Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Bovril

4-3-3 - It has to be scrapped

Recommended Posts

After losing Buendia, Farke seems to be caught between wanting to be a possession based side (his natural preference) and a counter-attacking side (pacy wide players Rashica and Tzolis to replace the creativity of Buendia). 

Along with a change to 4-3-3 this may have actually worked in the Championship, but we cannot play three in midfield in the Premier League, especially given our central midfielders to choose from. Today's game was lost in the centre of the park, Watford simply out-worked/out-muscled/out-pressed us in the middle of the park, which then led to further problems at the back. 

The trouble is, the formation we need to switch to, 5-3-2/3-5-2 (see possible team below) means losing the core principles that Farke likes and has worked for him in the Championship, i.e. the link up between players like Cantwell and Pukki. We simply have to almost start all over again in the EPL and keep it tight in the middle and the back and stay in games. Whether or not Farke sees or rather willing to adapt to this may well just keep him with a job. Forget the 4-year contract signed, this weekend was the first real signs of real creaking. The bizarre pre-match conference almost calling out fans and the performance at Watford has opened up a divide between Farke and the fans for the first time. 

                             Krul

Aarons   Omo   Kabak   Gibson  Dimi

      Mclean   Normann Lees-Melou

                 Sargent     Rashica

 

Edited by Bovril
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would certainly be tempted to go to a back three. The defence looked in difficulty every time Watford attacked today, so an extra body in there may provide more protection and less panic. Also, neither of our left backs look good defensively and Aarons would suit being a wing back, so a 3-4-3 would probably be my preferred choice moving forward. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need to go back to 4-2-3-1, play two holding midfielders and keep the ball better. As soon as the game gets stretched we cannot defend. 
 

I don’t know why he has adopted a system that doesn’t really suit any of our best players. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Couldn't see what style of play we were trying to play today,  didnt seem to be any pattern and players looking unsure.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said:

I would certainly be tempted to go to a back three. The defence looked in difficulty every time Watford attacked today, so an extra body in there may provide more protection and less panic. Also, neither of our left backs look good defensively and Aarons would suit being a wing back, so a 3-4-3 would probably be my preferred choice moving forward. 

We were 3 on 1 for the first goal, we don’t need more defenders, we just need capable defenders and a shape

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

We need to go back to 4-2-3-1, play two holding midfielders and keep the ball better. As soon as the game gets stretched we cannot defend. 
 

I don’t know why he has adopted a system that doesn’t really suit any of our best players. 

Would a 4-2-3-1 suit our current squad any more than 4-3-3? I'm not so sure. It would leave our defence in the same situation whilst taking out one of the players protecting them.

Personally, if we're keeping a back four, then I'd stick with 4-3-3. But I feel the system that suits our players best right now is a back three. Whether that's 3-4-3 or 3-5-2 is up for debate, but I'm sure our defenders would be more comfortable in a back three with wing backs.

Edited by Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said:

Would a 4-2-3-1 suit our current squad any more than 4-3-3? I'm not so sure. It would leave our defence in the same situation whilst taking out one of the players protecting them.

Personally, if we're keeping a back four, then I'd stick with 4-3-3. But I feel the system that suits our players best right now is a back three. Whether that's 3-4-3 or 3-5-2 is up for debate, but I'm sure our defenders would be more comfortable in a back three with wing backs.

You seem to fundamentally misunderstand the difference between the 4-3-3 and the 4-2-3-1. In the former, the wide AMs play a much more advanced role leaving the FBs more exposed with the defensive cover coming from the CM on whichever side the attack is on. In the latter, the wide AMs must play deeper so as to provide the defensive cover to the FBs; the more vertical midfield then has a dedicated CDM who can drop between the CBs (allowing them to defend wider where necessary) or provide cover in the wide areas.

In the 4-3-3 most of our attacks will come in wide areas, hence the tendency to cross the ball, which really isn't Pukki's strength. In the 4-2-3-1 we have an extra central attacker so are more likely to be able to create incisive balls through the middle on the floor which is how we tend to score our goals (or tended, when we actually used to score).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Petriix said:

You seem to fundamentally misunderstand the difference between the 4-3-3 and the 4-2-3-1. In the former, the wide AMs play a much more advanced role leaving the FBs more exposed with the defensive cover coming from the CM on whichever side the attack is on. In the latter, the wide AMs must play deeper so as to provide the defensive cover to the FBs; the more vertical midfield then has a dedicated CDM who can drop between the CBs (allowing them to defend wider where necessary) or provide cover in the wide areas.

In the 4-3-3 most of our attacks will come in wide areas, hence the tendency to cross the ball, which really isn't Pukki's strength. In the 4-2-3-1 we have an extra central attacker so are more likely to be able to create incisive balls through the middle on the floor which is how we tend to score our goals (or tended, when we actually used to score).

