Dean Smith - Confirmed

[Ian.]

I’m not a fan of this system but surprisingly it actually worked very well.

[Monty]

I agree with that Monty, apart from the five at the back, which seems to have worked well and didn't see us sitting back so I guess I'm wrong. I therefore agree with it all.

Yeah I was worried that was how it would turn out as well, but they went into the match with a positive mindset and that makes the difference. How high the line of three plays is always the determiner of whether you've got an intense system flooding the middle, or if your just playing Bruceish damage limitation cowardball. Definitely the former from us yesterday.

[mr underhill]

It worked so well, we got stuffed, having beaten them quite convincingly in May.

[ChicagoLion]

It worked so well, we got stuffed, having beaten them quite convincingly in May.

And it was working so well he stuck to it even when we were losing 2 nil.

[SoccerHQ]

1 win in 4 and 4 points of 12 is not a good start for me. Still early days can change and not suggesting a change. However if we have aspirations of improvement and europe things need to improve quickly or we will be playjng catchup.

Havent overly been impressed with the defending this year. Dont know if terry leaving is one of the reasons but it needs to get alot better. All i know is 3at the back is a disaster for us. We look terrible defenively in that formation

Dem you need to take a breath sometimes. We have 4 points after 3 games in a couple of the MON 6th seasons.

Unless people really are demanding 4th-6th I don't get why certain posters are so jumpy currently. Countless times have finished 8th and 9th in seasons with poorer starts than we have.

It's early days but I think Everton is a pretty big game for the manager and will set the tempo for next few months. They've started well but we're unbeaten in four v them since we came back so team has no fear of them.

Win that, draw at Spurs and then beat Wolves which I think is next home game and then it tends into a pretty good start in circumstances as we're taking points off teams we want to be finishing above this season.

Don't and it starts to become tricky for the manager as we'll be stuck in the bottom half. I do think we'll get better as the season goes on though so would be disappointed if his job came under serious threat.

[Ads]

It worked so well, we got stuffed, having beaten them quite convincingly in May.

An odd comment. We changed the system during the game.

We brought Bailey and Traore on who played either side of Watkins and had McGinn and then Nkamba in midfield.

We played better yesterday than we did in May. The difference was Mr Jigsaw played up front for them then and Lukaku does now. If the later had played in May, we'd have been 3 down in the opening half hour where they totally dominated us.

[Monty]

It worked so well, we got stuffed, having beaten them quite convincingly in May.

An odd comment. We changed the system during the game.

We brought Bailey and Traore on who played either side of Watkins and had McGinn and then Nkamba in midfield.

We played better yesterday than we did in May. The difference was Mr Jigsaw played up front for them then and Lukaku does now. If the later had played in May, we'd have been 3 down in the opening half hour where they totally dominated us.

Exacftly. Football isn't like tennis, where if you play better you will win practically 100% of the time. You can get your strategy right, your players can carry it out perfectly, but if your guy up front hits the keeper and their guy beats the keeper that's that, game changed.

[john e]

I know five at the back is the new thing now because of Southgates success and it’s bound to be copied
But I never liked it with the England And I’m not going to change my mind when we play it

It’s too negative and sends the wrong message from the start
Confuses players, no one knows what job to do
Takes up a place which should be given to a more forward player
It doesn’t work anyway because we still concede a bunch of goals

It’s a rubbish system and should be binned

[Ads]

Another odd comment after our most successful attacking display of the season and against an opponent who've just won a European Cup playing it.

[Monty]

It's all a bit strange. We weren't negative yesterday at all, and the three at the back helped us win the ball by squeezing the space and blocking passing options. Southgate isn't the catalyst - he's copying the people who've found success bringing it back like Conte and Gasperini.

[john e]

Ads Monty
I also thought it was a good performance especially in the first half
But swap Mings or Tuanzebe for Bailey or Traore and instead of having a good half but still losing three nil we might actually cause them more problems and score ourselves

i’ve had loads of arguments on here when I’ve disagreed with a formation or Line up
And if we’ve happened to win I get the same answer
‘ we won so it was the right decision‘
Well we conceded 3 yesterday So it didn’t work

(I don’t actually believe that myself but I’m just reversing what other people have said in the past)
But I would never play a back 5 I’d rather be more offensive

[Monty]

Yeah I've never been of the 'we won so it was right' mentality either, I was very critical after the Newcastle win for instance.

I think you're making the error of assuming there's 'attack' and 'defence' and if you're doing well it's basically a matter of numbers at either end. I don't think this is true - we were attacking so well because the 3 defenders were stepping up, closing down the space and helping us to win the ball back in midfield, and in their half as well. It genuinely wasn't a back 5 the instant we got the ball, the wing backs pushing on massively, and had we played a back four their front 3 could well have had a lot more space to get round our midfield press, forcing our defensive line deeper. Therefore you could argue that a 4-3-3, playing deep and relying on counterattacking balls into channels to wide forwards, would have been far more negative than what we did.

[john e]

Yeah I've never been of the 'we won so it was right' mentality either, I was very critical after the Newcastle win for instance.

I think you're making the error of assuming there's 'attack' and 'defence' and if you're doing well it's basically a matter of numbers at either end. I don't think this is true - we were attacking so well because the 3 defenders were stepping up, closing down the space and helping us to win the ball back in midfield, and in their half as well. It genuinely wasn't a back 5 the instant we got the ball, the wing backs pushing on massively, and had we played a back four their front 3 could well have had a lot more space to get round our midfield press, forcing our defensive line deeper. Therefore you could argue that a 4-3-3, playing deep and relying on counterattacking balls into channels to wide forwards, would have been far more negative than what we did.

The same arguments were used with the England set up though
But if you’re going to play a 433 then play one

Triora or Bailey are bound to be more creative than a central defender it’s not even an argument
Obviously you will then lose the extra man at the back but like I said before we still conceded and I’m not sure the extra CD helps a lot of the time

I did think the three in midfield were Brilliant yesterday so I’m not being all Mardy

[Monty]

You have to have the ball to attack with it. I think there's a good argument that a 4-3-3 makes it too easy for Chelsea to manoeuvre round us. It's not just about who is 'creative' individually, it's a team game.

England actually are pissing negative with their 3 at the back though, that's the difference. Did you notice who we were playing, their formation? Is three at the back good because they won 3-0? You're not actually addressing the argument of how we played, I feel, of whether we could have had the same joy we did winning the ball high up if we'd had Traoré out there and a bigger space through the middle.

As an aside, there isn't a manager alive more obsessed with getting players in the opposition half than Bielsa, and he's played 3 at the back for like thirty years.

[john e]

You have to have the ball to attack with it. I think there's a good argument that a 4-3-3 makes it too easy for Chelsea to manoeuvre round us. It's not just about who is 'creative' individually, it's a team game.

England actually are pissing negative with their 3 at the back though, that's the difference. Did you notice who we were playing, their formation? Is three at the back good because they won 3-0? You're not actually addressing the argument of how we played, I feel, of whether we could have had the same joy we did winning the ball high up if we'd had Traoré out there and a bigger space through the middle.

We did play well I just think we might have played better with a more offensive formation
The problem I have is I’ve always been a gambling man by nature it’s got me into lots of problems
So when we are 2 nill down I don’t wanna see five at the back
Then I don’t wanna see five at the back to start with because I want to be the team that’s two nil up

Personally I think Smith is too cautious same as all the British managers we’ve had in the last decade
It will do for him in the end
One thing that Pep Fergie klopp Tuchel Have in common they make risky and brave decisions