Is it time to switch back to 4-2-3-1?

[David McCaig]

For most of last season this was Robbie's preferred formation, but one we struggled with due to the lack of quality in the side.  Now due following a fantastic recruitment drive during the summer we have an abundance of attacking riches perfectly suited to this set up.

 

Playing 3 at the back has undoubtedly made us defensively solid and the brought the best out of Craig Halkett, but the lack of any genuine wing backs at the club, means that more often than not the back 3 is really a back 5... and when you factor in two defensively minded midfielders in Beni and Haring that means we have just 3 creators and attackers on the pitch.

 

For me a 4231 would work perfectly and ensure that everyone is playing in their strongest position.  I would keep Kingsley at LCH as I think he's superb there and gives us depth with Halkett and Moore snapping at his heels for a place in the team.

 

Gordon

 

Smith

Souttar

Kingsley 

Cochrane

 

Beni

Devlin/Haring

 

Ginnelly

Woodburn

McKay

 

Boyce

Edited September 13, 2021 by David McCaig

[ericb]

If it ain’t broke don’t fix it, unbeaten in league playing 3 of last years top 4 suggests it ain’t broke 

[Stu_HMFC]

Halkett dropped for what ? 

Gino In a starting 11 before GMS  never showing anything yesterday what would have him in a starting 11 before GMS 

 

Devlin not kicked a ball yet but its Devlin or Haring and no Halliday 😂

Edited September 13, 2021 by Stu_HMFC

[Mr Rabbit]

1 minute ago, ericb said:

If it ain’t broke don’t fix it, unbeaten in league playing 3 of last years top 4 suggests it ain’t broke 

This.

 

The weird obsession with changing the formation is strange. If you look at the majority of top football teams they are playing a 3-4-3. Football evolves, it was the same as ten years ago when everyone was crying out for 4-4-2.

[johnking123]

No

[No Idle Talk]

No.

[David McCaig]

7 minutes ago, ericb said:

If it ain’t broke don’t fix it, unbeaten in league playing 3 of last years top 4 suggests it ain’t broke 

Not suggesting anything is broken, but good for the team to have another string to its bow on occasions.

 

5 minutes ago, Stu_HMFC said:

Halkett dropped for what ? 

Gino In a starting 11 before GMS  never showing anything yesterday what would have him in a starting 11 before GMS 

 

Devlin not kicked a ball yet but its Devlin or Haring and no Halliday 😂

 

Its more a suggestion of how a 4231 could look and the fact that you can easily identify several players fighting for each position shows how well it could potentially suit us.

 

Halkett has played very well, but much more suited to a back 3 than a back 4.

6 minutes ago, Mr Rabbit said:

This.

 

The weird obsession with changing the formation is strange. If you look at the majority of top football teams they are playing a 3-4-3. Football evolves, it was the same as ten years ago when everyone was crying out for 4-4-2.

The key thing is flexibility to change as circumstances dictate.  The 343 formation is good but we do clearly lack genuine wing backs and have no cover at all at RWB.

[18Jambo_dave74]

I think it's a difficult one to call but I can see us going to a 433 or 4231 at some point. 

 

With the 343 formation, we've been doing very well (including the end of last season) and for me it's the best we've looked defensively for years - Neilson has to take great credit for that. Halkett in the middle of the 3 has been playing as well as I've seen for a long time and it seems to suit him. Having Souttar and Cochrane/Kingsley on the sides of the 3 are very comfortable stepping forward and I'd like to see them do that more often and give us another man in midfield when we have the ball. 

 

The problem with the 343 (IMO) is that we don't have the energetic attacking wing backs to make it work even better from an attacking point of view. I've been impressed with Cochrane (more from a defensive outlook) and I'm a Michael Smith fan but I don't think it suits their games. I thought Boyce, Woodburn and GMS linked up well at points when they played narrowly but there was no real consistent option out wide from the wing backs to overlap.

