This bloody formation debate.

Insider

Insider

Well-known member
First question.
Has Critch ever said we play 3-5-2?
We clearly play 3 at the back.
However there are plenty of nuances on that system.
A defensive 3-5-2, which posters typically think we are (self excluded) is 3 defenders and 3 defensive mid-fielders. Obviously we don't play a defensive central 3.
A variation on this is 3-1-4-2 (more like us) which is seen as an attacking formation.
Still 3 at the back, Norburn as the "1", the 4 including the WBs and the front 2.
It's a possession based system (we certainly appear to dominate possession when we play badly) but can be an effective system when you play on the break (which we did against Portsmouth, Bristol Rovers).
Of course you rely on a lot of energy and ability from your WBs. Is that our achilles heal?
It's all just numbers because in reality these days all teams are expected to play "total football".
So if it was all so simple why are we half decent at home and not so good away?
4-4-2 (the poster choice) is actually seen as more defensive formation.
3 distinct lines across the pitch. Winger based but an overload against us if the opposition play a mid-field 3.
So is our inconsistency a formation issue or is it just an inconsistency in performance levels.
I'm fcuked if I know but like I, and many others have said, to a large extent it relies on Critch, and the players of course, to be able to adapt the system in the game and that seems to be the problem.
I'm certainly not writing off the season but it will be an interesting January if we lose King Kenny and Jordan Rhodes.
 
great post insider. wow didnt realise it was that complicated or simple as the case might be. thanks. bit like the old chess board. once you have made just two moves there are many moves you make.
 
Looks like Critters needs more time with these league one players, altering systems during the game can be a bit too much to take in for them.
 
I don't know why so many on here are totally against 3 at the back, it allows the team to be a lot more flexible with the other 7 outfield players.
My opinion the problems have been team selections, performance levels and our wide players usually playing on the wrong side of the pitch.
 
The formation could work.
However, I feel that Critchley often does more damage playing people on the wrong side / wrong foot, plus picking his favourites when we’ve got better options on the bench. Our pace is also a major problem. It’s far too ponderous and gives the opposition plenty of time to organise against our attacks. When we get the ball down and play it quickly, we look a far more dangerous team.
 
tangerine_neil said:
The formation could work.
However, I feel that Critchley often does more damage playing people on the wrong side / wrong foot, plus picking his favourites when we’ve got better options on the bench. Our pace is also a major problem. It’s far too ponderous and gives the opposition plenty of time to organise against our attacks. When we get the ball down and play it quickly, we look a far more dangerous team.
Click to expand...
Again using inverted WBs is just a matter of opinion. I think it was Millar (looks a really good player) for The Nobbers against The Dirty who cut in from the left and thrashed the ball into the top corner with his right foot. That's the theory.
Of course the analyst needs to look at the stats as to which system inverted or natural is the most effective.
Just a word in defence of CJ (2 goals, 6 assists) is that he's not afraid to use his right foot and is not totally ineffective.
(If only we still had Nathan Shaw who is equally good with 2 feet).
 
gjr said:
I don't know why so many on here are totally against 3 at the back, it allows the team to be a lot more flexible with the other 7 outfield players.
My opinion the problems have been team selections, performance levels and our wide players usually playing on the wrong side of the pitch.
Click to expand...
In my opinion because the three at the back make too many mistakes and aren’t good enough to play it 👎
 
Insider said:
Again using inverted WBs is just a matter of opinion. I think it was Millar (looks a really good player) for The Nobbers against The Dirty who cut in from the left and thrashed the ball into the top corner with his right foot. That's the theory.
Of course the analyst needs to look at the stats as to which system inverted or natural is the most effective.
Just a word in defence of CJ (2 goals, 6 assists) is that he's not afraid to use his right foot and is not totally ineffective.
(If only we still had Nathan Shaw who is equally good with 2 feet).
Click to expand...
Generally, I’d say that anything that defies normal logic is never the best approach. Might as well have them running with their laces tied together as well. 😁
 
Graves said:
In my opinion, Boxing Day wasn’t about the formation, it was about the players.
Click to expand...
It was about the players not performing and Critchley’s inability to make effective changes during the game. Unless forced by injury/ illness he rarely makes substitutions until around 70 minutes and usually its like for like. If the formation isn’t working whats the point of continuing it? It’s like swapping deck chairs on the Titanic and like said ship we are sinking.
 
