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

[Bongo 1874]

Sitting 3rd unbeaten and fans are questioning how Robbie sets up, how dare they 😡. 

 

 

[spacerjoe]

Just now, GinRummy said:

It’s not up to me how much time it gets. It’s obvious it should be tweaked. It will be soon imo. We are not scoring enough goals. Do you think RN will just ignore that.

 

I'm sure he'll work on it in training with the team, yes.

 

I don't think the formation needs to change for us to improve. There has been lots of positives so far. Woodburn and McKay are just in the door and were brought in to create and score. They, like others, need some time.

 

Tinkering now wont help them settle.

 

[GinRummy]

12 minutes ago, spacerjoe said:

 

I'm sure he'll work on it in training with the team, yes.

 

I don't think the formation needs to change for us to improve. There has been lots of positives so far. Woodburn and McKay are just in the door and were brought in to create and score. They, like others, need some time.

 

Tinkering now wont help them settle.

 

Tinkering with those two specifically? With McKay it would make little difference because he’d essentially play the same position. With Woodburn he’d be moved to a central position behind the striker which our manager thinks is his best position. It’s not a case of our formation needing to change, it’s a case of changing it to score more goals. 

[Guest ToqueJambo]

Hope we stick with a front 3 the whole season with the players we have, whatever the rest of the formation.

 

Thinking back to some of my favourite Hearts teams that played 4-3-3, a midfield 3 of Beni, Haring and Devlin or McEneff (given what we're told about the last two) plus 3 from Boyce, Gnando, Woodburn, Ginnelly and GMS ahead of them would be interesting to see some time

 

 

Edited September 14, 2021 by ToqueJambo

[NB GIN]

18 hours 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

This is a hard debate I am not sure what’s the best formation. The one thing I don’t think Boyce can play up top on his own would love to see big Gnanduillet given a shot.

 

Once he came on against Celtic we instantly looked like scoring goals 

We are doing well overall hard to criticise but one up top Boyce isn’t that guy as much as I rate him 

[spacerjoe]

9 hours ago, GinRummy said:

Tinkering with those two specifically? With McKay it would make little difference because he’d essentially play the same position. With Woodburn he’d be moved to a central position behind the striker which our manager thinks is his best position. It’s not a case of our formation needing to change, it’s a case of changing it to score more goals. 

It would make a difference to them. Where they receive the ball, who from, who is available around them, how much the ball is recycled / how direct we are.

 

Same as being a striker in a 433 is different to being a striker in a 442, so it is different for the rest of the team.

[GinRummy]

11 minutes ago, spacerjoe said:

It would make a difference to them. Where they receive the ball, who from, who is available around them, how much the ball is recycled / how direct we are.

 

Same as being a striker in a 433 is different to being a striker in a 442, so it is different for the rest of the team.

Yeah I know. That’s why I said little difference. Are you actually suggesting that these two players wouldn’t do well in a 4-2-3-1. One of the issues we have is the midfield, including the wing backs, don’t connect (for want of a better word) with the forwards. Too often Boyce drops deep and tries to bring GMS or Woodburn into the game. He’s so deep it’s as if we aren’t playing with a number 9 at times.  The gamble on switching formation is going from a back 3 to a back 4. The attacking players would all do well. 

[Jambos1983]

To the OP. Absolutely unless there are better options at wing back. 

[Locky]

I generally like the 3-4-3, and its working pretty well for us atm. But I do agree that the 4-2-3-1 is the go to backup shape, and could've served us well in the latter stages of Sunday.

[spacerjoe]

4 hours ago, GinRummy said:

Yeah I know. That’s why I said little difference. Are you actually suggesting that these two players wouldn’t do well in a 4-2-3-1. One of the issues we have is the midfield, including the wing backs, don’t connect (for want of a better word) with the forwards. Too often Boyce drops deep and tries to bring GMS or Woodburn into the game. He’s so deep it’s as if we aren’t playing with a number 9 at times.  The gamble on switching formation is going from a back 3 to a back 4. The attacking players would all do well. 

 

I agree with the wing back issue. However, if you look at how a team like Man U play 4-2-3-1, the full backs are still the key contributors from wide areas, so we still have that issue, albeit to a lesser extent. 3-4-3 does relay on Boyce dropping deeper and for sure, he may never be right for that role. Tuchel talked at length about how Lukaku was the missing link in his team last year. From from Lukaku's time in Italy he has learned to play that role - sitting closer to the midfield and letting the 2 attackers just behind (Mount, etc) play off him. Lukaku was not that player before, but learned how to play that way, while still banging in a lot of goals. Hopefully Boyce can too.

 

Regarding the question, can Woodburn and McKay do well in a 4-2-3-1? I have no idea!

 

Point being though, I've no idea if they can play in a 3-4-3 either. This was my original point - they've been here barely a week or two, we've only played a few games. We've seen glimpses of talent, but that's it. How can we know what's working yet without giving the formation and new players a bit of time? That's where I'm at.