 

The main reason I can see us going to a 433 type formation is the amount of attacking players we have available now - I think we potentially need to look at trying to get more in to the team. I think on paper our best team could be something like:

 

Gordon

Smith Souttar Halkett Kingsley

Beni Devlin

GMS Woodburn McKay

Boyce 

 

As others have said though, if it aint broke! 

 

[EH11 2NL]

Wingbacks the issue for most people with the 343. Hopefully Savage is working on another wonder signing to fill that position in January. I'd like to see us try a more attack minded player at RWB against one of the lesser teams. 

 

We are very hard to beat in the 343 which is always a plus. 

[Mr Rabbit]

2 minutes ago, David McCaig said:

Not suggesting anything is broken, but good for the team to have another string to its bow on occasions.

 

 

Its more a suggestion of how a 4231 could look and the fact that you can easily identify several players fighting for each position shows how well it could potentially suit us.

 

Halkett has played very well, but much more suited to a back 3 than a back 4.

The key thing is flexibility to change as circumstances dictate.  The 343 formation is good but we do clearly lack genuine wing backs and have no cover at all at RWB.

I agree that our wing backs whilst being solid defensively don’t offer us as much of a threat offensively. However a major criticism of mine and many others recently has been put away performances. This formation seems to give us stability whilst also allowing us to have an attacking threat.

 

I think looking at a plan B is fine but I think the formation is working currently.

[Taffin]

I'm conflicted as I like 343 but unless we start to get what we need out of our wing backs, then yes, we need to change formation and 4231 would be my choice.

Edited September 13, 2021 by Taffin

[David McCaig]

7 minutes ago, Mr Rabbit said:

I agree that our wing backs whilst being solid defensively don’t offer us as much of a threat offensively. However a major criticism of mine and many others recently has been put away performances. This formation seems to give us stability whilst also allowing us to have an attacking threat.

 

I think looking at a plan B is fine but I think the formation is working currently.

 

10 minutes ago, EH11 2NL said:

Wingbacks the issue for most people with the 343. Hopefully Savage is working on another wonder signing to fill that position in January. I'd like to see us try a more attack minded player at RWB against one of the lesser teams. 

 

We are very hard to beat in the 343 which is always a plus. 

If we had more offensively minded wing backs the 343 would be perfect. If we get the WBs sorted then in many ways its like playing with 13 on the pitch, but it takes players with good skill and incredible energy to really play the role well.

 

We just need to be careful that we don't start drawing too many games, because I don't see us losing many.

 

Possibly 343 away and 4231 at home could be the way to go.

 

PS:  If Joe Savage could find a RWB and LWB in the same class as Beni... this would be our best team in years.

Edited September 13, 2021 by David McCaig

[160598]

Unless Gnando plays thats a 4 2 4

[Berra than you]

As others have said, of it ain't broke don't fix it. My problem with 4-2-3-1 (or any formation with a flat back 4 actually) is that at times this season we have changed to a back four and instantly looked poorer for it. Whilst I accept the point of it maybe suiting our attacking players better, as others have mentioned, this formation gets the best out of souttar, Halkett and Kingsley for me. 4-2-3-1 might be an option at times, but we are a rwb away from the 3-4-3 looking very very strong.

[Pasquale for King]

Definitely if we want to create more chances and use our attacking options to their fullest. 

[TheBigO]

Can see why it's tempting and in many ways my pref. Back three not only suits Halks, but also Soapy and Kingsley.

 

I honestly think if you replace just Smith in current setup with someone who plays a bit more quickly, the formation is vastly improved

 

Also let's let Haring (or Benis partner) into the opp box more. And tbf that happened v Dutd.

 

I'd leave as is, but 4231 does feel best of both. Solid base but more of our threats on the park. Also more simple to rotate Gnando in and go more 442 from there

 

[Pasquale for King]

5 minutes ago, Berra than you said:

As others have said, of it ain't broke don't fix it. My problem with 4-2-3-1 (or any formation with a flat back 4 actually) is that at times this season we have changed to a back four and instantly looked poorer for it. Whilst I accept the point of it maybe suiting our attacking players better, as others have mentioned, this formation gets the best out of souttar, Halkett and Kingsley for me. 4-2-3-1 might be an option at times, but we are a rwb away from the 3-4-3 looking very very strong.