Martonmosser said:
In my opinion because the three at the back make too many mistakes and aren’t good enough to play it 👎
Click to expand...
Thing is when we play 4 strung across midfield we get outnumbered in the centre.
I'd go for Pennington, Ekpiteta and Husband, with Hamilton or Thompson as left wing back, Gabriel or Lyons on the right.
Play Dougall, and Morgan with Dembele behind Rhodes and Joseph.
Casey, Norburn, Carey and Beesley all getting plenty of minutes from the bench and as back up.
Connolly would be way down the pecking order mate, he reminds me too much of me as a player!!
 
Nothing wrong with 3 at the back, 5 in midfield and 2 up top. Its a good formation.

The only thing I don't like is playing wingers who can't go past a fullback and cross because they don't have a left foot, and playing the same formation all the time.

Critchley is obviously working his arse off to embed a possession-based style in to the team, where the plan is to totally dominate the ball and football the other side to death. When the lads get it right we are really good but alas that is far too infrequent. I won't criticise the Manager for trying to execute his plan, but it would be nice if we were able to change it up in those games when we are obviously labouring and teams sit there and watch us knock it sideways.
 
Insider said:
First question.
Has Critch ever said we play 3-5-2?
We clearly play 3 at the back.
However there are plenty of nuances on that system.
A defensive 3-5-2, which posters typically think we are (self excluded) is 3 defenders and 3 defensive mid-fielders. Obviously we don't play a defensive central 3.
A variation on this is 3-1-4-2 (more like us) which is seen as an attacking formation.
Still 3 at the back, Norburn as the "1", the 4 including the WBs and the front 2.
It's a possession based system (we certainly appear to dominate possession when we play badly) but can be an effective system when you play on the break (which we did against Portsmouth, Bristol Rovers).
Of course you rely on a lot of energy and ability from your WBs. Is that our achilles heal?
It's all just numbers because in reality these days all teams are expected to play "total football".
So if it was all so simple why are we half decent at home and not so good away?
4-4-2 (the poster choice) is actually seen as more defensive formation.
3 distinct lines across the pitch. Winger based but an overload against us if the opposition play a mid-field 3.
So is our inconsistency a formation issue or is it just an inconsistency in performance levels.
I'm fcuked if I know but like I, and many others have said, to a large extent it relies on Critch, and the players of course, to be able to adapt the system in the game and that seems to be the problem.
I'm certainly not writing off the season but it will be an interesting January if we lose King Kenny and Jordan Rhodes.
Click to expand...
My preference would be 4-4-2. 4-3-3 against a rubbing rag team.But any formation if the players are not willing to put a shift in,formations,plans go out of the window.Connely only does one job and that is poor at that.
 
Got to agree with that comment that 4-4-2 as proposed to playing 3-5-2 all so if you remember when we had the fist clenched here last time after not winning for 10 games and he brought Calderwood in to the club then all of a sudden we reverted back to 4-4-2 and 3-5-2 when they out of the window as well as playing 4-3-3 surprise suprise This team is a mirror image as when Critch was here last time and will revert back to those system we played before nothing has changed at all and the reason that he never brought a very experienced number 2 is because that would cost to much money and he would not be a yes man unlike the coaching staff that we have at present
 
Albert Ross said:
It was about the players not performing and Critchley’s inability to make effective changes during the game. Unless forced by injury/ illness he rarely makes substitutions until around 70 minutes and usually its like for like. If the formation isn’t working whats the point of continuing it? It’s like swapping deck chairs on the Titanic and like said ship we are sinking.
Click to expand...
Dale could have done something if he’d have come on earlier. Don’t understand the Connolly over Casey choice either. I like it when Casey starts the majority of games.

