The lack of an alternative formation - is it hurting us?

ICA_86

ICA_86

Well-Known Member
I was listening to H&H this morning and they touched on the fact that we’re replacing the likes of Morelos and Tav with completely different players, but still playing the same way and it made me think - is it formation, as opposed to personnel?

I’m looking at Sunday’s game and it’s clear that Defoe can’t cope up front himself and that we were outnumbered in midfield. Would it not have been nice if we had the option of a 3-5-2, which simultaneously at least matches them in the middle and gives Defoe someone to work around? That’s a formation that can go 5-3-2 or 5-4-1 very naturally as well.

I know Adamski has done some good work re tactics recently and our 4-3-3 is a bit more fluid than some, but I feel we’re still handicapping ourselves with this. I honestly date it back to Motherwell last season when we went 3-5-2, didn’t win and (as per) the fan base had such a collective fanny fart that the gaffer hasn’t alternated much - if at all - since.

We’ve got four good to excellent centrebacks, the best wingbacks in the league, plenty of diverse talent in midfield, don’t really play with out and out wingers and a few who are comfy at 10 or deep forward - we really do have the tools to change it up every now and again to suit certain games, but refuse to do it.
 
Yes absolutely. We are one dimensional at times and when teams park the bus we can’t break them down.
I think we need a target man to play alongside Defoe. That way we can go down the flanks or go back to front quicker
 
I think that the style and philosophy that Gerrard wants to play dictates our formation. The problems we have had is when we have been unable to play our game. I believe that the quick pressing by Hearts, along with poor pitch conditions and our sloppiness conspired against us. Gerrard's game requires quick movement of the ball which we were unable to execute.
I'm afraid it is a case of 'Plan B is to do Plan A better', and in this case, I think it is true.
 
I don't think it's the formation itself, but more how we adapt it to the circumstances in any given game. E.g. we've won games with Defoe as lone striker but the type of runs he makes and support he needs from others is different to Morelos.
 
We actually have alternatives, well, more tweaks to the same system.
Moving Arfield one up and playing a sort of 4231.
Having 2 wider players and then a striker like in Europe.
There seems a reluctance to change it from Kent playing central and Aribo cutting in. When we have Tav and Borna it works well usually. Without them on song it leads to us either hoofing long balls at the striker or playing through the packed middle of the park which I think is making Kent look worse each passing game
 
I don't think its the 433 that's the issue, just how we utilise it when we are missing certain players.

If Morelos isn't playing and its Defoe, it has to be 2 wider players and one directly off of him (such as Arfield last year)

Flanno is getting a bad write up on here, but in the big games - particularly Europa, he hasn't let us down. He just has his limitations as a player - and the choice of inside forwards vs wingers in the game against Hearts showed those limitations up far too often.
 
JW1988 said:
We actually have alternatives, well, more tweaks to the same system.
Moving Arfield one up and playing a sort of 4231.
Having 2 wider players and then a striker like in Europe.
There seems a reluctance to change it from Kent playing central and Aribo cutting in. When we have Tav and Borna it works well usually. Without them on song it leads to us either hoofing long balls at the striker or playing through the packed middle of the park which I think is making Kent look worse each passing game
Click to expand...

I think Kent has this sort of swagger/ego about him that makes him think he is actually better suited to that position vs a winger - and its not really the case. Kind of similar in ways to Barrie Mckay in that regard (not on ability before I get slaughtered on here).
 
4-3-3 is clearly Gerrard’s preferred formation, but it’s compromised by not having an effective wide right attacker.

I’ve no doubt the manager is acutely aware of that, but as a result we’re now using a very left sided midfielder in that role. He’s probably been the most successful of all the options we’ve tried out there this season, but it’s still not ideal.

Perhaps Defoe wouldn’t have looked so isolated had we a more natural player in that position, but perhaps we also just need to have a plan B to get more out of him?
 
Bo'ness Bear said:
I think that the style and philosophy that Gerrard wants to play dictates our formation. The problems we have had is when we have been unable to play our game. I believe that the quick pressing by Hearts, along with poor pitch conditions and our sloppiness conspired against us. Gerrard's game requires quick movement of the ball which we were unable to execute.
I'm afraid it is a case of 'Plan B is to do Plan A better', and in this case, I think it is true.
Click to expand...

I’m not sure Plan B can ever work if it’s a case of replacing first picks with poorer players and expecting them to do the same thing though.

We must be one of very few top level teams who can’t switch formation fluidly during a game - because we don’t have any other one to switch to.
 
