4 at the back?

[Leominster_Wolf]

Does it work? Should we try 5 at the back?

after all, worked quite well. But then people started to get twitchy, about possession and other crap. They then demanded more attack, attack attack.
now we drop a man at the back, lose more goals and guess what every man and his **** knows best. Fickle ****ers.

 

[Leamwolf]

Drop it and drop it now!!!!

we concede too many goals and clear chances in the box.

We defend like that against a competent front line and the games against Liverpool and West Ham where we got hit for 4 will look like nice days at the office.......

 

[JohnB]

Long-term? Yes 4 at the back, but we‘ll need a couple of defenders and a pre-season to switch to it.

For this season, back to 5 at the back please.

 

[Leominster_Wolf]

Drop it and drop it now!!!!

we concede too many goals and clear chances in the box. We defend like that against a competent front line Liverpool and West Ham will look like nice days at the office.......

oh ok sorry
boo nuno ****
coady ****
fosun ****
boly ****

bla bla bla

negative enough for you?

 

[Leamwolf]

oh ok sorry
boo nuno ****
coady ****
fosun ****
boly ****

bla bla bla

negative enough for you?

No, I just think we are better and harder to beat as a five.

the four clearly isn’t working, so why stick with it?

if scoring goals is an issue, why play a formation that means you are conceding leading you to need to score goals to even get a point.

if we sign actual proper centre backs and not converted centre backs then try it again

you were a step too negative lol, I was stating the urgency to go back to a five and I think it got lost in the message haha

 

[Bugsy911]

This has to stop unless we buy 4 new defender's.


Were all over the shop with it and need to go back to bring hard to beat.

Oh and sign an experienced striker.

 

[Norwegian Wolf]

No, I just think we are better and harder to beat as a five.

the four clearly isn’t working, so why stick with it?

if scoring goals is an issue, why play a formation that means you are conceding leading you to need to score goals to even get a point.

if we sign actual proper centre backs and not converted centre backs then try it again

you were a step too negative lol, I was stating the urgency to go back to a five and I think it got lost in the message haha

Indeed. Boly is better in a 5. Saiss is better in a 5. Coady is better in a 5. Ait-Nouri is better in a 5. Semedo is better in a 5. Hmm, so let's try a 4 and see what happens. Well, well, well...

 

[Leamwolf]

Indeed. Boly is better in a 5. Saiss is better in a 5. Coady is better in a 5. Ait-Nouri is better in a 5. Semedo is better in a 5. Hmm, so let's try a 4 and see what happens. Well, well, well...

Don’t use logic, that isn’t allowed on here by a number of posters!!!!

 

[those were the days]

Does it work? Should we try 5 at the back?

after all, worked quite well. But then people started to get twitchy, about possession and other crap. They then demanded more attack, attack attack.
now we drop a man at the back, lose more goals and guess what every man and his **** knows best. Fickle ****ers.

Moving to a back 4 means sliding the dial and accepting being more open defensively in return for offering up more going forward. It looked like a decent trade-off to make after the Southampton game, but with Jimenez getting injured 10mins into the next game, it's resulted in us being defensively weaker and seeing little benefit offensively

I still think it's very useful to have in the locker for certain games but reverting to basics and aiming for clean sheets surely has to be the way forward. Over the last few months, we've just seen two of the weakest attacking sides in the division score 3 past us (Brighton and WBA) and none of the goals have been well worked. We've admittedly conceded three penalties from stupid challenges in all that but I think with an extra player at the back some of those challenges don't get made too with the centre halves being dragged around less

 

[Leamwolf]

Cause people wanted 4, to get extra attacker. But now want 5, for more solidity?

seriously go back through the posts. Check what people say.not yesterday, not the other day. consistently when it suits depending on the result.

its pathetic. The agenda is incredible. 20/20 hindsight At its finest.

and the mods will let thread after thread after thread as long as it generates responses. I made a light hearted thread earlier and deleted without explanation. Not offensive in the slightest. Says it all Really. They like the negativity because it generates footfall Through the forum.

and any mod that disagrees with any of this? prove me right by deleting this post or putting me in pre mod or banning me.

I have always said five at the back, evolve the squad with better players for the system.

so I am not in the change the formation to 4 and now crying about it club.

 

[WeAreTheWolvesII]

This defeat was nothing to do with the formation.

We were done from a long throw, with an amateur setup (on Nuno or Coady), and two cheating penalty calls.

The only potential way a five could've helped is by giving us height for a third centre-back, but we even made up for that with Saiss starting at LB.

Having said that, I was an advocate of a four because I wanted to see Traore, Podence & Neto in the same team. With one out, we may as well go with a five.

 

[Leamwolf]

Cause people wanted 4, to get extra attacker. But now want 5, for more solidity?

seriously go back through the posts. Check what people say.not yesterday, not the other day. consistently when it suits depending on the result.

its pathetic. The agenda is incredible. 20/20 hindsight At its finest.

and the mods will let thread after thread after thread as long as it generates responses. I made a light hearted thread earlier and deleted without explanation. Not offensive in the slightest. Says it all Really. They like the negativity because it generates footfall Through the forum.

and any mod that disagrees with any of this? prove me right by deleting this post or putting me in pre mod or banning me.