However, as a club, I don’t believe we are sinking. It’s a slow rebuild. Too much focus on Critchley for me.
 
tangerine.com said:
Prefer 4-4-2 or 4-3-3
Click to expand...
Do we have players for 4-4-2?
We have lots of right-sided CBs but not a left-sided one. I don't think Hubby is that player but is an obvious LB .
We've' got central mid-fielders coming out of our ears to fill the middle positions.
I think wingers are a problem? CJ/Dale? Is Dembele a winger? If not where does he fit?
We can find a front 2 but desperately need to keep Rhodes.
 
Insider said:
Again using inverted WBs is just a matter of opinion. I think it was Millar (looks a really good player) for The Nobbers against The Dirty who cut in from the left and thrashed the ball into the top corner with his right foot. That's the theory.
Of course the analyst needs to look at the stats as to which system inverted or natural is the most effective.
Just a word in defence of CJ (2 goals, 6 assists) is that he's not afraid to use his right foot and is not totally ineffective.
(If only we still had Nathan Shaw who is equally good with 2 feet).
Click to expand...
That millar is costing them a lot of money… money talks though !! 👍👍
 
Graves said:
Dale could have done something if he’d have come on earlier. Don’t understand the Connolly over Casey choice either. I like it when Casey starts the majority of games.

However, as a club, I don’t believe we are sinking. It’s a slow rebuild. Too much focus on Critchley for me.
Click to expand...
He’s the boss, he’s the one who posters keep telling us has coaching qualifications coming out of his ears. The buck stops there, he was given all the plaudits for our promotion. He must take the lions share of the blame when things go wrong.
 
gjr said:
Thing is when we play 4 strung across midfield we get outnumbered in the centre.
I'd go for Pennington, Ekpiteta and Husband, with Hamilton or Thompson as left wing back, Gabriel or Lyons on the right.
Play Dougall, and Morgan with Dembele behind Rhodes and Joseph.
Casey, Norburn, Carey and Beesley all getting plenty of minutes from the bench and as back up.
Connolly would be way down the pecking order mate, he reminds me too much of me as a player!!
Click to expand...
Ha ha, I remember it well 😂😂
 
  • Like
Reactions: gjr
There is nothing wrong with three at the back, and we've seen some fantastic performances this season with that formation when we've had the right players. The inverted wingers works well when there are five or six players in or around the box and making runs, pulling defenders hither and thither. When we play more conservatively, Cambridge, Burton, with only a couple of players in the box, then the inverted wingers doesn't work because there isn't the movement to draw players out of position. Getting around the back becomes the best way and we should have put two of of CJs crosses away (he can use his right foot) on the left though, neither Lyons or dale can consistently deliver on their left foot, so it's much easier for defences to deal with.
I can't understand critchley playing Connolly in the centre of three over Casey, he obviously thinks Casey is better there than Connolly because when he came on Casey played in the middle.
Norburn as the holding mid for me is really problematic, he slows the game down quite a lot, and in my opinion is defensively suspect, I personally think, if Kenny isn't available then either Morgan or TOC is a better option. They are both better on the ball, both better passers, both move the ball quickly, and can drive forward and are no more defensively suspect than Norburn.
Carey and dembele compliment one another in that the give opposition defences two deep lying players to think about, which means doubling or tripling on one player gives freedom to the other(s).
The big problem for me is critchley has a set way of doing things, when it works, it really works, but he doesn't or maybe can't see obvious problems as they are happening. To suggest we controlled the game against Burton to me points to his lack of real judgement.
Eff knows what the solution is but he keeps making the same mistakes over and over again.
 
I think Connolly is a good player but playing in the centre of a back 3 isn't his position. A back 3 of Gabriel, Casey and Husband might work but are they really a good enough back 3? Enough with this inverted wingers crap although there's nothing to stop them switching to try something different. 3-4-1-2 at home and 4-4-2 away should at least be tried as this constantant 3-5-2 shite is just too predictable and inflexible at times. I wonder if Critchley underestimates certain teams at times.
 
Whatever variant of 3-5-2 we play, it's f*****g horrible. Yes I get the fact we are decent at home playing the same formation but what's the point when we are so shit away. We rely on flipping Husband making overlapping runs. Crosses come in too easily. The three dopey centre backs just play hot potato with one another.

