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

[Albion] 433 once trossard came on..





stss30

Registered User
Apr 24, 2008
9,545
It isn't so much an observation of the formation, but Trossard brought us a level of quality both in finishing and delivery which won us the game, as he did last week. Without him we could be 4 points worse off, and this is a man being eased back after injury.

I just can't wait to see more of him.
 


Moshe Gariani

Well-known member
Mar 10, 2005
12,068
Loved it..!!!

I’m not a great analyst but do have a lovely view from WSU of what’s going on. Another day we could easily have scored 3 or 4 in the last 30 minutes.

I’d like to see Solly given the chance that Greyhound got today - he’d rip it up too - but not everyone can get on to join the fun!
 


DFL JCL

Well-known member
Jan 8, 2016
790
Loved it..!!!

I’m not a great analyst but do have a lovely view from WSU of what’s going on. Another day we could easily have scored 3 or 4 in the last 30 minutes.

I’d like to see Solly given the chance that Greyhound got today - he’d rip it up too - but not everyone can get on to join the fun!
I'm not either. It took me a while to work out what had changed. I did think that it brought out the best in Propper though. I actually thought he was poor in the first half, but done well second half. I'm not sure the Norwich players picked up on the formation quickly either. Having the capacity to change formation effectively during the game could turn out to be a massive advantage this season.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk
 


Stat Brother

Well-known member
NSC Patreon
Jul 11, 2003
73,373
West west west Sussex
Would love to see those 3 terrorising Wannabe Dunk Maguire, pretty sure they can humiliate slabhead.
 




zefarelly

Well-known member
NSC Patreon
Jul 7, 2003
21,717
Sussex, by the sea
I'm not either. It took me a while to work out what had changed. I did think that it brought out the best in Propper though. I actually thought he was poor in the first half, but done well second half. I'm not sure the Norwich players picked up on the formation quickly either. Having the capacity to change formation effectively during the game could turn out to be a massive advantage this season.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

Certainly compared too the predictable rigidity of last season.
 


BensGrandad

New member
Jul 13, 2003
72,015
Haywards Heath
Trying to work out how as suggested we went to 4 at the back as I recall we had Dunk on the right Duffy down the middle and Burn on the left with Montoya staying as right wing back. I would have brought either March or Mooy on instead of Schellotto but that is just my thinking. I dont think that we went to a flat back four at any time.
 


Dick Swiveller

Well-known member
Sep 9, 2011
9,142
Trying to work out how as suggested we went to 4 at the back as I recall we had Dunk on the right Duffy down the middle and Burn on the left with Montoya staying as right wing back. I would have brought either March or Mooy on instead of Schellotto but that is just my thinking. I dont think that we went to a flat back four at any time.

Apart from starting with it, you mean?
 




DFL JCL

Well-known member
Jan 8, 2016
790
We started 442 then went to 433. At least I thought we did.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk
 


Dick Swiveller

Well-known member
Sep 9, 2011
9,142
We started 442 then went to 433. At least I thought we did.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk
Of course we did. Some people just can't get their head around a 6ft 6in left back or the fact that a right back who attacks is not a wing back. It is a very fluid system with players dropping in to cover depending on where the ball is and who has it but for the last few games, we have nearly exclusively had a back 4.
 


Machiavelli

Well-known member
Oct 11, 2013
16,560
Fiveways
What did people make of it?

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

I’m not so sure 433 quite captures it. We’ve played a lopsided formation in a fair few games now. As to yesterday, although we nominally played four at the back, Montoya played wider on the right than Burn on the left while in the second half, Alzate stayed far closer to the left touchline, so that it could equally characterised as a back three or five. Yet Alzate was more advanced than Montoya. It did enable the delightful opportunity for Alzate and Trossard to link up together
 




Dick Swiveller

Well-known member
Sep 9, 2011
9,142
If Burn is in that position as a 3rd centre back then God help us.

