Is it time to scrap the wing-backs?

[JoelH5]

Is it time to scrap the wing-backs?

I think it is. One of the main reasons we seem to be conceding is due to getting caught on the break.

When you have Mitro, Cav, AK, Reid, Knockaert, Ayite up top and on the wings, I don't think you also need to have wing-backs. Those players are easily good enough to work goals between them.

If we could move to a propper 4 at the back, we would instantly become a lot more solid. Granted we'd become less attacking but as I say, our attacking players would get in most, if not all Championship teams. We don't need them to be further supported by wing-backs to the detriment of our ability to defend.

[SuffolkWhite]

A different formation is needed but what? 352,4411,442,451, In midfield we get by passed too easy and think we need numbers in there.

[grandad]

A different formation is needed but what? 352,4411,442,451, In midfield we get by passed too easy and think we need numbers in there.

I agree as the current 4-3-3 does not work. With the addition of Hector maybe a 3-5-2 could work.

[filham]

A different formation is needed but what? 352,4411,442,451, In midfield we get by passed too easy and think we need numbers in there.

I agree as the current 4-3-3 does not work. With the addition of Hector maybe a 3-5-2 could work.

Something needs changing tactically , opponents know exactly how to handle us.

[Facts Not Fiction]

Is it time to scrap the wing-backs?

I think it is. One of the main reasons we seem to be conceding is due to getting caught on the break.

When you have Mitro, Cav, AK, Reid, Knockaert, Ayite up top and on the wings, I don't think you also need to have wing-backs. Those players are easily good enough to work goals between them.

If we could move to a propper 4 at the back, we would instantly become a lot more solid. Granted we'd become less attacking but as I say, our attacking players would get in most, if not all Championship teams. We don't need them to be further supported by wing-backs to the detriment of our ability to defend.

Seeing as our fullbacks are considered "attacking", I don't think this will work.

One of the main reasons I think we're underperforming is because Bryan and Odoi are being restricted in terms of going forward. 

[JoelH5]

Is it time to scrap the wing-backs?

I think it is. One of the main reasons we seem to be conceding is due to getting caught on the break.

When you have Mitro, Cav, AK, Reid, Knockaert, Ayite up top and on the wings, I don't think you also need to have wing-backs. Those players are easily good enough to work goals between them.

If we could move to a propper 4 at the back, we would instantly become a lot more solid. Granted we'd become less attacking but as I say, our attacking players would get in most, if not all Championship teams. We don't need them to be further supported by wing-backs to the detriment of our ability to defend.

Seeing as our fullbacks are considered "attacking", I don't think this will work.

One of the main reasons I think we're underperforming is because Bryan and Odoi are being restricted in terms of going forward. 

It's the exact opposite in my opinion. Watch the game back from the weekend. You will see how many times Brentford broke on the counter as Bryan was out of position. We don't need them to get forward. They are attacking players more than defenders so 4 at the back with an actual LB and RB would make us a lot stronger I think.

[Statto]

One of the main reasons I think we're underperforming is because Bryan and Odoi are being restricted in terms of going forward. 

Agreed. They need to get forward more, not less.

How often do our full backs get right down to the corner flag or inside the opposition's penalty area? Fredericks and Sessegnon used to do that every time we went forward

I agree we're often exposed when defending from our left full-back position, in particular, but IMO that's because Bryan is lazy/clueless (you can blame the manager either way) when not in possession, rather than forced so far up the pitch he can't possibly get back   

[fulhamphil]

A different formation is needed but what? 352,4411,442,451, In midfield we get by passed too easy and think we need numbers in there.

I agree as the current 4-3-3 does not work. With the addition of Hector maybe a 3-5-2 could work.

