D
Deleted member 2719
Guest
Liked it, if he keeps some pace within the team while playing this we can climb out of this hole that we have been sinking into.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Albion] 352 what did you think?
- Thread starter Doc Lynam
- Start date
Hampster Gull
New member
- Dec 22, 2010
- 13,462
It was ok
ManOfSussex
We wunt be druv
Whatever off-field problems there may be.............but Duffy 'aint been at the races since the November International break. Goldson and Dunk is crying out to be the first choice centre back pairing after Watford. Use them.
Sussexscots
Fed up with trains. Sick of the rain.
It's a Yes from me. I thought it was brave from CH and thought we looked quicker, slicker, more threatening than we have for ages.
Difference today - again IMO - was Hazard. Him aside, I thought we had Chelsea under the cosh for long periods but world class players can turn shit into shits and giggles.
I honestly believe we have the quality to stay up if we are prepared to be this adventurous for the rest of the season.
Difference today - again IMO - was Hazard. Him aside, I thought we had Chelsea under the cosh for long periods but world class players can turn shit into shits and giggles.
I honestly believe we have the quality to stay up if we are prepared to be this adventurous for the rest of the season.
Tiptoe through the NSC
Active member
I have one reservation about the way we played three at the back today. As Duffy is the least mobile of the defenders, he has to be the central pivot, leaving Dunk on the left. But Dunk's key strength is his ability to spot danger early and to cover his fellow defenders with interceptions and sliding blocks. Today his starting position was often ten yards from the left touchline and therefore we saw less of this from him. Result - weaker back line, albeit stronger when defending set pieces. Going forward, I have no complaints about 3-5-2, as the performance of both wing backs and the freeing up of Pascal Gross gave us an attacking edge we've been lacking recently. It'll be interesting to see when CH decides to use it next. I can see us using it at Selhurst, for sure.
aolstudios
Well-known member
Yep, I'd start the next game as we finished this, plus Uwe for Duffy
Doonhamer7
Well-known member
- Jun 17, 2016
- 1,284
I thought we looked much better with it, as well as great wingback performance, we started to see Propper getting forward and into the box which made him look a much better player. Izzi to play as second striker would also add some speed. Only shame with this is that Bruno and Knocky don’t really fit in
Munchkin
Well-known member
Liked the formation but don’t think we will see it again to be honest.
Locadia needs someone alongside him and hopefully that sees us revert to a 4-4-2 that worked so well for us last year.
Duffy has been poor for a while now and I would like to see the Dunk / Goldson combination restored, also feel Propper and Gross haven’t performed as of late. Would like to see the following at Southampton. (Presuming Locadia is fit)
———————- Ryan ———————-
Schelotto —- Dunk — Goldson — Suttner
Knockeart —- Stephens — Kayal — March
———— Murray ——- Locadia ————
Locadia needs someone alongside him and hopefully that sees us revert to a 4-4-2 that worked so well for us last year.
Duffy has been poor for a while now and I would like to see the Dunk / Goldson combination restored, also feel Propper and Gross haven’t performed as of late. Would like to see the following at Southampton. (Presuming Locadia is fit)
———————- Ryan ———————-
Schelotto —- Dunk — Goldson — Suttner
Knockeart —- Stephens — Kayal — March
———— Murray ——- Locadia ————
Depends on who we’re playing and their strengths. The responsibilities of the 3 at the back understandably seemed to need a bit of work but it certainly had the benefit of helping us get more people in the box going forward. Liked it. Not sure we’ll always start that way now but handy to know it’s a alternative way to play that’s more proactive and aggressive if we’re chasing a game.
Withdean11
Well-known member
As I said earlier, and as pointed out on MOTD, 3 at the back was disastrous for us. Completely unorganised. Apart from corners we have been solid defensively, it didn’t need changing. Would keep Schelotto for Bruno though.
Blue Valkyrie
Not seen such Bravery!
Not sure it matters what formation we adapt.
We are missing a strong central midfielder who takes games by the scruff of the neck and drives play forward.
Yes, I know that's a £20 million player like Delaney but until we get this player we'll struggle.
We are missing a strong central midfielder who takes games by the scruff of the neck and drives play forward.
Yes, I know that's a £20 million player like Delaney but until we get this player we'll struggle.
Hazardous System
Not the conventional 3-5-2 (played in the last World Cup) until it collapsed for the last two goals. What I suggested playing before the game. It did not quite come off.
I think it would have worked better with Bruno (who can spot danger) at right back and Schelotto as well playing wide midfield. My idea was really having an extra central defender moving into midfield (attacking centre half system 5-3-2), instead of having a centre forward helping out in defence. Just the one winger though, with an attacking full back on the opposite side to the winger.
In the conventional 3-5-2 both full backs push up (like the Hyypia system) and this is suicide. If just one full back or central defender pushes forward this leaves a basic four at the back.