We changed because the other team were getting on top, the formation change didn’t alter that. It’s up to him to work out what will change it in our favour, I don’t think yesterday’s three subs helped much either. Taylor Moore is obviously not suited to RWB either, and made us more defensive. 

Edited September 13, 2021 by Pasquale for King

[Berra than you]

Just now, Pasquale for King said:

We changed because the other team were getting on top, the formation change didn’t alter that. It’s up to him to work out what will change it in or favour, I don’t think yesterday’s three subs helped much either. Taylor Moore is obviously not suited to RWB either, and made us more defensive. 

Agree re Moore. Whilst an enforced substitution, I don't think Moore was the correct replacement. I would disagree with your first point though. Agaisnt Aberdeen we changed straight after we had scored. Whilst JET was getting the better of Halliday, up until that point Aberdeen at created next to nothing, and came into the game straight away. Away at Dundee United, they were maybe coming into the game a little, but we still had joy through Gino. When Gnando cane on and we switch to a 4 we could not get out. Robbie changed it back to a 3 and from then on United had not a sniff at goal. It looked to me we went a back four late on yesterday aswell, but hard to tell. I just don't think our players look comfortable in a back four at all which I guess is a little understandable given they have been working on a back 3/5 all pre season.

[Stendelnator]

We switched to 4-2-3-1 vs Aberdeen and nearly lost the game 

[Cruyff]

It's not broken, so why fix it?

 

Kingsley at Centerhalf in a back 4, aye?  

[Rick Sanchez]

1 minute ago, Stendelnator said:

We switched to 4-2-3-1 vs Aberdeen and nearly lost the game 

 

It was amazing how professional footballers could look so alien switching formation. They didn't have a clue.

[Pasquale for King]

3 minutes ago, Berra than you said:

Agree re Moore. Whilst an enforced substitution, I don't think Moore was the correct replacement. I would disagree with your first point though. Agaisnt Aberdeen we changed straight after we had scored. Whilst JET was getting the better of Halliday, up until that point Aberdeen at created next to nothing, and came into the game straight away. Away at Dundee United, they were maybe coming into the game a little, but we still had joy through Gino. When Gnando cane on and we switch to a 4 we could not get out. Robbie changed it back to a 3 and from then on United had not a sniff at goal. It looked to me we went a back four late on yesterday aswell, but hard to tell. I just don't think our players look comfortable in a back four at all which I guess is a little understandable given they have been working on a back 3/5 all pre season.

The main problem is Halkett in a four, I think Moore and Souttar will be the partnership when we go to a four. 
The change against Aberdeen was a strange one and clearly didn’t work. Players should really be comfortable enough to change at a moments notice really. 
The problem with 5 at the back is becomes a defensive system if the opposition plays two wide players and pushes ours back, especially when they are naturally fullbacks like ours. The system really depends on the wing backs to create and ours struggle with this. 

[GinRummy]

47 minutes ago, David McCaig said:

For most of last season this was Robbie's preferred formation, but one we struggled with due to the lack of quality in the side.  Now due following a fantastic recruitment drive during the summer we have an abundance of attacking riches perfectly suited to this set up.

 

Playing 3 at the back has undoubtedly made us defensively solid and the brought the best out of Craig Halkett, but the lack of any genuine wing backs at the club, means that more often than not the back 3 is really a back 5... and when you factor in two defensively minded midfielders in Beni and Haring that means we have just 3 creators and attackers on the pitch.

 

For me a 4231 would work perfectly and ensure that everyone is playing in their strongest position.  I would keep Kingsley at LCH as I think he's superb there and gives us depth with Halkett and Moore snapping at his heels for a place in the team.

 

Gordon

 

Smith

Souttar

Kingsley 

Cochrane

 

Beni

Devlin/Haring

 

Ginnelly

Woodburn

McKay

 

Boyce

Yes. We are not scoring goals. The good players we have will still be good players   In a different formation. 

