Formation

I dont think we should be going back to 3 Central Defenders Ala MON era. Personally I dont like it, I prefer 4 Defenders.

Do you think this was what was wrong in the game against Ajax.

Was this the formation against Ajax

Forster
Rogne Wanyama Mulgrew
Matthews_____________________Izaguirre

Forrest Brown Ledley Stokes
Hooper​

Ive said before that we should stick to the usual Flat Back 4 of

Matthews Wanyama Rogne Mulgrew

This is more solid^

Izzy should play in attack as a winger up the other end of the pitch

 

Formation against Ajax was:
Forster
Rogne Wanyama Mulgrew
Matthews Izaguirre
Brown Ledley
Forrest
Hooper Stokes
3-2-2-1-2 or 3-4-1-2 or 5-2-1-2 (however you want to look at the wingbacks).

I don't think Wanyama is suited for CB. Rogne and Mulgrew for CB and Izaguirre for LB.
LW is already occupied by Commons.

Back 4 is preferable

 

I dont like Izzy at Left bAck because he runs forward leaving gaps behind

Mulgrew should play at Left Back and play square with the Central defenders

Its just that attacking full backs leave space behind for the othre team to run into leaving just 2 defenders to cover

 

I think this season, domestically it does not really matter. We are strong enough to experiment a bit. However for the tougher matches I believe something like this should be deployed, as well as Europe at home. Maybe away. Tweak it.

Forster

Wanyama ---Rogne--- Mulgrew
Matthews----------------------------------- Izziguire

Kayal

Ki --------------------------Ledley

--------------Samaras

Hooper

I would always like to see this being the starting formation for especially tough matches. I think it has enough strength to defend well as well as a good balance of counter and creative attacking.

I also think it leaves optional changes open, like Forrest for Samaras and switche him over on the other side. Brown for Ki which would see it move from more of a passing game to a direct running attack too.

Wanyama could be pushed up, allowing Kayal to move forward to create a 3 man centre mid with Ki moving a bit further our to the right in a more creative role.

Defensively you could bring Lustig on for Izzy and move Mulgrew out to left back and create a flat back 4.


Striking - You could bring Stokes on for either Hooper or Sammy to give it a more regimented feel too.

I don't think this is the best formation for simple matches in the SPL as the teams park the bus and would frustrate the attack while not testing the defense. But it offers a good balance for the harder matches, I feel.

Be interested to see what people think (No doubt Ki haters will not see the benefit of having a creative passer in that formation) but heyho.
​

​

 

I like the look of that team Uncleho, it looks solid and has the potential to play keep ball.. but i dont see Lennon dropping Brown in hte big games for Ki... like ever.

 

I'm not gonna worry. It was a friendly. Just pray we never draw Barcelona or were gonna get demolished lol

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

Which is worrying for me, because the manager should pick the best options possible, not because a player is considered a favorite.

 

Why do people keep wanting to play Izaguirre as a winger ? Anyone who has played as an attacking full back will know so much of your success is down to the timing of your overlapping runs. That is what his main strength is. Not his dribbling - not his crossing - and not his passing.

His overlapping runs (as a result of great timing, stamina, pace and intelligence) are what makes full back his best position.

 

exactly

 

Attacking full backs are far more effective arriving late and from a deep position. I'm sure Dani Alves said a few months ago he hated playing further forward as he felt he wasn't as effective as he was when he was coming from deep. It's the exact same with Izzy imo.

 

And that is the reason Brown starts before Ki. Simply because, he is better than him.

 

Aye you are spot on. Look at how many times Dani Alves runs onto the ball with space in front of him. He is much less effective if he is getting the ball on the wing, facing infield. Most full backs will have the same opinion as Alves.

 

I think that in Europe we should pack the midfield and play 4-5-1.

 

In Europe we should play 451 home and away. If we don't sign players, there will be no Europe however.

The Defense is a complete mess.

 

3 5 2 attacking fullbacks best by a mile

 

I think it's definitely time for us to try and move away from playing 4-4-2. That formation is outdated now. I don't think playing 3 at the back is the way we should be going either though, our defenders aren't good enough to pull it off.

I'd like to see us adopting the 4-2-3-1 formation or maybe have a go at the 4-5-1/4-3-3 formation that Mourinho used at Chelsea.

A couple of possible line-ups would be............

Forster

Matthews------New CB------Mulgrew------Izaguirre

Wanyama------Kayal

Commons--------------Brown-------------Samaras

Hooper

There's plenty of options with that formation..........

Ledley or Ki could fill in for Wanyama or Kayal.
Ledley, Commons or McGeouch could play in Brown's position.
Forrest, McGeouch or McCourt could all step in to the wide positions.

If we went down the 4-5-1/4-3-3 route we could try..................

Forster

Matthews------New CB------Mulgrew------Izaguirre

Wanyama

Kayal----------Ledley

Forrest---------------------------------------------Samaras

Hooper

It would probably take our players a wee while to fully adjust to playing these formations but I think if we persevered with it the end results would justify the change.
​

 

3-5-2 worked quality before and was great at the end of the seasn though, all our good players just played terribly against Ajax.

An on form Izzy and Matthews bombing forward, with Kayal, Vic and Ledley solid in the tackle and tracking back, and I firmly believe we are good enough for Europe and with a 3-5-2

 

The problem for me yesterday wasn't the 3 centre-halfs, it was Brown and Ledley in the centre of midfield. Yesterday Celtic were exposed because each time Ajax attacked, the 3 centre backs were left man for man with their 3 attackers.

That left free runners from the midfield who wern't picked up properly by Brown and Ledley. Think back to the MO'N era, when Lambert and Lennon were in the middle, the both of them always offered cover for the centre backs by breaking down midfield attacks

That always allowed Agathe and Petta/Thompson to attack along with Larsson/Sutton/Hartson.

I think yesterdays formation would have been suitable if we had a centre back instead of Wanyama, have him in the middle with Kayal breaking attacks down.

That would allow Matthews and Izzy to get forward, Ledley to attack along with Hooper and Stoke/Samaras. The formation wasn't wrong at all, it was the personnel deployed in their positions that was wrong IMO

 

Even though it didn`t work against Ajax, I believe we should stick with the 3-4-1-2 formation that Lenny used towards the end of last season. It brings the best out of each player imo. If not then I would like to see the 4-2-3-1 formation. 4-4-2 is completely outdated. It might work in the SPL but it won`t in Europe, we would get completely overun against the top sides. Two possible teams:

-------------------Forster------------------
-------Wanyama---Rogne---Mulgrew--------
Matthews------Kayal----Ledley----------Izzy
-----------------Commons------------------
-----------Stokes--------Hooper------------

Could easily be switched to 5-3-2 for games against top opposition with Broony coming in for Commons and Stokes or Hooper drooping a lot deeper

--------------------Forster----------------
Matthews------Rogne----Mulgrew-------Izzy
------------Wanyama-----Kayal------------
Forrest------------Commons--------Samaras
-----------------Stokes/Hooper-------------

 

When we're playing 3 at the back (which personally i prefer to the standard 442) Rogne plays in the middle of the 3 defenders which i thinnk puts too many ball playing duties on him. If he plays RCB instead of Wanyama - who is very composed on the ball and would suit playing bang in the middle - I think it would make a big difference.