Right oscar if your going to continue playing 4-3-3 here's how it's done!!

[B.W.]

Considering our full backs get forward quite a bit that side is very VERY lightweight defensively with only 3 defensive minded players, one of which (Ince) is FAR better attacking than defending anyway. We'd be on the back foot quite a lot.

Disagree wholeheartedly. As was proved again yesterday you cannot play 4-3-3 with no pace in the front 3 (same at Derby). It will NOT work. David should have been dropped a long time ago. One good game this season. One. KLL and Will/Solly will work. Ince is a converted CB who certainly plays better holding than going forward (not bad at that either).

Either that, or play CMS / SD2 on one side and a pacey winger on the other (of Ulloa). We will miss out again if we continue to be over-cautious.

<< Waits for Jones to tell us how 'tough' the Donny game is, then a repeat of the cr@p over-cautious selection. >>

 

[Codner's Wallop]

A more attack-minded 4-3-3 formation is all well and good if your front three are regularly scoring goals. However, Ulloa is a bit off-form at the moment and neither KLL nor March are prolific scorers. With your suggested 4-3-3 we will leak more goals, no doubt, as our defensive shield will be stretched further and further. Ince and Orlandi are far better going forward than in defence, leaving only Andrews/Stephens to mop up. That's a huge ask against an attack-minded team. There is the danger we concede many more goals and score only a few more.

 

[Luke93]

PIG
Bruno-Greer-Upson-Ward (with Bruno and Ward getting forward at every opportunity)
Orlandi-Ince-Lopez (all playing central, at least one making runs forward into the box when attacking)
Buckley-Ulloa-LuaLua (Will and Kaz playing very wide, as we've lacked width)

That's a team / formation I would like to see. Away from would be different though.

 

[Mellotron]

Disagree wholeheartedly. As was proved again yesterday you cannot play 4-3-3 with no pace in the front 3 (same at Derby). It will NOT work. David should have been dropped a long time ago. One good game this season. One. KLL and Will/Solly will work. Ince is a converted CB who certainly plays better holding than going forward (not bad at that either).

Either that, or play CMS / SD2 on one side and a pacey winger on the other (of Ulloa). We will miss out again if we continue to be over-cautious.

<< Waits for Jones to tell us how 'tough' the Donny game is, then a repeat of the cr@p over-cautious selection. >>

I agree we need one pacey winger per game. Definitely NOT too, as then we have no one with a brain out on the wing.

Ince is clumsy, and takes risks. Far too risky on his own at DM.

 

[Twinkle Toes]

They do not, as the former has one more player than the latter. If you actually mean 4-3-3, which I think you do, I think I explained the difference in my post.

Yep. Top pedantry marks, smart-arse.

I do agree about the element of fluidity that OG is looking to instill in the starting formation, although I do wonder if we have the necessary quality of personnel (with a few obvious exceptions) to play in a less rigid formation. I guess time will tell.

 

[Seagulls1984]

I just hope on Saturday we have a real go at Doncaster and put the shits up them from the start. If I see no pace in the lineup Saturday think I might cry.

 

[Machiavelli]

Yep. Top pedantry marks, smart-arse.

I do agree about the element of fluidity that OG is looking to instill in the starting formation, although I do wonder if we have the necessary quality of personnel (with a few obvious exceptions) to play in a less rigid formation. I guess time will tell.

This pedant agrees with all of this.

 

[Machiavelli]

I just hope on Saturday we have a real go at Doncaster and put the shits up them from the start. If I see no pace in the lineup Saturday think I might cry.

If you do, can you try and ensure that you attract the camera during Fanzone, because the rest of us might be due a laugh...

 

[Twinkle Toes]

This pedant agrees with all of this.

