Formation change needed
Formation change needed
Definitely time for a formation change. 442 has brought us this far but it's not helping. Especially when the front two are playing terribly.
Most PL teams are playing some version of 4231. The holding midfielders protect the defence and the 3 is fluid enough to drop when needed and then overload on the counter. The system is always likely to overload a midfield two. Hence why we struggle.
442 does us zero favours especially once we have conceded. When we are defending our midfield is deep. We then launch it long and when it invariably doesn't stick with the forwards, our midfield has been cut out by the long pass and so the opposition can bring it forward at leisure.
It doesn't have to be 4231 but it needs a rethink. Consistently picking the same team and formation week in week out means other teams can set up to counteract the two up top whilst looking to exploit. There is zero element of surprise.
We might have a small squad but that's no excuse to be so wedded to one way of playing.
Most PL teams are playing some version of 4231. The holding midfielders protect the defence and the 3 is fluid enough to drop when needed and then overload on the counter. The system is always likely to overload a midfield two. Hence why we struggle.
442 does us zero favours especially once we have conceded. When we are defending our midfield is deep. We then launch it long and when it invariably doesn't stick with the forwards, our midfield has been cut out by the long pass and so the opposition can bring it forward at leisure.
It doesn't have to be 4231 but it needs a rethink. Consistently picking the same team and formation week in week out means other teams can set up to counteract the two up top whilst looking to exploit. There is zero element of surprise.
We might have a small squad but that's no excuse to be so wedded to one way of playing.
-
- Posts: 16853
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:37 pm
- Been Liked: 6951 times
- Has Liked: 1479 times
- Location: Leeds
Re: Formation change needed
For me it seems counterproductive to play 2 out of form strikers when we could play 1. I'd be tempted to take a look at something like this;
_______________Pope_______________
Lowton___Tarks_____Mee______Taylor
________Westwood____Cork_________
JBG___________McNeill_________Brady
_______________Wood_____________
We could maybe try Jay up top, or keep Brownhill in the middle and drop JBG in place of McNeill in the same system.
_______________Pope_______________
Lowton___Tarks_____Mee______Taylor
________Westwood____Cork_________
JBG___________McNeill_________Brady
_______________Wood_____________
We could maybe try Jay up top, or keep Brownhill in the middle and drop JBG in place of McNeill in the same system.
These 3 users liked this post: Zlatan Somethingfishy MT03ALG
-
- Posts: 3118
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:24 am
- Been Liked: 944 times
- Has Liked: 411 times
Re: Formation change needed
That formation - Brownhill in the centre where McNeil is and McNeil on the left and JBG/Brady on the rightRileybobs wrote: ↑Sat Jan 16, 2021 7:04 pmFor me it seems counterproductive to play 2 out of form strikers when we could play 1. I'd be tempted to take a look at something like this;
_______________Pope_______________
Lowton___Tarks_____Mee______Taylor
________Westwood____Cork_________
JBG___________McNeill_________Brady
_______________Wood_____________
We could maybe try Jay up top, or keep Brownhill in the middle and drop JBG in place of McNeill in the same system.
This user liked this post: depechedingle
Re: Formation change needed
Something like that would make sense to me too and I agree it's pointless playing two out of form strikers. Just play one. Brownhill in the hole would add industry and a high press - he has a good shot on him too.
This user liked this post: depechedingle
-
- Posts: 3393
- Joined: Fri May 08, 2020 7:04 pm
- Been Liked: 1004 times
- Has Liked: 905 times
Re: Formation change needed
It’s not the system. We paid for one mistake but the problem currently is the front 2 who are a long way from last seasons level and that wasn’t great. Our season took off when Ash Barnes got injured a nd JRod played up front with Chris Wood. At least one of your front 2 has to be able to hold the ball up to allow teammates time to get up to them. Neither of Barnes or Wood can.
