Sometimes formations are over analysed and arent really set in stone - a 4-3-3 can look like a 4-2-3-1 that can look like a 4-5-1 etc etc but yesterday it seemed like Vincent had us lined up more in a 4-3-3 than the sort of 4-2-3-1 that we’ve been seeing this season, which was again slightly different than the one for the first few games of the season when Costelloe was playing right wing.

Appeared to be a similar sort of setup that Liverpool have played under Klopp, with JayRod really dropping in deep like a False 9 (Bobby Firmino) to allow space for the inside wingers to push into.

Vitinho played a different role at RB than has been given to Roberts and Cork was deployed as more of an out and out defensive midfielder with Cullen pushed up a bit more in midfield with Josh Brownhill - at least that’s what it looked like to my eyes and the players average positions would suggest this (see attached image).

Good to see that Vinny is deploying subtle changes to fit our personnel in, rather than rigidly having a set formation/shape and shoehorning players in - signs of a good manager.

Curious to hear your observations/thoughts

Our wingers being so wide are ineffective. I know it's designed to create more space but it's not working.

Tuck them in and get the fullback overlapping.

Not sure why it seems it isn’t working.

We are unbeaten in 9, we are creeping closer to the top, and moving closer to being bookies favourites.

As I have written on the other thread, we need Twine, ideally in the Brownhill role, who can rotate with Jack and Josh. That will make us more attacking.

CrosspoolClarets wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 09, 2022 1:08 pm

We are unbeaten in 9

Unbeaten in 10

11 if you include EFL cup

And I don't actually think we've hit form yet

Unbeaten in 11, playing some beautiful football and as you've said, we've not clicked into gear yet. We have so much potential and so much to look forward to.

Unbeaten in 12 and some big players to come back allowing more tweaks in formation/personnel.

bodge wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 09, 2022 5:29 pm

Unbeaten in 12 and some big players to come back allowing more tweaks in formation/personnel.

We're unbeaten in 11.

Quickenthetempo wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 09, 2022 1:05 pm

Our wingers being so wide are ineffective. I know it's designed to create more space but it's not working.

Tuck them in and get the fullback overlapping.

Bang on. No wingbacks or any other players to help them so they were literally one on one against players bigger than them and usually more numerous. We tried it most of the game and it didn't work.

Really funny cos we'd hardly used the wings at all before this game, usually driving straight through the middle yet yesterday it was all about the wings.

Quickenthetempo wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 09, 2022 1:05 pm

Our wingers being so wide are ineffective. I know it's designed to create more space but it's not working.

Tuck them in and get the fullback overlapping.

That’s the Pep/Cruyff philosophy of having wingers starting ultra wide but coming in -

If you note the average positions of the players it shows them fairy infield indicating they are coming in and allowing an overlap, maybe we don’t see it as much because the opposition we’ve played are sat in so much often with 5 back that there’s a fullback occupying that space

CoolClaret wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 09, 2022 6:00 pm

That’s the Pep/Cruyff philosophy of having wingers starting ultra wide but coming in -

If you note the average positions of the players it shows them fairy infield indicating they are coming in and allowing an overlap, maybe we don’t see it as much because the opposition we’ve played are sat in so much often with 5 back that there’s a fullback occupying that space

Our wingers have struggled in general this season, apart from Tella when he plays more central as a 2nd striker.

Which is a little surprising, as they were the positions which had the most excitement raised in the summer.

jen1066 wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 09, 2022 4:43 pm

Unbeaten in 11, playing some beautiful football and as you've said, we've not clicked into gear yet. We have so much potential and so much to look forward to.

Not sure the football is beautiful just yet. It's been a bit ineffective and frustrating at times. With some exceptions. Our goal yesterday was a beaut, but like a jewel in an otherwise drab game. 3 points though is always a beautiful thing in football.

Another system change last night, very much a 4-4-2 (albeit very fluid) with Tella and Jay central, JBG and Zaroury wide.

