Team Formations.

[PSR]

We all have ideas as to how we should play and who should play so to start the thread off I would like to say, this is how I would like to see us line up in mid-field.


............Majewski....McKenna
Anderson...........................Tyson
....................Earnshaw
............Adebola.......Blackstock

Tyson & Anderson can both hit the bye line knowing they have someone to aim at in the middle with their crosses.
Earnshaw in just behind the front two to pick up the pieces or to break through the middle on late runs into the box with Adebola & Blackstock adding weight or taking the centre backs out allowing him a way through.

I think this formation would give us several more options when attacking and if the goalkeepers insist on the big punt down field at least they won't be aiming for our 3 foot midget.

 

[garrilla]

so 3 at the back then?

A bit risky with Tyson and Ando as the wingers.

 

[It's Baggio]

We'd be absolutely ravagaged if we were to play that system.

 

[dellaroc]

lol

We concede a goal for every two opposition attacks. 3 at the back would be suicide.

 

[adam09]

Camp/Smith

Gunter Wes Wilson Lynch/Bennett

McCleary Majewski/Cohen/McGugan McKenna/Moussi Anderson

Blackstock/Adebola Tyson/Earnshaw/McGoldrick


Simple 4-4-2, solid down the flanks and with a forward who can win the ball in the air and one who can run onto the balls in behind. Gunter and Lynch can go forward if need be, or cross from slightly deeper. One CM pushing forward, one sitting back.

It's no coincidence that in the last couple of seasons, despite trying to make 3-5-2 or 4-3-3 or whatever work, we've mainly got results when reverting to 4-4-2. I really can't understand why we keep trying to make anything else work. You use a formation that plays to the strengths of the players you've got.

Unfortunately, my team means upsetting a few people and having them sit on the bench for a bit!

 

[PSR]

so 3 at the back then?

A bit risky with Tyson and Ando as the wingers.

Both have tracked back very well this season but the en-fersis would be to attack from different angles especially at home - Obviously we wouldn't be allowed to play that way away from home - but this is only my opinion.

Did you like our formation against Blackpool? when Earnshaw for much of the game was left up front on his own and we was at home.

 

[Brolin]

It would also mean dropping Gunter, one of our best players, unless you planned to play him as one of the three centre backs.

 

[PSR]

It would also mean dropping Gunter, one of our best players, unless you planned to play him as one of the three centre backs.

Why would you assume I would even consider dropping Gunter when Lynch is a pile of sh!te.

 

[Brolin]

Why would you assume I would even consider dropping Gunter when Lynch is a pile of sh!te.

Because as talented as Gunter is, he displays almost none of the attributes that make a good centre half and would be severely exposed in a position he has never played before.

Your options would be three from Morgan, Chambers, Lynch and Wilson.

 

[garrilla]

Both have tracked back very well this season but the en-fersis would be to attack from different angles especially at home - Obviously we wouldn't be allowed to play that way away from home - but this is only my opinion.

Did you like our formation against Blackpool? when Earnshaw for much of the game was left up front on his own and we was at home.

:dan:

 

[PSR]

Because as talented as Gunter is, he displays almost none of the attributes that make a good centre half and would be severely exposed in a position he has never played before.

Your options would be three from Morgan, Chambers, Lynch and Wilson.

No there not - don't assume and put words in my mouth.

I said I would have Gunter in my back 3 and I also stated that these were only my considered opinions - you have your opinions and I respect that - I didn't expect everyone to agree with me because we all have different opinions - and that's what they are - Opinions.

 

[Brolin]

No there not - don't assume and put words in my mouth.

I said I would have Gunter in my back 3 and I also stated that these were only my considered opinions - you have your opinions and I respect that - I didn't expect everyone to agree with me because we all have different opinions - and that's what they are - Opinions.

I've listened to your opinions and now I'm discussing them. Personally, I don't see how your proposed system could work, but I'm willing to listen.

If Gunter is playing in a back three, is he one of three centre backs? If he's not, is he one of two full backs supporting a single centre half? Who do you see in this back three? Have you seen it used elsewhere and if so, what were the results?

 

[It's Baggio]

Back 3's don't really work anymore and even when they did you needed two supremely fit and talented wing backs to make them work, not wingers playing out of position and being asked to track back.

Cafu/Carlos - Brazil '02, Berthold/Brehme - Germany '90, etc.

 

[Forest_4_ever]

Camp

Chambers Morgan Lynch

Gunter Cohen

Majewski McKenna


McGoldrick

Blackstock Tyson/Earnshaw


With Cohen and Gunter effectively being wingers aswell with the other one staying as one of them goes. McKenna could easily drop in if both of them were to push forward. We've got McGoldrick playing in his best position who would be our playmaker that links the midfield to the strikers.

 

[Senior Flange Technician]

Camp/Smith

Gunter Wes Wilson Lynch/Bennett

McCleary Majewski/Cohen/McGugan McKenna/Moussi Anderson

Blackstock/Adebola Tyson/Earnshaw/McGoldrick


Simple 4-4-2, solid down the flanks and with a forward who can win the ball in the air and one who can run onto the balls in behind. Gunter and Lynch can go forward if need be, or cross from slightly deeper. One CM pushing forward, one sitting back.

It's no coincidence that in the last couple of seasons, despite trying to make 3-5-2 or 4-3-3 or whatever work, we've mainly got results when reverting to 4-4-2. I really can't understand why we keep trying to make anything else work. You use a formation that plays to the strengths of the players you've got.

