make the play. Nor can we just keep thinking Sheehan as the instigator in midfield will work. It’s too easy to stop. Too predictable and he’s definitely no good once a team presses him .

Yeah - I think the other thing that strikes me (and bear with me a sec), is the stats show, we have a decent press - best in L1. Yet we let 51 in, so that decent press as good as it is comparatively, isn't actually giving us the solidity in an overall sense. For me we conceded too many from corners by having 9/10 in the box and still not picking up all their men. Press isn't helping there.

And as I think Pru says, when we're in press/overload, it then becomes pretty easy at times for the oppo on turn-over to pretty much set up a 2 v 2 or suchlike. I had a look at some of our concessions/near misses, and there's a couple of great examples. Shrewsbury, a decent out-ball from us attacking to their wide man on their right - he runs from ~30-35 yards down the flank to the crossing zone, without so much as a glove on him, decent cross, goal.

Pompey away - Their keeper has the ball after an attack, we have 7/8 in their half, he punts it down their right into our half, Toal doesn't get decent challenge in for the header despite it being in the air a long time and him having a height advantage, leave Santos v nippy bastard who gets his shot off, all pretty much unchallenged. It misses, but the point remains, it was away too easy.

The whole system in transition on a decent ball from the oppo, is reliant on people to make up a 20 yard head start, try and recover position etc. and too often we see an opposition move quickly from defending to on the edge of our area.

[BWFC_Insane]

^^Yeah this. Too much focus on recovery. And the way we play a slight dip in our recovery or an individual error and it’s exposed as you say. Too many instances where a CB had to decide whether to challenge or drop and if they pick the wrong one in the instance there simply isn’t the cover back to prevent the opposition creating a clear chance.

This is what I mean by there is zero need to play so much on the edge and indeed as the season has gone on and I think we dropped slightly in intensity as is natural that equation just drifted too far one way.

[Prufrock]

I think you'd fix part of that with Ghost's 10 and two deeper suggestion. What DSB might say was inverting the triangle.

A big problem was the number of times where they get out and suddenly Sheehan is the only midfielder able to affect play. That would be a big ask for anyone, and it certainly isn't his strength. If you had a Tomo tethered to him more tightly that's less of a problem.

You lose something in the press, you've one fewer there when you're well set and in a good position, but if they get out, you're less vulnerable. And at other times in the game you're better set in the press when the two 8s and wing backs aren't there. It probably makes you more transitional overall which I suspect is why we haven't seen it much on a while. Evatt talked last year about us conceding lots on transitions and he we wanted more control (and that worked at the time, tbf).

It's not my preferred option, but it is some form of flexibility. You're then trying to find that league 1 number ten though. And that's been tough. I'm not sure I'd fancy Collins doing it for a season, as good a player as he is.

[BWFC_Insane]

Ah yes the mythical ‘number 10’ that doesn’t exist. I don’t like that option because either they are a technical clever type that is bullied out of games or they are a Nolan type who scores a lot of goals but probably don’t help your shape or build up too much.

Finding one that does both at this level simply ain’t happening.

It’s not for me a numbers game. It’s actually having a midfield player who is suited to playing the role screening the back three/four - winning headers, putting themselves about, putting a marker on the opposition. We need one of those. Badly.

[Worthy4England]

I think when you play for overloads (vs my man will beat your man 1 on 1) there are a number of potential derensive / transition type problems, not all of which get solved by screening. If the team is actively putting 8/9/10 their goal side of us, which we've seen teams do, then it's maybe mitigated some.

When they successfully break out, there's typically two ways. The longer ball, to somewhere near half way that you rely on your CBs to win because 6 has joined the overload at which point 6 isn't really at issue, or they pass shorter through a slowish turn and pretty quickly end up on the edge.

Our counter attack goals against is 20% on whoscored equates to 8, which doesn't sound many, but is equal to the rest of the top 5 added together. On a fine margins call where points make prizes, just feels way too many.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

This two-minute video is as fascinating as it is terrifying: How Oxford strangled us.
.

.
And now they have done so - on just about the biggest stage we're currently likely to occupy – everyone else can copy the template. They may not do it as well, because they may not have a pressing 9 as good as Harris or a coach as methodical as Buckingham.

But they'll know.

Fittingly enough: your move, Ian. What do we do now?

[Worthy4England]

That shows in microcosm, Sheehan's disappearance. Every time (in the clip). Their 9 has done a very good job, but Sheehan looking to adapt to it doesn't really happen.

Edit: It would also be a brave man, to suggest Santos should have been doing "something brave" with it as Evatt said in post-match, but pretty much all of those don't have any great alternatives. We do see Maghoma trying to drop for a couple, but he's being well marshalled too. Sussed.

[BWFC_Insane]

That shows in microcosm, Sheehan's disappearance. Every time (in the clip). Their 9 has done a very good job, but Sheehan looking to adapt to it doesn't really happen.