back4.png
 


Dick Swiveller

Well-known member
Sep 9, 2011
9,142
I’m not so sure 433 quite captures it. We’ve played a lopsided formation in a fair few games now. As to yesterday, although we nominally played four at the back, Montoya played wider on the right than Burn on the left while in the second half, Alzate stayed far closer to the left touchline, so that it could equally characterised as a back three or five. Yet Alzate was more advanced than Montoya. It did enable the delightful opportunity for Alzate and Trossard to link up together
Yep - it is very impressive how drilled the players are in covering based on various scenarios and you get see what Potter means when he says he encourages the players to figure it out themselves. It did look like we had gone 5 at the back for a while as Alzate dropped into a left wing back a couple of times but then reverted back into the midfield. You struggle to put a formation on the team at any given time other than looking at them at what VAR loves to call a reset of the defence.

I guess the reason Potter loves Burn at left back is because he can drop in as a 3rd centre half when the other two get dragged back and often the left sided midfielder is disciplined enough to drop in and cover. It does leave opportunities to be walked through as has happened a few times in the last couple of games but it also pulls the opposition around and seems to give you more going forward.
 


West Upper Seagull

Well-known member
Oct 31, 2003
1,510
Woodingdean
That 4-3-3 formation needs to be our starting line up for the next run of tough games, starting at OT next week. In my opinion this means Trossard has to start instead of Gross with Maupay and Trossard playing deeper behind Connolly. The reason I would play Maupay instead of Gross is because this gives us more pace in the front 3 to counter attack teams at pace before they get men back behind the ball and would make us a real threat going forward.

Assuming Webster is unavailable my starting 11 would be:

Ryan
Montoya. Dunk. Duffy. Burn
Propper. Stephens. Alzate
Maupay. Trossard
Connolly
 




Whitechapel

Famous Last Words
Jul 19, 2014
4,056
Not in Whitechapel
The tactical flexibility of the team that finished that game is seriously, seriously impressive. We could have changed to 3 different formations without making a single substitute

Ryan
Montoya - Dunk - Duffy - Burn
Alzate - Stephens - Propper
Connolly - Maupay - Trossard​

Can become

Ryan
Duffy - Dunk - Burn
Montoya - Stephens - Propper - Alzate
Connolly - Maupay - Trossard​

Can become

Ryan
Montoya - Dunk - Duffy - Burn
Stephens - Propper
Alzate - Trossard
Connolly - Maupay​

Must be a nightmare to play against


Edit: Okay that team didn’t technically finish the game but people know what I mean.
 


BensGrandad

New member
Jul 13, 2003
72,015
Haywards Heath
The tactical flexibility of the team that finished that game is seriously, seriously impressive. We could have changed to 3 different formations without making a single substitute

Ryan
Montoya - Dunk - Duffy - Burn
Alzate - Stephens - Propper
Connolly - Maupay - Trossard​

Can become

Ryan
Duffy - Dunk - Burn
Montoya - Stephens - Propper - Alzate
Connolly - Maupay - Trossard​

Can become

Ryan
Montoya - Dunk - Duffy - Burn
Stephens - Propper
Alzate - Trossard
Connolly - Maupay​

Must be a nightmare to play against

Only 1 problem you have omitted Gross which GP will not do, I dont think.
 


West Upper Seagull

Well-known member
Oct 31, 2003
1,510
Woodingdean
The tactical flexibility of the team that finished that game is seriously, seriously impressive. We could have changed to 3 different formations without making a single substitute

Ryan
Montoya - Dunk - Duffy - Burn
Alzate - Stephens - Propper
Connolly - Maupay - Trossard​

Can become

Ryan
Duffy - Dunk - Burn
Montoya - Stephens - Propper - Alzate
Connolly - Maupay - Trossard​

Can become

Ryan
Montoya - Dunk - Duffy - Burn
Stephens - Propper
Alzate - Trossard
Connolly - Maupay​

Must be a nightmare to play against


Edit: Okay that team didn’t technically finish the game but people know what I mean.

You have named the exact same 11 players I would play in our next game as mentioned in my post above ! :thumbsup:
 











Paying the bills

Latest Discussions

Paying the bills

Paying the bills

Paying the bills

Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here