These 2 users liked this post: Boss Hogg cockneyclaret
-
- Posts: 6699
- Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 12:23 am
- Been Liked: 1817 times
- Has Liked: 1796 times
- Location: Yarkshire
Re: Formation change needed
At times today there was a gap of 20-30 yards between Wood/Barnes and the nearest midfielder.
With the front two's current inability to control anything, playing like that for 60 minutes plus was criminal.
With the front two's current inability to control anything, playing like that for 60 minutes plus was criminal.
This user liked this post: Wile E Coyote
Re: Formation change needed
But with Rodriguez instead of Wood.clarethomer wrote: ↑Sat Jan 16, 2021 7:07 pmThat formation - Brownhill in the centre where McNeil is and McNeil on the left and JBG/Brady on the right
-
- Posts: 30629
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:00 am
- Been Liked: 11035 times
- Has Liked: 5647 times
- Location: clue is in the title
Re: Formation change needed
the system isn't helping, the players are out of form. How long do you keep doing the same thing that isn't working ?huw.Y.WattfromWare wrote: ↑Sat Jan 16, 2021 7:08 pmIt’s not the system. We paid for one mistake but the problem currently is the front 2 who are a long way from last seasons level and that wasn’t great. Our season took off when Ash Barnes got injured a nd JRod played up front with Chris Wood. At least one of your front 2 has to be able to hold the ball up to allow teammates time to get up to them. Neither of Barnes or Wood can.
This user liked this post: cockneyclaret
-
- Posts: 49
- Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 7:36 pm
- Been Liked: 108 times
- Has Liked: 16 times
Re: Formation change needed
_______________Pope_______________
Lowton___Tarks_____Mee______Taylor
________Westwood____Cork_________
Brady________Brownhill_________McNeil
_____________Jay Rod _____________
That would be my suggestion for trying a new formation. Given how badly we performed today, even though Dyche said we played well (???), I would be tempted with a really defensive setup against Liverpool as we aren't gonna score in the next 10 games playing like we did today with Wood and Barnes up top. Maybe this for Liverpool, with Barnes up top on his own just causing problems and getting free kicks:
_______________Pope_______________
Lowton___Tarks__Long___Mee____Taylor
Brownhill__Benson___Westwood____Cork
_______________Barnes_____________
Lowton___Tarks_____Mee______Taylor
________Westwood____Cork_________
Brady________Brownhill_________McNeil
_____________Jay Rod _____________
That would be my suggestion for trying a new formation. Given how badly we performed today, even though Dyche said we played well (???), I would be tempted with a really defensive setup against Liverpool as we aren't gonna score in the next 10 games playing like we did today with Wood and Barnes up top. Maybe this for Liverpool, with Barnes up top on his own just causing problems and getting free kicks:
_______________Pope_______________
Lowton___Tarks__Long___Mee____Taylor
Brownhill__Benson___Westwood____Cork
_______________Barnes_____________
-
- Posts: 11114
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:29 pm
- Been Liked: 1571 times
- Has Liked: 360 times
Re: Formation change needed
I do not understand the hype surrounding Brownhill. He’s a good grafter but shows very little quality on the ball.clarethomer wrote: ↑Sat Jan 16, 2021 7:07 pmThat formation - Brownhill in the centre where McNeil is and McNeil on the left and JBG/Brady on the right
Re: Formation change needed
One trick pony ?
-
- Posts: 3118
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:24 am
- Been Liked: 944 times
- Has Liked: 411 times
Re: Formation change needed
I'm not hyping anyone up but he is capable of joining up the play that's all for that formation.Newcastleclaret93 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 16, 2021 7:26 pmI do not understand the hype surrounding Brownhill. He’s a good grafter but shows very little quality on the ball.
-
- Posts: 11114
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:29 pm
- Been Liked: 1571 times
- Has Liked: 360 times
Re: Formation change needed
Ok I might have worded it wrong?clarethomer wrote: ↑Sat Jan 16, 2021 7:35 pmI'm not hyping anyone up but he is capable of joining up the play that's all for that formation.