Unfortunately, my team means upsetting a few people and having them sit on the bench for a bit!

it really is this ^ simple

 

[earthworm]

............Majewski....McKenna
Anderson...........................Tyson
....................Earnshaw
............Adebola.......Blackstock

That does look pretty mouth watering. Shame it leaves us a bit thin at the back, but I'd love to see Forest try it in a cup game or something to see how it worked out ;D

 

[king_congo_red]

I've never understood why people criticise Billy (or more particularly Calderwood's) formation, only to then suggest something suicidial or infinitiely more hair-brained.

4-4-f***ing-2.

Simples.

 

[PSR]

I've listened to your opinions and now I'm discussing them. Personally, I don't see how your proposed system could work, but I'm willing to listen.

If Gunter is playing in a back three, is he one of three centre backs? If he's not, is he one of two full backs supporting a single centre half? Who do you see in this back three? Have you seen it used elsewhere and if so, what were the results?

Camp
Gunter Morgan Wilson
Majewski McKenna
Anderson Tyson
Earnshaw
Adebola Blackstock

Like I mentioned before I would only play this way at home.

The emphasis is on us to attack the opposition at home not playing 5 across midfield with just a 3 foot midget up front on his own.

Should the opposition attack down either wing Anderson & Tyson are quick enough to go back with them – if needs be Gunter or Wilson can go across which still leaves 2 central defenders. Should they attack through the middle we would have 3 CB’s and the 2 tracking back down the wings.

Like I’ve said before this is only my opinion and the way I’ve seen us play at home so far this season suggests it’s not the personnel but the system.

We can’t boast about having the best strike force in the league and then consistently lose at home 1 nil. We have to attack from the back right from the off which means our front players need the ammunition from mid-field and from the wings so why not attack from the off instead of swamping midfield and relying on a break to score.

 

[king_congo_red]

Like I’ve said before this is only my opinion and the way I’ve seen us play at home so far this season suggests it’s not the personnel but the system.

Your suggestion though, would still result in us losing games because of the system. Teams would pass it down the flanks, whip crosses in and score goals all day, due to the gaping holes where full-backs should be and 'centre-backs' having to move out of position to try to fill these gaps. Think Schteve McLarens infamous 3-5-2 experiment vs Croatia...

 

[PSR]

I've never understood why people criticise Billy (or more particularly Calderwood's) formation, only to then suggest something suicidial or infinitiely more hair-brained.

4-4-f**king-2.

Simples.

That is your opinion and every supporter that attends a match will no doubt have a different one.

You go with 4-4-f**king-2 that's ok it's your opinion but don't knock others who see it differently, they too are right to an opinion .

I posted what I thought (in my opinion) was a realistic topic to be discussed because of our short comings in our home games. The amount of people getting involved in the subject suggests it is up for debate and that surely is what the forum is about.

We know we are not the manager and we know we can't pick the team but every fan up and down the country will question the managers judgement when things are going wrong it's human nature and people will still have an opinion.

I'm not knocking BD in fact I support him I merely put up this post to see what others thoughts were but don't knock others opinions or we might as well close down the whole forum because this is what it's all about.

 

[Senior Flange Technician]

he only said he didn't think it would work.
i'd like us to try a few varying formations, but, for now keep it simple and pick up points, we can experiment when theres less to play for

 

[PSR]

Your suggestion though, would still result in us losing games because of the system. Teams would pass it down the flanks, whip crosses in and score goals all day, due to the gaping holes where full-backs should be and 'centre-backs' having to move out of position to try to fill these gaps. Think Schteve McLarens infamous 3-5-2 experiment vs Croatia...

And losing 4 out of 7 matches at home under the system we are playing now is the answer?

Not counting the cup games our home record so far looks like this:

P4 - W1 - D0 - L3 - GF5 - GA8

Your 4-4-2 system is fine if you have a solid defence but we haven't - the oposition are taking the game to us because they know we are weak at the back and no matter what you say about my system having holes in it we have those now when we have 4 at the back which is proved by the figures above - P4 - 8 goals against means we are conceding 2 goals per game at home on average.

 

[earthworm]

Here's a thing, can anyone think of a team/club/country that has done well playing 3-4-3 fairly often?

 

[king_congo_red]

And losing 4 out of 7 matches at home under the system we are playing now is the answer?

Not counting the cup games our home record so far looks like this:

P4 - W1 - D0 - L3 - GF5 - GA8

Your 4-4-2 system is fine if you have a solid defence but we haven't - the oposition are taking the game to us because they know we are weak at the back and no matter what you say about my system having holes in it we have those now when we have 4 at the back which is proved by the figures above - P4 - 8 goals against means we are conceding 2 goals per game at home on average.

Well my opinion is that if the defence is leaking with four at the back, reducing this to three is only going to make the problem worse. I'd have thought that was obvious.

 

[adam09]

And losing 4 out of 7 matches at home under the system we are playing now is the answer?

Not counting the cup games our home record so far looks like this:

P4 - W1 - D0 - L3 - GF5 - GA8

Your 4-4-2 system is fine if you have a solid defence but we haven't - the oposition are taking the game to us because they know we are weak at the back and no matter what you say about my system having holes in it we have those now when we have 4 at the back which is proved by the figures above - P4 - 8 goals against means we are conceding 2 goals per game at home on average.

What are you on about? The stats you posted do not disprove a regular 4-4-2 whatsoever, as we haven't played that way. The idea of playing a FLAT 4 across the middle in a 4-4-2 is that it HELPS the defence too, and solidifies the team as a whole. And it does, it's proven. If you've watched Forest for the past two seasons you'd have seen it with your own eyes.