Four mations

This needs a thread all on its own

There has been an interesting discussion in previous threads about whether we should have a back 3 or a back 4.

The reason I bring this up is that the Crawley manager in an interview said we have had Crewe watched, but we don't know what formation they will be playing ...

Last week, we were all setup for a back 3 - when Zac was withdrawn during the warm-up for the game ...
... LB changed the starting XI, BUT also changed to a back 4 - just minutes before kick-off.

In the Crawley game, we started with a back 3, but switched to a back 4 when Mickey D (super-warrior) came on for the last 30.

The players have bought into this philosophy, and have the ability to adapt to any change in formation (not easy).

Big up to the players and management

For me it is not about the formation of the defence. In fact whichever formation we have used on the whole it has never been a raving success as we have conceded too many silly goals. I believe the major change is that in the last 2 games we have a midfield that is competitive and can mount positive attacking moves. Through this major change we are far more likely to score goals and break up opponents attacking moves. Hope we can continue with Powell, Tabiner, and White.

Tuesdays game with Stockport will possibly show whether we are a genuine promotion contender.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lukcour

For me it is not about the formation of the defence. In fact whichever formation we have used on the whole it has never been a raving success as we have conceded too many silly goals. I believe the major change is that in the last 2 games we have a midfield that is competitive and can mount positive attacking moves. Through this major change we are far more likely to score goals and break up opponents attacking moves. Hope we can continue with Powell, Tabiner, and White.

Tuesdays game with Stockport will possibly show whether we are a genuine promotion contender.

---

agree with you about the midfield, the three of them all seem to be on the same wavelength.

My main point regarding the formation is that because we are aren't playing the same formation all the time, the opposition don't know how to set their team up to counteract/beat us.

Also agree with you regarding Tuesday to show just how good this 'squad' is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lukcour

For me it is not about the formation of the defence. In fact whichever formation we have used on the whole it has never been a raving success as we have conceded too many silly goals. I believe the major change is that in the last 2 games we have a midfield that is competitive and can mount positive attacking moves. Through this major change we are far more likely to score goals and break up opponents attacking moves. Hope we can continue with Powell, Tabiner, and White.

Tuesdays game with Stockport will possibly show whether we are a genuine promotion contender.

---

I imagine Thomas will be back in the side as soon as he is fit. Quite rightly too. He is a bit of insurance for the defence and whilst result suggest we haven't missed him, Lukcour is right in that we have conceded a number of soft goals and I think Thomas may help reduce this.

We definitely need solidity in front of the defence, which in turn should promote some fluidity in midfield. However, formation at the back has been very important and has influenced many games. This is because how the backing sets up also influences play beyond defending. I've made no secret of my belief that Rio should wide right midfield with a roving mandate. He couldn't do that in a flat back four. Also changing formation can change the whole game. So a fluidity of formation probably remains the best approach.
I do agree with Lukcour in the sense that a lot of goals we concede are not linked to formation but an age old thing of standing off and giving opposition forwards time to make decisions.