Is there a best formation?
 

We have been playing 4-3-3 for the last few years without it really doing the trick particularly in terms of goals scored. From my point of view it seems to leave the central striker far too isolated - often turning into a 4-5-1. At the same time we seem to struggle to generate width, stretch teams and create space.

That said lots of teams play this and score loads so it may be a personnel issue or tactical issue (we are too route one on my opinion) rather than a system issue.

So - what formation should we adopt next season? - should BH decide on the formation and recruit players to play it effectively - or base the formation on the limitations of the existing players we have?

Personally - I favour a 442 or 4132 - and recruit towards achieving that.

Re: Is there a best formation?
 

433

unless we sign 2 superstar CM's and bin off the current crop. Even young and summerfield aren't good enough for a midfield 2.

Re: Is there a best formation?
 

For me its a 4-3-2-1 with hopefully two full backs who can get up and down the wing covered by the 2 in front of them (Carra for sure could fill such a role alongside for example a wedgbury) Then three more creative midfielders preferably with goals in two of them and an out and out striker.

Re: Is there a best formation?
 

[QUOTE=stanvax;2256995]We have been playing 4-3-3 for the last few years without it really doing the trick particularly in terms of goals scored. From my point of view it seems to leave the central striker far too isolated - often turning into a 4-5-1. At the same time we seem to struggle to generate width, stretch teams and create space.

That said lots of teams play this and score loads so it may be a personnel issue or tactical issue (we are too route one on my opinion) rather than a system issue.

So - what formation should we adopt next season? - should BH decide on the formation and recruit players to play it effectively - or base the formation on the limitations of the existing players we have?

Personally - I favour a 442 or 4132 - and recruit towards achieving that.[/QUOTE]

I'm with you, Stanvax.


I haven't seen too much of Wrexham in the last season or two but the team I have been watching also play 433 or a 442 with diamond midfield. They have had identical issues to the ones you identify, so I think it's a system issue unless you have the players to make it work.

Personally, I'd prefer a flat 442 as everybody in non league, supporters and players alike, know exactly where they stand with that formation and it covers more of the bases more of the time than any other formation I've seen played in non league.

I also think, however, that modern football obsesses way too much about formations. I wish managers would just go out and get the best players they can, and then choose the formation based on what they have and not the other way around.

Re: Is there a best formation?
 

There isn't a best formation. It's entirely about the roles your players skills fit best. Those skills also dictate the style of football too.

Re: Is there a best formation?
 

451 or 442 with two good wingers. Which we need! To easy to defend against just wing backs!
[size=1][i]Posted via mobile theme[/i][/size]

Re: Is there a best formation?
 

couldnt care less about the formation just want to win and be entertained ...... no chance

Re: Is there a best formation?
 

If you have good players formations become far less of a talking point.

Re: Is there a best formation?
 

Formations have been discussed all season. Darlo has set out a 433 policy, something Keates didnt want apparently.
However if we dont play to the 433 and it just becomes 451 or we dont recruit players for the formation then its immaterial.

I would prefer 442 as its simpler at this level and requires 2 forwards that work as a team.
Its also easier to recruit a 4 man midfield with 2 CMs and 2 wide players that can work left and right midfield.

Re: Is there a best formation?
 

End of thread - the Oracle has spoken

Re: Is there a best formation?
 

[QUOTE=Colomiers Phoenix;2257110]End of thread - the Oracle has spoken[/QUOTE]

Is there a reason you don't want people discussing stuff?

Re: Is there a best formation?
 

[QUOTE=Colomiers Phoenix;2257110]End of thread - the Oracle has spoken[/QUOTE]

Quite right :)
What do you disagree with?

Re: Is there a best formation?
 

[QUOTE=Sandgrounder;2257008]

Personally, I'd prefer a flat 442 as everybody in non league, supporters and players alike, know exactly where they stand with that formation and it covers more of the bases more of the time than any other formation I've seen played in non league.

I also think, however, that modern football obsesses way too much about formations. I wish managers would just go out and get the best players they can, and then choose the formation based on what they have and not the other way around.[/QUOTE]

All of this. Sports science is a wonderful thing in many sports, but it also has a lot to answer for as many fall victim to paralysis by analysis. At this level, keep it simple.

Re: Is there a best formation?
 

Almost anything bar 4-3-3, which only works if you have 2 attacking FBs and 3 exceptional midfielders.

Re: Is there a best formation?
 

[QUOTE=pagl;2257105]Formations have been discussed all season. Darlo has set out a 433 policy, something Keates didnt want apparently.
However if we dont play to the 433 and it just becomes 451 or we dont recruit players for the formation then its immaterial.

I would prefer 442 as its simpler at this level and requires 2 forwards that work as a team.
Its also easier to recruit a 4 man midfield with 2 CMs and 2 wide players that can work left and right midfield.[/QUOTE]

However it's difficult to recruit 2 midfielders who are good enough to win the midfield battle on their own.

Personally 3-5-2.

3 central defenders and 2 wing backs. A holding midfielder who can drop back in to cover a central defender if they get pulled wide and 2 up top working closer together.

