How Do We Get Morelos and Defoe Starting Together?

tazzabear

Well-Known Member
I disagree with you on this but lets play devil's advocate and say you are right. What the f*ck are we doing paying a guy 50/60k a week to sit on the bench every week if we can't fit him into the team? It's a disgraceful waste of resources.
Where are you getting this?
I thought this type of figure was debunked a week after his transfer.
 

tazzabear

Well-Known Member
Largely what we're playing at the moment. There's not a huge difference between that and a 4-3-3.

One concern I have here is that I don't believe the system is by any means the reason why we're an inconsistent side.
I’d never really got too hung up on formations and systems until recently.
I’ve always thought they were a shape you fell back to when not in possession and this had been overtaken by tactics like “high press”.
The thing is, I’ve never seen a team, at any level, attack in any kind of formation.
Wingers drop deep or come inside, centres drop deep, midfielders get ahead, full backs overlap etc etc.
Fact is, if we attacked in formation it would be very easy to defend, wouldn’t it.
For me, it’s all about movement and touch.
Playing against the set ups we play against, we need the midfield to get into the box more andvallow the wide players to be able to pass the ball into the box as opposed to a percentage, ever decreasing percentage, ball.
As I posted recently, we don’t have a Derek Johnstone or Mark Hateley up front any more.
We need something different.
Maybe like Goldson staying up for an attack or two.
We need our players to be closer to the man in possession than their defender thus stopping them being able to clear easily.
 

Bob Belcher

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
Chile's 3-3-1-3 formation; McCrorie can step up and join the midfield when required:



Edit: I realised after I posted that it doesn't solve Morelos/Defoe conundrum, but I still think it would be fun to try.
 
Last edited:

whitbybear45

Well-Known Member
Greegs

Tav Goldson Katic Barisic

McCrorie

Arfield Jack Kamara


Morelos


Defoe

With the players we have at present that is effective as it gives us flexibility in defense and attack.
 

Ready72

Well-Known Member
Which side?
Do you balance this by having your full back on the “attacking” side more defensive?
I think it has to be Arfield playing the "wide" left role and we stick with Tavernier and Candeias on the right hand side.

Do all of our attacking centrally and right.
 
Our current formation is fine if we're playing against teams that come on to us, or if we score a couple of early goals.

The tarriers are the only team in Scotland who will open up and attack us, nobody else does.

So what's the options to enable us to play 2 strikers against deep lying defensive teams?

3-5-2 probably isn't the answer, as you have 3 central defenders playing against 1 striker, so in effect, you've got 1 less attacking player on the park than usual.
We tried it at Fir Park and it worked well 1st half, but Motherwell stuck another player in the midfield 2nd half and we barely got a kick.
We were probably fortunate to come away with a draw in the end.

Standard 4-4-2 with 2 wide men also seems unlikely, as Gerrard has been very critical of this formation previously.
With only 2 midfielders, you are always going to be outnumbered in midfield and can be easily exposed to a counter attack.

4-4-2 with 3 midielders and 1 wide player could possibly work.
2 central midfielders, with possibly Arfield playing as the 3rd on either side, but more narrow than a traditional wide player.
Kent would be the obvious choice for the other spot.

4-4-2 diamomd we already tried at Killie and we started well.
However, even forgetting the blunders from Worrall and McGregor, we never looked comfortable in the last hour and were constantly exposed down the flanks,as it can be a very narrow formation.

4-3-3 "Liverpool style" with Morelos, Defoe and Lafferty playing as an interchanging, goalscoring front 3.
We'd have 3 narrow hardworking midfielders, with the 2 full backs bombing forward providing width.

Personally I'm between the "Liverpool" formation, or the 4-4-2 with 3 midfielders and 1 natural wide player.

We certainly need to try something different.

What's your preference?
 
352 would be my preferred starting position but clearly it doesent matter what formation is being played if it isn't working,change it during the game,that's where you find out how good a manager is.
Most teams sit tight and compact against us so we need to stretch them.We can do that with 2 wingers but they must be capable of reaching the bye line and cutting the ball back to our 2 strikers and hopefully to late runs from 2 attacking midfielders.
 
We tried it at home to st mirren in the 4-0 game, i'm sure morelos played more towards the right of defoe, with Kent on the other side. It wasn't a perfect performance but i thought there were some promising signs, and i felt we should have tried it again since. We have had the opportunities, dundee at home for example, where it could have been used to try and get some more sharpness in to defoe and help him and morelos develop an understanding together.
This sticks out to me. Morelos and Defoe were a bit odd up front together but there was definitely something there, just maybe needed bit more time.
 

standardbarger

Well-Known Member
...............Greegs
Tav.......Goldson..Katic....Halliday

Arfield...McCrorie..Kamara...Kent

..........Morelos..Defoe

Kamara needs to be taking more responsibility for distributing the ball forward in this formation and I’d want Arfield cutting in.

It’s far from perfect but I’d try it until the end of the season rather than persevere with the impotent 4-3-3.
Personally I don't want Arfield doing anything I honestly don't see what he offers.
 

gerz1873

Well-Known Member
4-1-4-1or 4-2-3-1 would be my preferred formation, we need to get our forwards on the half turn when receiving the ball, pains me to say it but the manks have a few players that can play that way quite effectively.
 

adamski

Well-Known Member
Our current formation is fine if we're playing against teams that come on to us, or if we score a couple of early goals.

The tarriers are the only team in Scotland who will open up and attack us, nobody else does.

So what's the options to enable us to play 2 strikers against deep lying defensive teams?

3-5-2 probably isn't the answer, as you have 3 central defenders playing against 1 striker, so in effect, you've got 1 less attacking player on the park than usual.
We tried it at Fir Park and it worked well 1st half, but Motherwell stuck another player in the midfield 2nd half and we barely got a kick.
We were probably fortunate to come away with a draw in the end.

Standard 4-4-2 with 2 wide men also seems unlikely, as Gerrard has been very critical of this formation previously.
With only 2 midfielders, you are always going to be outnumbered in midfield and can be easily exposed to a counter attack.

4-4-2 with 3 midielders and 1 wide player could possibly work.
2 central midfielders, with possibly Arfield playing as the 3rd on either side, but more narrow than a traditional wide player.
Kent would be the obvious choice for the other spot.

4-4-2 diamomd we already tried at Killie and we started well.
However, even forgetting the blunders from Worrall and McGregor, we never looked comfortable in the last hour and were constantly exposed down the flanks,as it can be a very narrow formation.

4-3-3 "Liverpool style" with Morelos, Defoe and Lafferty playing as an interchanging, goalscoring front 3.
We'd have 3 narrow hardworking midfielders, with the 2 full backs bombing forward providing width.

Personally I'm between the "Liverpool" formation, or the 4-4-2 with 3 midfielders and 1 natural wide player.

We certainly need to try something different.

What's your preference?
Lafferty anywhere near a starting place is a man down
 
Top