 

Be proactive and change it for the better. Don’t wait until it costs us points. 
 

 

[bobskeldon]

50 minutes ago, David McCaig said:

For most of last season this was Robbie's preferred formation, but one we struggled with due to the lack of quality in the side.  Now due following a fantastic recruitment drive during the summer we have an abundance of attacking riches perfectly suited to this set up.

 

Playing 3 at the back has undoubtedly made us defensively solid and the brought the best out of Craig Halkett, but the lack of any genuine wing backs at the club, means that more often than not the back 3 is really a back 5... and when you factor in two defensively minded midfielders in Beni and Haring that means we have just 3 creators and attackers on the pitch.

 

For me a 4231 would work perfectly and ensure that everyone is playing in their strongest position.  I would keep Kingsley at LCH as I think he's superb there and gives us depth with Halkett and Moore snapping at his heels for a place in the team.

 

Gordon

 

Smith

Souttar

Kingsley 

Cochrane

 

Beni

Devlin/Haring

 

Ginnelly

Woodburn

McKay

 

Boyce

No

[Bazzas right boot]

I think - aye 

 

As we own the club, we should put it to a vote and like Vlad Styleee fax Bob his orders. 

Edited September 13, 2021 by Smith's right boot

[Berra than you]

4 minutes ago, Pasquale for King said:

The main problem is Halkett in a four, I think Moore and Souttar will be the partnership when we go to a four. 
The change against Aberdeen was a strange one and clearly didn’t work. Players should really be comfortable enough to change at a moments notice really. 
The problem with 5 at the back is becomes a defensive system if the opposition plays two wide players and pushes ours back, especially when they are naturally fullbacks like ours. The system really depends on the wing backs to create and ours struggle with this. 

Yes I'd agree with that, that's what I meant by a little understandable that the struggled, but shouldn't be falling apart at all! Agree with Halkett as well. Been good so far this season in the three but can struggle. Yup wingbacks the key. Might be worth swapping Kingsley and Cochrane, he looks better going forward for me.

Edited September 13, 2021 by Berra than you

[Diego10]

Somebody else mentioned it, but while the main beneficiary of the 3 is Halkett, it is far better for Souttar than a flat 4 as well.  It gives him licence to get up the pitch and make passes without leaving us exposed at the back.  

 

I'd swap Cochrane and Kingsley round as Cochrane is fine at CH and Kingsley better going forward and Smith slows us a bit on the right, but other than that and a bit more time to work on the link up of the front 3 I'm pretty happy with the formation.

[Bull's-eye]

7 minutes ago, Pasquale for King said:

The main problem is Halkett in a four, I think Moore and Souttar will be the partnership when we go to a four. 
The change against Aberdeen was a strange one and clearly didn’t work. Players should really be comfortable enough to change at a moments notice really. 
The problem with 5 at the back is becomes a defensive system if the opposition plays two wide players and pushes ours back, especially when they are naturally fullbacks like ours. The system really depends on the wing backs to create and ours struggle with 

 

Same idiotic unintelligible random drivel as usual. Judging by the guff you spout everywhere else it's utterly ridiculous to even start with defenders, we should be attacking and scoring bundles of goals every game. Surely Haring, Woodburn and Boyce playing as a 3 at the back, yet on receipt of the ball dovetailing forward ending with the ball in the net everytime would be a better formation in your parallel universe.

 

 

[scottg71]

No

[Homme]

No. 

 

We're unbeaten in the league having played 3 of last season's top 4.

[davie1980]

Argee with most of what the OP says about 4-2-3-1 and reckon it's a good option to be able to go to if we need it, we certainly have the players for it, if we were struggling.

 

I wouldn't call unbeaten in the league after 5 games was struggling though.

 

Maybe see things differently if we were getting beat or playing shite but we aren't

[Arfur]

No - I would try Beni at RWB and swap Kingsley and Cochrane round as Kingsley is the more attack minded of the 2.

