343 suits the current squad?

S

StBill

Active member
343 lends itself to our current squad and in my mind has some serious benefits…

1) It should help make us more solid at the back
2) I think Fry is better in a 3 as are McNair and Lenihan
3) It allows the wide players in the midfield more freedom to attack
4) The wide centre backs help compensate for the defensive deficiencies of some of our current full backs
5) It allows the wide forwards license to roam without fear of leaving huge holes behind them
6) The wide forwards can easily drop back and help the midfield

Something has to change, I think this would help.

Have a think Michael.


……… McNair….. Fry….. Lenihan
……..Djiksteel…..VDB……. Clarke

Jones….. Hackney…. O’Brien….. Bangura
Smith …… Barlaser …… Howson …. Engel
………………………………………… Coulson

……… Forss……. Lath…….. McGree
………Silvera …..Coburn ……Rogers
…..Greenwood ….Crooks …..Gilbert
 
I would go 3-5-2 and pray for no centre back injuries (Maybe McNair/Howson can cover).

----------VDB - Len - Fry------------
Jones - Hackney - O'Brien - Bangura
--------------McGree-----------------
------Lath/Forss----Coburn----------
 
InglebyUTB said:
It does, but Carrick will not move from 4-2-3-1
Click to expand...
But he did last night for large parts of the game. No way was that a classic 4-2-3-1. The problem was is that it changed so many times it became very disjointed and no one knew what they were doing, especially in the first half. Carrick doesn't know his best system for the players we have.

For what it's worth I agree with the the original post - think we should try 3-4-3 (or a variation of this) and stick with it for a few games.
 
Last edited:
GibbosEmpire said:
Could be because we've not had the players to play 3 at the back until Clarke comes back?
Click to expand...
We played with 3 at the back for parts of the first half last night with Silvera much deeper as an almost rwb with VDB tucking in and becoming the 3rd CB.
 
I'm pretty sure we played 4231 all game last night, just some of the positioning was awkward as hell.

Crooks at 10 either doesn't understand the role, isn't being coached effectively, or can't play it. He was sticking to Coburn for large spells of the first half meaning he was a) nearly always marked and b) wasn't providing a lateral option.

Silvera probably stayed back as Engel was getting tortured first half.

There were very few surprises from Wednesday's set up so we really should have prepared better. Looked to me like they got on top from the off (it happens) and we panicked and started to adapt to their patterns of play.

We're bad enough at delivering a coherent style of play when we're on top, let alone when let the opposition dictate.
 
SE4 Red said:
But he did last night for large parts of the game. No way was that a classic 4-2-3-1. The problem was is that it changed so many times it became very disjointed and no one knew what they were doing, especially in the first half. Carrick doesn't know his best system for the players we have.

For what it's worth I agree with the the original post - think we should try 3-4-3 (or a variation of this) and stick with it for a few games.
Click to expand...
I couldn’t see any system in the second half last night, players roaming all over the place, not much structure at all.
 
SmogOnTheTees said:
I would go 3-5-2 and pray for no centre back injuries (Maybe McNair/Howson can cover).

----------VDB - Len - Fry------------
Jones - Hackney - O'Brien - Bangura
--------------McGree-----------------
------Lath/Forss----Coburn----------
Click to expand...
I’d prefer this to our current position, just feel we’ve brought in so many forward players, this system doesn’t fit the squad quite so well.
 
StBill said:
343 lends itself to our current squad and in my mind has some serious benefits…

1) It should help make us more solid at the back
2) I think Fry is better in a 3 as are McNair and Lenihan
3) It allows the wide players in the midfield more freedom to attack
4) The wide centre backs help compensate for the defensive deficiencies of some of our current full backs
5) It allows the wide forwards license to roam without fear of leaving huge holes behind them
6) The wide forwards can easily drop back and help the midfield

Something has to change, I think this would help.

Have a think Michael.


……… McNair….. Fry….. Lenihan
……..Djiksteel…..VDB……. Clarke

Jones….. Hackney…. O’Brien….. Bangura
Smith …… Barlaser …… Howson …. Engel
………………………………………… Coulson

……… Forss……. Lath…….. McGree
………Silvera …..Coburn ……Rogers
…..Greenwood ….Crooks …..Gilbert
Click to expand...
the penny is starting to drop.

Change out Barlaser for Agyemang

sort the defence out..

……… Lenihan….. Fry….. RVDB
……..Djiksteel…..McNair……. Clarke

and we're cooking with gas.. Bilongo can cover for Clarke.
 
I not sure I ever want us to play 3 at the back again.

The fullbacks do need more protection though, McGree did nothing to help last night he spent his time without the ball just ball watching and jogging around rather than helping his fullback and silvera well did nothing productive at all.
 
Last edited:
it was hard to fathom the system at times yesterday. It was quite disjointed apart from a spell in the second half. I guess to be expected a bit with our changes and poor form.
 
The problem with our current system is neither Hackney or O'Brien are defensive midfielders.

It worked with Howson last season because he summoned a fitness level of five years ago, which this year he hasn't been able to - and we scored loads, so we didn't really care about conceding.

We can't have two CDMs attacking, and full backs attacking, and everyone else attacking... because it leaves massive holes and too many 1 on 1s, which we then lose, and the opposition scores.

- - I think this is why we bought Barlasar, as he was more disciplined at Rotherham, but it just hasn't worked out.

Without a younger/fitter Howson - 3 at the back only makes that situation worse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top