Steve Bruce - officially confirmed (as Sheffield Wednesday boss)

[kippaxvilla2]

Let me rephrase what I said. He tries but rarely beats a man.  He does try.  Albert that is not Bruce.

[john e]

he's like N'zogbia but with a lot better attitude
I don't reckon he's that good but I can't dislike him

[markeeeebeeee2005]

Let's call a spade a spade. It's 5-3-2, not 3-5-2.

[Monty]

Let's call a spade a spade. It's 5-3-2, not 3-5-2.

Depends whether you have the ball. Did Mourinho's Chelsea play 4-5-1 or 4-3-3?

[markeeeebeeee2005]

We are definitely playing 5-3-2 Chelsea are  playing 4-3-3. Chelsea re fluid we are turgid.

It's down to personnel and tactics. We're employing Hutton and Taylor in those positions. Then have 3 centre backs sitting deep, as well as Lansbury sitting deep.

[Chris Smith]

We are definitely playing 5-3-2 Chelsea are  playing 4-3-3. Chelsea re fluid we are turgid.

It's down to personnel and tactics. We're employing Hutton and Taylor in those positions. Then have 3 centre backs sitting deep, as well as Lansbury sitting deep.

Chelsea play there across the back, the manager has spoken about if frequently. They are well clear at the top of the PL so obviously they are going to be better at it. However, that isn't the point; it's about the validity of using that particular formation which demonstrably has some merit, the fact that it has been shown not to suit our players is another argument entirely.

[markeeeebeeee2005]

Sorry my mistake on Chelsea, I took it from Monty's post.

My point stands on us. We are not playing 3-5-2 as we sit so deep that it can only be described as 5-3-2. The difference is the instructions from the manager that sit alongside the team set up., and at the moment they are either being instructed to sit deep or are ignoring the managers instructions and sitting deep. The formation won't work, as happened at the weekend we are placing 3 centre backs up against minimal opposition attacking prowess and therefore do not have enough players in other areas of the field to build and finish attacks.

I don't think the formation is good and we are also carrying it out very ineffectively. I think 442 or 451 would be much more useful to us.

[Gareth]

For large parts of Saturday I'd argue it was 8-2 which makes the fact we failed to keep a clean sheet even more annoying. 

[pbavfckuwait]

Whether it is Bacunna, Amavi, or Hutton, Taylor, the problem with 3-5-2 or 5-3-2 is that it requires 3 centre half's which we do not have, or not 3 capable of keeping clean sheets, add to the mix a dodgy keeper and it is plain to see why it is not a system suited to the personnel he has available.
The only person who does not seem able to see that is Brucey boy, buy in the window a upgrade on the midfield options, then play a system that encourages your worse footballers Baker, Boon and Chester to have more of the ball and totally go pass the midfield.
Angela, up for it in their face, can spot a pass, likes to push forward, but ask him to supplement your back 3 as you know not one of them can pass a ball, fing lunacy.

[Dave]

Let's call a spade a spade. It's 5-3-2, not 3-5-2.

Depends whether you have the ball. Did Mourinho's Chelsea play 4-5-1 or 4-3-3?

4-3-3. Regardless of whether they had the ball or where they were on the pitch, Duff and Robben were in the team to play as wide attackers not midfielders.

Hutton and Taylor are not in the team to do anything but defend, as they can't do anything apart from defend.

[brian green]

To paraphrase Mr Woodhall, I don't know much about football.  All these combinations of numbers are, when picked apart endlessly Greek to me, while admiring the football acuity of those that can do it.  I found myself after Ipswich, under the Holte listening to friends extolling two diamonds with Jedinak at the bottom of one and BB at the point of the other.  I was like Donald Trump listening to the Japanese Prime Minister, smiling and trying to nod in the right places.

Like Gareth above, my meat and two veg reading of Ipswich was that we played 8-2.  The 8 being a disorganised rabble.

Like I say, I know nothing about football.

[Richard]

It's not rocket science. Play 4 at the back as long as they aren't called Hutton or Elphick, have Jedi or Gardner holding, 3 more attack minded midfielders in front and the two up top.

[Risso]

We are definitely playing 5-3-2 Chelsea are  playing 4-3-3. Chelsea re fluid we are turgid.

It's down to personnel and tactics. We're employing Hutton and Taylor in those positions. Then have 3 centre backs sitting deep, as well as Lansbury sitting deep.

Chelsea play there across the back, the manager has spoken about if frequently. They are well clear at the top of the PL so obviously they are going to be better at it. However, that isn't the point; it's about the validity of using that particular formation which demonstrably has some merit, the fact that it has been shown not to suit our players is another argument entirely.

It's not another argument, it's THE argument. Have you got the right players to make a formation work? If not, only an idiot would persevere with it. Anybody playing 5 at the back with Hutton and Taylor as wing backs is a bit dim.

[mattjpa]

It's not rocket science. Play 4 at the back as long as they aren't called Hutton or Elphick, have Jedi or Gardner holding, 3 more attack minded midfielders in front and the two up top.

Quite why Mr Bruce doesnt see this i dont know. If fit, the back six should be exactly like this every week. The front 5 can then be chopped, changed, shuffled round and adapted mid game to best exploit who we have in front of them.

[chrisw1]

It's not rocket science. Play 4 at the back as long as they aren't called Hutton or Elphick, have Jedi or Gardner holding, 3 more attack minded midfielders in front and the two up top.

Simples isn't it?