I'm not sure there was anything to choose. The only thing I'd say is Wright clearly wasn't fit. He shouldn't have stayed on but hopefully the minutes in his legs will be a benefit going forward. It should also put to bed the Norman No Goals experiment until next season as he wasn't any better or ready in his latest cameo.But still much better than Wright which is the worry
SunderlandWhat run ?
We've just won 9 from 11 playing two different systems. Like I've said in other threads at this point of the season just play your players in form . 5 at the back means dropping EMC and Sakamoto which would be madness .
For me just a bit better game management and stopping the stupid fouls around our own box would be a good start .
If we’re still in the top 6 after those games that’s where we’re finishing.Sunderland
Burnley
Sheffield United
West Brom
Are FIFA allowing us 12 in our side then?You know it’s funny, saw a Fifa recreation having us as a 5-4-2-1, dug deeper and can see this formation used at least on football websites for Preston and Oxford and found the attached video commenting on our 3-4-2-1 shape.
Noted as being this when attacking
Dovin
Thomas-Kitching-Bidwell
Milan - Eccles - Grimes - Rudoni
Saka - EMC
Simms
And then a 4-4-2 when defending. Sadly don’t think we’ve got anyone who can play the Rudoni role.
Yeah I meant 3-4-2-1. Can’t be arsed to edit thoAre FIFA allowing us 12 in our side then?
Agreed ESB. I'd be very tempted to try BTA for Simms now, we'd have to change how we play a bit but Simms needs some time out of the starting 11. Obviously you'd bring in EMC and Dasilva for Sunderland too, that left side was shocking yesterday.Parking the argument about the defence for a minute, I do have some questions currently about our attack. Simms for me has had a long run in the team, but hasn't looked that useful for a while. Our wingers, mainly EMC and Sakamoto, have been instrumental in us scoring goals. Switch the formation and surely you leave less players higher up the pitch to work with Simms, and remove the effective wingers we have in the process.
On top of this, MvE has looked a lot better recently, and is starting to rebuild that connection with Sakamoto again. I appreciate the left side of defence is a problem, but as we have just gone on a crazy winning run, to change this after one loss does seem to be a bit of a panic move. The goals we have conceded have been stupid, rather than down to be being tactically outdone. In fact, we could probably do a shittest goal of the season to concede video as there have been so many this year all following a similar theme. We get complacent, we switch off, someone does something stupid.
I understand the arguments as to why people think this may be a good idea, but I personally wouldn't want to change the formation just yet.
Two goals a game in three games on the bounce since we reinstated four at the back and against bang average opposition. The stats don't lie. And three really soft goals from set pieces. This run was built on 3 central defenders. It ain't pretty but it works. K and T are just not good enough to be the only two central defenders.I think it’ll be knee jerk to change anything too much. Form has been fantastic.
Tonight wasn’t much to do with formations but more about a higher number of their players being up for it compared to ours.
Persisting with Haji was the wrong decision too, way off it tonight but atleast he’ll have some more sharpness from that
Having three shit CBs instead of two doesn’t help, our wingbacks were getting caught up the field and no one knew where to be. We played some teams on absolutely honking runs with 5ATB, and the football was dreadful. I’d rather not if we don’t have to.
Two goals a game in three games on the bounce since we reinstated four at the back and against bang average opposition. The stats don't lie. And three really soft goals from set pieces. This run was built on 3 central defenders. It ain't pretty but it works. K and T are just not good enough to be the only two central defenders.
Totally agree it's needed, but not because we are missing Rudoni, because we are missing EMC.Think it's needed without Rudoni.
It’s easy to knee jerk into switching to a back 3 but things could’ve panned out very differently in certain games playing 5-3-2. With Grimes’ role as a half back, we held a shape identical to 3 CBs anyway - the ‘meta’ 3-2-5 attacking shape that’s popular atm. The issue was just how much space we gave away between the lines and this was something that was picked up on a tactical analysis I shared post-Stoke win. Take it for what it is, the run wasn’t going to last forever and think we need to make some tactical tweaks to generate chances in the box (non-crosses).
This run was built on scoring the first goal in matches. We looked positive and well in control until we went 1-0 and then it all fell apart and we seemingly lost the ability to do basic things.
As good as we’ve been lately, we’ve been too reliant on scoring from crosses so when we went 1-0 down last night, Derby just packed the box and you had Simms and Wright on their own against 3 CBs.
