Is it time to change formation?

[neverwozza]

Great game on the weekend. Did anyone else notice how central WeeMac was playing. He seemed to play more a second number 10 to Flores. Duke played a more tradition winger out wide and more forward.

Seemed to work quite well. Be interesting to see if this was just a tactic for the Sydney game or permanent.

Comments?

I think its no coincidence that we played our best footy when we had WeeMac on the right and Bozanic on the left with both players being more comfortable centrally and allowing space for the left and right backs to bomb forward. Its been mentioned in other threads but Storm is suffering a little bit by not having a right winger that suits our tactics and that can reward his runs a little better. Hopefully it just a work in progress thing and it will all come together after Xmas although that first half on Saturday was excellent.

 

[Big Al]

Yep Duke & Storm tripped over each other a couple of times. Like my previous comments that flores & Duke tick better than Fitzy & flores I also see Duke struggling to clique with Storm but that could be down to Duke trying to learn & get a feel for his new position (not one that I think suits him but stuck behind McBreen & Simon for the striker roll).

 

[dibo]

Coming back to stuff I posted a while back:

McBreen looks a helluva lot sharper than Simon. Duke looks lost out wide. Could a fairly radical shift isn't in order?

When we had Amini, we'd play a diamond but it really worked out in attack more like a 4-1-3-2. In defence it flattened to our familiar 4-4-2. We could change things around to look a little like that now:

Reddy
Roux-Sainsbury-Griffiths-Rose
Hutchinson
McGlinchey-Flores-Caceres
Duke-McBreen​

Alternatively, I talked about this last week as a bad idea because it doesn't suit Flores at all, but when you're not playing particularly well there are no bad ideas.* Switch to a 4-2-2-2 like Melbourne Victory?

Reddy
Roux-Sainsbury-Griffiths-Rose
Caceres-Hutchinson
Flores-McGlinchey
McBreen----------------Duke​

It doesn't particularly suit Flores, but it's a way to change it up.

THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM: a lot of our options don't particularly suit Flores because of the way we defend. Our 4-4-2 in defence sends Flores high. That works if we're playing 5 nominal midfielders and 1 nominal striker.

It doesn't suit us if we play with two strikers, because we're not going to rotate so that one of the strikers goes to a flank so Flores can sit out up top. We're also not going to chuck Flores deep in the scrum and ask him to brawl it out.

It's a bit of a dilemma...

For this reason, I think we're actually *very* unlikely to change shape massively, especially to something with two strikers ahead of Flores. My best guess:

Reddy
Roux-Sainsbury-Griffiths-Rose
Monty-Hutchinson
Duke-Flores-McGlinchey
McBreen​

Alternatives -

• Caceres could go wide left, McGlinchey to the right, Duke up top, McBreen to the bench
• Simon to the top instead of McBreen
• Caceres for Monty (I'd rather have Monty this weekend)
• Griffiths out for Seip or Anderson - seems unlikely

Really hard to know, but I don't think we've hit our best combination yet. We're a little unbalanced and out of sorts. Hopefully the training track is helping us to iron out the kinks.

*This is a massive, massive lie, but it suits my argument for the moment.

With Flores' injury, the silver lining in what is otherwise a very dark cloud is that it opens up some new options for formation. The diamond we used for all of Lawrie's reign and Arnie's up to 2011/12 is now more open to us. McGlinchey's departure makes things difficult, but Ibini coming in eases the pain.

Reddy
Roux-Sainsbury-Griffiths-Rose
Hutchinson/Monty
Ibini-Caceres-Fitzgerald
Duke-McBreen
​

Now, I suspect that Monty would actually work quite well in the RM spot - he can basically mirror what Olly did on the left for us; play much more narrow and deep and open the flank for Roux to go by, and drop in to cover where needed.

Caceres might be a bit raw for the 10, so there's the option of dropping McBreen in there too.

