If we start 3-5-2 against Leeds will you be disappointed

[Samwam27 606]

Whether 5-3-2 or 3-5-2 will you be disappointed, or do you feel this game needs a different formation to kickstart more chances up front?

[Jim Smith 2,610]

Yes. Hugely. Although depends to a degree who the 3 and the 2 are!

I really think if he puts out that formation without at least 3 or 4 changes in the midfield and the attack then the fans will be downbeat before they even take their seats.

A 4-2-3-1 with three from Tzolis, Rashica, Gilmour and Todd in it on the other hand would have fans optimistic. 

[By Hook or Ian crook 943]

Yes. Insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results. 

[Badger 2,745]

1 minute ago, By Hook or Ian crook said:

Yes. Insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results. 

I thought that was why we dropped the 4231for this year after out last premiership season.

[yellowrider120 917]

1 minute ago, Jim Smith said:

Yes. Hugely. Although depends to a degree who the 3 and the 2 are!

I really think if he puts out that formation without at least 3 or 4 changes in the midfield and the attack then the fans will be downbeat before they even take their seats.

A 4-2-3-1 with three from Tzolis, Rashica, Gilmour and Todd in it on the other hand would have fans optimistic. 

So no Dowell then? If Cantwell waltzes straight back in after all that DF said about him a week ago that will be a disgrace.

[Capt. Pants 5,008]

Very.

[Naturalcynic 817]

Ultimately it won’t make a lot of difference.  It’s like debating what colour to paint the living room while the house is burning down.

[By Hook or Ian crook 943]

2 minutes ago, Badger said:

I thought that was why we dropped the 4231for this year after out last premiership season.

Can’t remember us ever losing 7-0 in that formation can you? 

[Robert N. LiM 6,282]

Same formation but with Gilmour in the midfield three and Cantwell, Rashica or Tzolis behind Pukki would be ok with me. 

Would prefer 3-4-2-1, think that might give us a better balance. 

Would be disappointed, and surprised, if the only change was Omo for Gibbo.

[Robert N. LiM 6,282]

On a more philosophical note, I hope Farke has the courage of his convictions, whatever they are.

If he genuinely thinks 532 is the best way to get a result, he should stick with it and ignore the noise. If he really, really wants to play his favourite 4231 he should go for it. Despite Webber's comments, he's not going to be here much longer if we don't start winning, so I hope he backs his own judgment and goes out true to himself rather than full of regret.

[Badger 2,745]

15 minutes ago, By Hook or Ian crook said:

Can’t remember us ever losing 7-0 in that formation can you? 

Not yet 😟

TBH, I don't care what formation we play as long as we defend better. 

[Indy 3,471]

21 minutes ago, Badger said:

I thought that was why we dropped the 4231for this year after out last premiership season.

Then why buy players in the summer to fit this system?

[Robert N. LiM 6,282]

30 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

Yes. Hugely. Although depends to a degree who the 3 and the 2 are!

I really think if he puts out that formation without at least 3 or 4 changes in the midfield and the attack then the fans will be downbeat before they even take their seats.

A 4-2-3-1 with three from Tzolis, Rashica, Gilmour and Todd in it on the other hand would have fans optimistic. 

Who's your DM pair in this line up? 

It would certainly be an attacking looking and crowd pleasing team sheet, but if it leaves us as open as we've been in previous games that optimism won't last long. 

I think I'd compromise, stick with the back three and wing backs, and have two creative players behind Pukki, probably Rashica and Todd if he's selectable. Would like to have the guts to pair Normann with Gilmour behind them to provide a supply line to the front three, but in the end I'd probably bottle it and play Normann and PLM for a bit more solidity.

The fact is that none of us agree does go to show problems with the recruitment, doesn't it? Whatever team you pick has a glaring weakness.

[Petriix 3,219]

It's both inevitable and miserable that it will be some variation on the 3 man midfield that's proven so disastrous. If we concede early due to a positional error from the midfield then I'd be tempted to run onto the pitch and throw my season ticket at Angus Gunn.

[Petriix 3,219]

7 minutes ago, Robert N. LiM said:

Who's your DM pair in this line up? 

It would certainly be an attacking looking and crowd pleasing team sheet, but if it leaves us as open as we've been in previous games that optimism won't last long. 

I think I'd compromise, stick with the back three and wing backs, and have two creative players behind Pukki, probably Rashica and Todd if he's selectable. Would like to have the guts to pair Normann with Gilmour behind them to provide a supply line to the front three, but in the end I'd probably bottle it and play Normann and PLM for a bit more solidity.

The fact is that none of us agree does go to show problems with the recruitment, doesn't it? Whatever team you pick has a glaring weakness.

It's ludicrous that people keep banging on about the 4-2-3-1 being too attacking when you consider how many goals we've conceded since abandoning it. 

The double pivot of two CDMs with a flat back 4 is so much more defensively solid than this vague system with attacking wingbacks and ill-disciplined CMs.

Those attacking midfielders would give us a genuine threat which would make it far more difficult to put us under pressure. The extra centre back just invites teams to commit more players forwards, safe in the knowledge that our only outlet is to hoof it long.

[The Raptor 1,573]

Yes. Attack is the best form of defense. 10 in a row up front is the only acceptable formation.

[Robert N. LiM 6,282]

57 minutes ago, Petriix said:

It's ludicrous that people keep banging on about the 4-2-3-1 being too attacking when you consider how many goals we've conceded since abandoning it. 

The double pivot of two CDMs with a flat back 4 is so much more defensively solid than this vague system with attacking wingbacks and ill-disciplined CMs.

