What was the formation today?

[spoonffc]

Just wondering if anyone knows what the formation was today? Who was up top and did we play 3 at the back?

[Sting of the North]

Usual formation.

Up to we had Bryan left, Ivan centre and Knockaert right.

Defence was Odoi, Mawson, Hector, Christie (left to right).

[brightster]

I think it was more of 3-5-2 but Christie dropped back to right back when defending

[millsy]

Yes, so Joe left wing and Cav centre forward but we got away with it! In fact we looked really good as the game wore on, following a clueless first half from both sides.

Ironically, Rodák lofted twice as many balls up the middle as he does when Mitro is there. Strange.

[Bassey the warrior]

Usual formation.

Up to we had Bryan left, Ivan centre and Knockaert right.

Defence was Odoi, Mawson, Hector, Christie (left to right).

It was more like a 3-5-2. Onomah played the shadow striker role bursting forward from midfield, with Cav and Knocky as inverted wingers.

[colinwhite]

4 33

[MikeTheCubed]

3-5-2 and I think we will see more of it going forward.

[MikeTheCubed]

Having now had a look at the average positions, perhaps more of a 3-6-1?

[FFCAli]

Having now had a look at the average positions, perhaps more of a 3-6-1?

Interesting.  Thanks for that. 

[Sting of the North]

This thread goes to show that it is quite pointless often what you name a formation.

The way I saw the game, Odoi was not playing CB, not even in a back 3. The way I saw it he didn't tuck in much at all. It may have looked otherwise live however, since you miss out a lot on the telly. It was like having a left back with a wing back in front almost. I would still probably say it was a back 4, with our right back going forward a lot, and our left back being more defensive. I was in any case generally impressed with how our flanks worked together defensively, which has not been common this season.

But where you really draw the line between different formations matters little, since the transition between them is fluid, and the lines between what to call them is blurry in reality. The same with calling Onomah a shadow striker or an attacking mid. The important part is that the players work together, and that they are prepared to move to cover for each other defensively and create space and passing opportunities going forward.

[AnOldBrownie]

This thread goes to show that it is quite pointless often what you name a formation.

The way I saw the game, Odoi was not playing CB, not even in a back 3. The way I saw it he didn't tuck in much at all. It may have looked otherwise live however, since you miss out a lot on the telly. It was like having a left back with a wing back in front almost. I would still probably say it was a back 4, with our right back going forward a lot, and our left back being more defensive. I was in any case generally impressed with how our flanks worked together defensively, which has not been common this season.

But where you really draw the line between different formations matters little, since the transition between them is fluid, and the lines between what to call them is blurry in reality. The same with calling Onomah a shadow striker or an attacking mid. The important part is that the players work together, and that they are prepared to move to cover for each other defensively and create space and passing opportunities going forward.

This.  Football is fluid and formations will change during a game.   Well, unless you're one of those types of teams that likes to sit back and absorb pressure.

[ALG01]

it was actually closest to 4 5 1 with the two wide players getting forward often so it became 4 3 3.
it was fluid so you could make a case for a number of formations but cav was isolated so often I thought it looked more continental 5 in midfield yet onomajh sometiumes broke forward so then it became 4 4 2/
in the end we won 2 1 so no big deal

[Statto]

This thread goes to show that it is quite pointless often what you name a formation.

The way I saw the game, Odoi was not playing CB, not even in a back 3. The way I saw it he didn't tuck in much at all. It may have looked otherwise live however, since you miss out a lot on the telly. It was like having a left back with a wing back in front almost. I would still probably say it was a back 4, with our right back going forward a lot, and our left back being more defensive. I was in any case generally impressed with how our flanks worked together defensively, which has not been common this season.

But where you really draw the line between different formations matters little, since the transition between them is fluid, and the lines between what to call them is blurry in reality. The same with calling Onomah a shadow striker or an attacking mid. The important part is that the players work together, and that they are prepared to move to cover for each other defensively and create space and passing opportunities going forward.

This.  Football is fluid and formations will change during a game.   Well, unless you're one of those types of teams that likes to sit back and absorb pressure.

Agree

One of my pet hates happens to be this over-complication of formations

We normally play 4-3-3 and the offal had it down as 4-3-3 vs Villa so unless there's strong evidence to the contrary, that's a 4-3-3 to me

Unless we were playing some assymetrical formation with Odoi at LB, Bryan at LW and Christie as RWB then the average positions map is largely meaningless here

If someone wants to say "it was 4-3-3 but we transitioned to a 2-5-3 when in possession" or "it was a 4-2-1-2-1 because Onomah was slightly more advanced than Arter..." etc that's their prerogative of course

[Matt10]

It was a 4-3-3, and when Arter came on it was a 4-2-3-1 with StefJo and Arter playing central.

https://www.whoscored.com/Matches/1434402/Live/England-FA-Cup-2019-2020-Fulham-Aston-Villa

[MikeTheCubed]

-Officially- it was 433, the formation was included when the Club tweeted the lineup at 2pm prior to the game, which is a random feature in itself. My interpretation of it being 352 was based on what I saw with my own eyes while in attendance of the game, and I believe the average position map (while it can be interpreted in different ways by different people) lends credence to this; particularly because Christie (supposedly playing full back) was more advanced than Bryan (supposedly left wing / wide forward).

Agreed that the formation alone is of little relevance however, what's more important is the roles in which players are deployed and how well they transition between defense and attack.

[SuffolkWhite]

According to GJ on Fulham TV we played a 352.

[Gloria Hunter]

-Officially- it was 433, the formation was included when the Club tweeted the lineup at 2pm prior to the game, which is a random feature in itself. My interpretation of it being 352 was based on what I saw with my own eyes while in attendance of the game, and I believe the average position map (while it can be interpreted in different ways by different people) lends credence to this; particularly because Christie (supposedly playing full back) was more advanced than Bryan (supposedly left wing / wide forward).

Agreed that the formation alone is of little relevance however, what's more important is the roles in which players are deployed and how well they transition between defense and attack.

Yes, this surely must be true.  If you have what people call a 4 5 1, which I suppose is a reasonably defensive line up, but when we have the ball and attack it easily becomes a 4 3 3.  I think people get far too hung up on formations.

[ALG01]

According to GJ on Fulham TV we played a 352.

the one thing it was not was 3 5 2
we had two center halves, cyrus at RB and denis Odoi at LB. wioth full backs got forward but we surely had 4 at the back. not sure what GJ was watching.

[Jamie88]

According to GJ on Fulham TV we played a 352.

the one thing it was not was 3 5 2
we had two center halves, cyrus at RB and denis Odoi at LB. wioth full backs got forward but we surely had 4 at the back. not sure what GJ was watching.

I'd certainly agree we mainly had three at the back. Christie spent most of his time in an advanced position at right midfield and Odoi didn't really advance past the half way line barely at all.

[cottage expat]

-Officially- it was 433, the formation was included when the Club tweeted the lineup at 2pm prior to the game, which is a random feature in itself. My interpretation of it being 352 was based on what I saw with my own eyes while in attendance of the game, and I believe the average position map (while it can be interpreted in different ways by different people) lends credence to this; particularly because Christie (supposedly playing full back) was more advanced than Bryan (supposedly left wing / wide forward).

Agreed that the formation alone is of little relevance however, what's more important is the roles in which players are deployed and how well they transition between defense and attack.

I had exactly the same interpretation (official 433 but actual 352). Whatever it was, it worked and Scotty deserves some credit.