Reddy
Roux-Sainsbury-Griffiths-Rose
Hutchinson
Monty-McBreen-Fitzgerald
Duke-Ibini
​

In fact, I think I like that shape more. In defence it flattens out to a 442, with two young quick monsters harassing the opposing defenders into forcing an error:

Reddy
Roux-Sainsbury-Griffiths-Rose
Monty-McBreen-Hutchinson-Fitzgerald
Duke-Ibini​

Could it work?

 

[bikinigirl]

. not bad dibo ... perhaps a mcbreen -> caceres transition

. your comments on monty are interesting, it has merit ... i think he deserved a goal on the weekend when his header went wide (he was calling for it at his feet)

. i would be interested to know your comments on putting sterj in at no. 10 (at least as a trial or for transition) ... he is still technically proficient, generally plays a role of provider and has the experience that could help the young guns up front. i am not saying that mcbreen couldn't do the same but often when playing no. 10 he tries to be flores with too many cute flicks and glances (and that is not his forte)

 

[dibo]

Sterj at 10 could definitely work. McBreen and Sterj could even rotate through that role, our two wide players can swap sides, there are lots of different combinations that can work through.

What I'm sure will annoy Wombat and a couple of others is that I see Hutch as being essential at DM. The way our CBs split and he drops between is essential to how we play out, it releases our fullbacks to press on and for all the complaints about him passing backwards or sideways, he's often the one to open the field up and deliver a fullback into a channel. He's the start of so many of our movements and is excellent at securing the ball and setting the tempo as we get going forward.

 

[Roy Law]

Sterj at 10 could definitely work. McBreen and Sterj could even rotate through that role, our two wide players can swap sides, there are lots of different combinations that can work through.

What I'm sure will annoy Wombat and a couple of others is that I see Hutch as being essential at DM. The way our CBs split and he drops between is essential to how we play out, it releases our fullbacks to press on and for all the complaints about him passing backwards or sideways, he's often the one to open the field up and deliver a fullback into a channel. He's the start of so many of our movements and is excellent at securing the ball and setting the tempo as we get going forward.

That's the problem - no tempo. If our holding midfield player or players had real drive and energy our go forward tempo would be much better. Ay the moment there is no power from our midfield.

 

[dibo]

Tempo comes from the options as well as the DM.

If the movement isn't there, there's no point in Hutch sending the ball forward hoping someone will get there, no matter if it's into a good space.

If the runner is covered off, there's no point in Hutch hitting an ambitious ball that is easily intercepted, no matter if the likelihood is that if the ball succeeds it's a rolled gold chance.

Hutch does have a bias toward holding onto the ball and securing it rather than spraying it. I don't mind it - I'd much rather that than aimless sprays upfield that leave us with men out of position and overcommitted against a counterattacking opponent.

 

[bikinigirl]

. i think the issue with our 'tempo' is that we are too slow in that 'transition period' playing out from the back. if hutch's responsibility is to drop back between the CBs to collect the ball it is already too slow

. compared to last year as an example ... by the time hutch has received the ball and turned - maty would have already put the ball at pedj's feet 20 metres further advanced. so our system has changed without changing the formation - it is easier for other teams to figure us out because we are too slow and they have time to set. by the time we have the ball moving forward our 'options' are already well guarded and we have only managed to create a larger gap between the ball carrier and our attacking options

. of course this is an oversimplification with isolated examples ... but we can probably find many of these isolated examples which, on the whole, shows in the differences between the performances of the this and last season

 

[dibo]

Hutch has been dropping in like that for a couple of years. Last year it was Zwaanswijk and Sainsbury that were spreading as Rose and Pedj pushed on level with Monty, now it's Seip/Anderson and Sainsbury splitting as Rose and Roux push on level with Monty.

It's more that our keepers aren't able to skip that option where appropriate.

Again, this is just as likely to be the options (not being) on offer than any fault in the keepers.