[davie1980]

12 minutes ago, Diego10 said:

Somebody else mentioned it, but while the main beneficiary of the 3 is Halkett, it is far better for Souttar than a flat 4 as well.  It gives him licence to get up the pitch and make passes without leaving us exposed at the back.  

 

I'd swap Cochrane and Kingsley round as Cochrane is fine at CH and Kingsley better going forward and Smith slows us a bit on the right, but other than that and a bit more time to work on the link up of the front 3 I'm pretty happy with the formation.

 

Same here. It suits those players well and brings the best out in them.

The wing back vs full back argument goes the opposite way but I reckon it's a toss up between the two.

 

And no matter how poor Halket may be in a back 3.... We aren't playing one, we are playing a 3 and he works fairly well in it and as you say it gives other CB's the ability to get the best out of them supporting higher up the pitch.

[davie1980]

2 minutes ago, Arfur said:

No - I would try Beni at RWB 

[davie1980]

5 minutes ago, davie1980 said:

Agree with most of what the OP says about 4-2-3-1 and reckon it's a good option to be able to go to if we need it, we certainly have the players for it, if we were struggling.

 

I wouldn't call unbeaten in the league after 5 games was struggling though.

 

Maybe see things differently if we were getting beat or playing shite but we aren't

 

EDIT - Ignore that first sentence, just noticed he wants Kingsley in a 2 man central defence.

 

Just no!

[AlphonseCapone]

No. We're looking solid and I think we're slowly starting to play some nice, attacking stuff. Not enough maybe, but players seem to be taking to current set-up and we're undefeated in the league after one of the toughest starts. 

 

I remember when folk were moaning about too much tinkering... 

[Voice of reason]

Some people are saying Robbie is inherently a boring manager but when he plays one of the most attacking formations commonly used in football (343), some of the same people want him to change to play one of the most defensive (4231). Why would you want to be entertained and then play 5 in midfield with only 1 striker? At a recent UEFA coaching course I was at, the tutors pretty much referred to any formation which starts with a 4 and ends with a 1 as really a 4-5-1 . You can separate the 5 midfielders by calling them attacking or defending midfielders as much as you like but it’s still a 5 man midfield. You also have 4 at the back rather than 3 so that’s another player sacrificed to predominantly defend. 451, 4141, 4321, 4231 etc are safe and hard to breakdown formations.

 

However, 343 is super attacking with 3 out-and out attackers and 2 wingbacks making it 3-2-5 when you go forward. This is why often the favourites to win games will play 343 and the more concerned team will play a version of 451. I’d rather be on the front foot.

 

Anyway, as has been said, why change from a back 3 when it’s working.

[Diego10]

I don't really think we play a 343 in fairness, it's more like a 3 4 2 1.

 

 

[RustyRightPeg]

Wouldn’t be against it.
 

Predictability is a downfall in football and in some games it might suit us to go to a 4 and flood the midfield to take advantage of an opponents weakness. 

 

3-4-3 is good if your wing backs get up and down, and can get on the end of the others cross if they overhit it. Ours seems quite conservative compared to others I’ve watched. Cochrane started to bomb forward in the last 20 minutes yesterday which gave Kingsley space to move into once the game opened up but it all seemed a bit hesitant in the first half.

[Taffin]

3 minutes ago, Voice of reason said:

Some people are saying Robbie is inherently a boring manager but when he plays one of the most attacking formations commonly used in football (343), some of the same people want him to change to play one of the most defensive (4231). Why would you want to be entertained and then play 5 in midfield with only 1 striker? At a recent UEFA coaching course I was at, the tutors pretty much referred to any formation which starts with a 4 and ends with a 1 as really a 4-5-1 . You can separate the 5 midfielders by calling them attacking or defending midfielders as much as you like but it’s still a 5 man midfield. You also have 4 at the back rather than 3 so that’s another player sacrificed to predominantly defend. 451, 4141, 4321, 4231 etc are safe and hard to breakdown formations.