Re: Is there a best formation?
 

[QUOTE=blackbrookred;2257184]However it's difficult to recruit 2 midfielders who are good enough to win the midfield battle on their own.

Personally 3-5-2.

3 central defenders and 2 wing backs. A holding midfielder who can drop back in to cover a central defender if they get pulled wide and 2 up top working closer together.[/QUOTE]

As long as we recruit to the formation then fine.

Re: Is there a best formation?
 

I hope we will not be driven by whiteboards and classroom theory. At this level we have to see what players we end up with and play to their strengths. If we were able to financially compete with financially more organised teams, then maybe we could attract players to fit the whiteboard drawings... if we cant then we need to rely on a managers experience to get the best out of what we have so that we don't keep endlessly wasting what cash we do have.

Re: Is there a best formation?
 

[QUOTE=pagl;2257186]As long as we recruit to the formation then fine.[/QUOTE]

That's the same for any formation.

Re: Is there a best formation?
 

[QUOTE=blackbrookred;2257184]However it's difficult to recruit 2 midfielders who are good enough to win the midfield battle on their own.

Personally 3-5-2.

3 central defenders and 2 wing backs. A holding midfielder who can drop back in to cover a central defender if they get pulled wide and 2 up top working closer together.[/QUOTE]

Problem is effective wing backs are hen’s teeth at this level

Re: Is there a best formation?
 

[QUOTE=blackbrookred;2257184]However it's difficult to recruit 2 midfielders who are good enough to win the midfield battle on their own.

Personally 3-5-2.

3 central defenders and 2 wing backs. A holding midfielder who can drop back in to cover a central defender if they get pulled wide and 2 up top working closer together.[/QUOTE]

It's no easier to recruit effective wing-backs thank effective CMs, harder I'd say.

If you can get two breakers who can manage basic passing then 4-4-2 could work, but you would need good wingers and strikers to pick-up the attacking slack. That would give us more points of attack than this season.

Re: Is there a best formation?
 

[QUOTE=sparky;2257166]All of this. Sports science is a wonderful thing in many sports, but it also has a lot to answer for as many fall victim to paralysis by analysis. At this level, keep it simple.[/QUOTE]

I really don't want another season of punts and percentages.

However our part-time DoF seems to call the shots.

Re: Is there a best formation?
 

[QUOTE=stanvax;2257202]Problem is effective wing backs are hen’s teeth at this level[/QUOTE]

As are 2 midfielders good enough to control the middle of the park, that's the level of football we are at I guess.

Re: Is there a best formation?
 

[QUOTE=blackbrookred;2257208]As are 2 midfielders good enough to control the middle of the park, that's the level of football we are at I guess.[/QUOTE]

We struggled to get WBs when we were in the league too.

After we lost the two Edwards we were never able replace them. It was always with FBs, which effectively made the formation 5-3-2.

Re: Is there a best formation?
 

[QUOTE=LlayDragon;2257203]It's no easier to recruit effective wing-backs thank effective CMs, harder I'd say.

If you can get two breakers who can manage basic passing then 4-4-2 could work, but you would need good wingers and strikers to pick-up the attacking slack. That would give us more points of attack than this season.[/QUOTE]

I think 442 is a thing if the past, other than a variation to change things up a little during a game. The opposition if necessary just overload the midfield and enjoy pockets of space to control the game.

Currently 433 seems to be, the most popular at all levels including internationally with considerably less teams opting for 352.

Re: Is there a best formation?
 

[QUOTE=LlayDragon;2257209]We struggled to get WBs when we were in the league too.

After we lost the two Edwards we were never able replace them. It was always with FBs, which effectively made the formation 5-3-2.[/QUOTE]

I wouldn't be unhappy with 5-3-2 as long as the full backs are mobile enough. That's been part of the problem this season. I personally don't like 4-4-2.

Re: Is there a best formation?
 

[QUOTE=blackbrookred;2257211]I wouldn't be unhappy with 5-3-2 as long as the full backs are mobile enough. That's been part of the problem this season. I personally don't like 4-4-2.[/QUOTE]

Our problem is that both Edwards were wingers who learnt to defend, rather than FBs that learnt to attack.

If we could get wingers who could do this (meaning a lesser-spotted left-footed left-winger) we could be in business.

Our problem is we have real problems with land quality players anywhere other than defence, which IMO is the easiest place to get them.

Re: Is there a best formation?
 

[QUOTE=LlayDragon;2257213]Our problem is that both Edwards were wingers who learnt to defend, rather than FBs that learnt to attack.

If we could get wingers who could do this (meaning a lesser-spotted left-footed left-winger) we could be in business.

Our problem is we have real problems with land quality players anywhere other than defence, which IMO is the easiest place to get them.[/QUOTE]

Playing 4-4-2 will still require that left winger.

Re: Is there a best formation?
 

[QUOTE=blackbrookred;2257214]Playing 4-4-2 will still require that left winger.[/QUOTE]

It will, and we haven't had one for donkey's years. However he wouldn't have as many jobs to do in 4-4-2.