We haven't got the players for it and even if we did, it still would be shit.
 
Did anyone watch us when we played 4 in the middle under Appleton? We were wide open every week.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gjr
gjr said:
I don't know why so many on here are totally against 3 at the back, it allows the team to be a lot more flexible with the other 7 outfield players.
My opinion the problems have been team selections, performance levels and our wide players usually playing on the wrong side of the pitch.
Click to expand...
Agreed with the above, but also our back 3 are not good enough to play this formation either defensively or with the ball.
If we had Barker Evatt and Gorkes then that would be different.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gjr
I don't mind 352 when we're attacking. There's enough fluidity with Dembele going where he likes.

In defence though it seems to leave us wide open in the obvious full back positions. Especially left side as CJs speed helps him get back goalside so we often get away with it on the right.
 
I think the problems are two fold. For me the three at the back and playing wingbacks doesn’t work because CJ and Lyons/Dale are always worried about getting back. The three is a problem because we don’t have pace and are wide open to a counter.
But the big problem is our ponderous build up play. Everything is too slow.
 
Couldn't give two f's about formations and all the wish they was coaches on here, we are simply not good enough, this team lacks balls and gets bullied by other teams. Fans talk about the PO's, do you think this team has the character to get there or to win them. They are in their correct position, we will finish mid table all the while playing a terrible style of football.
 
Perhaps the OP has hit on something here .The fact the formation requires lengthy explanation and interpretation says it all.

Once you have what amounts to some players playing a duplicity of roles you can fall between 2 stools attacking or defending plus you have 3 centre backs occupying the space of 2.

Call me old school but having 11 players with one role and a clear understanding of it has to be a better way forward.
 
Within reason any system could work. As Neil says, the problem we have imo, is the pace we play at. Too often it's far too slow and laboured.
 
20togo said:
Within reason any system could work. As Neil says, the problem we have imo, is the pace we play at. Too often it's far too slow and laboured.
Click to expand...
Yep. Far too often the pass is on, but we think about it before playing it, usually behind the player as well, losing momentum.
 
Wizaard said:
Yep. Far too often the pass is on, but we think about it before playing it, usually behind the player as well, losing momentum.
Click to expand...
And that’s the frustrating thing. We seem to be able to speed up play at home (most of the time) but not away. Maybe the moans and groans from the stands are justified and give the players a kick up the arse.
 
Play players who are comfortable in a position they have been playing all their careers. It's absolute rubbish and tonight will be another example as to why.
 
I don't really care whether it's a 5-3-2, 3-5-2 or a 3-4-1-2, my issue is the coaching and intent of the team. We're 7pts behind the pack and cannot afford to drop further back. It's time we played with more intent and tempo. I'm sick to the back-teeth of slow sideways passing continually without any real purpose. We need to risk more to win more, it really is that simple. I genuinely believe if we can move the ball faster, have more midfielders breaking the lines and have a shoot on sight policy we will cause teams more trouble. We are far too predictable and nice to play against, it's time we showed a little more backbone and swagger on the road and that for me starts with Critchley. If he's incapable or not willing to change things away from home, he needs to go, we will never win promotion with our away form.
 
IMO you need players who retain the ball more consistently such as Peterborough there recruitment policy
has been superb, we dont have enough players like them. Losing possession is our achilles heel, many things have been said
on here about formations, inverted wingbacks etc etc. If you want a team in the top 2/3 positions in this league then
get the players in to do that. Critchley seems to be losing patience with players. LCB , a more creative midfielder who
has the experience to play in this league and wingers who can control the ball, pass and put the ball in the box more consistently.
 
I think it’s quite simple. Start with 352 (as it has proved fruitful at times) and if it’s not working have a secondary formation you can call on at HT/60 mins. Having 3 CB’s on the pitch when they have 10 men behind the ball and we have 70% possession is pointless especially when chasing the game.
 
Agree with Newbury's point about the shooting too. We are shooting more now than we were early doors, and when we're on top it all looks good. But still in a Burton type game we don't take anywhere near enough shots, not ignoring that all the ones we did have Tuesday were off target.

