Formation Change

[xXCiTyZeNXx]

What should our form be

[strider]

8-2

[Tony999]

1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1

[n i k o]

Whatever wins us the fucking game

[Deeming]

The Flying D

[morphine]

4 hours ago, xXCiTyZeNXx said:

What should our form be

Wins. 

[moops]

8 hours ago, Tony999 said:

1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1

The phallus formation. 

[Red or Dead]

(A) 4 - 4 - 2
Sorensen

Franjic     -     Wilko     -     Kisnorbo     -     Zullo

Malik
Retre         -      Caceres
Mooy

Fornaroli         -         Novillo

Bench: Bouzanis, Hughes, Clisby, Garuccio, Fitzgerald

Or (B) 4 - 3 - 3
Sorensen

Franjic      -      Wilko      -      Kisnorbo      -      Zullo

Malik         -      Caceres
Mooy

Fitzgerald   -   Fornaroli   -   Novillo

Bench: Bouzanis, Hughes, Clisby, Retre, Garuccio

Could start with (A) then sub-out Retre for Fitzgerald and change to (B) if we're down or need more fire-power

[Wonder_Boy]

33 minutes ago, Red or Dead said:

(A) 4 - 4 - 2
Sorensen

Franjic     -     Wilko     -     Kisnorbo     -     Zullo

Malik
Retre         -      Caceres
Mooy

Fornaroli         -         Novillo

Bench: Bouzanis, Hughes, Clisby, Garuccio, Fitzgerald

Or (B) 4 - 3 - 3
Sorensen

Franjic      -      Wilko      -      Kisnorbo      -      Zullo

Malik         -      Caceres
Mooy

Fitzgerald   -   Fornaroli   -   Novillo

Bench: Bouzanis, Hughes, Clisby, Retre, Garuccio

Could start with (A) then sub-out Retre for Fitzgerald and change to (B) if we're down or need more fire-power

I vote you in as head coach!!!

I pretty much agree with everything you said.

I would probably only put in Melling for Retre in the midfield.

[Red or Dead]

Just now, Wonder_Boy said:

I vote you in as head coach!!!

I pretty much agree with everything you said.

I would probably only put in Melling for Retre in the midfield.

Thank you  I didn't factor in Melling in the formation above because of his suspension this week.

[Wonder_Boy]

3 minutes ago, Red or Dead said:

Thank you  I didn't factor in Melling in the formation above because of his suspension this week.

Yeah I figured that but I thought I'd just put it out there.

What gets me is how all these fans out there can see this, but a professional coach can't??? 😠

 

[Pete Heartspur]

We seem to be going through another "make a thread for any ol' shit" phase.

[Jovan]

Just now, Pete Heartspur said:

We seem to be going through another "make a thread for any ol' shit" phase.

good idea

[The Seagull]

Maybe play a 2-8 formation and score 7 each week and concede 5

[neio]

I'd personally go back to 4-3-3, our most productive 4 weeks came with that formation (Perth, ccm, jets, victory) 16 goals and 3 conceded 

Nothing surprising about the starting 11

Sorenson Franjic Wilkinson Kisnorbo Zullo Caceras Malik Mooy Fitzgerald Fornaroli Novillo

Bench Bouzanis Clisby Garruccio Retre Dekker

Melling is the unlucky one, but I believe Retre has gone past him this season and is a little more versatile with the option of him playing as a right back.

 

There are things I'd also like to see tried at times, Garruccio on a wing, Caceras as the 10 and Mooy deeper, Novillo on the right. Even if we're ahead in a game see Retre at RB and franjic at RW

Most frustrating thing I find is that we have options when things arnt working but they never seem to be used 

[tommac]

Interesting.. So, do folks think that if we were playing another formation vs Newcastle and the players had the exact same intensity/playing level we would've won? 

