Team for stoke

[Derek Hardballs]

It worked a damn sight better than a back 3! By a mile!

A back 4 wasn’t the problem under Mason. We were competitive. I still can’t believe anyone is now suggesting a back 3 after the last 4 games. It’s extraordinary. It’s taken us from average to uttter shit, as we don’t have the squad for it.

No issues with people writing a back 4 down if that's how they get their kicks.

To be fair my suggested team can quite easily line up as a 4 or a 5. It's about the balance of the playing profiles. Not the formation.

If that’s how they get their kicks? I don’t think it’s getting kicks. I think it’s their eyes seeing the last 4 games the formation has been a disaster as we haven’t got the squad to play it.

Balance of the playing profiles? FFS. At this point I have to loff.

He means playing a balanced team/midfield/defence/attack etc. I’m going to be Lurkers translator from now on

[Lurker#3]

It worked a damn sight better than a back 3! By a mile!

A back 4 wasn’t the problem under Mason. We were competitive. I still can’t believe anyone is now suggesting a back 3 after the last 4 games. It’s extraordinary. It’s taken us from average to uttter shit, as we don’t have the squad for it.

No issues with people writing a back 4 down if that's how they get their kicks.

To be fair my suggested team can quite easily line up as a 4 or a 5. It's about the balance of the playing profiles. Not the formation.

If that’s how they get their kicks? I don’t think it’s getting kicks. I think it’s their eyes seeing the last 4 games the formation has been a disaster as we haven’t got the squad to play it.

Balance of the playing profiles? FFS. At this point I have to loff.

He means playing a balanced team/midfield/defence/attack etc. I’m going to be Lurkers translator from now on

No it's not that Dekka. 

That's a formation. How many people are occupying certain positions on the pitch. You can play the same 'formation' on paper but small changes in the players selected can completely change how the team operates. Playing Molumby and Diakite is completely different to playing Mowatt and Hingolo. Or Mowatt and Price. Or Styles and Mowatt. 

Playing profiles matter more than formations.

[backsidebaggie]

It worked a damn sight better than a back 3! By a mile!

A back 4 wasn’t the problem under Mason. We were competitive. I still can’t believe anyone is now suggesting a back 3 after the last 4 games. It’s extraordinary. It’s taken us from average to uttter shit, as we don’t have the squad for it.

No issues with people writing a back 4 down if that's how they get their kicks.

To be fair my suggested team can quite easily line up as a 4 or a 5. It's about the balance of the playing profiles. Not the formation.

If that’s how they get their kicks? I don’t think it’s getting kicks. I think it’s their eyes seeing the last 4 games the formation has been a disaster as we haven’t got the squad to play it.

Balance of the playing profiles? FFS. At this point I have to loff.

He means playing a balanced team/midfield/defence/attack etc. I’m going to be Lurkers translator from now on

No it's not that Dekka. 

That's a formation. How many people are occupying certain positions on the pitch. You can play the same 'formation' on paper but small changes in the players selected can completely change how the team operates. Playing Molumby and Diakite is completely different to playing Mowatt and Hingolo. Or Mowatt and Price. Or Styles and Mowatt. 

Playing profiles matter more than formations.

There’s are a hell of a lot of variations of each formation (eg 442 can be two out and out wingers, or quite narrow etc etc).

But Christ the jargon lately is OTT. And tons of it is meaningless and trying to sound clever. Football is riddled with it these days.

And the formation is wrong for our squad. Clearly. Playing profiles can go to shit in that respect.

[Lurker#3]

There’s are a hell of a lot of variations of each formation (eg 442 can be two out and out wingers, or quite narrow etc etc).

But Christ the jargon lately is OTT. And tons of it is meaningless and trying to sound clever. Football is riddled with it these days.

And the formation is wrong for our squad. Clearly. Playing profiles can go to shit in that respect.

We are just talking about totally different things, Backside.

I don't buy into the over simplification that some are suggesting. We have to find a better balance of playing profiles within the team, which suit the tactics trying to be used to make us win more games. That balance was never there under Mason and he had a pre season and half a seasons worth of games. I will allow ER time to try and find that formula.

[backsidebaggie]

There’s are a hell of a lot of variations of each formation (eg 442 can be two out and out wingers, or quite narrow etc etc).