I remember something GTF said a couple of years ago while he was managing in Wales. If his team haven't had at least 10-12 shots each half, then he wants to know why.

It makes you look daft to have to be making the point at all.
 
Insider said:
Again using inverted WBs is just a matter of opinion. I think it was Millar (looks a really good player) for The Nobbers against The Dirty who cut in from the left and thrashed the ball into the top corner with his right foot. That's the theory.
Of course the analyst needs to look at the stats as to which system inverted or natural is the most effective.
Just a word in defence of CJ (2 goals, 6 assists) is that he's not afraid to use his right foot and is not totally ineffective.
(If only we still had Nathan Shaw who is equally good with 2 feet).
Click to expand...
CJ also has some of the most touches in the opposition box and yet he only has 2 goals and 6 assists. His end product is amongst the worst in this league.
 
Insider said:
First question.
Has Critch ever said we play 3-5-2?
We clearly play 3 at the back.
However there are plenty of nuances on that system.
A defensive 3-5-2, which posters typically think we are (self excluded) is 3 defenders and 3 defensive mid-fielders. Obviously we don't play a defensive central 3.
A variation on this is 3-1-4-2 (more like us) which is seen as an attacking formation.
Still 3 at the back, Norburn as the "1", the 4 including the WBs and the front 2.
It's a possession based system (we certainly appear to dominate possession when we play badly) but can be an effective system when you play on the break (which we did against Portsmouth, Bristol Rovers).
Of course you rely on a lot of energy and ability from your WBs. Is that our achilles heal?
It's all just numbers because in reality these days all teams are expected to play "total football".
So if it was all so simple why are we half decent at home and not so good away?
4-4-2 (the poster choice) is actually seen as more defensive formation.
3 distinct lines across the pitch. Winger based but an overload against us if the opposition play a mid-field 3.
So is our inconsistency a formation issue or is it just an inconsistency in performance levels.
I'm fcuked if I know but like I, and many others have said, to a large extent it relies on Critch, and the players of course, to be able to adapt the system in the game and that seems to be the problem.
I'm certainly not writing off the season but it will be an interesting January if we lose King Kenny and Jordan Rhodes.
Click to expand...
With all that going on, no wonder the players frequently look confused.
 
Insider said:
Do we have players for 4-4-2?
We have lots of right-sided CBs but not a left-sided one. I don't think Hubby is that player but is an obvious LB .
We've' got central mid-fielders coming out of our ears to fill the middle positions.
I think wingers are a problem? CJ/Dale? Is Dembele a winger? If not where does he fit?
We can find a front 2 but desperately need to keep Rhodes.
Click to expand...
We need two up front.
 
FLATBACKFOR said:
IMO you need players who retain the ball more consistently such as Peterborough there recruitment policy
has been superb, we dont have enough players like them. Losing possession is our achilles heel, many things have been said
on here about formations, inverted wingbacks etc etc. If you want a team in the top 2/3 positions in this league then
get the players in to do that. Critchley seems to be losing patience with players. LCB , a more creative midfielder who
has the experience to play in this league and wingers who can control the ball, pass and put the ball in the box more consistently.
Click to expand...
And Peterborough, along with other sides at the top of our division, play with four at the back!
 
I must admit I found it difficult to work out the formation today.
FotMob had us playing 3-4-2-1.
ESPN had us playing 4-4-2 with Connolly at RB and Gabriel at CB 😂.
I thought we played a bit lop-sided today. Down our left Lyons never really strayed much further forward than the half way line and Hubby was just behind him. CJ seemed more of a LW (but still created a goal from the right) rather than the other half of a front two.
On the other side I thought Connolly played pretty central whereas Gabriel looked more like an attacking RWB. As a consequence we conceded acres of pace down that side which Tavares exlploited in the 2nd half.
Dembele wandered around a bit down the right hand side but after the 1st 15 mins was largely ineffective.
BUT whatever formation played we held a PL team to a draw on their patch.
Well done Pool. 👍
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top