Edit: It would also be a brave man, to suggest Santos should have been doing "something brave" with it as Evatt said in post-match, but pretty much all of those don't have any great alternatives. We do see Maghoma trying to drop for a couple, but he's being well marshalled too. Sussed.

Sheehan doesn’t show up for the big games. Iles has even said that. It’s a pattern.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

That shows in microcosm, Sheehan's disappearance. Every time (in the clip). Their 9 has done a very good job, but Sheehan looking to adapt to it doesn't really happen.

Edit: It would also be a brave man, to suggest Santos should have been doing "something brave" with it as Evatt said in post-match, but pretty much all of those don't have any great alternatives. We do see Maghoma trying to drop for a couple, but he's being well marshalled too. Sussed.

Yep. Sussed.

I'll still defend Sheehan to an extent because obviously those clips were selected to prove the point (not to win an argument but as the best examples). On occasion we *did* break through, so Oxford's plan wasn't perfect (what is?) - and on occasion Sheehan did drop and get the ball. Not nearly enough, but we can see from those examples that when Oxford were on it, the gaps between Harris and his wingers were often so narrow that Sheehan was somewhat screened *wherever* he went - any ball through the gaps would have been a risk.

They did a job, and they did it well.

[Worthy4England]

That shows in microcosm, Sheehan's disappearance. Every time (in the clip). Their 9 has done a very good job, but Sheehan looking to adapt to it doesn't really happen.

Edit: It would also be a brave man, to suggest Santos should have been doing "something brave" with it as Evatt said in post-match, but pretty much all of those don't have any great alternatives. We do see Maghoma trying to drop for a couple, but he's being well marshalled too. Sussed.

Yep. Sussed.

I'll still defend Sheehan to an extent because obviously those clips were selected to prove the point (not to win an argument but as the best examples). On occasion we *did* break through, so Oxford's plan wasn't perfect (what is?) - and on occasion Sheehan did drop and get the ball. Not nearly enough, but we can see from those examples that when Oxford were on it, the gaps between Harris and his wingers were often so narrow that Sheehan was somewhat screened *wherever* he went - any ball through the gaps would have been a risk.

They did a job, and they did it well.

Sure mate - you can't discount that Oxford did their jobs admirably well and the clips are selected to prove the point - I reckon I could find a good few more that also do in respect of Sheehan, who was very well screened by Harris. Sure, he got free a couple of occasions, but then they formed up on his pass to the next bod, most of the time.

As I watched it from a decent view on the telly (although I won't feel half the jinx, next outing (maybe it's HG ) - it was crystal clear what was going on - maybe Ian should have contemplated another red card, for a better view, or given they knew exactly what Oxford were going to do, come up with something a touch more surprising than Plan A.

[Bertie Wooster]

Sat quite close in the bottom tier at the side of the pitch, all 3 midfielders where absolutely abysmal, non existent - yes Paris tried a couple of times to run & create (even with his injury) but that was it, both Sheehan & Thomason hardly moved they were both shocking, as I've said previously it looked for most of the game until Dempsey came on that we had no midfield, which is why Santos, Toal etc. had no one to pass to - Sheehan & Thomason may as well of been cones placed on the grass & neither even tried to make runs or come for the ball.

Sheehan seems to go missing in a lot of the big games.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

As I watched it from a decent view on the telly (although I won't feel half the jinx, next outing (maybe it's HG ) - it was crystal clear what was going on - maybe Ian should have contemplated another red card, for a better view, or given they knew exactly what Oxford were going to do, come up with something a touch more surprising than Plan A.

I do think we should have somebody in the stands - Craddock, perhaps? - if we don't already, feeding back to the bench. Football is about players and space, and Evatt has said many times that our players need to find where the space is. Having 'eyes up high' is a fast way for that - I still remember Allardyce chuckling when he told me coaches should "get an umpire's chair" to get that height, but he was perfectly serious. Of course, he could never stay up in the stands himself – unless forced to...

[Bertie Wooster]

I'll add to the previous post - there is absolutely nothing wrong with Santos, IMO he's our best player. The stick he got last Saturday was ridiculous, the standing on the ball etc. this was because no one in front of him was moving, he had no options at all, none - he had no one in front of him to pass to.

If we had the funds (either Evatt or a new Manager), I'd be looking to bring in at least 2 new starting midfielders as a minimum, as midfield is our weak link.

[irie Cee Bee]

I'll add to the previous post - there is absolutely nothing wrong with Santos, IMO he's our best player. The stick he got last Saturday was ridiculous, the standing on the ball etc. this was because no one in front of him was moving, he had no options at all, none - he had no one in front of him to pass to.

If we had the funds (either Evatt or a new Manager), I'd be looking to bring in at least 2 new starting midfielders as a minimum, as midfield is our weak link.

Santos is our captain. He was in the middle of what was happening. He and Evatt deserve the stick they got. Find a solution!