5 at the back

I've never liked it-under any manager, tbh.

But...if you're going to play it, you need wingbacks who are good defenders first and foremost but can also go forward effectively.

Knacker chops uses two players who, let's face it, are average wingers at best and not particularly good defenders either. I think this is the season we get found out with Murphy and Ritchie in those positions.

I'm not even blaming them because I think they're doing the best they can and Ritchie, in particular, has lost his legs (happened a while back). 3 games and Ritchie's been at fault for a goal in every one of those games because he hasn't tracked back or switched on (more than a goal a game if you include the West Ham penalty). So, aye, I'm blaming him but not having a go because he's not a defender by trade, if that makes sense?

I'd far rather see Lewis and Manquillo as proper full backs with Schar and Fernandez in a 4 and Hayden screening in front of them with Shelvey spraying passes round as a combination of Willock, ASM, Fraser, Ritchie, Shinton and Murphy support Wilson.

Plus, our football wouldn't be as mind-numbingly awful and we'd take the game to teams as opposed to sitting deep and hoping that Wilson or ASM manage some magic.

Thoughts?

Agreed.

5 at the back always annoys me as I feel it negates an attacking instinct - just personally.

Your way sounds good Zip.

It's a good attacking system but only if you have the ideal players for it. Speedy wingers can ravage a defence in seconds but of course, the drawback is that Bruce would never discover these ideal players and even if he did then Fatty wouldn't sanction reasonable money for them. And even if that all came to pass then Bruce wouldn't know how to use them in their right positions.

I prefer the 4-5-1 / 4-3-3 formation too, but 5-3-2 can be just as entertaining and effective if performed correctly, so to speak.

Of course Bruce would have no clue how to set something slightly advanced up tactically, so we'll never anything remotely entertaining from him except for his funny face.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HughieG

I prefer the 4-5-1 / 4-3-3 formation too, but 5-3-2 can be just as entertaining and effective if performed correctly, so to speak.

Of course Bruce would have no clue how to set something slightly advanced up tactically, so we'll never anything remotely entertaining from him except for his funny face.

---

I like "his funny face". Well, I don't actually but it's a bit of a relief to laugh at the unfortunate fecker's ugly bashed in face. XD

5-3-2 is the best formation if the 2 defenders on the side are good enough to know when to cover for your wingbacks and when to stay at the center, if not the wingbacks have to run themselves to death and they look like bad defenders and even worse attackers simply because they are too tired to do the right thing.

It is not the formation that decide wether you are an attacking team it is how far up the field you dare to play.

Yeah I would go for that with the exception of Shelvey who quite frankly is crap

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheOtherTerryMac

Yeah I would go for that with the exception of Shelvey who quite frankly is crap

---

I agree with you about Shelvey, Terry, but we don't have anyone else to do his...cough...ahem...creative role.