|
Post by jezzascfc on Aug 8, 2019 11:34:05 GMT
Depending on incomings, 4231 looks best for us, with Allen and Etebo as the 2, Powell, Ince and ANother as the 3. Striker is a tough choice if Gayle arrives, as we would have 4 for 1 spot, unless one plays as a wide forward (it worked with Cresswell the last time we went up!).
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2019 11:59:27 GMT
Anything with four at the back would be great if we had a left back but we don't ATM so chuck those formations in the bin
|
|
|
Post by bloody56 on Aug 8, 2019 18:19:09 GMT
I must admit the 10 signings would make more sense if he was going 3-5-2
|
|
|
Post by karl on Aug 8, 2019 18:23:09 GMT
My daughter works with a Luton season ticket holder and he was telling her when he first started playing the diamond at Luton it didn’t work at all and so much so that fans were on his back for a short while.He told her that during one game it suddenly clicked and they never looked back and scored goals for fun. I suppose he will persist with it but the question is how long for? Probably stay with the dimond for 5 games if it's not working then change to that works
|
|
|
Post by trickydicky73 on Aug 8, 2019 18:28:26 GMT
Because it got us into trouble. How? We comfortably survived every season with it. We changed to 3.5.2 and went down Not because we changed to 3-5-2 we didn't. There was far more to it than that. And we didn't play it for long, anyway. Sure we changed back to 4-2-3-1 after a while?
|
|
|
Post by wearepremierleague on Aug 8, 2019 18:29:15 GMT
How? We comfortably survived every season with it. We changed to 3.5.2 and went down Not because we changed to 3-5-2 we didn't. There was far more to it than that. And we didn't play it for long, anyway. Sure we changed back to 4-2-3-1 after a while? We played it more or less the whole time Hughes was in charge that season. We then went to 4-3-3 under Lambert
|
|
|
Post by trickydicky73 on Aug 8, 2019 18:35:36 GMT
Depending on incomings, 4231 looks best for us, with Allen and Etebo as the 2, Powell, Ince and ANother as the 3. Striker is a tough choice if Gayle arrives, as we would have 4 for 1 spot, unless one plays as a wide forward (it worked with Cresswell the last time we went up!). I think it's a toss up between 4-2-3-1 and 3-5-2, Jezza. McClean wouldn't feature in any formation(ok as a sub, maybe), and I think he's the fly in the ointment. Clucas is fine for either full back or wing back.
|
|
|
Post by trickydicky73 on Aug 8, 2019 18:41:45 GMT
Not because we changed to 3-5-2 we didn't. There was far more to it than that. And we didn't play it for long, anyway. Sure we changed back to 4-2-3-1 after a while? We played it more or less the whole time Hughes was in charge that season. We then went to 4-3-3 under Lambert To be honest, I have tried to forget that season, but I thought he tinkered with it. Didn't he go 3-4-3 sometimes and 4 at the back at other times? Any way, 4-3-3 didn't save us, did it? Point being, the OP thinks we are better equipped for 3-5-2, and I think you can make a case for it, although as you and others say, 4-2-3-1 is also good.
|
|
|
Post by jezzascfc on Aug 8, 2019 18:59:34 GMT
Depending on incomings, 4231 looks best for us, with Allen and Etebo as the 2, Powell, Ince and ANother as the 3. Striker is a tough choice if Gayle arrives, as we would have 4 for 1 spot, unless one plays as a wide forward (it worked with Cresswell the last time we went up!). I think it's a toss up between 4-2-3-1 and 3-5-2, Jezza. McClean wouldn't feature in any formation(ok as a sub, maybe), and I think he's the fly in the ointment. Clucas is fine for either full back or wing back. You could make an argument for both, given the personnel now at his disposal, and probably more than his preferred diamond. For me, both offer more width, without asking each full back to be superhuman and leaving the opposition to expose the space behind them if they are not.
|
|
|
Post by trickydicky73 on Aug 8, 2019 19:03:59 GMT
I think it's a toss up between 4-2-3-1 and 3-5-2, Jezza. McClean wouldn't feature in any formation(ok as a sub, maybe), and I think he's the fly in the ointment. Clucas is fine for either full back or wing back. You could make an argument for both, given the personnel now at his disposal, and probably more than his preferred diamond. For me, both offer more width, without asking each full back to be superhuman and leaving the opposition to expose the space behind them if they are not. Totally agree, width is key and I think we would make more chances because of it.
|
|
|
Post by RedandWhite90 on Aug 8, 2019 19:07:19 GMT
3-5-2 is shite. The formation that has worked best, is most balanced, and would suit our players is 4-2-3-1, don’t know why we ever deferred away from it. Correct!
