Dean Smith - Confirmed

[sickbeggar]

Hah, Dean obviously saw me mention a diamond formation. Would work well I reckon

[Drummond]

I just think it's nice we now seem to have the personnel to try different formations. Two forwards who are proven Premier League scorers, a raw talent returnoing from injury and a youngster coming through who can hold the ball up.

In midfield, we have wingers, a number of central midfielders and in defence we have strength in depth.

I wouldn't be surprised if we had a patchy start as we try to get going with all that but I'd hope, with the quality available, that we fly not long in.

[Monty]

I've always been keen on the diamond, but I don't really see how our players suit it right now. Unless you drop one of Bailey, Ings or Watkins. Which I guess is the definition of a nice problem.

[Smithy]

I like the fact that none us has any real confidence on what our 'best' 11 is when everyone is fit.  It's been a while since we've had the sort of depth needed to make the starting line-up so difficult.  It also bodes well for having genuine game changers on the bench - maybe we'll see Dean be more proactive with subs now he's got some actual quality sitting there?

I've no idea how he gets a team out there with Watkins, Ings, Buendia and Bailey all starting.  I look forward to seeing him try to make it work, but it feels like it would be a team that would win or 5-4 each week.  I'm guessing the reality is one of them will be on the bench with Traore and AEG?

[chrisw1]

I like the fact that none us has any real confidence on what our 'best' 11 is when everyone is fit.  It's been a while since we've had the sort of depth needed to make the starting line-up so difficult.  It also bodes well for having genuine game changers on the bench - maybe we'll see Dean be more proactive with subs now he's got some actual quality sitting there?

I've no idea how he gets a team out there with Watkins, Ings, Buendia and Bailey all starting.  I look forward to seeing him try to make it work, but it feels like it would be a team that would win or 5-4 each week.  I'm guessing the reality is one of them will be on the bench with Traore and AEG?

I guess Watkins playing wide?

Cash   Konsa    Mings   Targett
         McGinn    Nakamba
Bailey      Buendia      Watkins
                 Ings

I guess your question here is Watkins a better wide player than ElGhazi & Traore?

I like Ings and certainly felt we needed more up front, but I think playing 2 up top to accommodate him & Watkins him may be a mistake.  Perhaps Watkins injury makes the decision a bit easier for GW1.

[not3bad]

I like the fact that none us has any real confidence on what our 'best' 11 is when everyone is fit.  It's been a while since we've had the sort of depth needed to make the starting line-up so difficult.  It also bodes well for having genuine game changers on the bench - maybe we'll see Dean be more proactive with subs now he's got some actual quality sitting there?

I've no idea how he gets a team out there with Watkins, Ings, Buendia and Bailey all starting.  I look forward to seeing him try to make it work, but it feels like it would be a team that would win or 5-4 each week.  I'm guessing the reality is one of them will be on the bench with Traore and AEG?

I guess Watkins playing wide?

Cash   Konsa    Mings   Targett
         McGinn    Nakamba
Bailey      Buendia      Watkins
                 Ings

I guess your question here is Watkins a better wide player than ElGhazi & Traore?

I like Ings and certainly felt we needed more up front, but I think playing 2 up top to accommodate him & Watkins him may be a mistake.  Perhaps Watkins injury makes the decision a bit easier for GW1.

The front 4 would all be interchangeable.

[Smithy]

I like the fact that none us has any real confidence on what our 'best' 11 is when everyone is fit.  It's been a while since we've had the sort of depth needed to make the starting line-up so difficult.  It also bodes well for having genuine game changers on the bench - maybe we'll see Dean be more proactive with subs now he's got some actual quality sitting there?

I've no idea how he gets a team out there with Watkins, Ings, Buendia and Bailey all starting.  I look forward to seeing him try to make it work, but it feels like it would be a team that would win or 5-4 each week.  I'm guessing the reality is one of them will be on the bench with Traore and AEG?

I guess Watkins playing wide?

Cash   Konsa    Mings   Targett
         McGinn    Nakamba
Bailey      Buendia      Watkins
                 Ings

I guess your question here is Watkins a better wide player than ElGhazi & Traore?

I like Ings and certainly felt we needed more up front, but I think playing 2 up top to accommodate him & Watkins him may be a mistake.  Perhaps Watkins injury makes the decision a bit easier for GW1.

The front 4 would all be interchangeable.

I like the fact that none us has any real confidence on what our 'best' 11 is when everyone is fit.  It's been a while since we've had the sort of depth needed to make the starting line-up so difficult.  It also bodes well for having genuine game changers on the bench - maybe we'll see Dean be more proactive with subs now he's got some actual quality sitting there?

I've no idea how he gets a team out there with Watkins, Ings, Buendia and Bailey all starting.  I look forward to seeing him try to make it work, but it feels like it would be a team that would win or 5-4 each week.  I'm guessing the reality is one of them will be on the bench with Traore and AEG?

I guess Watkins playing wide?

