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

[SoccerHQ]

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?

Baker is a squad player. Elphick was regular but made a few errors leading to goals (nothing new there) and he got a bad injury a few weeks ago.

[Drummond]

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.

There's no reason why we can't go back to the preferred formation when we have the personnel to play it effectively.

[old man villa fan]

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.

We have not had the opportunity to play three at the back with Mings being out since the Leicester match. Prior to that match, things were not going to bad for a promoted side. Having said that, both Engels and Hause have been out injured at one time or another which has limited the opportunity to test this, even in training.

When things started to go wrong, we were also being hit by injuries, making it difficult to change things. I think the manager has been trying different things but this has centred on midfield and the wide players. There is no doubt that not bringing in an extra forward in the summer has rely caught us out.

[Dante Lavelli]

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.

I think it is a bit more subtle that that.  A CB in a back three needs to be a better passer and comfortable filling in as full back so ideally pacy.  Similarly do you scout wingers, inside forwards or wing backs as these are different roles which could be redundant if we switch between systems too often.

[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.

I think it is a bit more subtle that that.  A CB in a back three needs to be a better passer and comfortable filling in as full back so ideally pacy.  Similarly do you scout wingers, inside forwards or wing backs as these are different roles which could be redundant if we switch between systems too often.

Regardless of the formation, having centre backs who are quick and can pass is clearly the preference. And we've been signing versatile full backs and wingers for years already.

[Footy-Vill]

Maybe time to get this 3 at the back in formation again

Goal Keeper
Konsa Hause Mings
Elmo and Targett wing backs
McGinn Luiz Grealish
Davis and Samatta

[SoccerHQ]

Switching back to a back 4 hasn't improved us much defensively.

I think we have to look at the other end now.

4-3-1-2.

Two full backs who can get forward and get crosses in so in comes AEM. Front two of Samatta and Davis, Jack in a free role and three workers behind him, Marvelous, Luiz and McGinn.

Better teams will probably pick that off and give us a hammering but surely we're more likely at least to beat someone like Palace or Newcastle playing that formation than the default one we'll probably play.

That's the final gamble for me anyway to get us on the front foot much more.

[David_Nab]

Switching back to a back 4 hasn't improved us much defensively.

I think we have to look at the other end now.

4-3-1-2.

Two full backs who can get forward and get crosses in so in comes AEM. Front two of Samatta and Davis, Jack in a free role and three workers behind him, Marvelous, Luiz and McGinn.

Better teams will probably pick that off and give us a hammering but surely we're more likely at least to beat someone like Palace or Newcastle playing that formation than the default one we'll probably play.

That's the final gamble for me anyway to get us on the front foot much more.

My feeling is if you are going to play a CB at RB compromising any attack on that flank you might as well go 3 at the back and use wing backs for the width.

2 strikers also has to be worth a go, especially if we are just going to hammer balls up the field aimlessly.Stick 2 up there to run after the ball

[tomd2103]

Switching back to a back 4 hasn't improved us much defensively.

I think we have to look at the other end now.

4-3-1-2.

Two full backs who can get forward and get crosses in so in comes AEM. Front two of Samatta and Davis, Jack in a free role and three workers behind him, Marvelous, Luiz and McGinn.

Better teams will probably pick that off and give us a hammering but surely we're more likely at least to beat someone like Palace or Newcastle playing that formation than the default one we'll probably play.

That's the final gamble for me anyway to get us on the front foot much more.

My feeling is if you are going to play a CB at RB compromising any attack on that flank you might as well go 3 at the back and use wing backs for the width.

2 strikers also has to be worth a go, especially if we are just going to hammer balls up the field aimlessly.Stick 2 up there to run after the ball

Think it is the formation which best suits the majority of our players and would give the opportunity to get Grealish in a central role behind two strikers.

A back three of Konsa, Mings and Hause does not look too clever though.

[Clampy]

I'd go back to five at the back. We had some initial success with it. We got through two legs of the cup against Leicester when not many (me included) gave us a chance. Yes, it got found found out but what we are doing now isn't working either.

[chrisw1]

If we go 3 / 5 at the back, doesn't that mean all our fit defenders have to play 90 mins every single game with Taylor as our only potential cover?

If so, is that realistic / wise for the next 8 games in quick succession?

[Clampy]

If we go 3 / 5 at the back, doesn't that mean all our fit defenders have to play 90 mins every single game with Taylor as our only potential cover?

If so, is that realistic / wise for the next 8 games in quick succession?

That would be a problem, yes. Good point.

[David_Nab]

If we go 3 / 5 at the back, doesn't that mean all our fit defenders have to play 90 mins every single game with Taylor as our only potential cover?

If so, is that realistic / wise for the next 8 games in quick succession?

We are already playing all 3 fit Cbs so tbh I don't think it makes much difference going 3 at back and putting Elmo in the team

[chrisw1]

If we go 3 / 5 at the back, doesn't that mean all our fit defenders have to play 90 mins every single game with Taylor as our only potential cover?

If so, is that realistic / wise for the next 8 games in quick succession?

We are already playing all 3 fit Cbs so tbh I don't think it makes much difference going 3 at back and putting Elmo in the team

Well it does because at the moment we have the option of resting a centre back or dealing with an injury.  If we go all in for 3 at the back we wont be able to do that so any injury is going to completely derail us.

[SoccerHQ]

If we go 3 / 5 at the back, doesn't that mean all our fit defenders have to play 90 mins every single game with Taylor as our only potential cover?

If so, is that realistic / wise for the next 8 games in quick succession?

Don't think Engels is out for the season so he'll be back on the bench soon. Douglas Luiz could also be emergency option, I'm pretty sure he played in Girona back 3 at times last season and wasn't too bad.