Dean Smith - Confirmed

[john e]

I’m not a big fan of the three centre backs thing
But it’s difficult to criticise when it’s proved to be successful in the last couple of games
So I’ve sort of shut up about it because especially against Man United it worked a treat
So it comes back to horses for courses but I just don’t think it’s great as a template for the future

It’s the old saying you only play three centre backs because the two you’ve got aren’t good enough
So although I have to admit it has had its success I just don’t think it’s going to work long-term
It’s alright having horses for courses but if a formation is not working then change it which we didn’t yesterday so it’s not horses for courses it’s rigid formations which don’t change when it’s going wrong

Often yesterday you had Mings and Konsa playing in midfield And in attacking positions at times when pushing forward which is fine I just rather have better players than them in forward positions, you know actual midfielders and forward players who have better delivery and skills

[Risso]

I'm not a fan of three centre backs either. It only worked against Everton when Bailey came on and provided some width, but you're not going to play him as a wing back for 90 minutes every week. It worked against Man U because all three defenders played well and we nicked a goal at the end, despite Ings and Bailey not really having any chances. It most certainly didn't work yesterday. I want to see a proper 4-3-3 please, along the lines of:

Martinez
Cash Konsa Mings Targett
McGinn Ramsey Luiz
Traore or Buendia Watkins Bailey

Ings and Watkins isn't working and I don't believe in shoehorning players in just because.

[Mister E]

It’s the old saying you only play three centre backs because the two you’ve got aren’t good enough

With respect, that rubbish! - you play it for several reasons; but - I'd argue - not exclusively.  Yesterday was the perfect opp for Dean to show his versatility by reverting to 4-3-3 at halftime, when the formation clearly wasn't working. He didn't; we lost.
With the squad he has, he should be able to mix it up with confidence and purpose - that's his challenge going forward.

[Neil Hawkes]

I would like to see a little more persistence with Ollie & Ings together & would be interested to see the following combinations, (the last one is if Ollie & Ings is clearly not working):
4-3-1-2
cash-konsa-mings-targett
mcginn-luiz-ramsey
buendia
ings-watkins
4-1-3-2 (completely gung-ho)
cash-konsa-mings-targett
luiz(nakamba)
traore-buendia-bailey
ings-watkins
4-3-3
cash-konsa-mings-targett
mcginn-luiz-ramsey
traore-watkins-bailey

[Clampy]

It’s the old saying you only play three centre backs because the two you’ve got aren’t good enough

With respect, that rubbish! - you play it for several reasons; but - I'd argue - not exclusively.  Yesterday was the perfect opp for Dean to show his versatility by reverting to 4-3-3 at halftime, when the formation clearly wasn't working. He didn't; we lost.
With the squad he has, he should be able to mix it up with confidence and purpose - that's his challenge going forward.

No, I'm not sure about that either because Mings and Konsa were mostly very good last season.

[john e]

It’s the old saying you only play three centre backs because the two you’ve got aren’t good enough

With respect, that rubbish! - you play it for several reasons; but - I'd argue - not exclusively.  Yesterday was the perfect opp for Dean to show his versatility by reverting to 4-3-3 at halftime, when the formation clearly wasn't working. He didn't; we lost.
With the squad he has, he should be able to mix it up with confidence and purpose - that's his challenge going forward.

No, I'm not sure about that either because Mings and Konsa were mostly very good last season.

that's my point, they were, they don't need any shoring up or assistance in what they were already doing

[RamboandBruno]

I’m not a big fan of the three centre backs thing
But it’s difficult to criticise when it’s proved to be successful in the last couple of games
So I’ve sort of shut up about it because especially against Man United it worked a treat
So it comes back to horses for courses but I just don’t think it’s great as a template for the future

It’s the old saying you only play three centre backs because the two you’ve got aren’t good enough
So although I have to admit it has had its success I just don’t think it’s going to work long-term
It’s alright having horses for courses but if a formation is not working then change it which we didn’t yesterday so it’s not horses for courses it’s rigid formations which don’t change when it’s going wrong

Often yesterday you had Mings and Konsa playing in midfield And in attacking positions at times when pushing forward which is fine I just rather have better players than them in forward positions, you know actual midfielders and forward players who have better delivery and skills

What concerns me a bit is that Dean tends to pick a system and sticks to it rigidly. So for years its been more or less the 4231, now its the 352. I was hoping with the squad options we have now, it would be differing systems for different challenges, but this doesn’t appear to be the case. I think the 352 will work in some games and not others, i also think Ings and Watkins need more time, Ings got in some good positions yesterday but wasn’t  picked out, apart from the once by Targett.
Maybe when Baileys back Smith will be a bit more flexible as i cant imagine Bailey being happy being a super sub.