Cash   Konsa    Mings   Targett
         McGinn    Nakamba
Bailey      Buendia      Watkins
                 Ings

I guess your question here is Watkins a better wide player than ElGhazi & Traore?

I like Ings and certainly felt we needed more up front, but I think playing 2 up top to accommodate him & Watkins him may be a mistake.  Perhaps Watkins injury makes the decision a bit easier for GW1.

It's more than to play those four, in those positions, you're playing Emi and Ollie in 'new' positions.  I think Emi CAN play as a 10 - but whenever I've seen him play (not much, to be honest), he's been a wide attacker who sometimes come central to get involved.

I love the idea of a fluid front-4, who can all interchange, but that feels like a big leap - tactically speaking - from where we were last season.

Exciting to wonder though, isn't it?

[Hookeysmith]

I like the fact that none us has any real confidence on what our 'best' 11 is when everyone is fit.  It's been a while since we've had the sort of depth needed to make the starting line-up so difficult.  It also bodes well for having genuine game changers on the bench - maybe we'll see Dean be more proactive with subs now he's got some actual quality sitting there?

I've no idea how he gets a team out there with Watkins, Ings, Buendia and Bailey all starting.  I look forward to seeing him try to make it work, but it feels like it would be a team that would win or 5-4 each week.  I'm guessing the reality is one of them will be on the bench with Traore and AEG?

I guess Watkins playing wide?

Cash   Konsa    Mings   Targett
         McGinn    Nakamba
Bailey      Buendia      Watkins
                 Ings

I guess your question here is Watkins a better wide player than ElGhazi & Traore?

I like Ings and certainly felt we needed more up front, but I think playing 2 up top to accommodate him & Watkins him may be a mistake.  Perhaps Watkins injury makes the decision a bit easier for GW1.

I think this formation is best although looking at the highlights in yesterdays game i was worried to see that McGinn was central to nearly all forward balls and was almost the quarterback role which he just is not suited for.
I think Nakamba will really come to the fore this season

[Toronto Villa]

I just think it's nice we now seem to have the personnel to try different formations. Two forwards who are proven Premier League scorers, a raw talent returnoing from injury and a youngster coming through who can hold the ball up.

In midfield, we have wingers, a number of central midfielders and in defence we have strength in depth.

I wouldn't be surprised if we had a patchy start as we try to get going with all that but I'd hope, with the quality available, that we fly not long in.

I don't want us tied to one formation. Have a defined way of playing but have different systems based on circumstances or opponents. We have depth and flexibility to do different things now and likely to add a piece or two to stregthen a couple of areas.

[eamonn]

I like the fact that none us has any real confidence on what our 'best' 11 is when everyone is fit.  It's been a while since we've had the sort of depth needed to make the starting line-up so difficult.  It also bodes well for having genuine game changers on the bench - maybe we'll see Dean be more proactive with subs now he's got some actual quality sitting there?

I've no idea how he gets a team out there with Watkins, Ings, Buendia and Bailey all starting.  I look forward to seeing him try to make it work, but it feels like it would be a team that would win or 5-4 each week.  I'm guessing the reality is one of them will be on the bench with Traore and AEG?

Sure, it's great to have a deep squad and not  know what your best team is. But with a few days to kick-off, most of our new signings barely having arrived, at this moment in time I'd prefer to know what our best team is. These lads need another month of pre-season to get to know each other and work on a new system now that our talisman is gone. I'm just glad our first few games are against weaker opposition.

[paul_e]

If we have to pick a best 11 (and I'm not a massive fan of doing it right now because I think we're moving on from that now) I'd go something like this:



Being asymmetrical will put loads of people off straight away but The focus would be to overload on our left as often as possible whilst keeping Emi2 and Cash as massive threats on the right so Ings and Bailey can arrive into the box late. Ings being a bit deeper is a bit of a risk but I think he's a smart enough player to do a lot of the target man/link-up work in there behind Watkins who can focus on running the channels and moving defenders around. Defensively McGinn offers a bit of cover behind Bailey to allow him to stay high up the pitch and the battling defensive work from Buendia means he can cover in the middle or help Cash.

[cdbearsfan]

It's not symmetrical you maniac! 😟😟😟

[Sexual Ealing]

It's not symmetrical you maniac! 😟😟😟

I'm with you 100% on three at the back, but this slavish adherence to symmetry is marking you out as a dinosaur. I'd be playing four left backs at left back for a start.

[ChicagoLion]

The 80 81 82 team was not symmetrical.

[brontebilly]

I've always been keen on the diamond, but I don't really see how our players suit it right now. Unless you drop one of Bailey, Ings or Watkins. Which I guess is the definition of a nice problem.

Problem with the diamond formation is your full backs need to be very strong defensively as you can get overloaded on the flanks. Cash in particular still has a lot to learn on the defensive side of his game. Think it helped Targett to have Grealish on his flank as it tied up at least one opposition player usually and sometimes two.