Good to see VK with yet more tweaks up his sleeve and this time to manage a game without a key tactical player in Cullen.

I was made up when Charlie came on to give us 3 CBs. Ideal when we are defending a lead.
I can’t imagine VK would have done this without working on it in training.

RVclaret wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 26, 2022 1:43 pm

Another system change last night, very much a 4-4-2 (albeit very fluid) with Tella and Jay central, JBG and Zaroury wide.

Good to see VK with yet more tweaks up his sleeve and this time to manage a game without a key tactical player in Cullen.

Just imagine Jay playing behind a pacy finisher like Obefemi with Zaroury and Tella wide.

I thought our set up looked good last night. We've been crying out for Tella to play a more central role, and for large parts it worked, without the reward, and is worth pursuing.
Bringing on Charlie was a no brainer, but I didn't understand why we stopped playing it out short. We conceded possession too easy with the long ball to the halfway line, and it could have been costly. Yes they are going to press harder, but it's also going to create more opportunities for hitting them on the break.

We are so flexible in our setup it’s hard to believe this is a Burnley team carrying it out.

On the graphic of yesterdays game it almost looks like a 433 with a false 9 and JBG right midfield, but then at times both JBG and Zaroury were hugging the touch line like an old school 442.

RVclaret wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 26, 2022 1:43 pm

Another system change last night, very much a 4-4-2 (albeit very fluid) with Tella and Jay central, JBG and Zaroury wide.

Good to see VK with yet more tweaks up his sleeve and this time to manage a game without a key tactical player in Cullen.

Did you create this?

Mattster wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 26, 2022 3:07 pm

Did you create this?

No - Athletic article

Personally I felt bringing on Taylor and Bastien for Zaroury and Rodriguez was a mistake which ended up causing us more problems. It made it harder for us to play out from the back and relieve pressure by clearing long because losing two attacking players meant their whole team could move 20/30 yards up the pitch and outnumber us right up to our own box. We also lost the out ball / switch we'd used successfully all game by only having one winger (Benson on the right) allowing them condense the pitch so the numerical advantage they had in the midfield third during the final 10 minutes or so was even more impactful.

Put us under a lot more pressure than we needed to be under IMO.

The only thing missing from last night was playing the ball inside the fullback, which Zaroury demanded at least a couple of times, but we played it safe asking the winger to do more.

Watching the goals from the Coventry Rotherham game, both teams were playing them type of through balls.

Cullen is capable but we waste him far too deep.

Well, we did win. Going to a back five with no obvious out ball was not necessarily what I would've done either but given the problems we've had seeing games out this season it seems extremely churlish to complain about us beating one of the league's better sides 1-0.

Mattster wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 26, 2022 3:17 pm

Personally I felt bringing on Taylor and Bastien for Zaroury and Rodriguez was a mistake which ended up causing us more problems. It made it harder for us to play out from the back and relieve pressure by clearing long because losing two attacking players meant their whole team could move 20/30 yards up the pitch and outnumber us right up to our own box. We also lost the out ball / switch we'd used successfully all game by only having one winger (Benson on the right) allowing them condense the pitch so the numerical advantage they had in the midfield third during the final 10 minutes or so was even more impactful.

Put us under a lot more pressure than we needed to be under IMO.

Sorry you are wrong. Probably for the first time VK has brought on defensive subs with 5 minutes to go and guess what, we won and not drew. Norwich were committed to attack once we scored and for a change we dealt with it.

Jambo wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 26, 2022 3:27 pm

Well, we did win. Going to a back five with no obvious out ball was not necessarily what I would've done either but given the problems we've had seeing games out this season it seems extremely churlish to complain about us beating one of the league's better sides 1-0.

Characterising what I said as complaining about beating Norwich isn't fair/helpful. I'm very happy with the result, the clean sheet and the way we played but I disagree with people who felt the switch helped us see out the game.

