That was probably the G-rated and PC response
Formation Speculation
- Thread starter sbrylski
- Start date
Woah. Is this a solution for getting Lampard and Pirlo on the field at the same time? Using our typical starters thru GW2 plus Lampard and Mendoza (EDIT: See three posts down for a better proposal):
Last edited:
I pictured it like
----Brillant--Bravo---Mena------
-------------Pirlo----------------
-----Mix------------Lampard----
--Iraola---------------------Matarrita---
----------Taylor------Villa---------
more like 352.
Exciting to have more to talk about!
----Brillant--Bravo---Mena------
-------------Pirlo----------------
-----Mix------------Lampard----
--Iraola---------------------Matarrita---
----------Taylor------Villa---------
more like 352.
Exciting to have more to talk about!
Trying to figure out a way to have
S
sbrylski be right about Mendoza and
T
Tom in Fairfield CT be right about Iraola, since I think they both are.
I'd say S sbrylski is closer to our current roster/injuries/Vieira's preferences.
I'd say S sbrylski is closer to our current roster/injuries/Vieira's preferences.
That's pretty weak with only 3 dedicated defenders and no midfield cover.
See this tactical analysis article: http://spielverlagerung.com/2016/03...-top-eastern-conference-teams-ends-in-a-draw/
It draws our 3-4-3 formation as more of a 3-2-4-1, because our wingers track back and our two attacking midfielders charge forward. The line of four consists of Taylor - McNamara - Mix - Shelton.
I'll revise my initial proposal above to predict that Vieira just wants to pull one of those four attackers out for Lampard, who will sit deeper, i.e. instead of a 3-2-4-1, it becomes a 3-3-3-1 or 3-3-4. Like this:
Given the expected substitution of Lampard for McNamara any game now, this actually seems like the simplest formation switch.
Not sold on the backline makeup yet though, definitely let that battle rage on.
All of these are so much better (and more fun to watch) than everything we put on the field last year. We have so much possession and create so many chances, it's like goals can (and do) come from anyone/anywhere at any time. I really like Bravo as a destroyer in the midfield. He took a beating last night, but he reciprocated all the same. He's the leg-breaker I was hoping Brillant would be.
Thats a great article. Do they do recaps of every match?That's pretty weak with only 3 dedicated defenders and no midfield cover.
See this tactical analysis article: http://spielverlagerung.com/2016/03...-top-eastern-conference-teams-ends-in-a-draw/
It draws our 3-4-3 formation as more of a 3-2-4-1, because our wingers track back and our two attacking midfielders charge forward. The line of four consists of Taylor - McNamara - Mix - Shelton.
I'll revise my initial proposal above to predict that Vieira just wants to pull one of those four attackers out for Lampard, who will sit deeper, i.e. instead of a 3-2-4-1, it becomes a 3-3-3-1 or 3-3-4. Like this:
Given the expected substitution of Lampard for McNamara any game now, this actually seems like the simplest formation switch.
Not sold on the backline makeup yet though, definitely let that battle rage on.
I'm fine with a three man backline if our offense scores more goals than we let up.
That's pretty weak with only 3 dedicated defenders and no midfield cover.
See this tactical analysis article: http://spielverlagerung.com/2016/03...-top-eastern-conference-teams-ends-in-a-draw/
It draws our 3-4-3 formation as more of a 3-2-4-1, because our wingers track back and our two attacking midfielders charge forward. The line of four consists of Taylor - McNamara - Mix - Shelton.
I'll revise my initial proposal above to predict that Vieira just wants to pull one of those four attackers out for Lampard, who will sit deeper, i.e. instead of a 3-2-4-1, it becomes a 3-3-3-1 or 3-3-4. Like this:
Given the expected substitution of Lampard for McNamara any game now, this actually seems like the simplest formation switch.
Not sold on the backline makeup yet though, definitely let that battle rage on.
spielverlagerung is in english now? awesome
if brillant did that then we concede more penalties. i like bravo as that DM role...though to be fair i honestly thought he would get a yellow far sooner than when he did.
No, only occasional MLS matches. Here's the other two NYCFC games they did from last season: http://spielverlagerung.com/?s=new+york+city+fc
I know I'm combining threads, but I recently wrote in player speculation that Zlatan and Villa play the same role. But in a 3-3-4 ...That's pretty weak with only 3 dedicated defenders and no midfield cover.
See this tactical analysis article: http://spielverlagerung.com/2016/03...-top-eastern-conference-teams-ends-in-a-draw/
It draws our 3-4-3 formation as more of a 3-2-4-1, because our wingers track back and our two attacking midfielders charge forward. The line of four consists of Taylor - McNamara - Mix - Shelton.
I'll revise my initial proposal above to predict that Vieira just wants to pull one of those four attackers out for Lampard, who will sit deeper, i.e. instead of a 3-2-4-1, it becomes a 3-3-3-1 or 3-3-4. Like this:
Given the expected substitution of Lampard for McNamara any game now, this actually seems like the simplest formation switch.
Not sold on the backline makeup yet though, definitely let that battle rage on.
TMac -- Villa -- Zlatan -- 99
--- Bravo ---- Pirlo ---- Mix
-- Matarrita -- Brillant -- Mena
Things that make me go hmmmm ...
But what if you put Poku in for Zlatan and play this Friday against Orlando...? Then put Mikey in for Poku when we are up 3-0 who doesn't let go of Larin for the rest of the Match?
I think that is a fair notion for how to get Poku in, given all the reasons he is a tough fit in PV's 4-3-3 or 3-4-3. On the other hand, PV has been pretty unequivocal in his statements that Poku is a midfielder.
Here is a possible 3-3-4 against the Lions on Friday night. I admit I have a low confidence level here.
I will say that I don't think I
Lamp is going to play. I am hopeful that Mena has been back in training long enough to start or at least play. I am guessing that Khiry and TT will keep starting given the success so far, but I can't rule out Mendoza. You also have to wonder if the formation might work better to finally give Poku some time on the pitch.
I will say that I don't think I
Lamp is going to play. I am hopeful that Mena has been back in training long enough to start or at least play. I am guessing that Khiry and TT will keep starting given the success so far, but I can't rule out Mendoza. You also have to wonder if the formation might work better to finally give Poku some time on the pitch.
I'll revise my initial proposal above to predict that Vieira just wants to pull one of those four attackers out for Lampard, who will sit deeper, i.e. instead of a 3-2-4-1, it becomes a 3-3-3-1 or 3-3-4. Like this:
Given the expected substitution of Lampard for McNamara any game now, this actually seems like the simplest formation switch.
Not sold on the backline makeup yet though, definitely let that battle rage on.
If we do a 3-3-4 on Friday, I kind of like this look, except I put Lampard (or TMac) at the top of the diamond and Pirlo at the bottom.
I think in this structure, the higher up the pitch you are, the more fluid you play - a concrete back line, a stable distribution line, and an extremely fluid attack. Therefore, I like Lampard in the second layer rather than in the top attacking layer, where he'd have to cover more ground.
I think a 334 sounds insane, but for it to be a 334, I think it has to be 4 forwards, not a central midfielder that you are calling a forward. Using the same personnel at a 343, and saying, one MF will play higher so he is forward, isn;t as bad sounding as a 334 sounds, but I wouldn't call that a 334.
I'm confused about your logic here. If a 3-3-4 sounds insane, why must it have four true forwards? That sounds even more insane, because it implies that fewer players are tracking back. Having an "underneath forward" that could also be called an attacking midfielder will track back and provide a constant central presence in the attack.
Similar threads
