Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Register Log in

[Albion] 352 what did you think?



Noah All

Noah All

New member
Jan 2, 2018
145
The shed
Kalimantan Gull said:
I'm sorry but I just don't like this attitude 'we got hammered but at least we had a go'. That's a one way ticket to relegation. We need points, not kudos from 'having a go'. Any team can have a go at 2-0 down ......
Click to expand...

In one sense I agree with you, but NSC have been crying out for 'having a go, and hang the consequences ' especially against the top 6 sides.

In our normal formation with more attacking, we would still have left space for Hazard & Willian to exploit. We would probably have lost anyway and everyone would be moaning 'too negative' 'why didn't we have a go'?

I was impressed with the 3-5-2. Worth preserving with but needs more work in training and tweaking e.g. Back 3 of Goldson Dunk BFG ( would love Tomori in the back 3!) and front 2 of Baldock (Locadia) Murray. And there is plenty of scope for rotating in the 5. I think 3-5-2 is our best hope for wins.
 
Last edited:




A

amexer

Well-known member
Aug 8, 2011
6,198
Thought defence was a shambles. Compared to Palace game Goldson looked terrible and out of place. I bet Haggard couldnt believe it when he recieved ball Goldson was next to him and seconds later no where to be seen. Once we are in relegation trouble is not time to change system. Our problem has been defending set plays and missing chances. Sort that out and we may have a chance.
 






Pavilionaire

Pavilionaire

Well-known member
Jul 7, 2003
30,569
How can anyone say our 3-5-2 formation made for a more attacking shape when we were already 2-0 after 6 minutes and had to chase the game?

I would have expected us to create chances even if we had a 10-0-0 formation because teams that are 2-0 down have to score twice to get anything from the game.

Personally, I thought Schelotto was ideally suited to a 3-5-2 formation but Suttner was a fish out of water and didn't know whether he was coming or going.

I think 3-5-2 is also an insurance policy against conceding from corners, and think that to change your whole shape because of one small part of the game is strange. Duffy had his worst game in an Albion shirt in this formation, I thought in the first half Chelsea looked like scoring with every attack and having a flat line of 5 defenders just invites good teams to come at you and play through you.

I think our best formation is 4-4-1-1.
 




Seasider78

Seasider78

Well-known member
Nov 14, 2004
5,937
What I found most interesting about the 3-5-2 was both Schellotto and Suttner looked a much more productive outlet from wide positions than any of our established wingers have so far this season. That may say more about the form of our wide players than the future of us adopting 3-5-2 but it was certainly very noticeable on saturday
 


B

BensGrandad

New member
Jul 13, 2003
72,015
Haywards Heath
I liked the system as I think it will work for us but think that Dunk is just as much as fault as Duffy but then he is a £30m player according to many so cannot be at fault ever. I would play Goldson on the right of the 3, Duffy or possibly Dunk in the centre and definitely Uwe on the left. As mentioned earlier it gives us 5 -3-2 when defending and 3-5-2 when attacking.
 


Peteinblack

Peteinblack

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jun 3, 2004
3,612
Bath, Somerset.
amexer said:
Thought defence was a shambles. Compared to Palace game Goldson looked terrible and out of place. I bet Haggard couldnt believe it when he recieved ball Goldson was next to him and seconds later no where to be seen. Once we are in relegation trouble is not time to change system. Our problem has been defending set plays and missing chances. Sort that out and we may have a chance.
Click to expand...

Or the fact that we are in relegation trouble suggests that the system is not working, and needs to be changed urgently.

Definition of madness: doing the same thing repeatedly, but expecting a different outcome.
 




One Teddy Maybank

One Teddy Maybank

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Aug 4, 2006
21,612
Worthing
Peteinblack said:
Or the fact that we are in relegation trouble suggests that the system is not working, and needs to be changed urgently.

Definition of madness: doing the same thing repeatedly, but expecting a different outcome.
Click to expand...

But we weren’t conceding many goals in normal match play, so it was working from that perspective.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 


SULLY COULDNT SHOOT

SULLY COULDNT SHOOT

Loyal2Family+Albion!
Sep 28, 2004
11,283
Izmir, Southern Turkey
The tactic worked because it released Schelotto.... not so much for Suttner surprisingly. I'd like to see it again against Boro to see if it gives us goals.
 


M

Mo Gosfield

Well-known member
Aug 11, 2010
6,284
Pavilionaire said:
How can anyone say our 3-5-2 formation made for a more attacking shape when we were already 2-0 after 6 minutes and had to chase the game?

I would have expected us to create chances even if we had a 10-0-0 formation because teams that are 2-0 down have to score twice to get anything from the game.

Personally, I thought Schelotto was ideally suited to a 3-5-2 formation but Suttner was a fish out of water and didn't know whether he was coming or going.