What makes you think that? I have been posting the same thing for the past few weeks, he literally has the worst offensive stats of all of our midfielders. His strengths are interceptions and tackling, if anything play him in front of the back four and push someone more suited to attacking further up the pitch
-
- Posts: 6954
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:25 pm
- Been Liked: 1487 times
- Has Liked: 1847 times
Re: Formation change needed
442 is fine the middle 4 have to graft as hard as the back 4 and support the attack far quicker than today
-
- Posts: 6699
- Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 12:23 am
- Been Liked: 1817 times
- Has Liked: 1796 times
- Location: Yarkshire
Re: Formation change needed
We must be the only side having two banks of four defending whilst we're attacking.
-
- Posts: 3118
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:24 am
- Been Liked: 944 times
- Has Liked: 411 times
Re: Formation change needed
Just from what I have observed when I have watched him. If I went of stats, I wouldn't be picking any of our strikers currentlyNewcastleclaret93 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 16, 2021 7:37 pmOk I might have worded it wrong?
What makes you think that? I have been posting the same thing for the past few weeks, he literally has the worst offensive stats of all of our midfielders. His strengths are interceptions and tackling, if anything play him in front of the back four and push someone more suited to attacking further up the pitch
Re: Formation change needed
442 against Liverpool is just asking for trouble, but unfortunately it's nailed on with dyche, against the big boys any manager with a bit of sense would try to stop them playing and pack the midfield
-
- Posts: 30629
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:00 am
- Been Liked: 11035 times
- Has Liked: 5647 times
- Location: clue is in the title
Re: Formation change needed
out of our current central midfielders the only one that seems capable of carrying the ball forward is none of them
McNeil in a free role will get us 20 yards further up the pitch and win us an awful lot more free kicks
McNeil in a free role will get us 20 yards further up the pitch and win us an awful lot more free kicks
Re: Formation change needed
Allerdyche wont change from the tried and trusted.
Been like this forever, it keeps us in games and then it's all about falling the right side of the margins, getting that stroke of luck etc.
Altjough hardly pretty and free flowing its effective and acceptable when we are winning, when it's not it's as dull as dish water.
Not sure formation changes that.
We have too many slow, play safe players with very little open play creativity.
Been like this forever, it keeps us in games and then it's all about falling the right side of the margins, getting that stroke of luck etc.
Altjough hardly pretty and free flowing its effective and acceptable when we are winning, when it's not it's as dull as dish water.
Not sure formation changes that.
We have too many slow, play safe players with very little open play creativity.
-
- Posts: 2591
- Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 8:03 pm
- Been Liked: 728 times
- Has Liked: 514 times
- Location: Padiham
Re: Formation change needed
I don't think it is neccessarily the 442. The problem is Dyche likes his midfielders to sit deep. Neither are given the licence to get beyond the forwards. That is the wide mens duty but if they are also filling in as full backs it places a big work load on the wider players. That is fine when we have players like Boyd and Arfield. From open play this severely limits our ability to get forward with any purpose especially on the counter. It makes us solid but we sacrifice attacking output.
The change to 4231 would allow Dyche to keep us solid whilst allowing the attacking players and players such as Brownhill (who was used much more as an attacking midfielder at Bristol City) to utilise their talents. The only worry is that would he still expect the wider players to act as full backs whilst defending?
The change to 4231 would allow Dyche to keep us solid whilst allowing the attacking players and players such as Brownhill (who was used much more as an attacking midfielder at Bristol City) to utilise their talents. The only worry is that would he still expect the wider players to act as full backs whilst defending?
This user liked this post: cockneyclaret
Re: Formation change needed
I think we're missing Taylor and hopefully he'll be back soon
but do agree that a formation change might also help.
Especially against Liverpool and possibly also against Villa and Chelsea.
We've nothing to lose trying a formation change and we can always revert back to 442 if need be.
_____________Pope_______________
Lowton___Tarks_____Mee______Taylor
________Westwood____Cork_________
Brady________Brownhill_________McNeil
_____________Jay Rod/Wood _____________
but do agree that a formation change might also help.
