3-4-2-1

[The Great Mass Debater 1,202]

I've seen a few comments on here that there are rumours that tactically we will be moving to this in the upcoming season, with 3 centre-backs and Giannoulis and Aarons (if he stays) as wing backs.

Could anyone elaborate on where this has come from? Is it all because Mourinho said Grant Hanley looked better at the middle of a back three than on the right of a central pairing? Or is there more to it?

I dont think its a bad idea, as maurauding full-backs is a huge part of how we play, but we got killed last time trying to do it with a back 4 as it left us too exposed.

But, you need the personnel to play it.

The central defender needs to be able to step up into the midfield or distribute well. Not sure that that is Hanley. Zimmerman has a bit of the Mathias Sammer about him but not really what you want in a team up against it. Omobamidele may do well in this role with his passing and flanked either side by, presumably experienced defenders. Ajer if he were to come could play that role well, stepping up into midfield.

Left and right CBs need to have pace to act as full backs should the wing backs get caught high up the pitch. Do Gibson and Hanley have the pace to be the left and right CBs?

We certainly have the wingbacks, but if Max goes or gets injured? Which is certainly quite likely, who takes on his role? Mumba is unlikely to be ready, Byram unlikely to be fit. On the other side, who deputises for Giannoulis? McCallum?

In central midfield we need solid combative defensive players who are still creative enough not to stifle our play. With Buendia, our main creative player gone, and with one less attacker, creativity from deeper midfield becomes more important. In midfield we currently have Dowell (though seen more in the number 10 role), Rupp, Sorensen and McLean. For me, not creative enough and not combative enough. 

Competing for the two AM roles, we have to determine if they'll be winger types or number 10 types. Dowell seemed to have made that position his, but if we have two central players, we rely entirely on width from the wingbacks, which means no flank partnerships and no overlaps. It also means its hard to see where players lke Onel and Placheta could fit in, unless they're for plan B or off. Cantwell (if he stays) and Rashica would be competing if Dowell plays as a number 10, unless Dowell plays in CM and we have Cantwell and Rashica together behind Pukki. Its also not inconceivable Pukki could play here with Hugill playing as a Target man to gain us territory and an outlet, though this seems highly unlikely seeing as most of Pukki's goals come from him on the shoulder. Just I wonder if Pukki, not being a battering ram himself, might find himself isolated with one less player in attack to support. Stiepermann did this very well a couple of years go, but we've not seen this level from him for a while now.

 

 

Our approach last season showed that our way of playing to win the championship left us far too exposed in the Prem against better, stronger, faster players, and was not well suited for a relegation scrap. 3 at the back may be the way forward, but it will be new to the players, didnt work when Farke first tried to introduce it, and Im not sure it suits out current players, unless there is a major overhaul this window.

Edited June 27, 2021 by The Great Mass Debater

[A Load of Squit 6,260]

I recently saw Farke in Morrisons and bill came to £34.21, he looked at it and turned to Eddie Riemer and said it's a good job you decided on own brand ketchup as I would never have seen this. 😀

 

[Canary Jedi 610]

I believe he tried out that formation in pre-season before our previous go in the Prem. However losing our centre backs put pay to that

[The Great Mass Debater 1,202]

Where have the rumours of a tactical change this season come from?

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 4,615]

Funnily enough, I actually made a thread three weeks ago with the exact same thread title but arguing for it: 

I get the points made in the opening post, but I don't think the central defender in a three needs to step up into midfield. In fact, I'd argue the opposite, as I prefer a back three where the central player holds his position and the two either side have reasonable pace and technique to carry the ball forward in possession and cover the wing back on the counter.

[TheGoogler 604]

1 hour ago, The Great Mass Debater said:

Where have the rumours of a tactical change this season come from?

I don't think anyone has said that Farke is planning to change our shape, but just discussing different formations given the players that the club are linked to. An interesting debate, but not a rumour.

[keelansgrandad 6,680]

If we went to a back three, we have potential cover with Hanley, Gibson, Zimmerman, Omodabile and Sick Note Byram.

But that would be wasted if we didn't play two up front.

[TheGunnShow 7,377]

I actually think 4-3-2-1, personally. We were vulnerable in midfield, and if Gilmour is going to essentially be a deep-lying playmaker he's going to need a tackle / interception machine alongside him, and someone who can go box-to-box.