I think 3-5-2 is also an insurance policy against conceding from corners, and think that to change your whole shape because of one small part of the game is strange. Duffy had his worst game in an Albion shirt in this formation, I thought in the first half Chelsea looked like scoring with every attack and having a flat line of 5 defenders just invites good teams to come at you and play through you.

I think our best formation is 4-4-1-1.
Click to expand...


If it hadn't been for Ryan, Chelsea would have been out of sight.
 






S

Seasidesage

New member
May 19, 2009
4,467
Brighton, United Kingdom
They scored one goal that should've been prevented and one worldy. Who's to say either goal wouldn't have happened with a back four? Yes we were chasing the game but we played with fluency, width and managed to retain possession long enough to sustain attacks. We have done that all to rarely this season and with a formation that we hadn't used before. Do people not think we might just might get better at it with game time?

Knocky has been poor this season, Izzy makes us narrow and Solly has been hit and miss too. In CM we struggle to sustain possession because we are outnumbered and at times outclassed. Changing to 3-5-2 is not a panacea for all our problems by any means but we looked better balanced and more progressive. A striker is a must (No pressure Jurgen) but we looked better and created chances against a good side.
 


Birdie Boy

Birdie Boy

Well-known member
Jun 17, 2011
4,108
Seasidesage said:
They scored one goal that should've been prevented and one worldy. Who's to say either goal wouldn't have happened with a back four? Yes we were chasing the game but we played with fluency, width and managed to retain possession long enough to sustain attacks. We have done that all to rarely this season and with a formation that we hadn't used before. Do people not think we might just might get better at it with game time?

Knocky has been poor this season, Izzy makes us narrow and Solly has been hit and miss too. In CM we struggle to sustain possession because we are outnumbered and at times outclassed. Changing to 3-5-2 is not a panacea for all our problems by any means but we looked better balanced and more progressive. A striker is a must (No pressure Jurgen) but we looked better and created chances against a good side.
Click to expand...
What he said.

Sent from my SM-A320FL using Tapatalk
 




Easy 10

Easy 10

Brain dead MUG SHEEP
Jul 5, 2003
61,750
Location Location
I think the 3-5-2 is definitely worth another look. This was a very difficult game to judge, being as we were 2 down within the blink of an eye and neither of those goals you could put down to the formation. We were also playing against one of the best teams in the League, and one of the best players in the world who unfortunately brought his A-game, as well as Willian who I thought was excellent as well. We're not going to be facing quality anything like that in the next few games.

Despite the quality of the opposition, after that shocking opening we got foothold in the game, had plenty of good possession and caused them lots of problems. I would 100% stick with it for the Boro game, being as its effectively a free hit and doesn't really matter. Let the players have a practice with it up there, with a view to using it at Soton. We've got 4 very good centrebacks in our squad, so it makes sense to use 3 of them, particularly if it releases Schelotto to the extent we saw. With a bit of pace up front either from Baldock or Locadia, this could work for us.
 


One Teddy Maybank

One Teddy Maybank

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Aug 4, 2006
21,612
Worthing
SULLY COULDNT SHOOT said:
The tactic worked because it released Schelotto.... not so much for Suttner surprisingly. I'd like to see it again against Boro to see if it gives us goals.
Click to expand...

We lost 4-0 at home and 2-0 away, I really don’t think it worked.

There are other ways of releasing Schelotto without compromising defensive stability.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 


B

BensGrandad

New member
Jul 13, 2003
72,015
Haywards Heath
I am caught in the middle because although we have scored less goals than expected we have, in part addressed that issue, but we achieved mid-table earlier in the season because of our defending ability. I would not like to jeopardise that by going gung ho for goals. I would sooner look at staying as a solid defensive unit and nicking the odd goal to get a draw or 1 goal win.
 






Pavilionaire

Pavilionaire

Well-known member
Jul 7, 2003
30,569
Yes Chelsea were excellent and on it from the start, but the general confusion, body language and the "where were you?" expressions as the defenders looked at each other for answers suggested to me that - as a unit - the defence didn't know what the f*ck it was doing.

Contrast that with 4-4-2 that usually functions particularly well, at least in open play.
 


dazzer6666

dazzer6666

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Mar 27, 2013
52,399
Burgess Hill
BensGrandad said:
I liked the system as I think it will work for us but think that Dunk is just as much as fault as Duffy but then he is a £30m player according to many so cannot be at fault ever. I would play Goldson on the right of the 3, Duffy or possibly Dunk in the centre and definitely Uwe on the left. As mentioned earlier it gives us 5 -3-2 when defending and 3-5-2 when attacking.
Click to expand...

He was at fault for the first goal on Saturday, Hazard had way too much space in the box in front of him.
 


You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here