Based on the truism that we can only play on one wing at a time. The single winger should be able to swop wings.
Not the conventional 3-5-2 (played in the last World Cup) until it collapsed for the last two goals. What I suggested playing before the game. It did not quite come off.
I think it would have worked better with Bruno (who can spot danger) at right back and Schelotto as well playing wide midfield. My idea was really having an extra central defender moving into midfield (attacking centre half system 5-3-2), instead of having a centre forward helping out in defence. Just the one winger though, with an attacking full back on the opposite side to the winger.
In the conventional 3-5-2 both full backs push up (like the Hyypia system) and this is suicide. If just one full back or central defender pushes forward this leaves a basic four at the back.
Based on the truism that we can only play on one wing at a time. The single winger should be able to swop wings.
Ryan
Bruno Duffy Dunk Hünemeier Bong/Suttner
Schelotto/Groß Kayal/Stephens Pröpper
Locadia/Baldock Izquierdo/March/Knockaert
Subs (from): Krul, Goldson, Rosenior, Murray, Hemed,
Bruno Duffy Dunk Hünemeier Bong/Suttner
Schelotto/Groß Kayal/Stephens Pröpper
Locadia/Baldock Izquierdo/March/Knockaert
Subs (from): Krul, Goldson, Rosenior, Murray, Hemed,
Last edited:
Off-field problems with Duffy? From what I've heard, him and Knockaert still think it's the week after the Wigan game in between matches which can't help if true...
Bladders
Twats everywhere
MOTD did make it look disastrous, but they only showed a couple of moments in the game .
Most defences get run ragged with Hazard and Willian running at them , not sure two in the middle would have faired any better .
What MOTD also pointed out was how much better going forward we were in this system and we created a lot more chances .
People want Hughton to take a few risks and go for it a bit more and this looks like the way to do it .
4-4-2 has looked a grind for most games this season , and we’re getting g to the sharp end of the season where we need wins . That formation against a lesser team will bring goals imo .
Just the intent looked better yesterday and if we’re going down I’d rather go down like that than with a whimper creating nothing in the process
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Blue Valkyrie
Not seen such Bravery!
Reckon we'll practice it again now at Middlesbrough.
supaseagull
Well-known member
Formation was fine. It was actually the best game to test it. Let’s face it, we know Chelsea had struggled for the last couple of weeks but did anyone think we’d actually beat them??
I think there are tweaks to be made as others have mentioned but that’s a personnel matter. Stephens for example isn’t good enough and Gross is too slow. However it did work and when we bypassed Stephens we did move the ball forward far quicker than we’ve done in other weeks and the result flattered Chelsea more than the similar result we had against Liverpool.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think there are tweaks to be made as others have mentioned but that’s a personnel matter. Stephens for example isn’t good enough and Gross is too slow. However it did work and when we bypassed Stephens we did move the ball forward far quicker than we’ve done in other weeks and the result flattered Chelsea more than the similar result we had against Liverpool.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Garry Nelson's Left Foot
Well-known member
I hope so. It looked good going forward but defensively we were a shambles. Give the team another 'free hit' game to get used to it positionally and organisationally and hopefully it'll be a useful tactical option for us in the future.
Also how much of the adventurous play was down to us being two goals behind after six minutes and how much to the formation?
Eh. I don't know that we can judge it from one game.
The point of the 3-5-2 is that it is also 5-3-2 when you're defending. And if we weren't 2-0 down after 6 minutes I think we would have seen it more as a 5 at the back. We won't (touch wood) be torn apart in the first couple of minutes v Southampton, so if we play this formation, it could easily be that 5-3-2, and maybe won't be so attacking (and to be honest, as much as we attacked, I never believed we would score).
We looked massively exposed at the back, particularly Duffy. But is that the formation itself, or that it was pretty much the first time we played it and it was against a Chelsea team that was playing like it had something to prove?
The point of the 3-5-2 is that it is also 5-3-2 when you're defending. And if we weren't 2-0 down after 6 minutes I think we would have seen it more as a 5 at the back. We won't (touch wood) be torn apart in the first couple of minutes v Southampton, so if we play this formation, it could easily be that 5-3-2, and maybe won't be so attacking (and to be honest, as much as we attacked, I never believed we would score).
We looked massively exposed at the back, particularly Duffy. But is that the formation itself, or that it was pretty much the first time we played it and it was against a Chelsea team that was playing like it had something to prove?
dejavuatbtn
Well-known member
Bit weird to give it a try out against a tip 6 team. It will no doubt take a lot of match practice to get it right but the overall signs yesterday were positive. Bit worried about our back three knowing who the hell they should be marking but hopefully that is the main thing to work on, We created more chances than we seem to have for ages against a top 6 team. The system requires wing backs who can get up and down, so rotation of them is crucial. Two strikers up front is so much better to watch.