I personally think that with the personnel we have, 3-5-2 (once we get a semi- consistent XI and players are used to it) suits us best. It allows Zullo and Franjic the freedom to get forward like wingers, which they are inclined to do anyways. In theory they should have more protection at the back should they do so. If the CDM sits really deep, then it allows the LCB and the RCB to sit a bit wider should the play come down their side, the CDM slots in close to the CB and the opposite defender tucks in. This also means we have more width in attack than we have in recent weeks, and gives us attacking options centrally ( Bruno, Harry, Mooy) and wide ( Franjic Zullo). 

[moops]

theory is not application, it is not fb manager.

Does it suit our players?

8 minutes ago, tommac said:

Interesting.. So, do folks think that if we were playing another formation vs Newcastle and the players had the exact same intensity/playing level we would've won? 

I personally think that with the personnel we have, 3-5-2 (once we get a semi- consistent XI and players are used to it) suits us best. It allows Zullo and Franjic the freedom to get forward like wingers, which they are inclined to do anyways. In theory they should have more protection at the back should they do so. If the CDM sits really deep, then it allows the LCB and the RCB to sit a bit wider should the play come down their side, the CDM slots in close to the CB and the opposite defender tucks in. This also means we have more width in attack than we have in recent weeks, and gives us attacking options centrally ( Bruno, Harry, Mooy) and wide ( Franjic Zullo). 

I understand what you are saying, I have not seen this from JVS.

[xXCiTyZeNXx]

5 hours ago, Red or Dead said:

(A) 4 - 4 - 2
Sorensen

Franjic     -     Wilko     -     Kisnorbo     -     Zullo

Malik
Retre         -      Caceres
Mooy

Fornaroli         -         Novillo

Bench: Bouzanis, Hughes, Clisby, Garuccio, Fitzgerald

Or (B) 4 - 3 - 3
Sorensen

Franjic      -      Wilko      -      Kisnorbo      -      Zullo

Malik         -      Caceres
Mooy

Fitzgerald   -   Fornaroli   -   Novillo

Bench: Bouzanis, Hughes, Clisby, Retre, Garuccio

Could start with (A) then sub-out Retre for Fitzgerald and change to (B) if we're down or need more fire-power

I agree With Everything U say But Not Zullo. I take Clisby Instead Of Zullo Because Zullo is A flanker. He Cant Defend. They R using Zullo Wrong.

[tommac]

Emm- no. Zullo over Clisby at LB. No contest. 

[johnno cpfc]

6 hours ago, neio said:

I

Most frustrating thing I find is that we have options when things are not working but they never seem to be used 

This is what i was talking about in the 3 5 2 thread  we should be more adaptable but the coach is stuck in a mind warp with 3 5 2. and nothing else.

 

[playmaker]

4 4 2 is the way to go. Ranieri has proven that the Italian counter style dismembers the 3 5 2 with a deep all out defence, give up possession, and counter through the wing weakness followed by a crushing centre strike from the mids.

What's more amazing is that its with relatively weak squad on paper, very fast, very well drilled, very well organised and very well managed.

[neio]

1 hour ago, johnno cpfc said:

This is what i was talking about in the 3 5 2 thread  we should be more adaptable but the coach is stuck in a mind warp with 3 5 2. and nothing else.

 

I'm not totally against sticking to formations but just give the opposition something different to look at personal wise.

Example, this week geria will be up against Novillo if we play 4-3-3, I rate geria as a good full back quick, good defender, passes well, gets up and down pitch. There may be a time where geria gets on top. Where on the other side georgevski has shown to struggle against electric quick players that takes him on, but instead of flicking Novillo to the right, we will continue to have him play against the same person on the left

[morphine]

For me you've gotta play whatever formation best suits your players. I've never bought into this rigid, factory 'system', although I do believe in consistency. 

Our best, starting caliber players, to me, are:

Tier A: Sorensen, Franjic, Wilkinson (presumably), Zullo, Mooy, Caceres, Fornaroli, Novillo. 

Tier B: Kisnorbo, Retre, Melling, Malik, Fitzgerald, Chapman. 

Tier C: Clisby, Hughes, Millar, Garuccio, Trifiro, Kuzi. 

