Forum | Do we need to change formation? by Jevlar

Forum index | Previous Thread | Next thread

Do we need to change formation? 11:45 - Aug 10 with 3073 views

I know bugger all about football and tactics but what does everyone think...

Would we be better off, binning the notion of two up front and just stick either Kone (better target man) or Burrell (better fox in the box in my opinion) and let them duke it out for the one spot. Or alternate? Aware this may make for unhappy strikers.

Burrell is wasted out wide (where we have a lot of options) and maybe that extra body in the middle may make it harder for teams to walk through the middle of the park.

I've heard Burrell say it's a 442/433 (in the Mackie interview) but my basic football brain just says 4231 and be done with it!

Thoughts?

Do we need to change formation? on 11:47 - Aug 10 with 3056 views

jack10qpr

I thought a switch to a 442 diamond or 352 might work well, essentially binning off the wide prayers until they start performing, harsh on Smyth. That way we can keep the two up top whilst also having the Madsen, Vale, Chair midfield that looks rather exciting.

Do we need to change formation? on 12:28 - Aug 10 with 2920 views

Jevlar

Do we need to change formation? on 11:47 - Aug 10 by jack10qpr
I thought a switch to a 442 diamond or 352 might work well, essentially binning off the wide prayers until they start performing, harsh on Smyth. That way we can keep the two up top whilst also having the Madsen, Vale, Chair midfield that looks rather exciting.

Interesting. Smyth could possibly do the wing-back role perhaps...

Do we need to change formation? on 13:15 - Aug 10 with 2797 views

Logman

I'm not altogether sure just for the moment. I'm almost tempted to say let's see which players are playing well, and in which positions, and then go from there.

Do we need to change formation? on 13:58 - Aug 10 with 2717 views

numptydumpty

Do we need to change formation? on 13:15 - Aug 10 by Logman
I'm not altogether sure just for the moment. I'm almost tempted to say let's see which players are playing well, and in which positions, and then go from there.

Currently with only Burrell and Kone as the two regular championship standard centre forwards and us having a whole multitude of attacking wide men, it realistically makes sense to just have the one up front. Burrell out wide is wasted and Kone in the ten loses a lot from his game also.

Players currently in the squad and who could play in the wide roles potentially include :

Chair
Vale
Smyth
Dembele
Poku
Kolli
Saito
Sanyaola
Lamptey

Strikers in addition to Kone and Burrell are :

Obikwu (Unavailable)
Kolli (Likely Unavailable)
Lloyd (Possibly not this level)

So one up top makes sense for me with three behind and others on bench.

With one of Kone/Burrell starting and the other on the bench, if we feel we need two up top, we can replace a "winger" with Kone/Burrell.

We could also rotate Kone/Burrell as starters, based on form or as a tactic. Ie to exploit a team with a lack of pace, Burrell could be favoured, or Kone when a team is quite a rough, tough big men squad of players that we can compete with and cause issues for.

[Post edited 10 Aug 14:06]

	"Walking in a Mackie Wonderland"
Poll:	Main Reason you started following QPR ??

Do we need to change formation? on 14:07 - Aug 10 with 2683 views

Myke

I would prefer to keep both Kone and Burrell down the centre. They are completely different kind of strikers and would occupy both the Jimmy Dunne and Ronnie Edwards type CB’s. Also they would complement each other and there were green shoot signs of an understanding building between them before Burrell’s season was cut short. I too like the idea of Chair and Hale operating more centrally, although Vanane did well when he came on and Kamara has yet to come into the mix. I think we should sacrifice a wide player on the left (again harsh on Smyth - but Kemper seems capable of holding his own). Another advantage of that is that Chair can operate wide left if we are on top against a weaker team or ditto Vale on the right.
Really it’s JS’s job to pick the team and formation that best suits the oppo, the venue, 3 game weeks etc and to be proactive in tweaking it during the game if necessary. It’s being said many times, but the big thing is to have as many of our best ‘favourite;’ players available on a regular basis, to give JS the options he needs game by game.