 

By the way, I'm not against 4-2-3-1 at all and what you are saying makes sense - I just personally don't think there is an issue yet. Hindsight is always 20-20 though, so whatever formation he chooses, if we lose it will be the wrong one!

 

 

 

Edited September 14, 2021 by spacerjoe

[GinRummy]

2 minutes ago, spacerjoe said:

 

I agree with the wing back issue. However, if you look at how a team like Man U play 4-2-3-1, the full backs are still the key contributors from wide areas, so we still have that issue, albeit to a lesser extent. 3-4-3 does relay on Boyce dropping deeper and for sure, he may never be right for that role. Tuchel talked at length about how Lukaku was the missing link in his team last year. From from Lukaku's time in Italy he has learned to play that role - sitting closer to the midfield and letting the 2 attackers just behind (Mount, etc) play off him. Lukaku was not that player before, but learned how to play that way, while still banging in a lot of goals. Hopefully Boyce can too.

 

Regarding the question, can Woodburn and McKay do well in a 4-2-3-1 - I have no idea! Point being though, I've no idea if they can play in a 3-4-3 either. This was my original point - they've been here barely a week or two, we've only played a few games. We've seen glimpses of talent, but that's it. How can we know what's working yet without giving the formation and new players a bit of time? That's where I'm at.

 

By the way, I'm not against 4-2-3-1 at all and what you are saying makes sense - I just personally don't think there is an issue yet. Hindsight is always 20-20 though, so whatever formation he chooses, if we lose it will be the wrong one!

 

 

 

I don’t really watch much football other than hearts but what you describe is interesting. Maybe Boyce will adjust to a deeper role but I do have my doubts. 
 

Maybe it could just take a bit of time. I’m only saying what seems obvious to me but in a few weeks the current system could be fine tuned with players bedded in and developing understandings with one another. 
 

Up to RN at the end of the day but aye, don’t change it or change it, if we lose the next game he’ll be the villain. 

[Bazzas right boot]

18 hours ago, Rick Sanchez said:

Sean Dyche keeps Burnley in the Premier with the good old fashioned 4-4-2.

 

Cannae see a 442 getting us in the Premier or keeping us in it Tbh. 

 

Thanks 

 

[boag1874]

I like the 3-4-3, I think it suits us well & the start we’ve had has been better than most expected (thanks in part to a brilliant transfer window) playing alot of difficult fixtures early so no need to change the shape. What I’d like to see is us find a way to get a few more players around the box so it becomes more of a 3-2-5 against the “lesser” teams.
 

Serious question, could Gino play RWB in the games where we’re expected to win & have most of the ball? I love Smith to pieces but Gino’s pace could cause absolute chaos & having him bomb forward would stretch some of the more compact back lines in the league? Just a thought really but overall it’s going good.

[GinRummy]

Was kind of a a 4-1-4-1 sort of set up yesterday. Be interesting to hear people’s thoughts now. I still think 4-2–3-1 with Smith and Haring/Devlin back in the side could work well 

[CMc]

Scored 7 and conceded 3 with 343. Averaged 1.4 goals per game whilst conceding 0.6 per game. 
 

On the face of it, the slight gains in attack have not been worth losing defensive solidity. 

[GinRummy]

18 minutes ago, CMc said:

Scored 7 and conceded 3 with 343. Averaged 1.4 goals per game whilst conceding 0.6 per game. 
 

On the face of it, the slight gains in attack have not been worth losing defensive solidity. 

On the face of it I agree but I tend to think, given the amount of the ball we had we could increase the goals. 

[ri Alban]

What's wrong with 4-4-2

[Stendelnator]

Switching from 3-4-3 yesterday meant we didn’t get the best from Souttar and Boyce, both of whom played out of position and who are our two most consistently important outfield players. 

[GinRummy]

Just now, Stendelnator said:

Switching from 3-4-3 yesterday meant we didn’t get the best from Souttar and Boyce, both of whom played out of position and who are our two most consistently important outfield players. 

Boyce plays out of position every week. He’s far too deep and leaves the centre forward position vacant too often and at  crucial times. 

[Stendelnator]

6 minutes ago, GinRummy said:

Boyce plays out of position every week. He’s far too deep and leaves the centre forward position vacant too often and at  crucial times. 

He does drop too deep at times but we’ve had other players making up the gap in those instances. He’s actually scored in every away game we’ve played this season going back to July. 

[GinRummy]

4 minutes ago, Stendelnator said:

He does drop too deep at times but we’ve had other players making up the gap in those instances. He’s actually scored in every away game we’ve played this season going back to July. 

I’m a big fan of Boyce and can’t understand some of the criticism he gets on here but for me we need someone in centre forward position and I actually disagree that other players plug that gap when Boyce plays deeper. Too often they simply don’t. 

[davie1980]

Boyce plays too deep but has scored 8 goals already and is second top goalscorer in the league

[CMc]

8 hours ago, GinRummy said:

On the face of it I agree but I tend to think, given the amount of the ball we had we could increase the goals. 