Not sure we did look more solid did we? Felt at the times the clean sheets were more down to Dovin than the CBs or shape. We’ve got two first choice CBs with all the awareness and positional sense of a dead pigeon, that’s the problem. Adding Latibeaudiere to them doesn’t change that.
And those 3 games were all against bottom 6 sides.When you concede 2 goals in 3 games in succession to suggest reverting to a formation that had us looking more solid defensively isn't really knee jerk.
The left sides the issue because neither EMC or Wright (or BTA) work back, meaning regardless of whether it's Dasilva or Bidwell, the left full back is exposed. Compare that to the defensive work rate Sakamoto puts in.Think the left side is the real issue, getting absolutely terrorised every game. Says it all that i think Dasilva is the better of the 2 at the moment. Should have been addressed in the summer, then again in Jan. But here we are.
I don't think its just that tbh, i don't think they are good enough. But i'd go with Dasilva for a bit now as what i saw from Bidwell last night was criminal.The left sides the issue because neither EMC or Wright (or BTA) work back, meaning regardless of whether it's Dasilva or Bidwell, the left full back is exposed. Compare that to the defensive work rate Sakamoto puts in.
The left sides the issue because neither EMC or Wright (or BTA) work back, meaning regardless of whether it's Dasilva or Bidwell, the left full back is exposed. Compare that to the defensive work rate Sakamoto puts in.
When you concede 2 goals in 3 games in succession to suggest reverting to a formation that had us looking more solid defensively isn't really knee jerk.
In this run
Back 5 -
P7 W6 D0 L1 GF10 GA 5
- 4 clean sheets
- 1.43 goals per game scored
- 0.72 goals per game conceded.
Back 4 -
P4 W3 D0 L1 GF8 GA 7
- 0 clean sheets
- 2 goals per game scored
- 1.75 goals per game conceded
We won two of those games so what you’re actually suggesting is that we chuck the baby out with the bath water over one loss. Again, in possession, Grimes was stood in the middle of Thomas and Kitching. In transition, the defensive shape was undistinguishable from playing with 3 CBs. The issues last night, were no different from, say, the Sheffield Wednesday away game.
Winning 3-2 is no different to winning 2-1 in principle so if we’re scoring more goal playing 4-2-3-1, which we are… it’s 6 and two 3s.
In any case, putting Lati/Binks in the team ahead of Sakamoto doesn’t strike me as the best option from an attacking perspective. A midfield 3 of Grimes, Allen and Torp doesn’t do it for me if we don’t have wingers or Rudoni.
If playing 5ATB means Asante is starting and Sakamoto & EMC are not, then no thanks.
Again, in possession, Grimes was stood in the middle of Thomas and Kitching.
We wouldn't have conceded 2 goals last night from the only 2 shots on target if the officials were competent.Yeah, we won, but we've got tough games coming up. We can't leave ourselves needing to score 3 goals.
Because winning 3-2 is no different to winning 2-1 but if you keep conceding 2 goals you won't always score 3.
Yeah, we won, but we've got tough games coming up. We can't leave ourselves needing to score 3 goals.
Because winning 3-2 is no different to winning 2-1 but if you keep conceding 2 goals you won't always score 3.
You could argue having 3 centre halves helps at set pieces. Also would we have given freekicks away in those areas if we had had 5 at the back instead of left wingers that dont work back, leaving the left fullback area exposed.That’s correct, but we still need to score and without our top 3 assisters, you’re limiting yourself.
3 of the 6 goals conceded have come from set pieces so it’s not indicative of a complete formation breakdown. Would playing Lati for Sakamoto be worth the trade off? Not for me.
Just to pick up on this, he often starts there picking a ball up from a CB, but then he will drift forwards more than a third centre back would.
If we lose possession high up the pitch, that’s where the third CB becomes a massive help.
I know I’ve already put in on here but there’s more than one way to skin a cat in Regard to a back three.
Looking at: QPR, Preston and Oxford. It looks like we played a back three in all which then converted to a back four in defence.
Looking at it we’ve only played a proper 4-3-3 the last two games which hasn’t gone brilliantly.
View attachment 42015View attachment 42016View attachment 42017
You could argue having 3 centre halves helps at set pieces. Also would we have given freekicks away in those areas if we had had 5 at the back instead of left wingers that dont work back, leaving the left fullback area exposed.
We managed to score 10 in those 7 games in this run with 5 at the back, and only failed to score in th 1 game which is we Leeds. So scoring goals wasn't an issue. Importantly we kept 4 cleansheets - that's a guaranteed 4 points in the bag before you score.
We're currently playing 4231 with Eccles out of position in the 10.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?