Nowt wrong with a bit o' pedantry, Mr M. 'Keeps us on our toes in the daily cut 'n' thrust of NSC debatage

 

[Silverhatch]

I'm not going to give you stick, and agree with most of what you say. Here are some basic points:
-- we will play 4-3-3/4-5-1 irrespective of how attached some on NSC are to a 4-4-2 formation
-- given this, it's a question of how the formation is deployed
-- Oscar has introduced some flexibility and, more importantly, fluidity into the system. For instance, Gus' formation was a bit more like a 4-1-4-1, with Bridcutt sitting. There will be no rigid holding player a la Poyet's Bridcutt in Oscar's system.
-- agree with you about pace on the wing. We certainly need to play two quick wingers at home (ie Buckley, KLL, SD*2) if fit...
-- ... the thing that's got most people's goat is Oscar's tactics away from home, where he seems wedded to the idea of starting with no quick wingers. I don't disagree with this, although do note that our away form isn't that bad this season
-- the biggest problem is that Ulloa has been isolated in recent away games. We need the two wide players, two out of the three midfielders and, sometimes even, the full-backs to get forward to the byline or into the box.
That is all.

A fluid formation is exactly right. If you asked most people they'd say Burnley play two up top, but they don't really. Danny Ings -who is super quick, drops deep and operates across the whole pitch between half way line and 18 yard box. Sam Vokes is the target man. When their midfield get the ball it's either pinged quickly to the dropping deep Ings or hit long for Vokes to chase with Ings running after him like a scalded cat.

They do keep the ball in midfield but the intention is (most of the time) to quickly move the ball to a very fast and marauding Ings.

We have some fantastically technical players who should be able to move the ball very quickly and control it. And in Kaz, Buckley, March, Rodney there appears to be some searing pace. We just can't get the mix right yet. Maybe, just maybe, CMS can be a little bit like Ings and cause the confusion in the top end of the pitch that will give Ulloa some space.

 

[Machiavelli]

Nowt wrong with a bit o' pedantry, Mr M. 'Keeps us on our toes in the daily cut 'n' thrust of NSC debatage

Nowt wrong with a bit o' agreement either, Mr TT. The vast majority of NSC agrees with this don't they?

 

[Baldseagull]

Considering our full backs get forward quite a bit that side is very VERY lightweight defensively with only 3 defensive minded players, one of which (Ince) is FAR better attacking than defending anyway. We'd be on the back foot quite a lot.

Our right backs get forward (Calde or Bruno), Ward not so much.

 

[Twinkle Toes]

Nowt wrong with a bit o' agreement either, Mr TT. The vast majority of NSC agrees with this don't they?

It's Ms TT!

*Launches pedantic counter-attack*

ps With you all the way on the agreement front. Every day's a learning day though, eh?

 

[Captain Sensible]

I think the OP is a good formation at home. We win win most home games playing like that. Away we are ok, apart from just a bad performance here or there, but I think away we should keep the current system.

 

[Machiavelli]

It's Ms TT!

*Launches pedantic counter-attack*

ps With you all the way on the agreement front. Every day's a learning day though, eh?

Like your choice of title. But while we're playing silly buggers, you got my title wrong, but I -- unlike you -- was insufficiently pedantic to pick up on it.

 

[Husty]

one of which (Ince) is FAR better attacking than defending anyway.

Disagree

 

[brightonmark1234]

my team i would like to see but dont think it would work
kuszczak
calderon -dunk -upson -ward
ince
stephens -orlandi
march lua lua
ulloa

 

[Pogue Mahone]

my team i would like to see but dont think it would work
kuszczak
calderon -dunk -upson -ward
ince
stephens -orlandi
march lua lua
ulloa

If you don't think it would work, why would you like to see it?

I'd like to see it too, but not with Dunk. AEA should have that position. Oh...

 

[brightonmark1234]

If you don't think it would work, why would you like to see it?

I'd like to see it too, but not with Dunk. AEA should have that position. Oh...

i think it looks too attacking

 

[Twinkle Toes]

Like your choice of title. But while we're playing silly buggers, you got my title wrong, but I -- unlike you -- was insufficiently pedantic to pick up on it.

Gawdblessya, M. That said, you should've finished me off when you had the chance!

ps As I've been allowed to wriggle off that cheeky pedantic hook, what is your correct title?