 

However, 343 is super attacking with 3 out-and out attackers and 2 wingbacks making it 3-2-5 when you go forward. This is why often the favourites to win games will play 343 and the more concerned team will play a version of 451. I’d rather be on the front foot.

 

Anyway, as has been said, why change from a back 3 when it’s working.

 

All of that is true, but I'd argue we're at risk of playing a 541

 

1 assist and zero goals from wings backs in 5 games isn't the hallmarks of a 343 imo.

 

For contrast (I chose them as I watch them), Chelsea have 5 direct goal contributions (goal or assist) from their full backs in 4 games.

 

Of course Chelsea are a much higher standard than us, but they're also playing against a much higher standard.

[Hearts1975]

I fully understand the OP sentiment but there are pros and cons with changing to a 4-2-3-1

No question having an attacking centre midfield would give us that additional threat from the middle of the park and I think would help prevent Boyce from becoming isolated 

That said, the 3-4-3 has its uses especially when we can drop back to 5 in the back line and where required.
We have looked good defensively but maybe at the cost of having that additional attacking threat from the middle of the park 

[gnasher75]

A back 3 works well for Souttar and Halkett but makes Smith look poor. Halkett struggles in a back 4 but Smith looks more natural. 

 

What I like about the OP's suggestion is getting an extra attacking player in the team. Three of MacKay, Woodburn, GMS and Ginnelly playing behind Boyce or Gnanduillet is exciting.

 

What I think we are missing is a striker taking up good positions in the box. Boyce seems to play more as a 10 than a 9 but maybe that would change if it is an attacking 4. For all his excellent work rate, I would prefer to see him as a central striker or play Gnanduillet instead and give him crosses to attack.

 

Still not seen enough of Moore, and Halkett has been better recently, but I would like to see this team tried at some point. Souttar with licence to come out with the ball.

 

                Gordon

Smith Souttar Moore Kingsley 

             Beni Haring 

Woodburn MacKay GMS

                   Boyce

 

Equally happy with Cochrane at LB.

Devlin might replace Haring.

Ginnelly good option off the bench.

Gnanduillet could swap with Boyce.

 

Spoiled for choice apart from GK and RB/RWB.

 

[GinRummy]

Just now, gnasher75 said:

A back 3 works well for Souttar and Halkett but makes Smith look poor. Halkett struggles in a back 4 but Smith looks more natural. 

 

What I like about the OP's suggestion is getting an extra attacking player in the team. Three of MacKay, Woodburn, GMS and Ginnelly playing behind Boyce or Gnanduillet is exciting.

 

What I think we are missing is a striker taking up good positions in the box. Boyce seems to play more as a 10 than a 9 but maybe that would change if it is an attacking 4. For all his excellent work rate, I would prefer to see him as a central striker or play Gnanduillet instead and give him crosses to attack.

 

Still not seen enough of Moore, and Halkett has been better recently, but I would like to see this team tried at some point. Souttar with licence to come out with the ball.

 

                Gordon

Smith Souttar Moore Kingsley 

             Beni Haring 

Woodburn MacKay GMS

                   Boyce

 

Equally happy with Cochrane at LB.

Devlin might replace Haring.

Ginnelly good option off the bench.

Gnanduillet could swap with Boyce.

 

Spoiled for choice apart from GK and RB/RWB.

 

Depending on how Moore is, not seen enough of him to really tell, that is the team and formation I would like to see. I’d have Woodburn in the centre of the 3 though and if Gino can find the form we all know he’s capable of I’d have him on the right. 

[HMFC01]

As much as I want 4-3-3, I think  343 is doing fine. 

 

One problem has been passing through the middle.   Not enough movement from Beni and Haring.   But, when they have picked up good positions to receive the ball the defence has been slow to pass it to them.    Halkett alot of the time was slow yesterday.   Some decisions from Haring to play it out wide instead of just play it straight through the middle.   

 

I think the team played good in the Derby, alot of intensity.   Pressure for some to impress, maybe adding to making wrong decisions.   I think the next game is important to keep it up.    Less pressure should help but will just have to see what improvements have been made.    