Those attacking midfielders would give us a genuine threat which would make it far more difficult to put us under pressure. The extra centre back just invites teams to commit more players forwards, safe in the knowledge that our only outlet is to hoof it long

I did say "if".

Who are you playing as the double pivot? 

I accept a lot of what you say, and I think I'd agree with it 100% if I thought we had two players that we could rely on in that role. I'm not sure we do, hence my compromise of keeping the third CB.

[Petriix 3,219]

1 minute ago, Robert N. LiM said:

I did say "if".

Who are you playing as the double pivot? 

I accept a lot of what you say, and I think I'd agree with it 100% if I thought we had two players that we could rely on in that role. I'm not sure we do, hence my compromise of keeping the third CB.

I'd play PLM if he absolutely promised not to go marauding forward or get drawn out wide on the half way line. But my preference would be for Sorensen. Normann has to start because we're lacking other options.

[Robert N. LiM 6,282]

Just now, Petriix said:

I'd play PLM if he absolutely promised not to go marauding forward or get drawn out wide on the half way line. But my preference would be for Sorensen. Normann has to start because we're lacking other options.

Cheers. I'm out of likes today but appreciate the replies. 

I have a feeling you might well get what you've wished for all season on Sunday, formation-wise. If I were DF I think I'd feel that, if I'm going to get sacked, I'd rather be sacked knowing I'd followed my principles/instincts.

I really hope it works. 

[By Hook or Ian crook 943]

1 hour ago, Badger said:

Not yet 😟

TBH, I don't care what formation we play as long as we defend better. 

I don’t care either so long as we score more than the other team 

[Jim Smith 2,610]

1 hour ago, Robert N. LiM said:

Who's your DM pair in this line up? 

It would certainly be an attacking looking and crowd pleasing team sheet, but if it leaves us as open as we've been in previous games that optimism won't last long. 

I think I'd compromise, stick with the back three and wing backs, and have two creative players behind Pukki, probably Rashica and Todd if he's selectable. Would like to have the guts to pair Normann with Gilmour behind them to provide a supply line to the front three, but in the end I'd probably bottle it and play Normann and PLM for a bit more solidity.

The fact is that none of us agree does go to show problems with the recruitment, doesn't it? Whatever team you pick has a glaring weakness.

I'd play Sorense and Normann but I accept that Farke won't do that.

To be honest I think Kenny should be capable of playing that role next to Normann if he's just told to keep it very disciplined so i'd go for that. I just can't warm to PLM.

In asnwer to another poster yes I wouldn't be unhappy with Dowell featuring either. When he's good he's very good although he can go missing a bit at times also.

[Robert N. LiM 6,282]

Cheers. Can see the sense in that.

[Badger 2,745]

13 hours ago, Indy said:

Then why buy players in the summer to fit this system?

I don't know. I guess that they wanted tactical flexibility (or didn't think that our defending would be as bad as it has been).

[Ward 3 484]

Yes I'll be very pi55ed off. Revert to 4231. Attack them let's not sit back and defend like we always do.

[Dr Greenthumb 793]

Yes, it doesn’t work. Our attack is too slow and it’s just inviting pressure

[RugbyCanary 106]

Yes! 

[TESCO 70]

I’d like to see 4-2-3-1 on Sunday. System that (sort of) worked in the premier league, was really nice going forward but weighed down by a poor defence. The defence this season in my opinion is better but attacking there’s nothing in this dreadful 5-3-2 system. Tzolis, Cantwell, Rashica in the front three and Pukki as the 1 would work nicely. 
 

                         Krul

Aarons Hanley Kabak Giannoulis

              Normann Gilmour

         Rashica Cantwell Tzolis 

                         Pukki

[keelansgrandad 6,680]

I think the midfield is crucial area we must control it Sunday. Who to pick though? I think we have to chance four at the back and I think Max is better in a four.

Krul

Aarons Hanley Kabak Dimi

Normann Gilmour

Rashica Cantwell Tzolis

Pukki

But he won't. He isn't a gambler.

 

 

[Sussexyellow 55]

1 hour ago, TESCO said:

I’d like to see 4-2-3-1 on Sunday. System that (sort of) worked in the premier league, was really nice going forward but weighed down by a poor defence. The defence this season in my opinion is better but attacking there’s nothing in this dreadful 5-3-2 system. Tzolis, Cantwell, Rashica in the front three and Pukki as the 1 would work nicely. 
 

                         Krul

Aarons Hanley Kabak Giannoulis

              Normann Gilmour

         Rashica Cantwell Tzolis 

                         Pukki

Well it won’t be Cantwell he is not available again, and we will need a bit more physicality than that.

So maybe Kenny in the middle of the three to give us at least a bit of a target when it is necessary to go long, and maybe get on the end of a Tzolis or Rashica cross. Gilmour despite his obvious talent may also need to give way. Perhaps PLM or Sorensen next to Normann. But would be a really big call to suddenly put Sorensen in at the deep end when he has not been close to the team at all  this season.

[TESCO 70]

10 minutes ago, Sussexyellow said:

Well it won’t be Cantwell he is not available again, and we will need a bit more physicality than that.

So maybe Kenny in the middle of the three to give us at least a bit of a target when it is necessary to go long, and maybe get on the end of a Tzolis or Rashica cross. Gilmour despite his obvious talent may also need to give way. Perhaps PLM or Sorensen next to Normann. But would be a really big call to suddenly put Sorensen in at the deep end when he has not been close to the team at all  this season.

I’d rather Dowell come in than McLean.

If Gilmour were to give way to PLM or Sorensen I’d prefer he play at the number 10 position though.