352

P

PhilW91

Well-known member
Thought it looked good today at times going forward midfield looked a bit light with Hansson and Bowler either side of Evans but admittedly won’t be first choice going forward with Brown, Honeyman and eventually Morgan to come in there. Looking forward to seeing Imray return he will be a big asset at RWB where I don’t think it works for Banks or CJ who are both maybe better off at LWB.

Going forward once the injured ones get back in the fold the team should be something like:
BPF
Casey Ihiekwe Husband
Imray Honeyman Morgan Coulson
Bowler
Ennis Fletcher

Brown possibly in midfield for Honeyman or Morgan if those 2 don’t work together, time will tell 👍
 
When and if all available

BPF
Casey Horsfall Ashworth
Imray Brown Honeyman Coulson
Bowler Ennis Banks


Ravizzoli Lyons Husband Morgan Bloxham Fletcher Taylor
 
Like your team G. I guess depending on whether he goes 352 or 433 then there's a choice between Albie and Haydn for the third midfield slot. But Haydn is tenacious enough in the tackle to be part of defensive three anyway, if required.

And a fit Imray will be up and back so much it'll be hard to tell whether we're playing 3 or 4 at the back.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gjr
gjr said:
When and if all available

BPF
Casey Horsfall Ashworth
Imray Brown Honeyman Coulson
Bowler Ennis Banks


Ravizzoli Lyons Husband Morgan Bloxham Fletcher Taylor
Click to expand...
Looks good on paper but I don’t think it would work. Too many wide players, we’d get smashed through the middle with only Honeyman and Brown. Both Banks and Bowler like to drift out wide. You could probably get away with one - I’d have Morgan in there myself, swapped out for Banks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gjr
FY4Representer said:
Looks good on paper but I don’t think it would work. Too many wide players, we’d get smashed through the middle with only Honeyman and Brown. Both Banks and Bowler like to drift out wide. You could probably get away with one - I’d have Morgan in there myself, swapped out for Banks.
Click to expand...
Fair point, wouldn't be my ideal lineup, was just trying to 2nd guess what Evatt might do.
He talks a lot about being flexible, 3 4 3 easily becomes 5 4 1 when under pressure.
Horsfall also looks quite good on the ball, he could come into a 6 type position to bolster midfield if Imray and Coulson dropped deeper to help out in defence.
Whatever Evatt does it will have more thought and coaching applied to making it work than we had under Bruce and his pals.
 
4-3-3 for me.
BPF
Imray, Horsfall, Casey, Husband
Morgan, Brown, Honeyman
Bloxham, Taylor, Banks

Rav, Inweike, Coulson/Ashworth, Evans, Fletcher, Ennis, CJ

Bowler can rotate in out according to fitness and performance or swap him in for CJ. Evatt's number one task for me is getting the best out of Taylor and Blox.
 
3-5-2 is great if you have wingbacks that can run their socks off all the game, they have t be full backs when out of possession and wingers when in possession, and that takes a high level of fitness.

The other key is a creative number 10 who has a free role to roam about and create chances.

Get those two right and you're in business.
 
3-5-2 has been awful under every manager who has played it. It will continue to be awful under Evatt whilst we have Lyons, Hamilton and Coulson as options for wing backs. Imray is the closest thing what a wing back should be.
 
I only like having 3 at the back of the opposition have a lone striker. Too risky I think with 2 centre forwards to mark.
Remember Martin O’Neill favouring 3-5-2 even though he played route 1 football 🤣
 
Would like to think that Ihiekwe can come straight back in and we can be solid against Cardiff.
 
Read an article today about 3 1 4 2, it's my day off and i've got time on my hands!
Could be an interesting option for us but then i struggle to see how we would get much out of Bowler or Hansson.
Banks could probably adapt don't know about Bloxham, generally i just don't know about Bloxham right now.
We could go with

BPF
Casey Horsfall Ashworth
Evans
Imray Brown Honeyman Coulson
Fletcher Ennis

Banks, Taylor, Morgan, Lyons, Ihiekwe, Hamilton and Husband could all easily fit into that 11.
If you really want to get the best out of Evans could be the ideal role for him.
 
gjr said:
Read an article today about 3 1 4 2, it's my day off and i've got time on my hands!
Could be an interesting option for us but then i struggle to see how we would get much out of Bowler or Hansson.
Banks could probably adapt don't know about Bloxham, generally i just don't know about Bloxham right now.
We could go with

BPF
Casey Horsfall Ashworth
Evans
Imray Brown Honeyman Coulson
Fletcher Ennis

Banks, Taylor, Morgan, Lyons, Ihiekwe, Hamilton and Husband could all easily fit into that 11.
If you really want to get the best out of Evans could be the ideal role for him.
Click to expand...
Good to see many now thinking of 3 at the back. Apart from the left sided CB the players are better equipped for that.

Further up the pitch the system become more flexible. Brown starts though.

Also 3 at the back to me means ditching the luxury players on the left, so bye bye Hannson come Jan 1 and we use Josh as the 'wildcard'.

