| The Formation changed because it needed to... 08:12 - Apr 25 with 1280 views | TheResurrection |
Still spent most of the game wondering who was playing where though. In the first half we had Siggy, Llorente and Ayew spending time on the left hand side. No real width or cohesion but not something Stoke would've probably have been predictably expecting.
The front 4 were very interchangeable which is what I think ultimately came through. Clement stumbled on a winning 451 formula when he came in first of all. I'm not sure this Christmas Tree will have the necessary effect over the next 4 games.
I thought Carroll was superb again and more than deserved his goal. Leon also and these two were the heartbeat of our side, real determination mixed in with good football ability. Ki did well without setting the world on fire. Kingsley didn't let us down and Ayew was our most dangerous. Llorente was Llorente, got the goal but never seems to put his stamp on a game, just not influential enough and even with Siggy in a central role, still no sign whatsoever of them linking up in open play. They made a total of 3 passes between each other the whole time Llorente was on the pitch. It's just not a partnership that's ever going to click. And yes, I know they linked up for the corner and all important goal but we're lacking a real something with those 2.
Also something to note, we made twice as many tackles as Stoke. 40 to their 20. Normally an indication a team doesn't want to be on the beach in plaster casts, but credit to us as we haven't got that luxury.
I think Clement will also need to tweak the formation again but to what is anyone's guess. |  |
| |  |
| The Formation changed because it needed to... on 08:22 - Apr 25 with 1261 views | JFSwan |
I thought we started a rather obvious diamond?
.......................Fabianski.......................
Naughton.Fernandez Mawson Kingsley
.............................Leon..........................
..........Fer.................................Carrol....
............................Glyfi.......................
..........Llorente .................Ayew............
The changes eventual made it
...............Fabianski......................
.......VDH Fernandez Mawson.....
Naughton...Leon..Ki ..Carrol..Kingsley
....................Gylfi..............................
...................Ayew.............................
And then finally
.................................Fabianski.............................
.................. VDH fernendez Mawson .....................
Naughton..........Ki......Gylfi........Carrol.........Kingsely
..................Ayew.......................Baston........................... |  | | |
| The Formation changed because it needed to... on 08:31 - Apr 25 with 1229 views | PapaLazarou |
| The Formation changed because it needed to... on 08:22 - Apr 25 by JFSwan |
I thought we started a rather obvious diamond?
.......................Fabianski.......................
Naughton.Fernandez Mawson Kingsley
.............................Leon..........................
..........Fer.................................Carrol....
............................Glyfi.......................
..........Llorente .................Ayew............
The changes eventual made it
...............Fabianski......................
.......VDH Fernandez Mawson.....
Naughton...Leon..Ki ..Carrol..Kingsley
....................Gylfi..............................
...................Ayew.............................
And then finally
.................................Fabianski.............................
.................. VDH fernendez Mawson .....................
Naughton..........Ki......Gylfi........Carrol.........Kingsely
..................Ayew.......................Baston........................... |
Yep. Absolutely.
We were so lucky with that penalty though, I couldn't have seen us scoring again with that side on the pitch.
Thin margins at this level... |  | | |
| The Formation changed because it needed to... on 09:10 - Apr 25 with 1145 views | jack247 |
| The Formation changed because it needed to... on 08:31 - Apr 25 by PapaLazarou |
Yep. Absolutely.
We were so lucky with that penalty though, I couldn't have seen us scoring again with that side on the pitch.
Thin margins at this level... |
If we do stay up, that penalty will be a turning point. I think heads would have dropped and we would have drawn the game at best had that gone in.
As for the OP, completely agree that those two are never going to make a good partnership, they just aren't compatible. For the next 4 games though, we need our goal threats on the pitch. We don't have the time nor the personnel to work on alternative combinations. Next season, whichever division we are in, id be surprised and a bit disappointed to see them both starting. I doubt they will both be here. | | | |
| The Formation changed because it needed to... on 09:14 - Apr 25 with 1136 views | Uxbridge |
| The Formation changed because it needed to... on 08:22 - Apr 25 by JFSwan |
I thought we started a rather obvious diamond?
.......................Fabianski.......................
Naughton.Fernandez Mawson Kingsley
.............................Leon..........................
..........Fer.................................Carrol....
............................Glyfi.......................
..........Llorente .................Ayew............
The changes eventual made it
...............Fabianski......................
.......VDH Fernandez Mawson.....
Naughton...Leon..Ki ..Carrol..Kingsley
....................Gylfi..............................
...................Ayew.............................
And then finally
.................................Fabianski.............................
.................. VDH fernendez Mawson .....................
Naughton..........Ki......Gylfi........Carrol.........Kingsely
..................Ayew.......................Baston........................... |
Actually I thought we started with our normal formation, then went to the Christmas tree when Fer went off, before going to 5-4-1 when VdH came on.
We were under the cosh before he made the sub, however to so completely concede any advantage and try and defend for 30 minutes was a worrying development. We won't stay up hoping to win games 1-0.
That for me is the biggest concern. Set pieces aside, we simply don't look like scoring. |  |
| |
| The Formation changed because it needed to... on 09:18 - Apr 25 with 1121 views | jack247 |
| The Formation changed because it needed to... on 09:14 - Apr 25 by Uxbridge |
Actually I thought we started with our normal formation, then went to the Christmas tree when Fer went off, before going to 5-4-1 when VdH came on.
We were under the cosh before he made the sub, however to so completely concede any advantage and try and defend for 30 minutes was a worrying development. We won't stay up hoping to win games 1-0.