Tier D: Dekker, Zinni, Marino. 

 

So so you build around your Tier A, and let them play in their optimal positions: 

Sorensen

Franjic - Wilkinson - Zullo

Mooy - Caceres

Fornaroli - Novillo

 

..before seeing if you can pad it out with the best of Tier B:

Sorensen

Franjic - Wilko - Kisnorbo - Zullo

Retre - (Melling/Malik) - Caceres

Mooy

Fornaroli - Novillo

[Andrew Edmonds]

Would like too see us adapt a 4-2-2-2 too see how it goes.

                    Sorensen

Franjic  Kisnorbo  Wilkinson  Zullo

                Malik  Retre

      Caceres                 Mooy

       Novillo            Fornaroli

Bench: Bouzanis, Clisby, Garrucio, Fitzgerald, Dekker

And if things aren't going well, have the option too drop Mooy or Caceres deeper.

[jw1739]

10 hours ago, morphine said:

For me you've gotta play whatever formation best suits your players. I've never bought into this rigid, factory 'system', although I do believe in consistency. 

Our best, starting caliber players, to me, are:

Tier A: Sorensen, Franjic, Wilkinson (presumably), Zullo, Mooy, Caceres, Fornaroli, Novillo. 

Tier B: Kisnorbo, Retre, Melling, Malik, Fitzgerald, Chapman. 

Tier C: Clisby, Hughes, Millar, Garuccio, Trifiro, Kuzi. 

Tier D: Dekker, Zinni, Marino. 

 

So so you build around your Tier A, and let them play in their optimal positions: 

Sorensen

Franjic - Wilkinson - Zullo

Mooy - Caceres

Fornaroli - Novillo

 

..before seeing if you can pad it out with the best of Tier B:

Sorensen

Franjic - Wilko - Kisnorbo - Zullo

Retre - (Melling/Malik) - Caceres

Mooy

Fornaroli - Novillo

Why we always have such a weak bench and don't have any potential game-changers to bring on - too many players in Tiers C and D. This is not such a strong squad as some crack it up to be.

[Red or Dead]

10 hours ago, morphine said:

Our best, starting caliber players, to me, are:

Tier A: Sorensen, Franjic, Wilkinson (presumably), Zullo, Mooy, Caceres, Fornaroli, Novillo. 
Tier B: Kisnorbo, Retre, Melling, Malik, Fitzgerald, Chapman. 
Tier C: Clisby, Hughes, Millar, Garuccio, Trifiro, Kuzi. 
Tier D: Dekker, Zinni, Marino. 

..before seeing if you can pad it out with the best of Tier B:

Sorensen
Franjic - Wilko - Kisnorbo - Zullo
Retre - (Melling/Malik) - Caceres
Mooy
Fornaroli - Novillo

Agree with everything above, including your formation, except for Garuccio; should be moved up a tier! He's just stuck on the bench because you have Zullo and Novillo in Tier A, but he's definitely in the same league as the Tier B youngsters; Retre, Melling & Chapman.

[n i k o]

There's no way Millar can be in tier C, perhaps if there was a tier E. And I'm assuming Kuzi multiple stepovers got him into tier C as well. I'd take Dekker in the team any day of the week before those two. 

Edited February 10, 2016 by n i k o

[HeartOfCity]

4-3-3 we looked so much better this week. Not as die by your sword kinda stuff. We looked more composed and less rushed. Maybe we can refer back to 3-5-2 if we are loosing in the last 15mins. 

[moops]

On 14/02/2016 at 11:55 AM, HeartOfCity said:

4-3-3 we looked so much better this week. Not as die by your sword kinda stuff. We looked more composed and less rushed. Maybe we can refer back to 3-5-2 if we are loosing in the last 15mins. 

agree

[moops]

Formation is a formation, sure it can overload certain areas, but a 442, or a 433 can overload like a 343. It is probably more about the personnel you put on the field (unless you are so rigid that players must stick to their place).