When fully fit and fully trained, there's a bloody decent team in there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gjr
fcblackpool said:
Good to see many now thinking of 3 at the back. Apart from the left sided CB the players are better equipped for that.

Further up the pitch the system become more flexible. Brown starts though.

Also 3 at the back to me means ditching the luxury players on the left, so bye bye Hannson come Jan 1 and we use Josh as the 'wildcard'.

When fully fit and fully trained, there's a bloody decent team in there.
Click to expand...
Agree with you about Hansson, wanted him to work out, maybe he will, but can't see it.
I think Bowler can bring a wild card element and adapt his game to suit Evatts plans.
 
gjr said:
Read an article today about 3 1 4 2, it's my day off and i've got time on my hands!
Could be an interesting option for us but then i struggle to see how we would get much out of Bowler or Hansson.
Banks could probably adapt don't know about Bloxham, generally i just don't know about Bloxham right now.
We could go with

BPF
Casey Horsfall Ashworth
Evans
Imray Brown Honeyman Coulson
Fletcher Ennis

Banks, Taylor, Morgan, Lyons, Ihiekwe, Hamilton and Husband could all easily fit into that 11.
If you really want to get the best out of Evans could be the ideal role for him.
Click to expand...
You really shouldn't be looking at stuff like this and being open-minded.
 
gjr said:
Read an article today about 3 1 4 2, it's my day off and i've got time on my hands!
Could be an interesting option for us but then i struggle to see how we would get much out of Bowler or Hansson.
Banks could probably adapt don't know about Bloxham, generally i just don't know about Bloxham right now.
We could go with

BPF
Casey Horsfall Ashworth
Evans
Imray Brown Honeyman Coulson
Fletcher Ennis

Banks, Taylor, Morgan, Lyons, Ihiekwe, Hamilton and Husband could all easily fit into that 11.
If you really want to get the best out of Evans could be the ideal role for him.
Click to expand...
We played 3142 on Saturday against Scunny. Evatt played it a lot at Bolton too so I reckon this will be our go to formation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gjr
Evoknows said:
We played 3142 on Saturday against Scunny. Evatt played it a lot at Bolton too so I reckon this will be our go to formation.
Click to expand...
Was working Saturday so didn't see the game but that makes sense, and apparently Evans had a good game in the 6 role.
 
gjr said:
Was working Saturday so didn't see the game but that makes sense, and apparently Evans had a good game in the 6 role.
Click to expand...
Yeh he was really good to be fair which hasn't happened a lot recently. Bowler was good in one of the att cm roles too. Both him and Hanson at the same time was a bit overkill but explained after that he didn't want to risk Brown unless needed. Like u said, such a relief to not be Bruce ball.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gjr
Evoknows said:
Yeh he was really good to be fair which hasn't happened a lot recently. Bowler was good in one of the att cm roles too. Both him and Hanson at the same time was a bit overkill but explained after that he didn't want to risk Brown unless needed. Like u said, such a relief to not be Bruce ball.
Click to expand...
An attacking midfield with a combination of Ennis, Taylor or Fletcher as the front 2 and Evans sat in front of the back 3 sounds like an effective, workable plan to me although patience will be needed and constant shouts of get it forwards not particularly helpfull !
 
fcblackpool said:
Good to see many now thinking of 3 at the back. Apart from the left sided CB the players are better equipped for that.

Further up the pitch the system become more flexible. Brown starts though.

Also 3 at the back to me means ditching the luxury players on the left, so bye bye Hannson come Jan 1 and we use Josh as the 'wildcard'.

When fully fit and fully trained, there's a bloody decent team in there.
Click to expand...
3 at the back can work really well and it's not necessarily more defensive if you use wingers or skilled wingbacks.

It allows for it all really, more in midfield and 2 up top if you choose. Also 3 CB's has benefits. They are generally bigger and stronger than fullbacks. Better therefore at headers defensive and attacking potentially.
 
A_Tense_Grin said:
We were saying the same thing when Critchley was using it...
Click to expand...
You definitely weren't, was anybody?
However i will agree it wasn't a great watch but he won plenty of points, weird selections like Connolly as LWB and inflexibility ruined it.
And just as Bruce put out a lazy, badly prepared version of 4 4 2 many coaches don't.
No formation is automatically bad but poor, preparation, inflexibility and square pegs in round holes renders any formation disfunctional if it becomes dogma.
 
Last edited:
gjr said:
You definitely weren't, was anybody?
However i will agree it wasn't a great watch but he won plenty of points, weird selections like Connolly as LWB and inflexibility ruined it.
And just as Bruce put out a lazy, badly prepared version of 4 4 2 many coaches don't.
No formation is automatically bad but poor, preparation, inflexibility and square pegs in round holes renders any formation disfunctional if it becomes dogma.
Click to expand...
Same will happen now. Bowler having to move central is an example of this. Fans think it's some sort of tactical master stroke when really it's just because Bowler's 'normal' position is now null and void. Bloxham will also suffer as he will have to play central somehow.