Yes!

I'd like to see Kent, Morelos and Defoe all start in a 4-3-1-2 type formation and see how we get on. I think we'd heavily punish teams but it would require a change to the system.
 
Yes. Also, we are using kent as a no 10 which leaves room for Borna to be our winger, but he wasnt able to get forward on Sunday as much. If we have kent out there it may push clare back.
 
one style of play
doesnt suit all our players when tav and alfie are missing
we need a second option and for me its someone beside defoe
 
I don't accept that we were outnumbered in midfield. In our 4-3-3 - if you want to call it that - the 'wide' players actually play very narrow when we are out of possession. In fact, there's always one of them narrow even when we are in possession. That gives us 5 in midfield out of possession and 4 in midfield when in possession. The full-backs provide the width for us.

It has served us well, particularly in Europe and, more recently, at the DhimDome. Its become predictable though and its not required in every game. I'd like to see us forsake the narrow wide men a bit more often, when we can, and give them the chance to stretch defences across the pitch more. Wouldn't have done that on Sunday but for the likes of St Mirren and Ross County at Ibrox I would.
 
Last edited:
Valley Bluenose said:
I don't accept that we were outnumbered in midfield. In our 4-3-3 - if you want to call it that - the 'wide' players actually play very narrow when we are out of possession. In fact, there's always one of them narrow even when we are in possession. That gives us 5 in midfield out of possession and 4 in midfield when in possession. The full-backs provide the width for us.

It has served us well, particularly in Europe and, more recently, at the DhimDome. Its become predictable though and its not required in every game. I'd like to see us forsake the narrow wide men a bit more often, when we can, and give them the chance to stretch defences across the pitch more. Wouldn't have done that on Sunday but for the likes of St Mirren and Ross county at Ibrox I would.
Click to expand...

I’m possibly pigeon-holing the argument with the Hearts game, but in general a clear alternative game plan would just be nice to see.
 
ICA_86 said:
I’m possibly pigeon-holing the argument with the Hearts game, but in general a clear alternative game plan would just be nice to see.
Click to expand...

I guess what I am saying is that the same basic formation, with the same players, can be played differently. Let Kent hug the touchline more often, bring in the likes of Jones and have him stay wide etc etc. For games where we dominate possession, at Ibrox especially, we don't need the security of the 'wide' men playing narrow all the time. Especially with Tav out.
 
Last edited:
the system was successful and got us to where it has, but for it to work you need the attacking wing backs and a focal point up front.

Unfortunately the tried and trusted format fell on it's erchie with a flat RB and a poacher up front.
 
People put too much thought into formation. So if we played 442 or 352 our midfield all of a sudden wouldn't have had their worst game of the season?.

Didn't see people moaning about it when we were beating Porto or the Scum. Now all of a sudden its a problem now that we dropped point's after a bad performance
 
Its very difficult to put a team on the park that can play nice football and also deal with what happens at Hearts, Hibs, Aberdeen, Motherwell where teams are pumped up to scrap and fight for everything, ref was fine but we are often up against an official thats looking to manipulate result and lets so much go.. until its one of our players then its a card.

The manager has to mix it up. He has to accept that type of football is great in europe, fine when you are on top and playing well with plenty of confidence it might well be the right way to take another 3 points off the tims.... but theres times when you aint on form up against a team on steroids and its better just want to get the ball forward quicker and let your 2 front guys turn them around or just let the opposition make basic errors. You need 2 centres more so when you pick a wee guy like Defoe thats a brilliant finisher but older now and quite slow.

If we had someone like Shankland in that squad to play up front or maybe even Lafferty(never been a fan oh his) i think we might well have won that game without being the better side. But not if we dont change the system and find a way to put 2 forwards in the middle.
 
CalgaryLoyal said:
People put too much thought into formation. So if we played 442 or 352 our midfield all of a sudden wouldn't have had their worst game of the season?.

Didn't see people moaning about it when we were beating Porto or the Scum. Now all of a sudden its a problem now that we dropped point's after a bad performance
Click to expand...

I’ve always had it down as a weak point, ever since that Motherwell game.

Rarely have we had Jack, Morelos and Tav all missing at the same time as we did for some or all off that game - huge players missing from defence, midfield AND attack - and you could tell the replacements simply didn’t work in that system.
 
Changing the formation won't make players any more clinical in front of goal. We were dire against Hearts, yet in the first half, Kent missed a great chance, and Aribo and Defoe had good chances as well.
 