That for me is the biggest concern. Set pieces aside, we simply don't look like scoring. |
I thought we actually looked more dangerous with the 541/532. I don't think it was parking the bus, the fullbacks got forward more and we had Ayew, Siggy and Carroll buzzing off each other. | | | |
| The Formation changed because it needed to... on 09:22 - Apr 25 with 1113 views | Jango |
| The Formation changed because it needed to... on 09:14 - Apr 25 by Uxbridge |
Actually I thought we started with our normal formation, then went to the Christmas tree when Fer went off, before going to 5-4-1 when VdH came on.
We were under the cosh before he made the sub, however to so completely concede any advantage and try and defend for 30 minutes was a worrying development. We won't stay up hoping to win games 1-0.
That for me is the biggest concern. Set pieces aside, we simply don't look like scoring. |
Just because we went to 3 at the back doesn't mean we went ultra defensive. It was just a change of formation that I thought suited us better at times. Chelsea play it week in week out | | | |
| The Formation changed because it needed to... on 09:29 - Apr 25 with 1089 views | Uxbridge |
| The Formation changed because it needed to... on 09:22 - Apr 25 by Jango |
Just because we went to 3 at the back doesn't mean we went ultra defensive. It was just a change of formation that I thought suited us better at times. Chelsea play it week in week out |
We went 5 at the back though. Major difference.
I've said in the past I could see us playing 3 at the back, especially if it meant we could get more bodies forward. Whether now would be time to try that is open to question. | |
| |
| The Formation changed because it needed to... on 09:32 - Apr 25 with 1080 views | londonlisa2001 |
| The Formation changed because it needed to... on 09:29 - Apr 25 by Uxbridge |
We went 5 at the back though. Major difference.
I've said in the past I could see us playing 3 at the back, especially if it meant we could get more bodies forward. Whether now would be time to try that is open to question. |
Olsson would be excellent in a 3 at the back. Naughton would also work.
And it solves the problem of our largely useless wingers and also of Siggy. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| The Formation changed because it needed to... on 09:48 - Apr 25 with 1046 views | hammy |
| The Formation changed because it needed to... on 09:32 - Apr 25 by londonlisa2001 |
Olsson would be excellent in a 3 at the back. Naughton would also work.
And it solves the problem of our largely useless wingers and also of Siggy. |
Yes could work as per Wales. With Ayew playing the Bale role (obviously not quite as good ;) )), Siggy being Ramsey and Llorente a much better version of Vokes. Leon and Carroll to work their socks off in the middle of the park; with Ki / Fer / Baston to come on as needed to shore things up (gulp !) in the last 20 (Leon / Llorente will be cream crackered).
I thought we created 3 or 4 decent chances with this formation on the park, for Carroll and Ayew specifically.
Would be happy to see this given a go at Old Trafford on Sunday. |  |
| |
| The Formation changed because it needed to... on 10:57 - Apr 25 with 951 views | TheResurrection |
I wouldn't be against 3 come 5 at the back with Ols and Naughton. Not sure against United though as they'll be coming at us the whole game.
Just a change in general worked against a team like Stoke on the beach and I'd be more inclined to try it last 3 games as they're all eminently winnable.
I'd go back to the 5 across the middle on Sunday and hope for Liverpool/Man City performances. | |
| |
| The Formation changed because it needed to... on 11:06 - Apr 25 with 933 views | jasper_T |
| The Formation changed because it needed to... on 08:22 - Apr 25 by JFSwan |
I thought we started a rather obvious diamond?
.......................Fabianski.......................
Naughton.Fernandez Mawson Kingsley
.............................Leon..........................
..........Fer.................................Carrol....
............................Glyfi.......................
..........Llorente .................Ayew............
The changes eventual made it
...............Fabianski......................
.......VDH Fernandez Mawson.....
Naughton...Leon..Ki ..Carrol..Kingsley
....................Gylfi..............................
...................Ayew.............................
And then finally
.................................Fabianski.............................
.................. VDH fernendez Mawson .....................
Naughton..........Ki......Gylfi........Carrol.........Kingsely
..................Ayew.......................Baston........................... |
You've got Ki and Leon mixed up in the second one, and Gylfi and Ki mixed up in the last. | | | |
| The Formation changed because it needed to... on 11:07 - Apr 25 with 928 views | LeonWasGod |
| The Formation changed because it needed to... on 08:31 - Apr 25 by PapaLazarou |
Yep. Absolutely.
We were so lucky with that penalty though, I couldn't have seen us scoring again with that side on the pitch.
Thin margins at this level... |
Very fine margins. We equally had a couple of good chances from the angle one-on-one with the keeper with cut back options, but fluffed them. Ayew hit a shot straight at the keeper. On another day with a better quality of player like Michu and we're 3 or 4 up. It's been the same all season. |  | | |
| The Formation changed because it needed to... on 11:10 - Apr 25 with 924 views | Griffting |
I liked the change to be honest. Carroll and Ki pushing up the pitch helped with movement in the attack. Ki actually makes some very good runs in final third. I thought we kept the ball better when we changed shape. |  | | |
| The Formation changed because it needed to... on 11:48 - Apr 25 with 870 views | Uxbridge |
| The Formation changed because it needed to... on 09:18 - Apr 25 by jack247 |
I thought we actually looked more dangerous with the 541/532. I don't think it was parking the bus, the fullbacks got forward more and we had Ayew, Siggy and Carroll buzzing off each other. |
I think we did at 2-0 as the spaces opened up, but between the change and the mad 60 seconds I thought we battened down the hatches.
We got the result though. All else is guesswork. | |
| |
| The Formation changed because it needed to... on 12:15 - Apr 25 with 832 views | Clinton |
Wouldn't mind it we started against ManU with the 5 3 2 that finished against Stoke.
With Leon for Ki at the start. [Post edited 25 Apr 2017 12:17]
|  |
| If you can fill the unforgiving minute.
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And - which is more - you'll be a Man, my son! |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
