I think we should play one up top

[Black, White and Fred]

After Ipswich the apparent thing to me is that the diamond isn't as shiny, valuable and hard to break down as its name suggests.
Even with the abundance of strikers we currently have on the books, the midfield looked very thin.
So I would probably go along the lines of:

                      Keeper
  Hoogland – Bodurov – Burgess – Staf
                       Parker
      Roberts – Hyndman/LCV – Kaca/Williams
                    David/Eisfeld
                McCormack/Woodrow

That said I still expect another 2/3 new arrivals on Deadline day so this could and probably is a waste of time.

[jags24]

Come on, we need at least two up top to score goals.  And we can't have six strikers sitting on the bench.  This is the CL - let's come out guns ablazin' - I wouldn't mind a 4-3-3.

Bigger problem is the diamond midfield means little width to the attack.

[Black, White and Fred]

Yes 4-3-3 could be good but who would you play in that system?

[jags24]

Yes 4-3-3 could be good but who would you play in that system?

Well, we don't really have a target man so we would have to play a false nine.  I am not saying do it, but it would still beat a 4-5-1, imo.  Theoretically, we could play Kaca on the left, McCormack in the center and Woodrow on the right, I suppose.  That would produce some goals.

[Deanothefulhamfan]

4-4-2 as a diamond with the correct personell will be better.

I think you have to play 2 strikers in this league, stats show you are more favoured for success if you play a 4-4-2 system.

I would like a decent CDM, nothing against Burgess but he is a CB, and Parker cannot play that role effectively. Once we got this, I think the diamond would work better.

TBH I would rather us play a flat 4-4-2 with wingers, but it doesnt appear FM likes this.

[Black, White and Fred]

4-4-2 as a diamond with the correct personell will be better.

I think you have to play 2 strikers in this league, stats show you are more favoured for success if you play a 4-4-2 system.

I would like a decent CDM, nothing against Burgess but he is a CB, and Parker cannot play that role effectively. Once we got this, I think the diamond would work better.

TBH I would rather us play a flat 4-4-2 with wingers, but it doesnt appear FM likes this.

TBH I am really just not sold on the diamond maybe Mike Bassett was right all along.

[AUSFFC]

Im unsure on this diamond either, im more of a use the wings fan? a flat 4-4-2 would produce better IMO, but im not sure we have the players to produce this

I believe FM needs to twerk that starting line up and it'll work itself out

[JBH]

I think we should let the manager decide  065.gif

[AUSFFC]

I think we should let the manager decide  065.gif

is that what he's there for? I though he reads our posts, so was just giving him suggestions ahah ;)

[Sammyffc]

Come on, we need at least two up top to score goals.  And we can't have six strikers sitting on the bench.  This is the CL - let's come out guns ablazin' - I wouldn't mind a 4-3-3.

Bigger problem is the diamond midfield means little width to the attack.

Its not the CL btw , thats a completely different competition. Its the championship we are in :)

[jags24]

Come on, we need at least two up top to score goals.  And we can't have six strikers sitting on the bench.  This is the CL - let's come out guns ablazin' - I wouldn't mind a 4-3-3.

Bigger problem is the diamond midfield means little width to the attack.

Its not the CL btw , thats a completely different competition. Its the championship we are in :)

I thought we finished top four last year - wait, isn't this the Chelsea board?!? :down_under:

[MJG]

Totally disagree with only playing one up. Look back over last few years and high percentage of teams who get promoted play two strikers.
Would be mistake to go back to one up top.

[FinFFC]

There has been quite many calls for tactics with properr wingers and concerns risen about our lack of width with this "narrow diamond." Here is my two cents on this matter (or pennies(?)).

I think it is pretty clear and agreed upon that the width with this system is mostly provided by our full-/wingbacks. I think it is also safe to say that in the first match we didn't quite succeed in employing Stafy and Hoog consistently as "width bringers."

IMO the problem was three-fold: 1) both of our fullbacks tried to get forward too quickly, 2) our three upper midfielders (Parker-Hyndman-David) and/or our strikers didn't move to the empty "winger's position" and then GET OUT of there for our fullbacks to fill the space and 3) our CB's didn't dare to play wide enough due to Burgess playing bit too high when we had the ball.

Just elaborate a bit on these three opinions:

1) Stafy and Hoog were clearly given orders to get forward quickly and support the attack. I think they moved up so quickly on Saturday that they effectively played themselves out of the formation that qould have allowed us to "play it from the back". Ie. let the Iswich high pressing forwards to run in triangels and tire themselves out. Now we had to resort to ply it back to the keeper (little too familiar, huh?) since Ipswich could overcrowd our two CB's and DMC when they tried to play it out from the back. Also, moving up too quickly brought IT's fullbacks alert of their presence, thus nullifying the space they would have had to run into with pace, when the timing would have been better.

2) While Hyndman had a great game picking up the ball from our backline and playing it forward with neat passes, Parker did well in keeping things tight and holding the midfield together defensively and David/Eisfeld did both quite well (both in their own ways) while playing AMC, I think the one weakness (before Roberts got in) in our game was, that when we were trying to create chances playing from the back, our midfield diamond played bit too static in their positions. Parker-Hyndman-David trio should have tried to find space from "the empty wingers position" to make it difficult for IT's midfield to mark them. This of course relates to point 1. Since Hoog and Stafy got up "too quickly," there really wasn't any space to be found. But then again, Parker and Hyndman could have also moved to our fullbacks' position while we were rotating the ball. Just standing next to oppositon midfiled "not-being-playable" is anyways unacceptable and will kill our forward play in the future, no matter what the formation!

3) Here I am thinking something along the lines of Brazil's CB's and Luis Gustavo in the World Cup. If you want your FB's to go forward quickly and effectively act as wingers, you still have to have some width also at the back. Now this could be reached by spreading CB's apart and filling the whole between them with the DMC dropping even deeper when we are having the ball. This has advantages in our packed midfield as well, since it wouldn't be then so crowded and it would thus create chances for Parker-Hyndman-David to search open space.

[fulhamben]

Personally (not a fact) I've never been a fan of one up. And to me we have always looked better and been a joy to watch with two up. Whether it be saha  and Barry or bobby and aj.two strikers on song can tear CB's a new one. And I hope dembele and Woodrow get the nod on sat as they know how to play together

[jags24]

This would be a nice side:

                    Joronen

Hoogland Bodurov  Burn Stafylidis

         Parker         Burgess

                  David

Woodrow                   Kacaniklic
               McCormack

---

Hoogland and Staf would have plenty of room to get up and down the wings, and it would be fun to watch.  Parker and Burgess provide the defensive cover.  Yes, it is similar to how we started last year, but against weaker opposition it would look much different in the matches since we can keep possession this year.