Formations

[PV1993]

With so many out injured or out of form or even not replaced from Jan, we have an increasing amount of square pegs in round holes.

Can we please start to think about formations that don’t involve three at the back? On Vale Park’s wide pitch we need to utilise our wingers and we just don’t. We always aim to play down the sides yet only ever have wing backs in those positions.

Surely we could play a 4-4-2 or 4-3-3 and get more men in wide positions. Our wingbacks don’t like to get in behind because they have too many defensive duties.

A back four of, say, Robinson, Smith, Forrester and Benning could help the full backs with players like Massey and Worrall in front of them.

Just a thought because I’m getting tired of this three at the back now. I think it suits us all away on tighter pitches but at home we have struggled to adapt (you could also blame the state of the pitch but other teams have to play on it too and aren’t as used to it as we supposedly are)

Thoughts?

[Guitar Ray]

Do we have any out and out wingers?  Wozz and Massey aren’t strictly wingers are they.

We can’t defend with 5 at the back so what makes you think going to 4 would make us more secure?  Either way the back 4 you suggest would get smashed in this league because only Smith can defend out of those 4.

[darren1810]

We are wedded to the system we play sadly. Clarke criticised Askey for that along with our injury record under Askey.

It feels lately on here that if you dare to question anything then you are a traitor to the cause.

Simply isn't the case, we are only as good as our last match. At the moment we are awful.

I agree we need to try something different. What that is i don't know because as GR says above, 4 at the back looks as weak as the proverbial cats piddle. 

 

[valiant_593]

For me we have to try a back 4. We’re conceding for fun and our wing backs aren’t getting involved in enough attacks / constantly pushed back so pointless playing that formation. As above DC supposedly was going to make sure we had a number of players for a number of positions / formations however were identical to under Askey. A team that can play one way and one way only. Injuries far worse than under Askey as well. 

I would try 4231 whilst we have injuries to the forwards. 
 

                         Stone

Robinson Forrester Smith Don / Mal

                      Ojo.    Pett

Worrall           Garrity.        Dennis 

                 Taylor / Harrison 

The huge weakness there is the LB neither are close to this level. But at least we would have politic and woz able to stay forwards and get balls in whilst Pett and Ojo sit. Garrity in his best position and Conlon out. For me I’d give this a go given the injuries at the moment. 

Still think we’ve made a massive error in letting Hall go (and Walker) 

[geoff1]

5 minutes ago, valiant_593 said:

For me we have to try a back 4. We’re conceding for fun and our wing backs aren’t getting involved in enough attacks / constantly pushed back so pointless playing that formation. As above DC supposedly was going to make sure we had a number of players for a number of positions / formations however were identical to under Askey. A team that can play one way and one way only. Injuries far worse than under Askey as well. 

I would try 4231 whilst we have injuries to the forwards. 
 

                         Stone

Robinson Forrester Smith Don / Mal

                      Ojo.    Pett

Worrall           Garrity.        Dennis 

                 Taylor / Harrison 

The huge weakness there is the LB neither are close to this level. But at least we would have politic and woz able to stay forwards and get balls in whilst Pett and Ojo sit. Garrity in his best position and Conlon out. For me I’d give this a go given the injuries at the moment. 

Still think we’ve made a massive error in letting Hall go (and Walker) 

the problems not the formation but players not doing their jobs. the marking of players 10yds away from them and feeble tackling and being unable to bring the ball down instead of booting it or heading it to the opposition time and time again.😏😒

[PV1993]

5 hours ago, Guitar Ray said:

Do we have any out and out wingers?  Wozz and Massey aren’t strictly wingers are they.

We can’t defend with 5 at the back so what makes you think going to 4 would make us more secure?  Either way the back 4 you suggest would get smashed in this league because only Smith can defend out of those 4.

They are, they’ve just been repurposed. As a winger, Massey got moves to good clubs and Worrall was the assist leader under Askey. Wasted further back or too central.