 

Players not entirely fit either slows the progress but a weeks rest should help with work on the game plan as well.    

 

 

[John Findlay]

So let me get this straight. We played a 4 2 3 1 last year and many claimed the football was as dull as dishwater.

This season we are playing a 3 4 3 system, and now apparently the football is duller than last season.

I hope Robbie Neilson doesn't read kickback, but if he does, I hope he completely ignores all the champion manager players on here and carry's on doing what he believes is best for Heart of Midlothian FC.

Robbie Neilson is a pragmatic manager, that doesn't mean defensive, check out the definition in a dictionary. It means he goes horses for courses.

Robbie Neilson is the Head coach/manager of Hearts, not all the wannabes on here. 

Let the man get on with his job.

He isint doing to badly at it imho.

I know he has the good sense to ignore the daftness on here.

[Selkirkhmfc1874]

Unbeaten in league so far so in my opinion continue what we're doing 

[GinRummy]

4 minutes ago, John Findlay said:

So let me get this straight. We played a 4 2 3 1 last year and many claimed the football was as dull as dishwater.

This season we are playing a 3 4 3 system, and now apparently the football is duller than last season.

I hope Robbie Neilson doesn't read kickback, but if he does, I hope he completely ignores all the champion manager players on here and carry's on doing what he believes is best for Heart of Midlothian FC.

Robbie Neilson is a pragmatic manager, that doesn't mean defensive, check out the definition in a dictionary. It means he goes horses for courses.

Robbie Neilson is the Head coach/manager of Hearts, not all the wannabes on here. 

Let the man get on with his job.

He isint doing to badly at it imho.

I know he has the good sense to ignore the daftness on here.

Tbh 4-2-3-1 did work really well to begin with. Can’t remember many people moaning when we thrashed Dundee. I don’t think anyone is stopping him do his job. Just a discussion on which formation suits the players we now have. Robbie said in an interview a game into the season that he wanted two different formations so nothing wrong with speculating. 

Edited September 13, 2021 by GinRummy

[Pasquale for King]

59 minutes ago, Berra than you said:

Yes I'd agree with that, that's what I meant by a little understandable that the struggled, but shouldn't be falling apart at all! Agree with Halkett as well. Been good so far this season in the three but can struggle. Yup wingbacks the key. Might be worth swapping Kingsley and Cochrane, he looks better going forward for me.

Kingsley has more quality than Cochrane, it’s his fitness that’s the problem I think. 

[SomethingAboutObua]

4-2-3-1 fits in more of our best players but I think 3-4-3 is working, maybe we need more of an assurance 4-2-3-1 is something we could change into when called for seeing as Neilson has a reputation of not risking a plan B

 

Can't build a team around RB just because it suits Michael Smith better, main concerns are Devlin vs Haring and how do we give McEneff a chance but I'm happy if we have a system to build around now than trying to jam players in

[loveofthegame]

Not an urgent requirement to fix, but I agree with the sentiment of many others in that our wingbacks don't offer enough going forward to necessarily make it an answer week-in, week-out.

 

My one concern from the Aberdeen and Hibs games is the lack of clear cut chances we've created across the two games. GMS going through yesterday and the Ginnelly header (which was difficult, albeit he prob made wrong choice not squaring to Boyce) are about the only two I can remember across both games, which isn't really good enough if you want to be winning these games. Despite that, I thought we played well yesterday and controlled the majority of the game without making many clear cut chances.

 

We're very solid defensively but I'm really not convinced by playing 8 defensive minded players out of 11 (including the goalie, obviously). I think and hope we'll see more attacking intent, particularly against the so called 'lesser teams' (and to be honest, at home to anyone).

 

However, in saying all that, I genuinely believe we have a really, really exciting squad, certainly the best since the high spending Vlad days and should be in for a really decent season. If we don't end up finishing top 3 or 4, then serious questions should rightly be asked of the manager (the cup really depends on luck of the draw...).