Andrew Davies Ross County - Interesting Article

[forlanssister 3,083]

3-5-2 with the full backs wide in the 5 would be my preference. Playing 4 at the back and still having those 2 get forward in essence leaves us with 2 at the back - that isn't enough. With 3 at the back you should have cover if needed, this also allows Tav and Wallace to start higher up the pitch which, in turn, tells the 3 at the back that their only role is to win the ball and distribute it.

 

With 5 in the middle you can allow Wallace and Tav to get forward - this would also allow for a deep-lying playmaker (not sure who that would be - Hyndman for now but Rossiter if he ever gets fit) and you then also have two in front of him - or you have 2 central mids with a "10" in front of them (McKay) - it can be every bit as fluid as this supposedly fluid 4-3-3 and, indeed, more fluid given the different permutations. This also allows you 2 up front - Garner to win those high balls and Miller to break in behind off the knock downs. - it also means that you have a front 2, a central "10" behind them, wide players in Tav and Wallace, and some cover for the 3 at the back in Hyndman/Rossiter

 

So, right now, I would say 3-5-2 - the issue with that formation, for US, is that we have virtually no pace at the back so with Wallace and Tav starting further forward any balls in behind them will pose us problems as our 3 at the back struggle to cover.

 

3-5-2 requires at the central most defender to have pace and all 3 to have the ability to read the game. Wallace being so high up the pitch was the major factor in us conceding on Saturday. Most teams we play now play the ball into the space where the full backs should be Hearts have been particularly effective with that ploy.

[RANGERRAB 3,395]

3-5-2 requires at the central most defender to have pace and all 3 to have the ability to read the game. Wallace being so high up the pitch was the major factor in us conceding on Saturday. Most teams we play now play the ball into the space where the full backs should be Hearts have been particularly effective with that ploy.

 

3-5-2 becomes 5-3-2 defensively though. We played against he yahoos with this formation on hogmanay & I thought it worked reasonably well.

 

We need to try something. We are not scoring nearly enough goals hence why I hink we need 2 up front. The problem with 4-4-2 is that, as McCoist found out by playing this, the opposition can put 5 in there and you're a man short in MF

[craig 5,199]

3-5-2 requires at the central most defender to have pace and all 3 to have the ability to read the game. Wallace being so high up the pitch was the major factor in us conceding on Saturday. Most teams we play now play the ball into the space where the full backs should be Hearts have been particularly effective with that ploy.

 

Exactly - which is what I said in my final sentence.

 

We just don't have the proper personnel for the tactic because we have no pace with those that would be tasked to play at the back and, as you say, they are poor at reading the game. 3-5-2 is making a comeback though for some reason.

 

If we had pace in the back 3 then balls into the space shouldn't be as much an issue if the closest defender can get there quickly and at the very least close the space - none of ours can.

 

I perhaps wasn't clear with what I said - I prefer that formation - but I don't think we have the personnel for it. Lack of pace at the back hampers us.

[jhunter 0]

3-5-2 becomes 5-3-2 defensively though. We played against he yahoos with this formation on hogmanay & I thought it worked reasonably well.

 

We need to try something. We are not scoring nearly enough goals hence why I hink we need 2 up front. The problem with 4-4-2 is that, as McCoist found out by playing this, the opposition can put 5 in there and you're a man short in MF

 

no it didn't

 

they had chance after chance

 

tavernier was abysmal at wing back in that game.

[RANGERRAB 3,395]

no it didn't

 

they had chance after chance

 

tavernier was abysmal at wing back in that game.

 

Well play hodson then.

 

We need to play 2 up front. We are not scoring enough goals with our 4-3-2-1(4-3-3). That means changing to 3-5-2 or 4-4-2. I'd prefer 3-5-2 because we need 5 in MF.

[forlanssister 3,083]

Well play hodson then.

 

We need to play 2 up front. We are not scoring enough goals with our 4-3-2-1(4-3-3). That means changing to 3-5-2 or 4-4-2. I'd prefer 3-5-2 because we need 5 in MF.

 

Going three at the back with the current personnel would be suicide.

[craig 5,199]

Going three at the back with the current personnel would be suicide.

 

Yep. I am not, however, against the formation in principle, particularly when we have to play against teams, particularly at home, who sit very deep with 2 banks of 4 and a lone striker. Shouldn't need 4 at the back in Scotland when dominating possession - but only if you have pace there.

[RANGERRAB 3,395]

Going three at the back with the current personnel would be suicide.

 

We have no choice until we can bring in a CB with more pace. We either continue as we are not scoring enough goals or try going with 2 up front & change the formation. The status quo not an option unfortunately.

[RANGERRAB 3,395]

Yep. I am not, however, against the formation in principle, particularly when we have to play against teams, particularly at home, who sit very deep with 2 banks of 4 and a lone striker. Shouldn't need 4 at the back in Scotland when dominating possession - but only if you have pace there.

 

Playing 4 at the back with any sitting MF player in the SPFL is pointless when teams come to ibrox & park the bus

[der Berliner 3,450]

6-1 mauling ? Are you also missing the open goal they missed and the 1-on-1 with Wes ? I argue this point in both directions - when cooponthewing said that RC shouls have been 3-0 up at Half time I pulled him up about it on the grounds that we missed 2 or 3 half chances 1st half.

 

But, likewise, you are also conveniently ignoring the 2 chances that they had - which, if we are being honest, were better chances than any we happened to create the whole game (created the wrong word, we made mistakes - but they were still better chances than we had the whole game other than our goal).

 

Lets at least be balanced - had you said a 6-3 mauling I wouldn't have disagreed

 

Well, chances-wise we were all over them, but if you rather see them gubbed 6-3, so be it. I did not ignore their chances, they simply would not have mattered.