[PV1993]

4 hours ago, valiant_593 said:

For me we have to try a back 4. We’re conceding for fun and our wing backs aren’t getting involved in enough attacks / constantly pushed back so pointless playing that formation. As above DC supposedly was going to make sure we had a number of players for a number of positions / formations however were identical to under Askey. A team that can play one way and one way only. Injuries far worse than under Askey as well. 

I would try 4231 whilst we have injuries to the forwards. 
 

                         Stone

Robinson Forrester Smith Don / Mal

                      Ojo.    Pett

Worrall           Garrity.        Dennis 

                 Taylor / Harrison 

The huge weakness there is the LB neither are close to this level. But at least we would have politic and woz able to stay forwards and get balls in whilst Pett and Ojo sit. Garrity in his best position and Conlon out. For me I’d give this a go given the injuries at the moment. 

Still think we’ve made a massive error in letting Hall go (and Walker) 

I e never thought Benning was a proper wing back, and feel he would suit a full back role with someone in front of him much better

[Guitar Ray]

18 minutes ago, PV1993 said:

They are, they’ve just been repurposed. As a winger, Massey got moves to good clubs and Worrall was the assist leader under Askey. Wasted further back or too central.

Fair enough, although we didn’t play with wingers under Askey, it was 4-3-3….and the experts moaned about that at the time.

[chrisbirchall]

Our formation is so rigid and never changes. Every game it’s the same, 3 at the back, wingbacks who are ok going forward but can’t defend. The same shape, the same predictable way of playing. It’s blatantly obvious it’s not working currently so change it. Try something different, try a different approach. Good managers do this, they adapt, they change, more importantly they accept the reasons why they need to. Too many excuses currently about too many different things, and too little proof of any kind of changes being implemented. Yes we have played some of the better teams recently we have but this has just highlighted more the deficiencies we have in the team.  

[Smallthorne clampet]

Got to get it right at the back and build from there . 4-4-2 for me , 2 banks of 4 , making us more solid . It might not work , but at least give it a try - It cant get any worse !

 

[Granville]

Our problem is we don't have out and out full backs of sufficient quality to play 4 at the back, and our centre halves have deficiencies that are exposed by playing in a 2.

We have no right back, Worrall is a winger playing a wing back role and can't defend well enough to play as a full back. Cass is a right sided centre back who has looked uncomfortable when playing RWB, but also, at this level, looks too weak physically to play as one of two centre backs. Robinson looks like he should be out on loan and isn't good enough defensively to play as a full back.

At left back, our options are Jones (when fit), Donnelly or Benning. Jones is physical enough but not quick enough to get up the pitch without someone covering him like a wing back would if he was an advanced centre half. Donnelly looks out of his depth, and Benning is quick enough but not strong enough to play there.

Our centre halves all have weaknesses that are exposed in a 2. Smith's ability in the air is compromised by his lack of pace. Its no surprise his best form came alongside Legge when he was having his best season, where they complimented each other, plus had Joyce in front of them when he was playing well and provided a screen and an out ball. Jones's strength is negated by his positioning and decision making. See Cass above for not being strong enough despite being quick enough.

Our defenders' weaknesses are covered up by playing in a three. They were covered up well in the league below, but are exposed far more at this level. Much as I'd like us to move to a four, we have recruited for three at the back and changing it would probably expose more problems. 

The issue is also Pett being our only real defensive midfielder who can receive a pass well and cover enough ground to take the pressure off two centre backs. Ojo doesn't seem to like getting the ball off the three at the moment and would need to provide more cover for a two. But if the manager isn't going to pick Pett then it makes it even more difficult.

[PV1993]

3 hours ago, Guitar Ray said:

Fair enough, although we didn’t play with wingers under Askey, it was 4-3-3….and the experts moaned about that at the time.

