Why why why mr smith have you gone back to that 433?

[2clubbanker 21]

We are gutless at 433 it’s more like 4231 both utter rubbish pukki was isolated all night. If you was watching the game you would think we was winning and sitting back. That was so boring bending over for Southampton 

[Tommo 51]

Agree - we have to revert to the 4-4-2 formation that we had in the last 15 mins of the game where we managed to actually keep and move the ball around in the final third.

 

 

[Ken Hairy 4,272]

6 minutes ago, Tommo said:

Agree - we have to revert to the 4-4-2 formation that we had in the last 15 mins of the game where we managed to actually keep and move the ball around in the final third.

 

 

Byram for Aarons and I'd agree. 

[Herman 11,136]

Four-four-****ing-two.

[Capt. Pants 5,008]

23 minutes ago, Ken Hairy said:

Byram for Aarons and I'd agree. 

I'd swap Placheta for Byram. Placheta is pretty useless, whereas Byram can play anywhere. Also means Max and Sam can double up, and Max get forward more.

In a 4-3-3, Pukki is hardly involved, outnumbered and has no support around him. It doesn't work with the squad we have.

[Yellow Wal 315]

Why have we gone back to 4-3-3? Because we don't have the players for 4-4-2.

One injury to Adam Idah has changed things completely.

I have complained about Idah in the past when he has played in a 4-3-3 or a 4-2-3-1 but 4-4-2 showed what a good player he can become. Teemu playing off him worked well too although he received criticism on here because he wasn't always in his advanced positions, leaving Adam to lead the line.

Unfortunately you can't make a silk purse from a pig's ear. We have many players who, quite simply, are not good enough. All the complaints about McLean are because people feel other midfielders can do better. It is notable that so many people think our better players are the ones not playing. Well they are not playing for a reason and McLean is playing for a reason. It's an easy task for armchair managers to pick names and call it a team but the professionals have to look in more depth at what is required. For the first half hour last night I didn't see much of McLean, but I saw less of Normann and I don't think I saw anything of Gilmour.

Placheta, I'm afraid, has never shone. Dowell is a waste of a shirt. 

I'm afraid you can't make a silk purse from a pig's ear, and that is where the problem is. When a £10M player cannot make the bench in front of an Under 23 inexperienced youngster then our recruitment must be looked at. We had a very poor transfer window.

[canarybubbles 2,199]

More to the point, why did we persist with the set-up and strategy last night when it was clear after about 15 or 20 minutes that it was suicidal?

[Yellow Wal 315]

13 minutes ago, canarybubbles said:

More to the point, why did we persist with the set-up and strategy last night when it was clear after about 15 or 20 minutes that it was suicidal?

As has been said.

We do not have the players to effectively change the set up.

What would you have suggested?

 

[Bovril 264]

Let's be honest, it doesn't matter what formation we use, we simply don't have enough quality. 

[canarybubbles 2,199]

9 hours ago, Yellow Wal said:

As has been said.

We do not have the players to effectively change the set up.

What would you have suggested?

 

I suggest at least cutting out the faffing about with the passes at the back; this was dangerous and pointless. If you're going to play hoofball, at least do it more directly. We ended up hoofing the ball in a panic after their press caused problems; at least if Gunn booted the ball forward, we were more in control of the flight and direction. OK, the ball would have come back more often than not, but probably a little less relentlessly.

I think standing back less and surrendering less ground in the midfield might have helped, too; things noticeably improved when Rupp and Lees-Melou finally came on. OK, that may have partly been because Southampton were starting to get nervous because they had dominated the game and they were still only 1-0 up, but the improvement in our game was obvious. Pukki suddenly came alive after looking like a headless chicken for most of the game.

Your point is a good one, though; we don't have the players. Our midfield is awful at this level. So rather than *change* the set-up, perhaps start with a different set-up, which is not McLean and Gilmour in a 4-3-3. In the Liverpool game, Rashica had a lot of space to work in; somehow in this game he had none and was invisible. Perhaps a 4-4-2 would have unlocked him, although I understand the question becomes 'who plays the Idah role upfront?'.  

 

[Jambomo 215]

The problem with hoofball is without Idah holding it up, it comes straight back again. It did that yesterday.

That’s why they were trying to pass it out, to try to keep possession and get it forward. I think it might have worked better  but there were too many wrong option passes attempted, ones that weren’t ever going to make it. 

Edited February 26, 2022 by Jambomo

[mrD66M 149]

12 hours ago, Ken Hairy said:

Byram for Aarons and I'd agree. 

Rashica next to Teemu and Gianni on the left.

[Tommo 51]

Sargent was bought as a striker and playing on the right wing isn’t his preferred position. He also has been guilty of not tracking his man defensively. For the last 15 mins of the game against Southampton when he played close up to Pukki it seemed to work better so worth a go. 
 

byram could play right back and Aarons right wing 

[NFN FC 1,142]

Any formation without Gilmour please

[Midlands Yellow 4,682]

13 minutes ago, NFN FC said:

Any formation without Gilmour please

And king Kenny please. 

[hertfordyellow 462]

Ah the football manager troop coming out to tell a man with top coaching qualifications and over a decade of coaching experience how to set up a team that he has worked with every day on the training pitch with.