I would have thought so. Likely to score a few more either way as the new lads bed in. 
 

it’s tricky because 4 at the back doesn’t suit our centre halves and 3 at the back doesn’t suit our fullbacks (Smith in particular). 
 

I would be minded to stick with 343 and let the new lads gel. I think that might get us closer to two goals a game on average and keep us very tight at the back. 

 

 

[Guest ToqueJambo]

Stick to 3-4-3 please, but maybe experiment with a winger as one of the WBs and I'd love to see a front 3 of Gnando, Boyce and Woodburn one day.

[portobellojambo1]

When I look at some of the football sites available online I often come to the conclusion that on JKB we have the only site where discussions about formations play a large part, and people are always looking for us to change it. I'm now a lot closer to 66 years old than I maybe want to be but I grew up in a time where football was relatively straight forward, and there only appeared to be one formation, which was 2-3-5. It was probably based on the one fact that still applies to football these days as has always been the case, the team that scores most games in any football match will win, and the team that wins most will then be likely to win most competitions. Formations were just never discussed

 

I've read comments on here by people often saying that the game is evolving /developing and I'n still not 100% sure that is the case, what I feel I have been witnessing over the years is situations where the above formation 2-3-5, has been getting eroded and we are more likely to see a team these days lining up in a 5-3-2 formation, with the emphasis often on not losing games rather than actively looking to win games. If that is what the young today class as evolution then I feel very sorry for them. A position that comes up in many conversations is wing back, which seems to translate as a full back who can defend his own penalty area but at the same time skip past defenders and deliver perfect cross balls for the one attacking player his own side have said can be in the opposition's penalty area. The sort of guys I want to see gliding past defenders are players of the ilk of John Colquhoun or Neil McCann. Neither were noted for their defensive skills, but give them the ball somewhere close to the opposition's penalty area and they could make things work, create opportunities for thos more inclined to score goals. And in the old days when a winger was looking to deliver into the box he wasn't looking for only one man, in the old 5 forward line up he often had the choice of the inside right, centre forward or inside left.

 

I want to see defenders who can defend our own penalty area, and in all honesty I think Smith and Kingsley are good at that, and shouldn't be criticised for being unable to become substitute wingers, when there are players available to us who can perform as wingers. Yesterday it was clear that Barrie McKay has what it takes to skip past the opposition full back and deliver into the box but often when it came to the final step he was looking up and there was no one to hit in the box with the ball. But if he did miss the sole person in the box for us he didn't then have to race back to try and defend our penalty area as the defensive player on the right side was still in position. I'd love to see us, based on modern formations line up in a formation which effectively has the full backs and central defenders always in defensive positions, a back four, a midfield three, involving two wingers and the man we have to break things up, Beningime. And up front the three for me would be Boyce, always in the most forward position, the number 9 position, with support in and around the box from Mackay Steven and Woodburn. I honestly hoped that I had witnessed the decline into defensive style football after watching the 1967 European Cup final on black and white TV. It was the first and last time I've ever been delighted to see Celtic win a game of football against an Inter Milan side guided by Helenio Herrera, who scored a penalty in the first few minutes and were intent on then defending for the remainder of the game, and lost. It was a prime example of a team intent on attacking coming out on top.

Edited September 19, 2021 by portobellojambo1

[Watt-Zeefuik]

I enjoyed reading Portobello's comment and I sympathize. The main point of difference I have is that I think the way the back line is set up influences everything on the field, and the formation is important because while attacking can be fluid and evolving, defending requires understanding positioning and coverage.

 

I have said it before and I will again -- the standard back 4 setup in British football narrowly and European football more widely is like an albatross weighing down the game. While it allows for more players in the midfield and the fullbacks can step forward a bit, it pins two players permanently on defense and relegates them to little more than safety valves. They can only rarely step forward into attack, largely on free kicks, and removes them from any significant influence when the team has possession.

 

I first saw the 3-4-3/5-2-3 when Costa Rica's glorious run through the Group of Death and to the quarters (and very nearly the semifinals) in the 2014 World Cup, and I have loved it ever since. Despite sometimes flattening out into a true back 5, they put three past Uruguay and had chances for more with Campbell, Ruiz, and Duarte on attack. Campbell in particular played a part not unlike what McKay might do for us, tracking far back into midfield then carrying the ball forward. Their midfield duo then effectively "defended" the half line and kept returning the ball into attack. When opposing teams threatened, the defense flattened out, absorbed the pressure, and pushed forward again.

 

I suppose some could call this "defensive-minded" football but I thought it was brilliant. 

 

The back 3 is the platform that has given us our best performances. It technically puts more defenders on the field but in effect it allows those defensive players more freedom to step out of their defensive assignments and be creative. So by adding "defensive-minded" players, it lets every defender on the pitch be a bit more attack minded. Johan Cruyff and Total Football and all that.

 

We have several new players still bedding in and getting comfortable with their teammates. Maybe we need a new formation and maybe we need a new manager but I'd like to see what they can all do after a full month of training together.

 

And I no longer have any interest in replacing Smith. The squad plays better when he's on the pitch. We can get our attacking verve from elsewhere.