I have gone on about movement, because it is the most important thing in tactics. It is less about the tactic, but how it is played by the players involved and how they move in relation to what is going on at the time.

[playmaker]

442 diamond looked very solid. I like it a lot. Well balanced, good attacking opportunities and solid defensively.

Definitely something to bring into next week.

I liked the way the defensive line was deeper than we usually see which tended to give our playmakers a bit more space and even on the turnover, we looked solid defensively. 

Very nice. Well done JVS.

[Jovan]

First you repeatedly defended Koren being too good for the team and the League in general. 

Now your implying that last nights formation was well done.

 

[Luke]

we failed to control the game

[playmaker]

Just now, Jovan said:

First you repeatedly defended Koren being too good for the team and the League in general. 

Now your implying that last nights formation was well done.

 

And your point is?

 

[silva10]

4 hours ago, playmaker said:

And your point is?

 

That for most of the first half Sydney's midfield controlled the game. It wasn't until Fitzgerald came on, allowing Mooy to play more centrally that we began to get on top.

 

[rass]

I like the idea of a 4-4-2 diamond,  but have to say I don't think it worked at all for us the other night.

I've said it before, I don't think our midfield as a unit is good enough.

Please give us a visa player next season that can be a midfield general.

[bt50]

18 minutes ago, rass said:

I like the idea of a 4-4-2 diamond,  but have to say I don't think it worked at all for us the other night.

Haha no offence, but that is the quintessential Melbourne Football quote.

Changed to a 4-4-2, won 3-0, deduces that the system doesn't work

Pretty much sums this forum up

[rass]

54 minutes ago, bt50 said:

Haha no offence, but that is the quintessential Melbourne Football quote.

Changed to a 4-4-2, won 3-0, deduces that the system doesn't work

Pretty much sums this forum up

I guess it's the way you look at it though isn't it... Don't get me wrong, I take a result over performance every single time and given our history, being able to win so well when not dominating is an awesome change for us.

... but this response is about formation and how we played rather than the result itself. My post is based on our first half in particularly. It was individual brilliance combined with Sydney having no idea whatsoever in their front third, that got us ahead. That trend continued into the second half and a combination of the introduction of width and their fatigue let us take more control.

[bt50]

11 minutes ago, rass said:

I guess it's the way you look at it though isn't it... Don't get me wrong, I take a result over performance every single time and given our history, being able to win so well when not dominating is an awesome change for us.

... but this response is about formation and how we played rather than the result itself. My post is based on our first half in particularly. It was individual brilliance combined with Sydney having no idea whatsoever in their front third, that got us ahead. That trend continued into the second half and a combination of the introduction of width and their fatigue let us take more control.

Not saying I disagree with you tbh, but you can also look at it from the point of view that it took us 70 minutes to get used to the system and then ran away with it.

Regardless of how well we played, I don't think they at any stage looked like scoring during the game. Perhaps they didn't park the bus in the traditional sense, but they were hardly adventurous and we were disciplined in the way we went about things. The disciplined approach was certainly a lot less exciting than the way we usually play, but it was professional and imo, we were extremely unlikely to lose playing that way. There's a a bit of a saying about cakes and eating them that springs to mind.

[loriente]

I don't understand this whole 'didn't look like conceding' train of thought. Please see opportunities to Abbas, Holosko who would've been clean through if not for Kisnorbo's cynical foul, whoever it was that hit the upright. Sydney had more shots than us. Mooy, Novillo and Bruno being clinical is what won us this game.

We got demolished for the entirety of the first half because our midfield was totally lost at sea and we had no width. Sydney were playing a 5-3-2/3-5-2 with makeshift wingbacks. When we played 3-5-2 we were destroyed constantly down the wings, yet JVS decides this must-win game is a good opportunity to try an untried and extremely narrow formation.

JVS and the team deserve criticism for the performance. Yes the result is important, and there was a time where I would kill for a 3-0 win even if we performed poorly. Going forward, these performances will not be enough. If we play like we did in the first half against Adelaide, we will find ourselves 3-0 down at half time.