But Christ the jargon lately is OTT. And tons of it is meaningless and trying to sound clever. Football is riddled with it these days.

And the formation is wrong for our squad. Clearly. Playing profiles can go to shit in that respect.

We are just talking about totally different things, Backside.

I don't buy into the over simplification that some are suggesting.

I don’t buy into the jargon infested bull shit that fills workplaces and now football.

Many things in football aren’t simple. However, ruining MJ by playing a back 3 and making us clearly worse both in and out of possession is as simple as it gets.

[Lurker#3]

I don’t buy into the jargon infested bull shit that fills workplaces and now football.

Many things in football aren’t simple. However, ruining MJ by playing a back 3 and making us clearly worse both in and out of possession is as simple as it gets.

I am not sure how a player's profile is jargon? But either way. They matter as much if not more than a blunt "formation". You don't have to agree obviously.

It's such an odd assumption that MJ has been ruined by the back three. He is occupying the same position on the pitch. Narrow in a front three. The exact same as Mason used him. The reality is ER has tried to change a failing system. So far it's failed. He has also worried me with his selections of the usual mob in CM and the poor subs in the last couple of games. But fingers crossed that will change now he has some new options.

As previously mentioned Mason had longer in preseason than ER has had altogether so far and his team was still shit.

[Ted Maul]

Usually agree Lurker but MJ played his best football of the year and this coincided with Heggebo looking like a striker when played wide on the right. For that reason alone I'd setup to allow him to occupy that position, it's harder to accommodate a genuine winger and a wing back so for that reason I'd go with a back four.

Griffiths; Imray, Phillips, Mepham, Styles; Mowatt, Price; MJ, JJ, Hindolo; Heggebo

[backsidebaggie]

I don’t buy into the jargon infested bull shit that fills workplaces and now football.

Many things in football aren’t simple. However, ruining MJ by playing a back 3 and making us clearly worse both in and out of possession is as simple as it gets.

I am not sure how a player's profile is jargon? But either way. They matter as much if not more than a blunt "formation". You don't have to agree obviously.

It's such an odd assumption that MJ has been ruined by the back three. He is occupying the same position on the pitch. Narrow in a front three. The exact same as Mason used him. The reality is ER has tried to change a failing system. So far it's failed. He has also worried me with his selections of the usual mob in CM and the poor subs in the last couple of games. But fingers crossed that will change now he has some new options.

As previously mentioned Mason had longer in preseason than ER has had altogether so far and his team was still shit.

Absolute rubbish is MJ occupying the same position! Nonsense! A winger in a 4231 is totally different to in a 343, where he ends up way narrower! Has barely had chalk on his boots the last 3 games! Now that is basic, and if you can’t see that then I give up.

[Lurker#3]

Usually agree Lurker but MJ played his best football of the year and this coincided with Heggebo looking like a striker when played wide on the right. For that reason alone I'd setup to allow him to occupy that position, it's harder to accommodate a genuine winger and a wing back so for that reason I'd go with a back four.

Griffiths; Imray, Phillips, Mepham, Styles; Mowatt, Price; MJ, JJ, Hindolo; Heggebo

If you look at average position and touch maps of MJ, they haven't really changed since ER came in, apart from that RWB failed experiment. During that spell where he got a few assists for Heggebo, the passes were generally from an inside right position rather than on the touchline with chalk on his boots looping in big crosses like Brunt or Gera used to. It's worth noting that he has created 2/3 opportunities from those positions in ERs games too. Thinking of Molumbys rubbish shot as an example.

So I do disagree about the wingback/MJ thing being a problem. In fact, having a wide outlet making overlapping runs to take a player away could allow MJ more space in those half spaces. 
 
But what's undeniable. What we are doing isn't working at the moment. But I think it's more to do with how passive we have been in winning the ball back and how slow we are to doing forward. 

I have no issue with playing one less CB though either if it was like your line up. Infact your suggestion is far more offensive than what I would go with.

[backsidebaggie]

I have to admire this attempt at finding positives in the biggest 4 game shitshow of management I’ve ever seen.

The system wasn’t the issue under Mason. The system wasn’t failing. This system has made us way worse. It’s as clear as day.