|
|
|
Post by george2again on Aug 23, 2019 8:53:27 GMT
The whole situation is becoming untenable. The one formation we don't have the players for is the diamond. I think our strength would be playing 3-5-2 and that is what we will do tomorrow. NJ has says its the diamond for him or nothing so him changing his philospohy will discredit him massively. My worry is that if we have a new manager hes left short of players for other sysytems because of Nath's obsession with the diamond. I get that fans want to back a manager but all the signs are its been a terrible appointment and has to be addresses sooner rather than later. NJ is all mouth no action.
|
|
|
Post by boskampsflaps on Aug 23, 2019 8:58:01 GMT
The whole situation is becoming untenable. The one formation we don't have the players for is the diamond. I think our strength would be playing 3-5-2 and that is what we will do tomorrow. NJ has says its the diamond for him or nothing so him changing his philospohy will discredit him massively. My worry is that if we have a new manager hes left short of players for other sysytems because of Nath's obsession with the diamond. I get that fans want to back a manager but all the signs are its been a terrible appointment and has to be addresses sooner rather than later. NJ is all mouth no action. Tbf if we are classing Woods and Cousins as DMs we have the players for most formations. Edit, we would lack a bit of depth though in some positions.
|
|
|
Post by TheProletarian on Aug 23, 2019 9:05:35 GMT
So would that be...
Butland / Davies
Collins - Lindsay - Batth
Verlinden - Etebo - Woods - Clucas - Ince
Hogan / Campbell / Gregory
If Jones played this I possibly wouldn't want him to be sacked
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on Aug 23, 2019 9:08:14 GMT
4231 defo
..........................Federici....................... Edwards......Collins......Lindsey....Ward ...................Etebo...........Woods............ Ince......................Powell...............Duffy .............................Gregory....................
|
|
|
Post by chiswickpotter on Aug 23, 2019 9:13:44 GMT
You could make an argument for both, given the personnel now at his disposal, and probably more than his preferred diamond. For me, both offer more width, without asking each full back to be superhuman and leaving the opposition to expose the space behind them if they are not. Totally agree, width is key and I think we would make more chances because of it. Why would you leave McClean out? He has been our best player this season and is the most obvious left wing back and the only left footed winger we have. Clucas is not a left back or that effective Wide. In a 4-2-3-1, McClean and Verlinden on their natural sides would give us some much needed width
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Aug 23, 2019 9:21:01 GMT
Diamond this. Diamond that. The diamond is nothing more than a posh 4-4-2. It really isnt rocket science.
Play the diamond, win your individual battles, and it is no different to any other variation of 4-4-2.
The players are the problem. Not the system. The system doesn't make Jack throw the ball in the net. The system doesn't make batth let a long aimless punt upfield bounce. The system doesn't prevent Joe Allen being goal side on Preston's first goal. The system doesn't prevent Edwards putting his body on the line to block a shot.
Its the players. The diamond is a glorified 4-4-2
|
|
|
Post by boskampsflaps on Aug 23, 2019 9:24:43 GMT
4231 defo ..........................Federici....................... Edwards......Collins......Lindsey....Ward ...................Etebo...........Woods............ Ince......................Powell...............Duffy .............................Gregory.................... Who's the DM in that set up?
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Aug 23, 2019 9:25:24 GMT
It’s a version of 442 but it’s pretty different to your meat and potatoes flat 442.
I agree though it isn’t the system that’s cost us, it’s diabolical human error.
|
|
|
Post by trickydicky73 on Aug 23, 2019 9:26:26 GMT
Totally agree, width is key and I think we would make more chances because of it. Why would you leave McClean out? He has been our best player this season and is the most obvious left wing back and the only left footed winger we have. Clucas is not a left back or that effective Wide. In a 4-2-3-1, McClean and Verlinden on their natural sides would give us some much needed width Because I don't think his crossing is good enough. He will stay in anyway, because Nathan has hung his hat on him.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2019 10:00:41 GMT
Diamond this. Diamond that. The diamond is nothing more than a posh 4-4-2. It really isnt rocket science. Play the diamond, win your individual battles, and it is no different to any other variation of 4-4-2. The players are the problem. Not the system. The system doesn't make Jack throw the ball in the net. The system doesn't make batth let a long aimless punt upfield bounce. The system doesn't prevent Joe Allen being goal side on Preston's first goal. The system doesn't prevent Edwards putting his body on the line to block a shot. Its the players. The diamond is a glorified 4-4-2 It is entirely different! In a flat 4-4-2 your RB and your LB are defenders - they don't need to cross the half way line. You're midfield isn't narrow because you have your wingers. The system doesn't prevent those mistakes but the system does leave huge gaps when you don't have the right players for it which any manager with half a brain will exploit!