[Ads]

If Bailey is fit, he starts against the Wolves. To give us balance, you'd expect Buendia to start the other side. Up toSith whether we go 433 or 442.

[SoccerHQ]

Ings/Watkins up front in a 3-5-2 isn't working, so you have to wonder how long D.S. will persist with it.

What are the alternatives if both players start? 4-4-2 might work. D.S. is more used to playing 1 up top.

You surely saw it end of the game. We played last 10 minutes with Ollie LW, Buendia in number 10 role and Traore wide right. So sub in Bailey for Traore and there you have a front 4 we'll probably start at some stage.

Only issue then is we get back to problems of McGinn and Luiz being overrun as the two in central midfield. Or just play it more as a 4-3-3 and have Buendia tucked into central midfield to press aswell but then he won't score or create as much and he'd be called a waste of money.

[brontebilly]

Ings/Watkins up front in a 3-5-2 isn't working, so you have to wonder how long D.S. will persist with it.

What are the alternatives if both players start? 4-4-2 might work. D.S. is more used to playing 1 up top.

You surely saw it end of the game. We played last 10 minutes with Ollie LW, Buendia in number 10 role and Traore wide right. So sub in Bailey for Traore and there you have a front 4 we'll probably start at some stage.

Only issue then is we get back to problems of McGinn and Luiz being overrun as the two in central midfield. Or just play it more as a 4-3-3 and have Buendia tucked into central midfield to press aswell but then he won't score or create as much and he'd be called a waste of money.

That was a bizarre change really. Watkins ending up on the left wing after scoring. If anyone should have gone over there it should have been Buendia.

Another thing was got on my wick yesterday was the amount of time we took with these long throws. Even getting Cash across the pitch to take them from the left side which was ridiculous. This was at a time we had the likes of Traore and Buendia on the pitch. We should have been keeping the ball on the floor and getting a nervy Spurs team to run around.

Just think we are still a bit muddled in tactics, formation, style of play...big problem yesterday was that Smith failed to change it when it was clear it wasn't working from very early on.

[Rico]

We shouldn't just rely on one system. Now that we have an improved squad we should try to vary the formation and keep the opposition guessing. 352 works well providing the wing backs can get forward and deliver accurate crosses, if they don't do that then it becomes a defensive formation which is fine if you are trying to shut out the opposition, but offers little in the way of attacking options. I'd like to see more variety from Dean from now on. Don't just abandon 352, but use it sparingly.

[London Villan]

352 is fine when you want to be compact. Remember it only really worked as an attacking formation when Bailey played as "wing back" but was further forward than the strikers on the pitch.

[ChicagoLion]

I'm not a fan of three centre backs either. It only worked against Everton when Bailey came on and provided some width, but you're not going to play him as a wing back for 90 minutes every week. It worked against Man U because all three defenders played well and we nicked a goal at the end, despite Ings and Bailey not really having any chances. It most certainly didn't work yesterday. I want to see a proper 4-3-3 please, along the lines of:

Martinez
Cash Konsa Mings Targett
McGinn Ramsey Luiz
Traore or Buendia Watkins Bailey

Ings and Watkins isn't working and I don't believe in shoehorning players in just because.

Agree with this, we also need to be able to change  when things are not working.

[dcdavecollett]

It's worth remembering that the 'ridiculous' idea of Cash wandering over to take long throws on the LHS led to the corner that we scored from at Old Truffles.

[ez]

We shouldn't just rely on one system. Now that we have an improved squad we should try to vary the formation and keep the opposition guessing. 352 works well providing the wing backs can get forward and deliver accurate crosses, if they don't do that then it becomes a defensive formation which is fine if you are trying to shut out the opposition, but offers little in the way of attacking options. I'd like to see more variety from Dean from now on. Don't just abandon 352, but use it sparingly.

I agree. I think keeping the same team and formation because it worked well in the previous match is old fashioned thinking. We need to approach each match individually.