Do we need to change formation? on 14:44 - Aug 10 with 2614 views

Jevlar

Do we need to change formation? on 13:58 - Aug 10 by numptydumpty

[Post edited 10 Aug 14:06]

I think, looking at the make up of our squad and its surplus of wide players and dearth of upfront options as you've pointed out, utilising our two best striking options as a one in one out could be the smart way to go.

Do we need to change formation? on 14:56 - Aug 10 with 2580 views

HAYESBOY

Not a fan of 3-5-2. You have to have exceptional wing backs to play that formation. You also get the wing backs doubled up on and they drop off to basically make it a 5.
I don't mind 4-4-2 dependent on the opposition formation. If they play with a 3 in the middle then one of the 2 has to drop in or you get overloaded a bit.
My preference is 4-2-3-1 or 4-4-1-1. 4-2-3-1 is a bit flexible with the 10 either higher up or dropping in to make a 3. I like partnerships of the full backs and their wingers. Also like a back 4 with the full backs getting up the pitch when they can.
As I say a basis of 4-2-3-1 can become 4-5-1 when defending of a 4-3-3 with the ball when attacking.
IMO. (Or what AI said)

[Post edited 10 Aug 15:00]

Smells like a trout farm in here

Do we need to change formation? on 15:02 - Aug 10 with 2549 views

7374Ranger

Do we need to change formation? on 13:58 - Aug 10 by numptydumpty

[Post edited 10 Aug 14:06]

Given the lack of strikers in the squad it doesn't make sense to flog them in a 4-4-2 formation every game. So maybe switching them up depending on the opposition might just be what Stephan is thinking.

It may get alternating between them, or even switching formations for certain fixtures. I agree an extra midfielder will be needed for some games. It could also help to switch to 3 at the back and use Smyth and Kemper as wing backs focusing more on attack.

Do we need to change formation? on 15:53 - Aug 10 with 2422 views

JamesB1979

I think we should be flexible depending on who we are playing. I like having 2 up front in some games, and those 2 should be Kone and Burrell. But when you’re playing the stronger sides who will just walk through us if we go with that, I’d go with the 4231 or 433 as you say Jevlar. But what that doesn’t mean it try to squeeze Burrell or Kone into a position they cannot do or we have better options. Long season, lots of games and lots of different sides. Let’s adapt and learn as we go along.

Do we need to change formation? on 09:46 - Aug 11 with 2038 views

robith

I would argue we played more of a 4411 last year as opposed to outright 442 when both Kone and Burrell were fit

Do we need to change formation? on 10:27 - Aug 11 with 1970 views

Jevlar

Do we need to change formation? on 09:46 - Aug 11 by robith
I would argue we played more of a 4411 last year as opposed to outright 442 when both Kone and Burrell were fit

That's a very good point, Robith and if memory serves it worked to Burrell's strengths but limited Kone's goals.

I find it interesting that we're not being linked with strikers currently yet still being linked with wide players (Nkeng)

Do we need to change formation? on 12:09 - Aug 11 with 1848 views

stevec

Would just like JS to nail players to their best position, and if that position is not available, they start on the bench.

We seem to have a thousand midfielders to choose from, but I’m struggling to see which five gel together.

The boss has had a year now and really needs to get this sorted.

Do we need to change formation? on 12:51 - Aug 11 with 1737 views

ozexile

Do we need to change formation? on 11:47 - Aug 10 by jack10qpr
I thought a switch to a 442 diamond or 352 might work well, essentially binning off the wide prayers until they start performing, harsh on Smyth. That way we can keep the two up top whilst also having the Madsen, Vale, Chair midfield that looks rather exciting.

I've often thought a 4-4-2 diamond would really suit us however with all the cash we've spent on wingers it won't happen. Plus we're still allegedly looking at more wingers. Although we're calling them wingers I don't really know how to describe them as they never get to the byline. They just cut in and congest everything.

Forum index | Previous Thread | Next thread