Tweet
We start matches either in our most common 3-4-2-1 formation or 3-4-1-2 if we leave one of Chair or Willock out to accodate two strikers. When we chase matches we often switch to four at the back, allowing for various combination further up the field, depending on whether we introduce an extra striker or not, Adomah on the right or Thomas as an extra midfielder, or we switch to a diamond formation as yesterday. We rarely change like for like. Substitutions often come together with change of formation.
Warburton has more often got it right than wrong with his substitutions.
I understand that we start with three at the back and two wing-backs, given the success we had in the second half of last season. But I can't stop thinking we have been better with a conventional back four recently, particularly when we don't have Wallace available. It allows for one extra man in attack, but might make us more vulnerable defensively. I understand Warburton thinks it is more suited late in the matches, when we have tired the opposition.
I would be interested to see a full match played with 4 at the back. If McCallum can also play at the right hand side, which I read somwhere, the back four could be (from left to right): Barbet, de Wijs, Dickie and McCallum. I wouldn't leave one of our three main central defenders out to accomodate for both McCallum and Moses.
That would allow for both Chair and Willock and a front two of Dykes, Austin or Grey. Chair and Willock would have to play a bit wider than in our classic formation, or in a diamond shape.
Warburton has more often got it right than wrong with his substitutions.
I understand that we start with three at the back and two wing-backs, given the success we had in the second half of last season. But I can't stop thinking we have been better with a conventional back four recently, particularly when we don't have Wallace available. It allows for one extra man in attack, but might make us more vulnerable defensively. I understand Warburton thinks it is more suited late in the matches, when we have tired the opposition.
I would be interested to see a full match played with 4 at the back. If McCallum can also play at the right hand side, which I read somwhere, the back four could be (from left to right): Barbet, de Wijs, Dickie and McCallum. I wouldn't leave one of our three main central defenders out to accomodate for both McCallum and Moses.
That would allow for both Chair and Willock and a front two of Dykes, Austin or Grey. Chair and Willock would have to play a bit wider than in our classic formation, or in a diamond shape.
Comment