ICA_86 said:
I was listening to H&H this morning and they touched on the fact that we’re replacing the likes of Morelos and Tav with completely different players, but still playing the same way and it made me think - is it formation, as opposed to personnel?

I’m looking at Sunday’s game and it’s clear that Defoe can’t cope up front himself and that we were outnumbered in midfield. Would it not have been nice if we had the option of a 3-5-2, which simultaneously at least matches them in the middle and gives Defoe someone to work around? That’s a formation that can go 5-3-2 or 5-4-1 very naturally as well.

I know Adamski has done some good work re tactics recently and our 4-3-3 is a bit more fluid than some, but I feel we’re still handicapping ourselves with this. I honestly date it back to Motherwell last season when we went 3-5-2, didn’t win and (as per) the fan base had such a collective fanny fart that the gaffer hasn’t alternated much - if at all - since.

We’ve got four good to excellent centrebacks, the best wingbacks in the league, plenty of diverse talent in midfield, don’t really play with out and out wingers and a few who are comfy at 10 or deep forward - we really do have the tools to change it up every now and again to suit certain games, but refuse to do it.
Click to expand...
Whatever we say to this, Kent and Aribo, plus Defoe, all missed glorious chances at 0-0 playing the formation so, I’d say “no”
 
Doesn't matter what the formation is if there are 8 passengers. Too many players put in a dismal performance against Hearts, that was the reason for the defeat, not the formation.
 
I see it a totally different way.

I see it as we have dropped points in games where we havent played our own game as we have decided to try n match the "fight" of the other team (Hearts twice now & Aberdeen). The only time we have deliberately played differently was v the Bheasts at Ibrox and it showed how we are a team when playing in the front foot.
Yes we should match the effort of other teams but should continue to focus on doing what we do well - we simply failed to do that in Sunday AGAIN
 
I am not sure it's just the formation that's the been the issue recently. Agree we need to have other options but attitude is the primary issue these days.
 
Spot on. We obsess about formations after a defeat. Sometimes players just don’t play well or are not good enough on the day. And good players should be able to adapt to the circumstances on the pitch at the time.
CalgaryLoyal said:
People put too much thought into formation. So if we played 442 or 352 our midfield all of a sudden wouldn't have had their worst game of the season?.

Didn't see people moaning about it when we were beating Porto or the Scum. Now all of a sudden its a problem now that we dropped point's after a bad performance
Click to expand...



.
 
CalgaryLoyal said:
People put too much thought into formation. So if we played 442 or 352 our midfield all of a sudden wouldn't have had their worst game of the season?.

Didn't see people moaning about it when we were beating Porto or the Scum. Now all of a sudden its a problem now that we dropped point's after a bad performance
Click to expand...
It’s not just one bad performance, it’s two in a row against two teams we should have been beating comfortably based on form and league position. And the team we put out v Stranraer wasn’t a team of youths but struggled to score. All three games without Alfie. None worked.
 
We need to be more versatile and be able to change formation at any given time during a game if things are not working out Sunday would tell you this Defo was down n out but we could not change our formation to deal with a Hearts this is worrying
 
ICA_86 said:
I was listening to H&H this morning and they touched on the fact that we’re replacing the likes of Morelos and Tav with completely different players, but still playing the same way and it made me think - is it formation, as opposed to personnel?

I’m looking at Sunday’s game and it’s clear that Defoe can’t cope up front himself and that we were outnumbered in midfield. Would it not have been nice if we had the option of a 3-5-2, which simultaneously at least matches them in the middle and gives Defoe someone to work around? That’s a formation that can go 5-3-2 or 5-4-1 very naturally as well.

I know Adamski has done some good work re tactics recently and our 4-3-3 is a bit more fluid than some, but I feel we’re still handicapping ourselves with this. I honestly date it back to Motherwell last season when we went 3-5-2, didn’t win and (as per) the fan base had such a collective fanny fart that the gaffer hasn’t alternated much - if at all - since.

We’ve got four good to excellent centrebacks, the best wingbacks in the league, plenty of diverse talent in midfield, don’t really play with out and out wingers and a few who are comfy at 10 or deep forward - we really do have the tools to change it up every now and again to suit certain games, but refuse to do it.
Click to expand...
I think it hurts us.
Other team players can spend as long as necessary preparing for a game v us as they all know how we'll play.
 
I think we are predictable, would love to see the manager switch it up but then again it comes down to the personnel he has available
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top