Apparently we have been playing 4-3-3 in games?!

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557]

[quote user="Matt Juler"]So with no number 10, and how deep Hooper was playing from your little graphic earlier, it sounds much more like 4-6-0 than anything with 3 up top... maybe I was being a little generous with my 4-5-1.
[/quote]

 

It''s quite clearly a 4-3-3 - I think you are just seeing what you want to see.

 

If you need more examples look at the Chelsea game; 4-3-3

http://www.whoscored.com/Matches/720017/MatchReport

 

Or the Stoke game; 4-3-3

http://www.whoscored.com/Matches/719998/MatchReport

 

The Arsenal game is a 4-5-1

http://www.whoscored.com/Matches/720029/MatchReport

[? 20]

Assuming for a moment that ''whoscored'' are correct with their given player positions, Bethnal (which is, in it''s own right, not guaranteed by any stretch of the imagination), could it not be argued that the fact our striker is inline with the wide ''attackers'' is down to the fact he''s dropping deeper than he should solely because he knows he''s isolated and deems it a necessity for actually featuring in the game?I get the point you''re trying to make with those reports, but think you''re making quite a few assumptions that, quite frankly, aren''t in agreement with what i''ve been seeing with my own eyes this season. And the only games i''ve missed are the two cup matches.Maybe it''s been an attempt at playing three up top, but it''s sure as hell not played out that way.

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557]

[quote user=""]Assuming for a moment that ''whoscored'' are correct with their given player positions, Bethnal (which is, in it''s own right, not guaranteed by any stretch of the imagination), could it not be argued that the fact our striker is inline with the wide ''attackers'' is down to the fact he''s dropping deeper than he should solely because he knows he''s isolated and deems it a necessity for actually featuring in the game?

I get the point you''re trying to make with those reports, but think you''re making quite a few assumptions that, quite frankly, aren''t in agreement with what i''ve been seeing with my own eyes this season. And the only games i''ve missed are the two cup matches.

Maybe it''s been an attempt at playing three up top, but it''s sure as hell not played out that way.
[/quote]

 

Whilst the positions are probably not 100% they are as good a representation as you can get. The striker hasn''t dropped that deep, it''s roughly the position you would expect a striker in a 4-3-3 to be, they have to play part link-up man with the other two forwards.

 

Having also watched pretty much every game so far either live or recorded I would say it fits in with what I have seen. It is a change that has only come in since Stoke but since then there was a fairly large tactical shuffle, moving away from the 4-4-1-1. Snodgrass has been given a lot more licence to go forward knowing he has good cover, not to say he doesn''t track back a lot as well.

 

What, I personally think, is true is that Norwich had put in 4 good or very good performances in the games from Stoke to Cardiff - I know many moan and groan about the Cardiff game if you take the game in isloation and away from Norwich''s desperate desire for a win that day, you can see a good display. 31 shots and a string of very good saves from David Marshall, Hughton completely out ''tacticed'' Malkay who was forced into two changes after 45 mins - 9 times out of 10 Norwich would have won that game. 

 

I''m not a great lover of stats etc. but they are the only way to provide evidence on a message board of how a game was played out. We can''t all sit down and watch the video of it together unfortunately. I think how fans see their team play is related to half full/half empty mentality. Some will be overly critical all the time and some overly positive (that''s plain to see from this message board). The way I have seen the games play out very much relates to a 4-3-3, although with a few twists - such as Pilkington moving central to allow Olsson to overlap (the source of goals against Chelsea and Arsenal and Norwich''s best chance against Cardiff).

 

Go into Saturday''s game looking out for this formation, you are more likely to see it if you aren''t assuming that Hughton is playing a defensive formation again. (Of course he might not use this system against West Ham, I expect to see Hooper and RvW if fit).

[? 20]

I''d agree with the majority of that.Don''t get me wrong, i''m not claiming for a moment, as some are, that we''ve been poor lately. On the contrary, with the exception of last Saturday i think we''ve played very well since Stoke and been extremely unlucky with regards to the results. I''m also not calling for Hughton''s head. I said on the vote thread last week that i''d give him a little more time and i''m not so fickle as to allow one, albeit painful, battering at an exceptional side like Man City to change my mind.It''s just this idea that we''re playing 4-3-3 that i can''t agree with.I''ve seen changes in the composition of what i''d call the midfield five, particularly with regards to the central 3 of Fer, Howson and Tettey. I also agree that the wingers are being used differently from how they were pre-Stoke, particularly, as you rightly pointed out, Pilks coming inside to a more central position when required. But i still don''t see the wingers being pushed upfield enough to warrant labelling them ''attackers'', and in support of that claim i''m still seeing our striker being extremely isolated for the majority of the matches.Maybe i''m merely arguing semantics.Either way, thanks for the detailed reply. I''ll be sure to keep an eye on the wide men this Saturday.