Dean Smith - Confirmed

[malckennedy]

Wasn’t Ellis intent on sacking Saunders in 1979 anyway. I’d always thought that was what the boardroom battle was about at that time and that because Ellis lost, Saunders survived.

[eamonn]

Will that mean Ings or Wats being dropped?

[Monty]

I'd be willing to bet money that we'll go back to a 4-3-3 or 4-2-2-2 against Everton. The 3-5-2 was a specific plan for Chelsea, and from Dean's comments he seems to be especially happy about the variety of tactical options we have.

we might have a variety but when something works as well as your saying it did on Saturday,
you know all your heat maps and stuff proving it was an attacking imaginative formation only failing because they had Lakaku,
 then why on earth would you change it unless of coarse you've just talked a load of bollocks over the last two days

Do you know how to talk to people without coming across like a really strange and angry person? As I said, it's horses for courses, you change tactics to try and beat different teams. Not that hard.

[Ger Regan]

I'd be willing to bet money that we'll go back to a 4-3-3 or 4-2-2-2 against Everton. The 3-5-2 was a specific plan for Chelsea, and from Dean's comments he seems to be especially happy about the variety of tactical options we have.

we might have a variety but when something works as well as your saying it did on Saturday,
you know all your heat maps and stuff proving it was an attacking imaginative formation only failing because they had Lakaku,
 then why on earth would you change it unless of coarse you've just talked a load of bollocks over the last two days

Have you never heard of the phrase "horses for courses"?

Edit - beaten to it by Monty.

[Sexual Ealing]

I'd be willing to bet money that we'll go back to a 4-3-3 or 4-2-2-2 against Everton. The 3-5-2 was a specific plan for Chelsea, and from Dean's comments he seems to be especially happy about the variety of tactical options we have.

we might have a variety but when something works as well as your saying it did on Saturday,
you know all your heat maps and stuff proving it was an attacking imaginative formation only failing because they had Lakaku,
 then why on earth would you change it unless of coarse you've just talked a load of bollocks over the last two days

No need for that, in my arrogant opinion. I'm instinctively anti-five-at-the-back, but Monty's made a good case and we did look good for the most part.

[john e]

I'd be willing to bet money that we'll go back to a 4-3-3 or 4-2-2-2 against Everton. The 3-5-2 was a specific plan for Chelsea, and from Dean's comments he seems to be especially happy about the variety of tactical options we have.

we might have a variety but when something works as well as your saying it did on Saturday,
you know all your heat maps and stuff proving it was an attacking imaginative formation only failing because they had Lakaku,
 then why on earth would you change it unless of coarse you've just talked a load of bollocks over the last two days

Do you know how to talk to people without coming across like a really strange and angry person? As I said, it's horses for courses, you change tactics to try and beat different teams. Not that hard.

Sorry i'm not really having a go at you Monty
for what its worth your one of my favourite posters on here i always find your contribution interesting and educating (not trying to be being funny here its the truth)

my hobby horse (as Horse is the word at the moment) is the 5 man defence and how people dress it up as something that its not
so apologies again, but in fairness you are right i am a bit strange

[Drummond]

He's limited tactically Smith, can't change from a 4-3-3. Never tries anything else.

[Monty]

Ha, I think we all are mate! Fair enough, just thought it seemed a bit 0-100 all of a sudden.

Anyway, yeah a lot of the time the three centre-backs is very defensive, but it's not always. It's all about how you go about it, and I thought we did it the right way the other day.

[Risso]

I just think the decent performance was because we played with a proper midfield 3, and it suited all of Luiz, McGinn and Ramey in a way that 4-2-3-1 doesn't. Also, the 5-3-2 absolutely didn't bring out the best in Ings at all, he was really poor. Surely a proper 4-3-3 would be the best of both worlds?

Martinez
Cash Konsa Mings Targett
McGinn/Buendia Ramsey Luiz
Buendia/Watkins Watkins/Ings Bailey

Lots of nice options there.

[Monty]

Smith mentioned that he thought we'd have problems out wide with the 4-3-3, which a lot of teams have had against this Chelsea. As the position map shows, the two wide centre backs practically played in midfield, leading to the overcrowding that gave us our best chances. I agree that the 4-2-3-1 doesn't work at all (and I really worry about the 4-4-2 we might try for the same reason), but out of the two options that give us three in the middle I can see why we went with the 3-5-2 (and it was 3-5-2, the wing backs were closer to the the strikers than the last defender).

As for Ings, he's been at his best in as the second-striker in a front two for the past couple of seasons, so trying that makes some sense. 3-5-2 is also one of two systems (along with the diamond) that allows us to do that while also playing three midfielders, so you could argue that that is the best of both worlds.

[john e]

He's limited tactically Smith, can't change from a 4-3-3. Never tries anything else.

fair enough
but i spent the whole of the Euro tournament moaning about Southgates 5 at the back with all the attacking talent on the bench coming on in the 65/70 minute
i know people like to think we play it different but its not really is it,
 don't forget England were spectacularly successful with it and never lost a game but a lot of people me included still said it was the wrong way to play, i cant suddenly pretend i think its great now
so i although i think we played well on Saturday its not a formation i would want us to use going forward

[eamonn]

Who did Ings play upfront with at Southampton - Che Adams when he got a good run in the side, but before that? Our nemesis Shane Long was usually a sub too.

[Ads]

He's limited tactically Smith, can't change from a 4-3-3. Never tries anything else.

fair enough
but i spent the whole of the Euro tournament moaning about Southgates 5 at the back with all the attacking talent on the bench coming on in the 65/70 minute
i know people like to think we play it different but its not really is it,
 don't forget England were spectacularly successful with it and never lost a game but a lot of people me included still said it was the wrong way to play, i cant suddenly pretend i think its great now
so i although i think we played well on Saturday its not a formation i would want us to use going forward

We had more chances at goal, more shots on target and almost double the touches in the box using 352 and 343 on Saturday. It was nothing like Horseface's negative rubbish.

[Monty]

Important to remember that football isn't netball. It's a dynamic game - you can have three 'centre backs', but there's a world of difference between sticking them on the 18 yard line and telling two of them to push up into midfield, releasing your midfielders to charge forward if, as the plan is meant to work, you win the ball. Won't work against everyone, but it was a very good idea. Shame about Lukaku.

[algy]

Important to remember that football isn't netball. It's a dynamic game - you can have three 'centre backs', but there's a world of difference between sticking them on the 18 yard line and telling two of them to push up into midfield, releasing your midfielders to charge forward if, as the plan is meant to work, you win the ball. Won't work against everyone, but it was a very good idea. Shame about Lukaku.

Think the good thing now is that we have the option to do that, or something else. I think it's one of the positives to take from losing Joe whatshisface. Realistically if Joe was fit, he had to play. And much as he likes to think of himself as an 8, we had to play him on the left wing for him to be at his most effective, which in turn somewhat dictated the formation we played.

Obviously it's also helped that we now have more than 11 players who are good enough to play in a side in the top half of the table.