I would say the wide players in that formation were wingers. When we play 3-4-3 we have wingers but they cut inside more 

[Granville]

43 minutes ago, PV1993 said:

I would say the wide players in that formation were wingers. When we play 3-4-3 we have wingers but they cut inside more 

Spot on. I was a big James Gibbons fan, and if we still had him, we could play him on the right of the 4 with Worrall ahead of him. I agree in the 3 4 3, 2 of our 3 up front are attacking forwards rather than wingers. Butterworth and Politic like to come inside and have shots rather than get to the line and cross.

I would also say under Askey we DID play with wingers - Amoo, Worrall and Montano were all wingers and deployed as such. But the success of that was also dependent on having a strong and powerful striker who could play up front on their own in Pope. 

Ironically Proctor would probably have been the ideal replacement for Pope that Askey kept trying to find with his recruitment of Bennett, Rodney and his pursuit of Guthrie, none of whom were suited to that.

If we want to be versatile enough to alternate between a 4 at the back and 3 at the back, we need an aggressive, experienced centre back who could captain the team, who is comfortable in the middle of a three or with a younger, quicker partner in a two. We also need a proper ratting defensive midfielder who can cover the centre backs if they're in a two and sit deep if we play four in midfield and provide an out ball.

We also need a proper set of full backs comfortable at wing back or full back, not converted wingers or just wing backs. 

Given the numbers out of contract in the summer I would hope we are aiming for a smaller squad with better quality players. But then its also a matter of getting a new goalkeeper, and a more reliable centre forward too.

We have a lot of issues if we want to switch to a back four, either this season or next. 

[PV1973]

In some ways we are hamstrung by the formation and the recruitment deficiencies.  We could go 4-3-3 or 4-3-3 but in terms of 4 at the back, we only have one dedicated left back (Benning) and we only have one dedicated right back (Robinson) and arguably neither of those are good enough and we have no cover. Even as we stand we don’t really have cover for the wingbacks positions either (at least last season we had Benning, Worrall, hussey and Gibbo).  We need legs in midfield if we went 3 in there and we also need legs up top if we went 4-3-3 and we don’t have that in abundance across the squad. I think we’re in a much more depressing position squad wise now when compared to last year, I really do.  But on top of that I don’t see us having a way of playing or an identity, we had that in abundance last season. Is DC limited in how his teams set up and play? As long as we stay up then great, but this summer the squad needs a big overhaul to make us more competitive and give us more energy, pace and strength.  

[Guitar Ray]

3 hours ago, Granville said:

Spot on. I was a big James Gibbons fan, and if we still had him, we could play him on the right of the 4 with Worrall ahead of him. I agree in the 3 4 3, 2 of our 3 up front are attacking forwards rather than wingers. Butterworth and Politic like to come inside and have shots rather than get to the line and cross.

I would also say under Askey we DID play with wingers - Amoo, Worrall and Montano were all wingers and deployed as such. But the success of that was also dependent on having a strong and powerful striker who could play up front on their own in Pope. 

Ironically Proctor would probably have been the ideal replacement for Pope that Askey kept trying to find with his recruitment of Bennett, Rodney and his pursuit of Guthrie, none of whom were suited to that.

If we want to be versatile enough to alternate between a 4 at the back and 3 at the back, we need an aggressive, experienced centre back who could captain the team, who is comfortable in the middle of a three or with a younger, quicker partner in a two. We also need a proper ratting defensive midfielder who can cover the centre backs if they're in a two and sit deep if we play four in midfield and provide an out ball.

We also need a proper set of full backs comfortable at wing back or full back, not converted wingers or just wing backs. 

Given the numbers out of contract in the summer I would hope we are aiming for a smaller squad with better quality players. But then its also a matter of getting a new goalkeeper, and a more reliable centre forward too.

We have a lot of issues if we want to switch to a back four, either this season or next. 

Splitting hairs maybe but I think most people would tend to think of wingers in the true sense as being attacking wide midfielders, like Guppy/McCarthy, rather than wing forwards who tend to play narrower, more akin to the the old outside left/right position.

I don’t think Montano was primarily deployed as a winger, he was converted to left back and I would say played more games in that position.