A number of pressing issues need addressing before we slide further down the table. Some current problems are the product of injuries disrupting progress, but then proper forward planning last August should have solved that. Now with half the season gone, and amazingly sitting 6th in the table, Parker's staff face a critical period to save our season. Last time we won at Brentford Malone destroyed the Bees down the left flank. His thrusting runs also brought the best out of Cairney. Ryan's intelligent play likewise gave further impetus to Tom's game, but from his last two run outs Cairney has failed to influence the game at all. Bryan's game has gone backwards and Fredericks was never properly replaced. Poor recruitment over two seasons now. Brentford by contrast are light years ahead of us in scouting networks and working the transfer market well. Something has to change. For those suggesting 3-5-2 this Fulham badly needs another engine beyond Stefjo. The Spurs loanee is absolutely NOT the solution. Keep picking him Parker and prepare to fail. Without questioning his heart and energy, Mawson's inability to read a game keeps us on a knife edge at the back, something the Bees front three exploited to perfection. Golly but we're heaping expectation on young Hector's shoulders without yet seeing him pull on the shirt. Pray he comes good and that further solid signings are made in January. Send the loanees back and let's have players who WANT to be at Fulham. One final thought on Scott's tactics. When your side has been so comprehensively outplayed over the first 45 v both Bristol City and Brentford why then would you sit game changers like Reid and Kamara on the bench for a further 20 minutes? 

[toshes mate]

My initial thoughts on formation would be to have a midfield diamond in a 4-4-2 with one, at a time, of the wider pair of midfielders supporting an attacking full back and the other enabling the defence to slide across.  However, this is not without the shortcomings of almost any formation you care to think of if players are not savvy enough to cover space when it appears and before possession is lost. 

My main criticism of Parker is that his 'thinking' is all over the place to the extent that he is repeating the same mistakes over and over again.  I think he is over instructing and not keeping things simple.  I also believe he is trying to prove he is cleverer than he really is and that is dangerous both for him and his squad.  I believe an example of this is his patient and muted adulation of Onamah, which needs to be placed alongside his dismissive attitude of S Sessegnon after performances that were certainly no worse than we have seen from the former Spur's man.   I also saw partnership issues on Saturday on both flanks and that has been a familiar issue since this season began.   

What has Parker done well?   Well his results were a marked improvement on any former manager in the Khan era, but, and it has to be said no matter what people may argue against it, sometimes managers get lucky with results over a limited time.   The real character of a coach and team begins to show itself after x games, and x is a variable that no statistic is ever going to reveal to anyone until it shows itself clear and bright repetitively.   Are Parker's teams clear and bright?  No, they are muddled and dark, riddled with errors that suggest players are conforming rather than enjoying.  I see players scrapping to get through games and no dominating opponents as if they mean it.   It isn't time to scrap the systems, any systems, it is time to stop muddling through and over-complicating things; as SJ would say it is all about solutions and I am rapidly becoming concerned that Parker hasn't got what it takes to do that.   

[Robbie]

4 4 2

[Matt10]

The issue is not necessarily the wing backs, but it's the defensive pressure in transition - so when the opponent receives the ball. We pressure out wide with our wingbacks, but we also pressure just as high with our centre backs. That's the issue. It's similar to how Ranieri forced our defensive midfielders to cover the wings versus stay central - but in this case, Parker opts to push the wingbacks and centre-backs to cover ball-side, which forces the opponent to either A) switch the field, B) play centrally or C) get lucky and win a 50/50 ball; which is 80% of the way we've conceded goals.

I was watching back through some Slav matches, and our wingbacks overlapped so high, that the priority was then to force our defensive midfielder (McDonald mostly) to drop back, while the opposite wingback tucked in. Our centre-backs did not pressure as high, and our wingbacks contained versus pressured immediately as well. So we absorbed the pressure early in transition versus trying to meet it head on.

Based on our vulnerabilities at the back, and not able to win 50/50 balls, that may be best to just go ahead and drop back and absorb pressure. It's quite rare that we've conceded from a proper, multi-pass, build up from the opposition.

[colinwhite]

Matt ,fine but we also had Fredricks and sess `s pace to recover if need be. That made the difference.

[Matt10]

Matt ,fine but we also had Fredricks and sess `s pace to recover if need be. That made the difference.

I can see how that'd be the case, but before that combo we had Odoi and Malone, Husband and Richards, etc. Slav's template was fairly uniform, however when Fredericks was present we definitely dropped Kmac and opposite wingback further because Fredericks took on his man to the end-line the majority of the time.