Especially against Liverpool and possibly also against Villa and Chelsea.
We've nothing to lose trying a formation change and we can always revert back to 442 if need be.
_____________Pope_______________
Lowton___Tarks_____Mee______Taylor
________Westwood____Cork_________
Brady________Brownhill_________McNeil
_____________Jay Rod/Wood _____________
-
- Posts: 11114
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:29 pm
- Been Liked: 1571 times
- Has Liked: 360 times
Re: Formation change needed
Pope
Lowton, Tarks, Mee, Taylor
Cork, Westwood
Gudmundsson, Brady, McNeil
Wood
Gets the best of out of our squad and would hopefully provide would with a bit more service.
But would happily swap Jay for a more liquid attack
Lowton, Tarks, Mee, Taylor
Cork, Westwood
Gudmundsson, Brady, McNeil
Wood
Gets the best of out of our squad and would hopefully provide would with a bit more service.
But would happily swap Jay for a more liquid attack
Re: Formation change needed
There's more chance of us all being back on the Turf next month than there is of Dyche switching to a flexible 4-2-3-1 formation.
These 2 users liked this post: ksrclaret Somethingfishy
-
- Posts: 1435
- Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 8:52 pm
- Been Liked: 336 times
- Has Liked: 1516 times
- Location: Burnley
Re: Formation change needed
If that’s true it’s a sad state of affairs. Stan’s blind man on his galloping horse can see the current setup isn’t working. A change in mentality or formation is needed.
I’ve been saying for ages the current group of players do not suit 4-4-2.
-
- Posts: 543
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:49 am
- Been Liked: 151 times
- Has Liked: 693 times
Re: Formation change needed
Dyche and change shouldn`t really be used in the same sentence
Re: Formation change needed
I agree with jurek if we do try 4-2-3-1 then this is the one to try. I’d start with Rodriguez as centre forward.jurek wrote: ↑Sat Jan 16, 2021 10:22 pmI think we're missing Taylor and hopefully he'll be back soon
but do agree that a formation change might also help.
Especially against Liverpool and possibly also against Villa and Chelsea.
We've nothing to lose trying a formation change and we can always revert back to 442 if need be.
_____________Pope_______________
Lowton___Tarks_____Mee______Taylor
________Westwood____Cork_________
Brady________Brownhill_________McNeil
_____________Jay Rod/Wood _____________
-
- Posts: 3656
- Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 10:13 pm
- Been Liked: 1402 times
- Has Liked: 2692 times
- Location: varied
Re: Formation change needed
Someone with a right foot that can cross a ball on the right would be a start.
(a given that Westwood stays central
(a given that Westwood stays central
-
- Posts: 10969
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:38 am
- Been Liked: 5185 times
- Has Liked: 803 times
- Location: On top of a pink elephant riding to the Democratic Republic of Congo
Re: Formation change needed
It's harsh but true and it's been that way since he arrived here.claretgimmer wrote: ↑Sat Jan 16, 2021 11:02 pmDyche and change shouldn`t really be used in the same sentence
You can't argue that it hasn't brought us success though.
However when it's been good, it's good but still pretty shite on the eye. When it's bad, it's shite on the eye but with the added bit of wanting to dig your eyeballs out with a red hot dessert spoon.
The most baffling thing above all is that he's still starting Barnes. As a big fan of his (both actually, but I mean Barnes) I have to say he isn't and hasn't brought enough to the party. F***ing baffled.
-
- Posts: 10318
- Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 4:45 pm
- Been Liked: 2636 times
- Has Liked: 2798 times
Re: Formation change needed
S'not the formation , that's put us in good stead for the past few years. It's the personal.
Sorry , but like the board, they've took us as far as their best endeavors can take us.
Nothing stays the same forever.
New blood required , sad to say.
Sorry , but like the board, they've took us as far as their best endeavors can take us.
