Formation Today?

BFC95

BFC95

Well-known member
Seeing a few people claim we played with a back 4 today? I must have been watching a different game because it looked like the same back 3 with CJ and Connolly at wing back, except this time CJ pushed up high when in possession and Connolly stayed a little deeper, which is how I think Critch always intended but the players weren't quite getting right.

What does everyone else think?
 
At each kick off and when the game lulled I'd say it was a 4-4-2 for most of the game. CJ was much further up the pitch in an attacking role to start the game but there were times he had to drop back into a five to support the defence - especially in the latter parts of the game. Even Norburn spent times aligned to a natural flattish midfield of four (as I saw it from high up in L Block), but even he ended up protecting the back line in a defensive role so I can see the confusion it's causing.

But for me, I agree that for large parts of the game it was a 4-4-2. Thankfully Critch finally gave it a go because it defo brought the best out of CJ today!
 
BFC95 said:
Seeing a few people claim we played with a back 4 today? I must have been watching a different game because it looked like the same back 3 with CJ and Connolly at wing back, except this time CJ pushed up high when in possession and Connolly stayed a little deeper, which is how I think Critch always intended but the players weren't quite getting right.

What does everyone else think?
Click to expand...
nope you were watching a different game. We played a back four. Of course the wide two in the midfield have to do some covering but CJ's starting position was 20 yards further forward than if he'd been a wing back and it made a massive difference.
 
20togo said:
nope you were watching a different game. We played a back four. Of course the wide two in the midfield have to do some covering but CJ's starting position was 20 yards further forward than if he'd been a wing back and it made a massive difference.
Click to expand...
Still not sure I agree. I can see how in phases it does look like a back 4, but ultimately at it's core it's a back 3 that changes in and out of possession. When you see Husband making overlapping runs on Connolly down the left, that doesn't scream to me a back 4 with one of your only 2 CB's running up the pitch. For me it was simply that CJ moved much further up when in possession, and Connolly would hang back to counter act that, and in defensive situations CJ would move back to the RWB slot and Pennington would come more inside.
 
BFC95 said:
Still not sure I agree. I can see how in phases it does look like a back 4, but ultimately at it's core it's a back 3 that changes in and out of possession. When you see Husband making overlapping runs on Connolly down the left, that doesn't scream to me a back 4 with one of your only 2 CB's running up the pitch. For me it was simply that CJ moved much further up when in possession, and Connolly would hang back to counter act that, and in defensive situations CJ would move back to the RWB slot and Pennington would come more inside.
Click to expand...
nowt wrong with a full back overlapping the man further forward of him. I basically said to the people I was with after a minute of the game that it was 4-4-2. The two lines of four were so clearly defined and CJ pretty much never marked their wide left player whenever they were in possession even though our full back was tucking in.
 
BFC95 said:
Seeing a few people claim we played with a back 4 today? I must have been watching a different game because it looked like the same back 3 with CJ and Connolly at wing back, except this time CJ pushed up high when in possession and Connolly stayed a little deeper, which is how I think Critch always intended but the players weren't quite getting right.

What does everyone else think?
Click to expand...
CJ was playing much further up the pitch and benefitted from it. MOM for me.

It was a flat back 4 for most of the game . . CJ only dropped deeper towards the end.
 
Whatever the formation was, the way we played today was nothing like the way we've played in previous games, and I think it really caught Wigan out. You can imagine their scout reports on us bearing no resemblance to what we actually did.
 
Not sure what formation it was but the obvious thing about the way we played was the todays tactics.
With the omission of big Marv there was none of the crab football ending in the loss of the ball in a dangerous position or the aimlessly hit long ball.
However having watched Rhodes and Beesley today playing Lavery Inbetween the two of them the long ball could be another option.
 
It was sort of like a back 4 that could be tweaked to be a back 3 or 5. But as Wigan decided that they weren't interested in defending the their left side it made sense to keep Hamilton pushed up and Connolly kept back.
 
Gazette Link

Sounds like a bit of both to me, but still at it's core trying to play 3 at the back, just players pressing differently.

"They perhaps thought we were going to play 5-3-2 without the ball, so we just changed our press a little bit and they struggled to play through us."

"We broke well, and we had CJ (Hamilton) pressing higher up the pitch, which was deliberate."

"Penno (Matthew Pennington) has played different positions as a boy with Everton, but he was only right back when a certain sort of scenario was happening on the pitch."
 
Yep I was going to post that link, so I will anyway as some will miss it still.


"At times the Seasiders switched from their usual 3-5-2 to a four man defence- which gave CJ Hamilton in particular more freedom going forward."

Following on from the above posters quote...

"That won’t be the case every game, it will change depending on the opponent.

"It’s important that you’ve got multifunctional players in the squad."
 
For me as some suggested we defiantly started 4-4-2 but we often went back to three at the back, thought it was a “planned tactic”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top