What formation would you play? (2 Viewers)

What formation would you play?

  • 4-2-3-1

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 4-5-1

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    18
  • Poll closed .

LJC_CCFC

Member
I don't get the obsession with formation. That, on it's own, means nothing. It's the system as a whole that counts; personnel, shape, pressing and passing styles, and so on. It's rather archaic to talk about 'formation' like it's the be-all and end-all.

Personnel ✔️
Pressing ✔️
Passing style ✔️
Shape ?
Formation ?
 

Hobo

Well-Known Member
Seems to be getting results, still early days with players bedding in. Depends on opposition as well.
but we had to be more solid this season. I don't understand people who can't see passed 4-4-2
 

samccov1987

Well-Known Member
Id like to see Jackson upfront with McQuoid / Nouble. The lack of pace worries me for a title challenge or promotion push. Haynes on the wing/wing back looks positive but Clarke isn't attacking enough for 5-3-2. As has been said being hard to beat is good against the top teams but we need to be score more goals against the bottom half. Like to see where Coulibaly fits in.
 

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
A bigger issue for me is how many loanees we're now carrying. We'll get them used to the system, used to playing with each other and used to what Pressley wants, and then they'll head back to their parent clubs and we're back to square one. Not necessarily a criticism as I expect us to benefit while they're here but I hope there will be permanent signings in January to address this.
 

LJC_CCFC

Member
I remember watching england struggle to breakdown Andorra playing 442...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/internationals/7593908.stm


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors :)

Before tonight they hadn't won in 51 games. They get beaten silly every game, it wasn't just that they couldn't score it was the fact they failed to create a lot of chances. This was due to the restrictive attacking nature of the 5-3-2.
 

stupot07

Well-Known Member
Before tonight they hadn't won in 51 games. They get beaten silly every game, it wasn't just that they couldn't score it was the fact they failed to create a lot of chances. This was due to the restrictive attacking nature of the 5-3-2.

Are you sure it's not done to having Coleman as manager? Have you forgotten how negative we were under him? The football was dire....
 

Houchens Head

Fairly well known member from Malvern
10 - 0 - 0

Well I doubt if we'd leak too many goals if we pack the defence! :claping hands:
 

stupot07

Well-Known Member
As bad as he was, our U21s could beat Andorra comfortably.

And yet England's first 11 struggled to beat them away from home a few years ago playing 442. ;)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors :)
 

hill83

Well-Known Member
I look forward to following your glittering career as a football manager.
 

LJC_CCFC

Member
I look forward to following your glittering career as a football manager.

Yep like all those journalists that give their opinion on football, you of course need to have played/coached/managed to understand how the game works. May as well shut down the forum Nick. What I am saying is true, their is substantial evidence to back it up. If you disagree with me, tell me why instead of just making sarcastic comments.
 

hill83

Well-Known Member
I haven't said if I agree or disagree. You know best though. Blog away.
 

Evans1883

New Member
I hated the formation and still do , but whilst we are keeping clean sheets and picking up points why change it , it feels as if its a choice between scoring lots of goals whilst losing , and remaining solid whilst picking up 1-0 wins or draws away from home
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top