Ultimately we'll never know whether the change to 5 at the back stopped us conceding a goal that we otherwise would have had we stayed with a back 4, maybe it did, maybe it didn't. It certainly put us under more pressure and their best chance was created during that time.

Jay signalled that he should probably come off quite a few minutes before he did. They took time getting the subs ready and then the ball didnt go out of play for a while.

summitclaret wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 26, 2022 3:31 pm

Sorry you are wrong. Probably for the first time VK has brought on defensive subs with 5 minutes to go and guess what, we won and not drew. Norwich were committed to attack once we scored and for a change we dealt with it.

Sorry, you are wrong. In the 5 minutes after we scored and before VK made the double change there were 3 shots on goal - 2 from us (long range effort from Zaroury 0.03xG, Benson from Dervişoğlu's cutback 0.1xG), 1 from them (long range effort from Nunez 0.02xG). After the goal we were actually the more attacking team, up until the subs.

Once we made the change there was 1 shot on goal, the biggest chance that Norwich had created by far which accounted for over 40% of their xG for the whole game.

Like I said, we'll never know whether ultimately the change prevented us conceding an equaliser - it's possible it did - but it certainly put us under a lot more pressure than we were before the change was made and moved the game to be almost exclusively played in our half from that point on.

RVclaret wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 26, 2022 1:43 pm

Another system change last night, very much a 4-4-2 (albeit very fluid) with Tella and Jay central, JBG and Zaroury wide.

Good to see VK with yet more tweaks up his sleeve and this time to manage a game without a key tactical player in Cullen.

Is this a diagram of the Atomium in Bruxelles

Mattster wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 26, 2022 3:49 pm

Benson from Dervişoğlu's cutback 0.1xG

I would expect a better than 1 in 10 chance of converting from within the six yard box - the angle wasn't terrible - but them's the stats I guess.

Zaroury suits the wide left position and he can go past the right back with skill and pace, either down the line or coming inside, using both feet effectively
Unfortunately neither JBG or Benson offer anywhere near the same down the right hand side as both come inside onto their left foot 90% of the time
Tella could possibly play wide right but that gives less support to Jay (and Obefemi should be nowhere near our squad based on his abject showing for Swansea a couple of weeks ago)
Not sure, but have we seen Vitinho in that wide right role this season so far, playing in front of Roberts
I also like the idea of a central back three and wing backs

Mattster wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 26, 2022 3:49 pm

Sorry, you are wrong. In the 5 minutes after we scored and before VK made the double change there were 3 shots on goal - 2 from us (long range effort from Zaroury 0.03xG, Benson from Dervişoğlu's cutback 0.1xG), 1 from them (long range effort from Nunez 0.02xG). After the goal we were actually the more attacking team, up until the subs.

Once we made the change there was 1 shot on goal, the biggest chance that Norwich had created by far which accounted for over 40% of their xG for the whole game.

Like I said, we'll never know whether ultimately the change prevented us conceding an equaliser - it's possible it did - but it certainly put us under a lot more pressure than we were before the change was made and moved the game to be almost exclusively played in our half from that point on.

It's outcomes that matter. We have had too many draws after being in front due to late equalisers. Last night we actually changed things to manage what was to be frank becoming an issue. It worked and our relatively inexperienced team and manager are learning what it takes to deal with getting out of the Championship. Don't forget we played 442.

I thought our formation was pretty clear for most of last night

442 in attack, 433 in defence

Allowed Tella to stay central going forward with JBG and Zaroury hugging the touchlines
And put JRod, Zaroury and Tella in a 3 pronged press for when they tried to pass it out from the back

Then when Norwich brought on an extra striker, we went 541 to match it. I'm not sure there's more to it than this

Personally I agree with Mattster on this, after giving them hardly a sniff all game, we invited too much pressure and could have paid the price. Too many key players going off gave them a bit of confidence.

Either way, we need to find that key second goal in games, that''s the only real criticism so far tbh