Ultimately, all formations have the same amount of players so in making subtle changes you're robbing Peter to pay Paul, but I don't think the full backs are necessarily any more exposed in a 4-3-3. It's natural that the wingers will provide slightly less cover (but not necessarily, it also depends on the instructions given by the coach) however the extra man in midfield allows the wider central midfielder to provide more cover to them, which balances itself out. 

I still feel the best solution would be to slightly reduce the defensive responsibility on the full backs themselves by going with a back three.

And whilst I see your point in the first paragraph, I don't really agree with your second paragraph though, as plenty of teams throughout history have used a 4-3-3 without relying on crosses, with Barcelona and the Spanish national teams being the most obvious examples.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

                         Gunn 

Aarons    Kabak  Gibson  Gianoullis

              Normann Lees-Melou 

     Rashica       Mclean     Tzolis 

                            Pukki 

 

A better side than the one started today. 

Edited by Creedence Clearwater Couto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This system is a really poor fit for us. Our weakest areas are in the centre of midfield and our best areas are wingers and attacking midfielders. This system robs us of our strengths and plays more of our worst players. It needs to be scrapped and never seen again. I'd be happy with 4231 or 352, but please never, ever, ever 433 again unless we have a massive change in personnel. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Petriix said:

You seem to fundamentally misunderstand the difference between the 4-3-3 and the 4-2-3-1. In the former, the wide AMs play a much more advanced role leaving the FBs more exposed with the defensive cover coming from the CM on whichever side the attack is on. In the latter, the wide AMs must play deeper so as to provide the defensive cover to the FBs; the more vertical midfield then has a dedicated CDM who can drop between the CBs (allowing them to defend wider where necessary) or provide cover in the wide areas.

In the 4-3-3 most of our attacks will come in wide areas, hence the tendency to cross the ball, which really isn't Pukki's strength. In the 4-2-3-1 we have an extra central attacker so are more likely to be able to create incisive balls through the middle on the floor which is how we tend to score our goals (or tended, when we actually used to score).

the differences between the two are very small relatively both are based on possession. 

We try and play like we are liverpool, man city. I.e the best team on the pitch. Fullbacks getting forward and attacking. (The 2 DM's or 3 CM's doesn't change that. neither a 4231 or a 433 has wide attacking players meant for defending for large periods. ) Inevitably, we don't keep control of the ball in attack and we get exposed defensively from overly committing players forward. 

The paradox, of pushing players forward to support an attack based on passing and possession. Has yielded 2 goals. But players losing the ball from possession and leaving defence exposed has lead to more goals for the opposition.

Not sure any of our forwards, are good enough to play as a single striker (with 2 wide forwards). 4231 or 433, those wide forwards score alot of goals. I don't believe Cantwell, Rashica will get 10 goals (each) from outwide positions if they played every game. No CM seems like he's going to be scoring alot. That leaves the central striker to score alot.  

Think its better to play 2 strikers through the middle and then work out whether that's a 532 / 352 or a 442. 

I am fairly sure, that if Farke was managing a top side his formation and tactics would work in the premier league and he would be challenging for the title. I am not sure Pep or Klopp could get us to win enough games trying to pass and breakdown sides. 

Edited by Baracouda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

idk why not go for a 4-4-2, clearly Sargeant and Pukki together are a potent threat, rest of the team can stay compact and park the bus we can just pray that Sargeant and Pukki come up with something while we keep a clean sheer every other match

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bovril said:

After losing Buendia, Farke seems to be caught between wanting to be a possession based side (his natural preference) and a counter-attacking side (pacy wide players Rashica and Tzolis to replace the creativity of Buendia). 

Along with a change to 4-3-3 this may have actually worked in the Championship, but we cannot play three in midfield in the Premier League, especially given our central midfielders to choose from. Today's game was lost in the centre of the park, Watford simply out-worked/out-muscled/out-pressed us in the middle of the park, which then led to further problems at the back. 

The trouble is, the formation we need to switch to, 5-3-2/3-5-2 (see possible team below) means losing the core principles that Farke likes and has worked for him in the Championship, i.e. the link up between players like Cantwell and Pukki. We simply have to almost start all over again in the EPL and keep it tight in the middle and the back and stay in games. Whether or not Farke sees or rather willing to adapt to this may well just keep him with a job. Forget the 4-year contract signed, this weekend was the first real signs of real creaking. The bizarre pre-match conference almost calling out fans and the performance at Watford has opened up a divide between Farke and the fans for the first time. 

                             Krul

Aarons   Omo   Kabak   Gibson  Dimi

      Mclean   Normann Lees-Melou

                 Sargent     Rashica

 

I agree with everything you said. I would make only one change to your starting lineup and bring Idah in for Rashica. Play two strong lads up front and the midfield would be encouraged to play early balls into the front two. But, as you say, this isn't farke's preferred method of play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...