Could we be working our way to a 3-5-2/5-3-2?

[God The Mechanic]

A lot has been said about our lack of defensive stability as well as our seeming reluctance to buy, or at least play, any natural wide midfielders.  The lack of width means we have no defensive cover for areas we are iffy at best, and also means we rarely put any decent crosses in for our forwards to attack.  We've also seen a huge number of central players brought in, with only Garbutt of this summer's recruits being seen as a natural wide player - and his strengths are more as an attacking full back than a defensive one.

IF we do sign another centre back, we would have effectively four "decent" players fighting for two positions in a 4-4-2, with two of them being new recruits, Burn being the one we selfishly want to make it and Hutchinson who has been the most solid of our defenders this year - it'd be harsh to drop one let alone both of those.

In theory, playing three centre backs would allow us to be better placed to recover from the inevitable mistakes that are gonna happen, as well as accommodating the midfielders in their best, central, positions.  Neither LVC or Cairney WANT to play wide right, and if we draft either Hyndman or Pringle in the same can be said for them - the only wide player we do have is Kaca, and he blows hot and cold.

If we are heading for a back 3, then we'd need to recruit someone who is best on the right hand side of defence (hell, even if we're looking at sticking to 2 central defenders we need a right sided one) which would seemingly rule out Dunk.  Ideally one who could also play semi-effectively at right back (to mirror Ream on the left hand side) so they'd be more natural at covering the wider areas that side too.

Switching to something like this.

That would mean we would have more defensive cover, wing backs who are naturally better going forwards being used as primarily attacking width, a holding ball playing playmaker who isn't afraid to get his foot stuck in, both Cairney and LVC in their better and preferred roles - hopefully giving LVC the freedom to return to last season's form - McCormack able to drop off as a #10 with Dembele stretching the defenders - we could even bring in a pacey striker á la Gayle to replace Dembele if the quality is there for a decent price.  We would also have the option to rotate players like Hyndman and Pringle in the middle, Matilla as well potentially, Kavanagh and Kaca could maybe do a job as an offensive wing back like Valencia has done for Man Utd if we're chasing the game, Smith could be a different form of #9, Grimmer was originally a centre back I believe so he could slot in either wing back or right centre back, Parker and Tunnicliffe could do their "box to box" thing without leaving the defence over stretched like last year.

Looking at the U21s - Evans would probably benefit from being a wing back more than a full back, Taggart could offer something too.  We're also seemingly getting rid of our most impressive wide man in Plumain too.

Everything we have done over the summer has resulted in us strengthening the middle at the expense of the wide areas - if that continues with whoever we bring in in the remaining 10 days then it makes sense to try and play to those strengths and actually play those central players AS central players, not filling in on he wing.

Just a thought.  A long-winded thought.

[Denver Fulham]

I have thought similarly about our personnel being best arranged in this formation, but Kit's too incompetent to be able to implement this successfully, so a managerial change would have to be added.

[H4usuallysitting]

I understand what you're saying, but I feel we are lacking simple things like fitness, shape (of team) and discipline - I don't think these simple things have improved since last season.....each player should have a job and our football should be instinctive, at the moment they look like they've never seen each other before and are playing as individuals..... So I feel it's not a question of 442/532/5411, it's more a question of organisation, discipline and fitness

[God The Mechanic]

I understand what you're saying, but I feel we are lacking simple things like fitness, shape (of team) and discipline - I don't think these simple things have improved since last season.....each player should have a job and our football should be instinctive, at the moment they look like they've never seen each other before and are playing as individuals..... So I feel it's not a question of 442/532/5411, it's more a question of organisation, discipline and fitness

Absolutely, not suggesting the formation is anywhere near the whole reason we're playing as we are - more questioning whether the players we have would be more suited to it in the long run than being shoe horned into a 4-4-2 with several players out of position or not being utilised to their best abilities.

[FinFFC]

With out current crop of players, I'd say we should go with an attacking 2-3-2-1-2, with attacking wing backs both sides of very deep lying O'Hara.

In front of O'hara you could put LVC/Cairney/Pringle/Parker, Ross in the hole, Demble/Woodrow/Taggart/Smith (when fit again) at top.

