Which formation did you prefer?

[Milo]

I thought our formation in the first half worked well actually.

It was able to mask Christie getting caught up field because Odoi could easily cover his position. When the formation changed and we went for 2 CBs, Arsenal were able to exploit that space in behind Christie easier.

I also felt because the formation was actually quite attacking, Arsenal were pegged into their own half more and only managed small counter attacks we were largely able to deal with.

Question is, which formation do we play for these next few games?

[humussapiens]

I thought our formation in the first half worked well actually.

It was able to mask Christie getting caught up field because Odoi could easily cover his position. When the formation changed and we went for 2 CBs, Arsenal were able to exploit that space in behind Christie easier.

I also felt because the formation was actually quite attacking, Arsenal were pegged into their own half more and only managed small counter attacks we were largely able to deal with.

Question is, which formation do we play for these next few games?

That 3-4-3 formation is probably ok at home, at least (was used in Milwall game too). So as 4-3-3. Really much depends on full-backs/wing-backs.

Against Watford in the second half Slav used 4-2-3-1 that also worked. I would say this formation we could use in away games. Top 6 teams away might require different, more cautious formation, say 4-4-1-1.

[humussapiens]

Forgot to add - the poll is a bit one-sided. I cannot imagine that someone would vote for the second half formation knowing what happened...

[toshes mate]

It isn't a fair choice.  I'd like to see a formation that actually sees a team playing together as if they mean it.   We haven't found one yet and that may be for a whole host of issues including, but not exclusively, the one that says we haven't got eleven players fit for a PL team.

[twang]

None of them. Four at the back just doesn't work for us at the moment and three/five at the back with only two central midfielders leaves us way too open in front of the back three/five. IMHO we can't afford having three players up front that mainly focuses on attacking at the moment, it costs too much when we lose the ball.

3-5-2/5-3-2 is the way forward for me, at least until Slav has worked out a way to play his preferred 4-3-3 without conceding three goals a game.

[filham]

If we are playing three at the back then the two wing halves have to spend a lot of time falling back so that we have five across the back. Christie was not doing this so different Arsenal players with pace were exploiting the space left on our right flank right from the beginning of the game. We were lucky to concede only one goal in the first half.

Three at the back is a 5-2-2 formation when defending and 3-2-5 when attacking. Teams ,like Arsenal, with real pace will catch you down the flanks on the break.

[toshes mate]

There was a moment leading up to the fourth goal (1-3) on Sunday where five opponents  were closer to our goal line than all the other players except for three.  In other words outright attack works when you pick the moment to exploit it.  Our problem is not creating the moments when such an attack is both desirable and likely to lead to a goal, and because Schurrle (very much so) and Vietto (too much so) do not fight back to cover the gaps when they lose the ball leaving the supporting wing backs who may also be out of position an impossible task.  Imagine if our opponents had given the ball away cheaply just before that fourth goal - would we have countered effectively?  I very much doubt it.

[We Are Premier League]

433/451 for me - feel that we will get overrun in the centre of the park with only two CM

[AnOldBrownie]

3-5-2

The two midfield wingers are going to have to be fit and fast as heck because at times  the shape will need to morph to a 5-3-2 against better attacking teams (top 6)...but switch to attack when we counter.


imo...best way to use Sess and Fosu Mensah (when he's healthy)

Midfield could be Sess..Cairney...Anguissa...Seri...Fosu Mensah

That midfield won't work well together until January though.   The side has to get comfortable with posession of the ball and I don't think Anguissa on the level yet, and Cairney still isn't healthy.

[Woolly Mammoth]

Question is, which formation do we play for these next few games?

One that stops our opponents from scoring, and keeps a clean sheet.

[filham]

Let us try the W formation from the fifties, it was teriffic.

[..FOF..]

Even before the drubbing, our 2nd half formation looks like we are playing with only 2 at the back.

It is not about formation.

It is about getting the players used to the different formations.

[Woolly Mammoth]

Let us try the W formation from the fifties, it was teriffic.

Whether it's your cup of tea or not. Wolves had success with it in the 50s, as did Spurs in the 60s.
It really is a simple game, that can be complicated by pundits, to justify their jobs and obscene salaries.
We have to get points on the board, and if plan A is not reaping the points, then try plan B, then C then D, until it works.

[MrFFC]

3-4-2-1 would be a good one for me

                        Bettinelli
           Chambers   Ream  Mawson
Fosu-Mensah   Cairney     Seri     Sessegnon
                   Schurrle    Vietto
                         Mitrovic

That's a team I would personally like to see

[Woolly Mammoth]

That's not a bad lineup, but did you not obtain that formation from the late great Ted Rogers, whose star player was Dusty Bin, or was that formation 3 2 1 ?

[simplyfulham]

That's not a bad lineup, but did you not obtain that formation from the late great Ted Rogers, whose star player was Dusty Bin, or was that formation 3 2 1 ?

A Cairney/Seri midfield wouldn't get close to making a tackle let alone pressing an opposition midfield.

[simplyfulham]

I'm more than happy to confess to being the sole voter who's voted for 'second half formation' in this thread.

I'm not entirely stupid, I don't think we were any good in the section half. But we have played a 4-3-3 before and we've done it much better. We've even played as a 4-3-3 and played better than we did as the 3-4-3 we played in the first half.

We've even won a game this year in the premier league as a 4-3-3. So it seems a very easy choice given the two options in the poll alone.

[Forever Fulham]

4-4-2
With the fullbacks roaming only so far as to be able to get back when needed.  Is that so hard?