Jump to content

 

 

A question about our 4-3-3?


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Bluedell said:

In addition to Frankie's comments, we seemed to pull our "number 10s" in narrower, whereas the likes of Kent seem to operate better when playing wider.

 

Also, our formation required a high intensity approach, which seems to have been lacking since the break, as you mention. There may be a number of reasons for this, including general drop off in form and the early start to the season and number of games now catching up on us.

i actually agree with that. i think kent, hagi and arfield are all getting in each others way. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it is the issue. Many of the comments you read criticising it make out that May-December didn't happen. We were the best team in the country May-June last season and then Aug-December this season after adopting this formation.

 

However that's not to say that changing the formation isn't a good idea. Sometimes you hit a poor patch of form and you just need to change it up to bring some freshness and unpredictability to your play. I would be keen to see a 3-5-2 with Hagi playing between the lines. It is a formation which plays to our strengths. However Gerrard refuses to drop Kent so I can't see it happening which is a real shame.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As much as I like Tav. We've not had a great captain in a long time.

 

Weir was probably the last great one.

 

In terms of our 4-3-3. It really comes across if we have urgency in our play and the press we employ. We function as a unit pretty well. 

 

If we don't have that then we really struggle.

 

We've not been doing that domestically recently. We seem content to let teams sit deep, which just puts pressure on our forward players to find a chance.

 

Where in theory if we press when they're so deep and they lose possession. 

We should be right on top of them posing a significant threat.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We have many problems but for me the formation is a main issue

 

We have a 8% conversion rate. Our answer to that is to create more chances and tweak the formation to increase chances but that does not increase conversion rates. 

 

The formation doesn't allow for an increase of players who are natural goal scorer's. We have a single focal point that is easy to defend against. 

 

The formation leads mainly to chance creation but leaves those chances at the feet of players who have zero confidence in front of goal.

 

We must change to a formation that emphasise and enhances those players who have higher conversion rates ie Morelos, kamberi, hagi and Defoe and stop playing number tens.

 

Play three forwards across the front line (kamberi, Defoe, morelos) and hagi behind, especially at home against bottom of the league. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, trublusince1982 said:

We have many problems but for me the formation is a main issue

 

We have a 8% conversion rate. Our answer to that is to create more chances and tweak the formation to increase chances but that does not increase conversion rates. 

 

The formation doesn't allow for an increase of players who are natural goal scorer's. We have a single focal point that is easy to defend against. 

 

The formation leads mainly to chance creation but leaves those chances at the feet of players who have zero confidence in front of goal.

 

We must change to a formation that emphasise and enhances those players who have higher conversion rates ie Morelos, kamberi, hagi and Defoe and stop playing number tens.

 

Play three forwards across the front line (kamberi, Defoe, morelos) and hagi behind, especially at home against bottom of the league. 

Three strikers up top now? Wow. 

 

For months it's been, 'play two up top, that's the solution!'. We played two up top last night and scored... nothing. If three strikers don't work, do we play four?

 

I agree we've got a conversion problem, but I disagree it's the formation that is the issue.

 

For me, the main reason is a lack of movement, intent and tempo. If you combine that with our clear psychological problems, it's a nightmare; our players look completely inept.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Rousseau said:

Three strikers up top now? Wow. 

 

For months it's been, 'play two up top, that's the solution!'. We played two up top last night and scored... nothing. If three strikers don't work, do we play four?

 

I agree we've got a conversion problem, but I disagree it's the formation that is the issue.

 

For me, the main reason is a lack of movement, intent and tempo. If you combine that with our clear psychological problems, it's a nightmare; our players look completely inept.  

You would have to take into account the ring rustiness of both Kamberi and Morelos. How else to explain the former missing five chances, and the latter two or three?

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Uilleam said:

You would have to take into account the ring rustiness of both Kamberi and Morelos. How else to explain the former missing five chances, and the latter two or three?

Well, in quite a few cases the goalies made some exceptional saves or some defender got a boot in. Refereeing blunders aside too.

 

3-5-2 at home against teams like Accies, St. Johnstone and even Hearts. Two wingers, one DM, one creating guy and one to run into spaces.

 

McGregor

 

Polster - Helander - Edmundson

 

Jack / Kamara

 

Stewart/Ojo/Hastie - Hagi/Davis/Arfield - Kent/Aribo - Jones/Hastie/Barasic/Barker

 

Morelos - Kamberi / Defoe

 

Once the game is settled, one can revert to different line ups or switch personnell. Obviously, the wingers would have to track back, but that would essentially be the same as fullbacks moving into midfield.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rousseau said:

Three strikers up top now? Wow. 

 

For months it's been, 'play two up top, that's the solution!'. We played two up top last night and scored... nothing. If three strikers don't work, do we play four?

 

I agree we've got a conversion problem, but I disagree it's the formation that is the issue.

 

For me, the main reason is a lack of movement, intent and tempo. If you combine that with our clear psychological problems, it's a nightmare; our players look completely inept.  

The people that say we've been figured out are not seeing the big picture.

 

We've been figured out from day one. It's not difficult to see how we play. Gerrard needs to address why we don't consistently apply the press. 

 

Braga to Hearts was night and day. In effective and non effective use of it.

 

Agree. It isn't the formation. 

 

It's the attitude of the players which then leads on to Gerrard and his management team persisting with them.

 

Which brings bigger questions on squad depth.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.