The two in front of O'Hara would have to be given orders to:
1) Make a lot of forward runs, even behind the defensive line (as Ross will eventually drop deep anyway)
2) Be ready to help the wing back at their own sides

O'Hara should be then dropping as the third CB, if we lose the ball with our WB's high up the pitch, as one of the actual CB's may have to go and pressure the winger.

Don't think our current management would be able to train this to work thou. It would take "Royish" disciplinary to drill it to perfection. Just thinking this would put our players in their "best positions and roles."

[God The Mechanic]

Gonna give this a cheeky bump.

With our reported interest in both Mancienne (who would offer the versatility needed for the right side of a back 3) and Sako (who could be the central of the three) that would (barring any other departures than Amorebieta) leave us as heavily numbered in central defence as we are in central midfield.  Husband could simply cover the LWB position of Garbutt.

[Bill2]

With out current crop of players, I'd say we should go with an attacking 2-3-2-1-2, with attacking wing backs both sides of very deep lying O'Hara.

In front of O'hara you could put LVC/Cairney/Pringle/Parker, Ross in the hole, Demble/Woodrow/Taggart/Smith (when fit again) at top.

The two in front of O'Hara would have to be given orders to:
1) Make a lot of forward runs, even behind the defensive line (as Ross will eventually drop deep anyway)
2) Be ready to help the wing back at their own sides

O'Hara should be then dropping as the third CB, if we lose the ball with our WB's high up the pitch, as one of the actual CB's may have to go and pressure the winger.

Don't think our current management would be able to train this to work thou. It would take "Royish" disciplinary to drill it to perfection. Just thinking this would put our players in their "best positions and roles."

I would like to add Tunnicliffe in the mix, he had a great game on Tuesday and certainly ran at the opposition. I know some will see it was against weaker opposition but LVC was very poor and I would certainly start Tunni over him. It would also fill the two central midfielders and allow Cairney to play a wider role.

[YoungsBitter]

If we play 3 CBs then assume we play Richards and Garbutt/Husband as WBs. The problem then is you only have 5 remaining out field positions and we have wealth of midfielders - agree with your original point no natural wideman other than Williams and Kaca but agree hot or cold and generally more cold.
If you play striker alongside Ross you are down to 3 positions. We have O'Hara, LVC, Cairney, Tunnicliffe, Parker, Hindeman and Matilla to fit in and none of them can play the WB role. You also have Pringle, Kaca and Cole who could maybe rotate into WB.
I think 3-5-2 causes more problems in midfield than gets resolved.

[love4ffc]

I understand what you're saying, but I feel we are lacking simple things like fitness, shape (of team) and discipline - I don't think these simple things have improved since last season.....each player should have a job and our football should be instinctive, at the moment they look like they've never seen each other before and are playing as individuals..... So I feel it's not a question of 442/532/5411, it's more a question of organisation, discipline and fitness

Absolutely, not suggesting the formation is anywhere near the whole reason we're playing as we are - more questioning whether the players we have would be more suited to it in the long run than being shoe horned into a 4-4-2 with several players out of position or not being utilised to their best abilities.

This is the point I was trying to get through on my other post.  It's like someone said on another thread.  We going to OCD on the midfield and defenders which makes me hope we haven't forgotten about the wings.  It also makes me fear that we don't have an actual plan rather we're just buying players. 

[FPT]

I've spoken (and thought about) three at the back for a long while at Fulham - my biggest post on it was back in Jan 2013; and I do still maintain that our squad, despite major surgery since then, suits that shape.

I think Tim Ream is the ideal left sided centre back, and rumours of Michael Mancienne just has me picturing him on the right hand side of Dan Burn - allowing Jazz and Garbutt (when fit) more freedom to attack. Jamie O'Hara can still play the quarter back role with Lasse and Cairney either side of him - Ross and Moussa up top.

I would like to see it experimented, and would applaud Kit for tactical experimentation, but understand with it early in the season and so many new players, sticking with the planned shape is sensible.

I do think it's a more than plausible option though.