Fair enough for most people

but I loved the tactical identity we had, Sevilla showed we needed to improve the squad and have a plan b.

Total revolution wasn’t needed, 3 great years should have been enough to say. Let’s roll up
Our sleeves and go again by changing the players and getting better ones in to make the 5 at the back style s even more.

top teams feared us last season and the season before, they don’t now

 

[bod101]

Cause people wanted 4, to get extra attacker. But now want 5, for more solidity?

seriously go back through the posts. Check what people say.not yesterday, not the other day. consistently when it suits depending on the result.

its pathetic. The agenda is incredible. 20/20 hindsight At its finest.

and the mods will let thread after thread after thread as long as it generates responses. I made a light hearted thread earlier and deleted without explanation. Not offensive in the slightest. Says it all Really. They like the negativity because it generates footfall Through the forum.

and any mod that disagrees with any of this? prove me right by deleting this post or putting me in pre mod or banning me.

Ok think what you like. We can put you in pre mod and you can wear it as some sort of badge of honour as you and a few others seem to only post to complain about other posters rather than actually post any sort of supportive argument. You complain about repetitive negative posts, yet all you do is post repetitively about other posters posts.

What you seem to forget its a forum so there will opposing points of view and of course when things aren't going so well there will be more negative than positive and vice versa.

You don't see the overtly negative or wum posts we do delete, because they don't make it onto the forum on the whole. As you say the agenda is incredible.

 

[Leominster_Wolf]

Ok think what you like. We can put you in pre mod and you can wear it as some sort of badge of honour as you and a few others seem to only post to complain about other posters rather than actually post any sort of supportive argument. You complain about repetitive negative posts, yet all you do is post repetitively about other posters posts.

What you seem to forget its a forum so there will opposing points of view and of course when things aren't going so well there will be more negative than positive and vice versa.

You don't see the overtly negative or wum posts we do delete, because they don't make it onto the forum on the whole. As you say the agenda is incredible

oh ok. I think the best I can do is just leave it and disappear for a while.

for the record, whilst you may think or seem to assume that I never post any supportive arguments (presumably because of your take on the light hearted and tongue in cheek chill out posts) I do try and have tried, but I guess I’ve been brow beaten down.

 

[djmikeydickens]

Four at the back probably is the way forward if we want to push on but we just don't have the players for it, especially with no pre-season. My concern is Nuno's comments suggest we are sticking with the back four, I'm at a lose as to why he thinks this suits our players as we don't have good enough defenders to play this way. It's time to go back to what we used to do. Keep it tight with 5 at the back and use the pace and skill we have on the counter. Re-visit the four next year after the summer window.

 

[Royal wolf]

Our summer recruitment was intended for a back 5 there’s no doubt about. The majority on here agreed with Nuno in his change to a 4 because we were so dull and so poor for most of the season it had to happen. Obviously it hasn’t worked due to a couple of things:

- No pre season to work on shape
- The players we currently have.

We have no choice but to return to a 5 until the squad is improved and we can transition properly

 

[Minimalist]

4231 had some promise, but it absolutely relies on us being able to have all of Neto, Podence and Traore in behind a striker.
433 is terrible, offers nothing extra going forward and weakens the defence. We end up with 3 midfielders doing the same job 2 can do.

 

[Supadavewolf]

This defeat was nothing to do with the formation.

We were done from a long throw, with an amateur setup (on Nuno or Coady), and two cheating penalty calls.

The only potential way a five could've helped is by giving us height for a third centre-back, but we even made up for that with Saiss starting at LB.

Having said that, I was an advocate of a four because I wanted to see Traore, Podence & Neto in the same team. With one out, we may as well go with a five.

It's a good point that a back 4 makes Traore, Podence and Neto more logical to play.

Whether the trade-off of having a weaker central defence is worth it, I'm not convinced though.

 

[Supadavewolf]

I could live with us playing our four best defenders - Johnny, Boly, Saiss and Marcal.

However, Marcal is rarely fit and we don't know how Johnny will be following his injury. Maybe Hoever would be a decent deputy for either.

Also, that would leave Semedo out in the cold.

Midfield, we could return to Coady as a CDM - an important captain and a much improved player under Nuno. Neves or Donk alongside - any 2 from 3.

Better defensive solidity, plus Traore Neto and Podence for flair, behind whoever draws the short straw for the central striker position.

 

[WeAreTheWolvesII]

It's a good point that a back 4 makes Traore, Podence and Neto more logical to play.

Whether the trade-off of having a weaker central defence is worth it, I'm not convinced though.

It’s certainly not worth trading when they aren’t available anyway!

 

[RobB]

I said before the Arsenal game we would be taken apart at the back with a four, I was wrong that game but this has been the case ever since.