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Aug 23, 2019 10:49:25 GMT
Diamond this. Diamond that. The diamond is nothing more than a posh 4-4-2. It really isnt rocket science. Play the diamond, win your individual battles, and it is no different to any other variation of 4-4-2. The players are the problem. Not the system. The system doesn't make Jack throw the ball in the net. The system doesn't make batth let a long aimless punt upfield bounce. The system doesn't prevent Joe Allen being goal side on Preston's first goal. The system doesn't prevent Edwards putting his body on the line to block a shot. Its the players. The diamond is a glorified 4-4-2 It is entirely different! In a flat 4-4-2 your RB and your LB are defenders - they don't need to cross the half way line. You're midfield isn't narrow because you have your wingers. The system doesn't prevent those mistakes but the system does leave huge gaps when you don't have the right players for it which any manager with half a brain will exploit! If we haven't got the ball it becomes a traditional 4-4-2. Our players arent doing stupid things because of a system. They are distracted, brainless, shit, lacking in desire or a combination of all 4 in certain circumstances. Take 3 of that 11 on Wednesday out of the team, 4 if you drop butland, and I'd almost guarantee we'd look a totally different team.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2019 10:51:20 GMT
It is entirely different! In a flat 4-4-2 your RB and your LB are defenders - they don't need to cross the half way line. You're midfield isn't narrow because you have your wingers. The system doesn't prevent those mistakes but the system does leave huge gaps when you don't have the right players for it which any manager with half a brain will exploit! If we haven't got the ball it becomes a traditional 4-4-2. Our players arent doing stupid things because of a system. They are distracted, brainless, shit, lacking in desire or a combination of all 4 in certain circumstances. Take 3 of that 11 on Wednesday out of the team, 4 if you drop butland, and I'd almost guarantee we'd look a totally different team. No it doesn't because if you lose it up the pitch no-one is in position to defend.
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Aug 23, 2019 10:55:19 GMT
If we haven't got the ball it becomes a traditional 4-4-2. Our players arent doing stupid things because of a system. They are distracted, brainless, shit, lacking in desire or a combination of all 4 in certain circumstances. Take 3 of that 11 on Wednesday out of the team, 4 if you drop butland, and I'd almost guarantee we'd look a totally different team. No it doesn't because if you lose it up the pitch no-one is in position to defend. The diamond doesn't make them all go up the pitch though does it? If one goes, others fill in, something the likes of rory and Whelan did with their eyes shut because they were intelligent footballers.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2019 10:58:23 GMT
No it doesn't because if you lose it up the pitch no-one is in position to defend. The diamond doesn't make them all go up the pitch though does it? If one goes, others fill in, something the likes of rory and Whelan did with their eyes shut because they were intelligent footballers. You lose two of your defenders. And your midfield is narrow and suddenly has to get wide. It's difficult to play nevermind when you don't have the players for it.
|
|
|
Post by Alvechurch Assassin on Aug 23, 2019 11:01:12 GMT
With McLean on the left we simply have to play 3 at the back, and it could work, we seem to have options. Woods / Cousins dropping back is not going to work when playing the diamond.
|
|
|
Post by scfc5 on Aug 23, 2019 11:07:34 GMT
If we haven't got the ball it becomes a traditional 4-4-2. Our players arent doing stupid things because of a system. They are distracted, brainless, shit, lacking in desire or a combination of all 4 in certain circumstances. Take 3 of that 11 on Wednesday out of the team, 4 if you drop butland, and I'd almost guarantee we'd look a totally different team. No it doesn't because if you lose it up the pitch no-one is in position to defend. By that logic, no-one would ever play the diamond yet many have and made it work. This “we don’t have the players for it” is letting them off too easily.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2019 11:13:30 GMT
No it doesn't because if you lose it up the pitch no-one is in position to defend. By that logic, no-one would ever play the diamond yet many have and made it work. This “we don’t have the players for it” is letting them off too easily. No you need full backs who can get back. You need a monster of a DM. We don't have them. It's not letting them off at all. They've not been great by any stretch of the imagination but anyone could see we didn't have the players of it and he neglected key positions over the summer. It's crazy to think we do have the players for it and not see there is a perfect storm happening here. We can't change the players we have now (and Jones himself bought 11 of them). We can however change the system.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Hackett on Aug 23, 2019 11:35:29 GMT
3-5-2 is shite. The formation that has worked best, is most balanced, and would suit our players is 4-2-3-1, don’t know why we ever deferred away from it. Because unless you have the right person up top who can hold the ball us and bring people into play the striker ends up getting totally isolated as it has done when we've played this formation before.
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on Aug 23, 2019 14:25:26 GMT
4231 defo ..........................Federici....................... Edwards......Collins......Lindsey....Ward ...................Etebo...........Woods............ Ince......................Powell...............Duffy .............................Gregory.................... Who's the DM in that set up? Same guy that’s currently playing there currently with some help from Etebo. Problem is we don’t have a decent one at the club.
|
|