[Canary Jedi 610]

I’d be surprised to be honest, considering we’ve not played that way. Why change a successful approach? Having said that, might be useful as a tactical switch such as when we’re 3 up against Liverpool in order to close out the game 🙃

[Petriix 3,218]

I find it incredible that people are suggesting this while citing our openness two years ago; failing to mention the way our system has evolved since then. We've already tweaked the system to be more defensive and make us harder to score against; as evidenced by our goals for and against last season in comparison to two years previous.

We actually do play in a similar system to this in many respects. Skipp's role was very defensive, almost like that third CB, just with more skill on the ball in front of the defence and less aerial prowess. Our fullbacks already play high and our attacking midfielders are narrow.

The main difference is our current dependence on a number 10 where this change would give us an extra deep midfielder. I think that would cause us problems because we'd end up with three isolated attackers chasing lost causes while our central midfield would be too deep to transition effectively.

Our dynamic attacking play heavily focuses on that central area and requires the three midfielders to spread out with one primarily defensive, one box-to-box and one attacking. That buys the space for the wide attackers to pick up the ball and drive forwards and also forms the basis of our pressing.

I'd hate to see us abandon our established philosophy but wouldn't be against using it with discretion as a plan B. 

[The Great Mass Debater 1,202]

I personally would prefer to keep our system, and certainly hope our game has evolved. However, what wins the Championship doenst necessarily keep you up. You go from a team with the best players, most of the possession and winning most weeks, on top of games.

The skills set and attributes required to compete against a higher level of player is quite different. You could argue we would be better with a counter-attacking gameplan rather than a possession based one.

Our midfield worries me with the loss of Skipp. Our current players arent good enough for the Prem

[Petriix 3,218]

52 minutes ago, The Great Mass Debater said:

I personally would prefer to keep our system, and certainly hope our game has evolved. However, what wins the Championship doenst necessarily keep you up. You go from a team with the best players, most of the possession and winning most weeks, on top of games.

The skills set and attributes required to compete against a higher level of player is quite different. You could argue we would be better with a counter-attacking gameplan rather than a possession based one.

Our midfield worries me with the loss of Skipp. Our current players arent good enough for the Prem

We've sold, released or returned four first-team midfielders and only signed one replacement. I really hope that we sign at least two more. I won't be judging the team's potential Premier League chances until the window is complete. 

I'd also argue that we're already well adapted to the counter. We're much more dangerous in the transition than in possession. With only three attacking players I think we'd struggle to be as effective. 

[damn that Ralph Coates! 74]

Is Byram going to be fit to play this season???????????????

[TheGoogler 604]

23 minutes ago, damn that Ralph Coates! said:

Is Byram going to be fit to play this season???????????????

What's with all the question marks?

[FatCanary 249]

Please can we not have anyone else questioning Hanley's pace?!

For the love of God, the guy is RAPID

[FatCanary 249]

Rest of the thread too speculative for me, really.

Talking about formations at this stage in the summer is a bit of a waste of time, but then, I've wasted most of my time on cheeseburgers

[KeiranShikari 1,524]

A 433 with a holding player would probably suit GIlmour and Rashica so I could us using that more often. Can't see us starting games with 3 at the back very often.

[Crabbycanary3 994]

15 hours ago, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said:

Funnily enough, I actually made a thread three weeks ago with the exact same thread title but arguing for it: 

I get the points made in the opening post, but I don't think the central defender in a three needs to step up into midfield. In fact, I'd argue the opposite, as I prefer a back three where the central player holds his position and the two either side have reasonable pace and technique to carry the ball forward in possession and cover the wing back on the counter.

Come on Wacky, keep up! 😉 

https://forum.pinkun.com/index.php?/topic/142417-formations-in-the-prem/

*waits to be trumped myself*

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 4,615]

49 minutes ago, Crabbycanary3 said:

Come on Wacky, keep up! 😉 

https://forum.pinkun.com/index.php?/topic/142417-formations-in-the-prem/

*waits to be trumped myself*

Looks like the people have people have spoken, then. 3-4-2-1 can be added to the Chinese billionaire and Jordan Rhodes on a permanent.