Dean Smith - Confirmed

[hipkiss92]

I agree with Sexual Ealing. 4-2-3-1 is the devil's work.

Almost indistinguishable from 433 if you have the right players in midfield and as the number 10

[Sexual Ealing]

I agree with Sexual Ealing. 4-2-3-1 is the devil's work.

Almost indistinguishable from 433 if you have the right players in midfield and as the number 10

Agreed, but we don't.

[ozzjim]

We went to 4-3-3 for 20 minutes and scored 3, because we had natural width further up the field. The 3 at the back looks shaky as hell to me, Mings and Konsa look like they are always in 2 minds where to push up and press and where to drop in.

For me, 4-1-2-2-1 is the ideal. I think for our players it's the best option. After that, I would sooner play the 3-5-2 than the 4-3-3 that has 2 holding mids as that has proved not to work a number of times, and whenever we try anyone at 10 they look useless.

Smith deserves credit for changing it up and winning the game. I was not sure he would or could, and up to the Cash goal we looked a bit of a shambles, the Grey chance came from us being allnover the place, but the changes worked and we won. Fingers crossed his in game management continues on those lines.

[Sexual Ealing]

We went to 4-3-3 for 20 minutes and scored 3

The man who decides the formation said that we didn't.

Edit: I'd prefer a 4-3-3.

[Rudy Can't Fail]

Agree 100% Oz. 4-5-1 next weekend against the Plastics would be my preference, wing backs are all well and good when you have natural wing backs; we don't, we have two quality full backs. We also have a three great wide men.

[nigel]

We went to 4-3-3 for 20 minutes and scored 3, because we had natural width further up the field. The 3 at the back looks shaky as hell to me, Mings and Konsa look like they are always in 2 minds where to push up and press and where to drop in.

For me, 4-1-2-2-1 is the ideal. I think for our players it's the best option. After that, I would sooner play the 3-5-2 than the 4-3-3 that has 2 holding mids as that has proved not to work a number of times, and whenever we try anyone at 10 they look useless.

Smith deserves credit for changing it up and winning the game. I was not sure he would or could, and up to the Cash goal we looked a bit of a shambles, the Grey chance came from us being allnover the place, but the changes worked and we won. Fingers crossed his in game management continues on those lines.

No we didn’t, Dean Smith, when asked, said we didn’t.
Certainly for me, and many on here, it was clear from the stands it never changed from 3-5-2

[Ian.]

Agree 100% Oz. 4-5-1 next weekend against the Plastics would be my preference, wing backs are all well and good when you have natural wing backs; we don't, we have two quality full backs. We also have a three great wide men.

This is the definition of nail on the head.

[Risso]

If it's 4-5-1 I'd go
Martinez
Cash Konsa Mings Targett
Buendia McGinn Ramsey Luiz Bailey
Watkins

Ings can come on for the last 20 minutes when we're 3-0 up.

[Ian.]

We went to 4-3-3 for 20 minutes and scored 3, because we had natural width further up the field. The 3 at the back looks shaky as hell to me, Mings and Konsa look like they are always in 2 minds where to push up and press and where to drop in.

For me, 4-1-2-2-1 is the ideal. I think for our players it's the best option. After that, I would sooner play the 3-5-2 than the 4-3-3 that has 2 holding mids as that has proved not to work a number of times, and whenever we try anyone at 10 they look useless.

Smith deserves credit for changing it up and winning the game. I was not sure he would or could, and up to the Cash goal we looked a bit of a shambles, the Grey chance came from us being allnover the place, but the changes worked and we won. Fingers crossed his in game management continues on those lines.

No we didn’t, Dean Smith, when asked, said we didn’t.
Certainly for me, and many on here, it was clear from the stands it never changed from 3-5-2

You know what, I reckon it was a cunning masterplan. We just went rougue

[JD]

If it's 4-5-1 I'd go
Martinez
Cash Konsa Mings Targett
Buendia McGinn Ramsey Luiz Bailey
Watkins

Ings can come on for the last 20 minutes when we're 3-0 up.

That's the team I would go with as well, if everyone is fit.

[Risso]

I want to see how Bunedia and Cash develop as a partnership on the right hand side, as I think Buendia will give Cash the sort of support he's never really had from the likes of Traore before.

[ChicagoLion]

We went to 4-3-3 for 20 minutes and scored 3

The man who decides the formation said that we didn't.

he should have told the players

[brontebilly]

We went to 4-3-3 for 20 minutes and scored 3, because we had natural width further up the field. The 3 at the back looks shaky as hell to me, Mings and Konsa look like they are always in 2 minds where to push up and press and where to drop in.

For me, 4-1-2-2-1 is the ideal. I think for our players it's the best option. After that, I would sooner play the 3-5-2 than the 4-3-3 that has 2 holding mids as that has proved not to work a number of times, and whenever we try anyone at 10 they look useless.

Smith deserves credit for changing it up and winning the game. I was not sure he would or could, and up to the Cash goal we looked a bit of a shambles, the Grey chance came from us being allnover the place, but the changes worked and we won. Fingers crossed his in game management continues on those lines.

No we didn’t, Dean Smith, when asked, said we didn’t.
Certainly for me, and many on here, it was clear from the stands it never changed from 3-5-2

That's true but one half hearted jog back towards his goal aside I doubt Bailey ran backwards again. Mings was kind of in no man's land too so effectively we were playing with noone there until Young came in. It caught Benitez and Everton out but I don't think it's a tactic we should be repeating too often.

[cdbearsfan]

Quite glad the players ignored him tbh, seeing as we scored zero goals playing Dean's formation and three goals when we didn't.

[Chris Smith]

We went to 4-3-3 for 20 minutes and scored 3, because we had natural width further up the field. The 3 at the back looks shaky as hell to me, Mings and Konsa look like they are always in 2 minds where to push up and press and where to drop in.

For me, 4-1-2-2-1 is the ideal. I think for our players it's the best option. After that, I would sooner play the 3-5-2 than the 4-3-3 that has 2 holding mids as that has proved not to work a number of times, and whenever we try anyone at 10 they look useless.

Smith deserves credit for changing it up and winning the game. I was not sure he would or could, and up to the Cash goal we looked a bit of a shambles, the Grey chance came from us being allnover the place, but the changes worked and we won. Fingers crossed his in game management continues on those lines.

No we didn’t, Dean Smith, when asked, said we didn’t.
Certainly for me, and many on here, it was clear from the stands it never changed from 3-5-2

That's true but one half hearted jog back towards his goal aside I doubt Bailey ran backwards again. Mings was kind of in no man's land too so effectively we were playing with noone there until Young came in. It caught Benitez and Everton out but I don't think it's a tactic we should be repeating too often.

He didn’t need to track back, they appeared to give up on that side of the pitch which is why Bailey had so much room and Mings was able to cover on his own.