We have to get back to a four man defence

[Eggs]

I'd even, as a last resort, try swappng them over to see if they could cut inside and add to the attack that way.

….the problem is they would also need to cut inside when getting the ball deeper and tackling with the wrong leg becomes an issue.

Pat VdH wasn’t a natural left footer but he was such a talent that you’d hardly know.

i do think we need blend on both flanks, we seem to lack partnerships at this point in time.

 

[degsy]

5 at the back you need wingbacks that get forward. Mykolenko is a poor offensive player.

I’ve never understood managers who try to force a formation that doesn’t suit the players they have.

They all subconsciously want the sack?

 

[Berkshire blue]

If we go to a back 4 Patterson will get lost as a right back might be a good idea to judge the formation and how it works once lampard has had time to bring his own players in remember this his his first window he needs at least 3 before we bin him or any formation

 

[Martin Alvito]

If we go to a back 4 Patterson will get lost as a right back might be a good idea to judge the formation and how it works once lampard has had time to bring his own players in remember this his his first window he needs at least 3 before we bin him or any formation

Interesting way to look at it.

I can get behind the notion that we're playing five at the back (and bringing Coady in on loan) because it's what the pieces in the Lego box can do.

Like Dave, I think that we need to be four at the back long-term. I'm willing to believe that very few players he inherited are suited to it. If that's the case, we need to make some deep changes to get there.

The implication is that we need to put up with some blag footy in the interim until we can get there, and have patience with  a manager (not necessarily Lampard) during that transition, because they're going to be forced to play 5 at the back until they can buy the right Lego pieces.

 

[scratchnsurf]

Interesting way to look at it.

I can get behind the notion that we're playing five at the back (and bringing Coady in on loan) because it's what the pieces in the Lego box can do.

Like Dave, I think that we need to be four at the back long-term. I'm willing to believe that very few players he inherited are suited to it. If that's the case, we need to make some deep changes to get there.

The implication is that we need to put up with some blag footy in the interim until we can get there, and have patience with  a manager (not necessarily Lampard) during that transition, because they're going to be forced to play 5 at the back until they can buy the right Lego pieces.

You can get anything you want from Bricklink.

 

[Martin Alvito]

You can get anything you want from Bricklink.

Sure, but you have to be able to afford it.

 

[Paul Rideout]

We have a LB that can't lay wingback and a wingback who's ability to play RB is up for debate.

I'd love us to switch to a back 4. I don't care how many books Kev has written on the subject, we as a club invariably end up with a back 5 resulting in no wide outlet.

 

[Look to the future]

We should do a poll on this.

 

[Efctrueblue]

Attacking wise we caused them problems yesterday with the diagonal balls out to the fullbacks. Given our lack of CM’s and striker, i think it works well in that department, Patterson especially seems to flourish in that role.

The problem comes when we lose the ball, the amount of times they broke and had at least 3v3 yesterday was frightening. Neither Iwobi or Onana are ‘sitters’. I think 3-5-2 would suit better than 3-4-3

 

[Bawbag]

Obsessed with this back 4 aren’t u. We currently have a left back and right back that can’t defend so do we go in the market for 2 that can?

 

[dannyboy]

Obsessed with this back 4 aren’t u. We currently have a left back and right back that can’t defend so do we go in the market for 2 that can?

Mykolenko defends well generally. It's going forward where he offers very little.

 

[golfyboy]

This present system of three is not us and it's not that effective, as seldom do we have five at the back when we have to transition when the ball is with the opposition. It's alien to us and it's showing. We're playing it because of personnel, not because it's a tactical strength. Lampard is frustrated we dont have the people here to go with 4 at the back and 3 in midfield and said so recently.

We conceded yesterday because the players we have just cant work the system and we end up with non-defenders bundling over the opposition to hand pens and victories to them.

So who is to blame, not the players.Buck stops with the manager.
If we played four at the back from game one, "HOW MANY POINTS WOULD WE NOW HAVE?".
I would suggest we might have 6, 7or even 9.???
They team is playing the managers way.Forget injuries, forget no strikers unlucky, badly run club.

The manager picks the way we train, set up play.

Rest my case.

If he now changes, even if he signs five great players.

Why, it aint worked and we might have thrown 9points away, more by after West Ham.

So the manager has made a massive error if it pans out that way.
He might be forced to change the system.
Then its him under the microscope.

 

[Joey66]

Well the system has not produced a win as yet ....on Frank's head now if he persists with us being outnumbered in midfield in the middle & no one up front ......

It's so crucial he fetches players in of quality to gain wins .....

 

[diggerdestroyer]

5 at back is pointless unless you use attacking wingback. Currently lampard doesn't let them forward enough.

 

[matty1878]

5 at back is pointless unless you use attacking wingback. Currently lampard doesn't let them forward enough.

we need good players to do it