Wing backs aren't good enough. Maybe Imray whenever he comes back.

I hope I'm wrong (which is rare) and Evatt finally proves 3-5-2 isn't the devils formation after three previous managers have tried and failed with it.
 
A_Tense_Grin said:
Same will happen now. Bowler having to move central is an example of this. Fans think it's some sort of tactical master stroke when really it's just because Bowler's 'normal' position is now null and void. Bloxham will also suffer as he will have to play central somehow.

Wing backs aren't good enough. Maybe Imray whenever he comes back.

I hope I'm wrong (which is rare) and Evatt finally proves 3-5-2 isn't the devils formation after three previous managers have tried and failed with it.
Click to expand...
Time will tell, Bowler may or may not adapt but him as a 10 makes a lot more sense than Connolly as a LWB.
Evatt has said that under him formation is flexible during the match depending on the opposition and what they are doing, there isn't an infallible formation but there are inflexible managers.
I'm happy to see a manager with various ideas in charge after a year of a manager with almost no idea, even if he did play a back four.
 
Raging_Bull said:
3-5-2 is great if you have wingbacks that can run their socks off all the game, they have t be full backs when out of possession and wingers when in possession, and that takes a high level of fitness.

The other key is a creative number 10 who has a free role to roam about and create chances.

Get those two right and you're in business.
Click to expand...
Spot on, RB. But with the lack of fitness in our team at the moment, no way should we play a system that involves playing wing-backs.
 
JJpool said:
3 at the back can work really well and it's not necessarily more defensive if you use wingers or skilled wingbacks.

It allows for it all really, more in midfield and 2 up top if you choose. Also 3 CB's has benefits. They are generally bigger and stronger than fullbacks. Better therefore at headers defensive and attacking potentially.
Click to expand...
and that's where our players are better suited.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gjr
gjr said:
Wouldn't rule him out but ideally i'd like a left footed player on the left of a back 3.
Click to expand...
You'd think Husband would get that nod which tells a not good recruitment story. The benefits of a left sider being able to shuffle over the LB far outweigh his lacking as a first choice CB.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gjr
Blackpool_Gaz said:
Spot on, RB. But with the lack of fitness in our team at the moment, no way should we play a system that involves playing wing-backs.
Click to expand...
Fair point Gaz, but how the hell did we get to November with a team who's fitness levels are so poor?

It reflects really badly on Bruce as it appears he's been far too complacent in his time here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gjr
Can we all now agree that 3 at the back isn't an inherently flawed system?
I say all, i know of one who can't be converted but with the right players, coaching and hard work any system can be made to work.
Just as the traditional meat and two veg of 4 4 2 can become a horrible mess if the opposite applies.
 
A fully fit squad and it would be impossible to be my best team and formation. I'm just grateful to leave that down to the manager because i daresay i think there's a few players there who think they should be starting.
 
I actually trust what Evatt is doing & he's already shown it's not the systems that's been the problem it's how you adapt to the various systems to get the best out of your team. It's still early days but I can only say I'm impressed. Compare yesterday to a similar setup in the Critchley era.
 
Sooty59 said:
I actually trust what Evatt is doing & he's already shown it's not the systems that's been the problem it's how you adapt to the various systems to get the best out of your team. It's still early days but I can only say I'm impressed. Compare yesterday to a similar setup in the Critchley era.
Click to expand...
I agree with myself earlier in the thread...😏

But yes it's also about intent, how high you push up the pitch and press, pressing in packs effectively, working on simple but effective passing drills to move up the pitch and when you win it back and go on the break. Things are fluid but if we do win it here you go here and there's a chance for a through ball or whatever. Etc

All formations have strengths and weaknesses but 352 allows us to have 3 strong CB's, 3 in midfield, wingers or wing backs, 2 up top. Or other variations.

The players will now buy into this even more as they can see the rewards fom the energy, he'll have stats to show if we run this far we have x chance to win the game, the high pressing is already showing the rewards, so the buy in and belief only grows.
 
A_Tense_Grin said:
Same will happen now. Bowler having to move central is an example of this. Fans think it's some sort of tactical master stroke when really it's just because Bowler's 'normal' position is now null and void. Bloxham will also suffer as he will have to play central somehow.

Wing backs aren't good enough. Maybe Imray whenever he comes back.

I hope I'm wrong (which is rare) and Evatt finally proves 3-5-2 isn't the devils formation after three previous managers have tried and failed with it.
Click to expand...
Good effort with 3 at the back yesterday, Bowler and Bloxham playing centrally.
Wasn't perfect, Coulson and Hamilton were Coulson and Hamilton and Cardiff created a few chances but they weren't as clear cut as ours apart from the header they should've scored with.
And it was an entertaining game, some credit has to go to the ref and Cardiff for that.
What was your view as somebody who is strongly opposed to a back 3, be interesting to know as you have some good ideas and opinions on the game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top