 

[bikinigirl]

. yep its a combination of many little things not being 'as they were' ... it seems that hutch dropping deep to receive the ball is the default option whereas it was not the preferred option in the past (of course this could just be a perception issue because something just ain't right and i am looking for the answer)

 

[dibo]

Compare on a one-for-one basis the shapes we've played the last few years to see the steady evolution of the starting 11:

2011/12:

Ryan
Bojic Wilkinson Zwaanswijk Rose
Griffiths
McGlinchey Bozanic
Perez
Simon McBreen​

2011/12:

Ryan
Bojic Wilkinson Zwaanswijk Rose
Griffiths
McGlinchey Bozanic
Amini
Simon McBreen​

2012/13:

Ryan
Bojic Sainsbury Zwaanswijk Rose
Monty Hutch
McGlinchey Rogic Ibini
McBreen​

2013/14 (pre-January):

Reddy
Roux Sainsbury Anderson Rose
Monty Hutch
McGlinchey Flores Fitzgerald
McBreen
​

Each year, we've gained a little here and lost a little there. The change in shape came about largely for personnel reasons - we can change again. I'm certain that the team is actually schooled in several shapes (sometimes personnel issues during a game will mean that you're safer changing shape to deal with losing a player due to injury than you are jamming a square peg in a round hole).

The coaches will earn their dollars as they get us into winning form again.

 

[style_cafe]

. i think the issue with our 'tempo' is that we are too slow in that 'transition period' playing out from the back. if hutch's responsibility is to drop back between the CBs to collect the ball it is already too slow

. compared to last year as an example ... by the time hutch has received the ball and turned - maty would have already put the ball at pedj's feet 20 metres further advanced. so our system has changed without changing the formation - it is easier for other teams to figure us out because we are too slow and they have time to set. by the time we have the ball moving forward our 'options' are already well guarded and we have only managed to create a larger gap between the ball carrier and our attacking options

. of course this is an oversimplification with isolated examples ... but we can probably find many of these isolated examples which, on the whole, shows in the differences between the performances of the this and last season

With all due respect BG are you sure you`re not a 65 year old guy that`s been coaching all his life?

 

[bikinigirl]

With all due respect BG are you sure you`re not a 65 year old guy that`s been coaching all his life?

. oh yeah, i'm pretty sure of that

. 65! bloody hell ... i'm old, but i'm not that old (no offence intended to any 65+ year olds )

 

[Big Al]

[qoute] With Flores' injury, the silver lining in what is otherwise a very dark cloud is that it opens up some new options for formation. The diamond we used for all of Lawrie's reign and Arnie's up to 2011/12 is now more open to us. McGlinchey's departure makes things difficult, but Ibini coming in eases the pain.

Reddy
Roux-Sainsbury-Griffiths-Rose
Hutchinson/Monty
Ibini-Caceres-Fitzgerald
Duke-McBreen



This is the one for me - Except Simon for McBreen & play with a press. With the attacking 5 all being young with pace & desire. Not to many defenders would want to muck around with the ball with Duke & Simon coming at you with Ibini & the like being next inline.

McBreen or Sterj would be your subs - Can take any of the front five off & replace with them directly or with a change of positions as at least 4 or 5 out of the 7 could cover all positions.

Interesting you choose Griffiths over Zac - I thought Zac as been pretty good but also thought Griffiths was good to. Although I think they will be playing together pretty soon. Trent is absolutely class & won't be gracing the bluetongue for long IMO (no rumors just facts about his level of play being beyond all others in the yellow & blue)

The problem for me lies in our desire to be very compact defensively & setup basically across 1/2 way. I don't believe that suits the players listed above & creates the slow transition & gets us caught to deep & creates the gap causing to many long balls. Almost might help alleviate our problems with pressing teams attacking us.

A press with the top 5 would turn the ball over a lot creating attacking chances before the opposition defense sets up in there scramble.

To many times duke or simon attack one out & waste energy as there is no back up from the players behind which makes it a dog chasing a ball defense instead of a team attacking as a pack. Let the dogs free at home before it's 0-2. IMO[/quote]