3-5-2 or 3-4-3.

[algy]

It shouldn't have taken this long for the manager to adopt a new system.

I'm not sure. Brand new group of players, basically not played together before - giving people very defined roles makes sense. Maybe it's only recently that we've started to use different formations on the training ground, and you can imagine you'd need to have at least trained in a formation before using it as the first team.

Not saying that's what's happened, it most likely isn't, but the point is there might be a rational reason for having only tried a new formation out today. Keep saying this, bit the scale of the rebuilding in the summer means that some things are hard to judge.

[Toronto Villa]

It shouldn't have taken this long for the manager to adopt a new system. Dean should have open to a number of systems and tactical approaches throughout the season. So let's hope this gives him the confidence and belief to try different things vs other opponents as needed.

Give it a rest. I appreciate that you've nailed your colours to the mast but sometimes it's better to keep your counsel.

No I won’t. I said what I said respectfully. Just because we won a game doesn’t make everything perfect again. It’s exactly the trap we all fell into after Newcastle. This is a really hard league. He has to continue to learn and adapt. The second half was proof there’s a long way to go because Burnley pressed us back for most of it. So I’m not suddenly going to sing from true rooftops after a win; a good win but on the back of a number of truly hideous recent displays.

[Luke8]

I think the most important the formation did today was helped out the group of players that were struggling. It helped close the gaps that had been there behind Luiz/Nakamba and the full backs and got players closer to Wesley. Obviously helped having Mings back and that Jack is just getting better and better, but the formation definitely made a difference today.

Think the second half showed there is still some work to do with it, but can also be put down to the fact we were 2-0 up and the teams confidence hasn’t been high lately, so perhaps understandable that we dropped a bit too deep. Obviously didn’t help that we were hampered slightly with two enforced changes.

Still imagine Dean see 4-3-3 as the way to go long term, and I would probably agree with that, but currently with the players not quite being good enough for it and confidence clearly low lately, something like the 3-4-3 today clearly helps the team much more.

[Fingers]

I don't think it was down to the formation today, think it was more a case of the players working harder than Saturday.  That and Mings coming back and Jack being unplayable. 

[Chris Smith]

We need Mings to play the system, he’s an organiser and leader which none of the others appear ready to do.

[Steve67]

3-5-2 for me as it's much more compact defensively.  If we were in the top six, I'd go with 3-4-3.  I'd like us to stick with it for a while and bring players in who can play that system. 

[dcdavecollett]

We certainly have the centre-backs and wing-backs to play 3-5-2.

remember when Bruce tried to play it with Tommy Elphick and Nathan Baker as two of the three?

Oh dear!!!

[David_Nab]

We have enough decent CB's to play 3 of them at once , Konsa for example is decent enough coming forward with the ball where as with the players we have we can't get a balanced 3 to play as a mf and control games.

Bluntly if its a choice of a back 3 or playing Lansbury as a mf 3 its 3 cb's every time.

[eamonn]

We certainly have the centre-backs and wing-backs to play 3-5-2.

remember when Bruce tried to play it with Tommy Elphick and Nathan Baker as two of the three?

Oh dear!!!

Christ it's easy to forget fringe players once they move on. How are they doing?

[brontebilly]

We certainly have the centre-backs and wing-backs to play 3-5-2.

remember when Bruce tried to play it with Tommy Elphick and Nathan Baker as two of the three?

Oh dear!!!

At Brentford wasn't it? Certainly on one occasion there anyway, got our arses handed to us that night....

[Sexual Ealing]

Shat it down with rain all night and they gubbed us 3-0. I miss Bruce, the cauliflower-faced eejit.

[PeterWithesShin]

Was that 5 at the back? Looked it up as i'd blanked it from my mind and it was Hutton, Baker, Chester, Amavi which suggests a back 4.

[Sexual Ealing]

Was that 5 at the back? Looked it up as i'd blanked it from my mind and it was Hutton, Baker, Chester, Amavi which suggests a back 4.

Perhaps not then. Brentford is a trigger word for me. Some dreadful performances there.

[Dante Lavelli]

Whilst yesterday was a success it might not be good news for smith in the long term.

As I understood it the club wanted a defined philosophy so they could tailor coaching and recruitment. Switching from a back 4 to a back 3 is a pretty big change if all scouting/planning has been undertaken based on variations of 4231 and 433.

Whilst pragmatism was needed I do not think Smith is the ideal man for chopping and changing tactics as he’s a purist who has faith  in a particular, his, system.

[Ad@m]

You can have principles without needing to dogmatically stick to a certain formation. I don't see how it massively affects our transfer strategy beyond potentially needing an extra centre half.