Nothing stays the same forever.
New blood required , sad to say.
This user liked this post: cockneyclaret
-
- Posts: 59
- Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2017 8:55 pm
- Been Liked: 1 time
Re: Formation change needed
I’d try Cork and Brownhill
Westwood’s performances recently have been woeful and even his usually high standard of corners have been off
Westwood’s performances recently have been woeful and even his usually high standard of corners have been off
Re: Formation change needed
Don't see what people see in Brady or jbg, both ineffective going forward
Re: Formation change needed
A suggestion for 4-4-1-1
Usual defensive 4
Brownhill Westwood Cork Brady
____________McNeil
_______Rodriguez or Wood
McNeil given free roaming role behind the centre forward which releases him from some defensive duties
Brownhill to play narrow right half back rather than winger
Usual defensive 4
Brownhill Westwood Cork Brady
____________McNeil
_______Rodriguez or Wood
McNeil given free roaming role behind the centre forward which releases him from some defensive duties
Brownhill to play narrow right half back rather than winger
-
- Posts: 8131
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 4:30 pm
- Been Liked: 3079 times
- Has Liked: 5044 times
- Location: Catterick N.Yorks
Re: Formation change needed
We do need to mix it more, especially chasing games, but 442 has served us well. Its the individual performances that are letting us down, not the formation.
We need players to stand up and be counted.
We need players to stand up and be counted.
-
- Posts: 1435
- Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 8:52 pm
- Been Liked: 336 times
- Has Liked: 1516 times
- Location: Burnley
Re: Formation change needed
Westwood is trying to be 3 players in one, defensive cover, box-to-box & play maker, all because the rest of the midfield are not offering any of the rest and he's trying to do all 3. Against Leeds when we changed to a 3 in midfield you saw the real threat of Westwood being a play maker and defensive cover when needed. Westwood, Cork/Stephens & McNeil further forward in a midfield 3 would suit the players in that area more than the current formation.Arnold Bashley wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 12:39 amI’d try Cork and Brownhill
Westwood’s performances recently have been woeful and even his usually high standard of corners have been off
-
- Posts: 2592
- Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:22 pm
- Been Liked: 691 times
- Has Liked: 362 times
Re: Formation change needed
Really surprised at how many people are leaving Brownhill out
I really like Rileybobs' team otherwise though. Although (as bad as he was on Saturday, and he was still our most dangerous striker IMO) I think Vydra would flourish with JBG, McNeil and Brady behind him, I think all of our strikers would benefit in that formation
I really like Rileybobs' team otherwise though. Although (as bad as he was on Saturday, and he was still our most dangerous striker IMO) I think Vydra would flourish with JBG, McNeil and Brady behind him, I think all of our strikers would benefit in that formation
-
- Posts: 2592
- Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:22 pm
- Been Liked: 691 times
- Has Liked: 362 times
Re: Formation change needed
JBG has more PL assists than any other Burnley player in history. Playing almost entirely on the right wingHunterST_BFC wrote: ↑Sat Jan 16, 2021 11:31 pmSomeone with a right foot that can cross a ball on the right would be a start.
(a given that Westwood stays central
Re: Formation change needed
The issue for me isn't so much our formation but how other teams set up. Some will negate 442 more effectively than others and 4231 is one that does that - especially when you view it against a Burnley 442 with the personnel that we have.
442 requires two exceptional CMs and I agree that we are missing Cork in that area. It also needs two strikers who can hold the ball up and wingers that supply the attacking support. Based on current form and players that isn't happening.
4231 would actually suit our players quite well. It's not always about what's worked well in the past; it's about who we have at our disposal and importantly how other teams are setting up.
442 requires two exceptional CMs and I agree that we are missing Cork in that area. It also needs two strikers who can hold the ball up and wingers that supply the attacking support. Based on current form and players that isn't happening.
4231 would actually suit our players quite well. It's not always about what's worked well in the past; it's about who we have at our disposal and importantly how other teams are setting up.