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

[loveofthegame]

47 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.

 

This entirely depends on personnel. I'd argue in many cases our current formation is a 5-2-3, not a 3-4-3.

[David McCaig]

1 hour 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.

I've thought this as well re Cochrane and Kingsley.

 

Just how good Kingsley is at Premiership level has gone under the radar slightly due to the performances of the new arrivals, but he really is top drawer.

 

Cochrane has an excellent career ahead of him but at this moment, Kingsley is the better player in all positions. Kingsley is definitely the more natural wing back of the two and Cochrane perfectly solid at LCH... Ironically 4231 would offer the opportunity for Cochrane to drop into his more natural position of LB.

 

It should be added that thread isn't about moaning in anyway, its just ideas for how things could be even better.

 

Other than Ross Stewart (whose job is just to sit on the bench) there wasn't a bad player or weak link in the entire match day squad selected against Hibs.

[Pasquale for King]

1 minute ago, loveofthegame said:

 

This entirely depends on personnel. I'd argue in many cases our current formation is a 5-2-3, not a 3-4-3.

Definitely, when the opposition has the back it’s a back five. 

[loveofthegame]

24 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.

 

So fans aren't allowed to question things on a fans forum?

 

4-2-3-1 last year was an issue due to personnel as much as it was the formation itself. We didn't have the players to suit it.

 

I'm struggling to see how putting an extra attacking minded player into our team can be seen as a negative?! I believe we will draw too many games playing the current formation all season - i might be wrong, time will tell.

[MattyK82]

10 minutes ago, SomethingAboutObua said:

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

I am pretty sure RN has already come out and said the team have two formations which they have worked on since pre season (3-4-3 being one and I think 4-2-3-1 being the other).  
 

3-4-3 is clearly the preferred option and to a large extent, it is working. It won’t fully work until we solve the RWB issue however. It’s clear Smith can’t properly play that role. Switching to a flat back 4 will solve the smith issue but may mean Halkett becomes one (he’s definitely better in a back 3).

 

While we continue to get results and performances with 3-4-3 (Dundee United away last weekend and large parts of yesterday - we looked good), I’m not sure he’ll be inclined to change it 🤷‍♂️ Although it is clear the attacking players behind Boyce need to ensure they support him to a greater extent, while the midfield in general needs to move the ball a bit quicker. 

[...andFulton'sBaggio]

I know this will never happen, but I've started to wonder whether this could work:

 

....................Gordon
.....Souttar...Halkett...Kingsley
Woodburn..Haring..Beni..Mckay
 .....................GMS
 .............Boyce...Gnando

 

Harsh on Cochrane, but if you wanted a bit more of a defensive, albeit asymmetrical lineup, you could swap him with Mckay. 

 

GMS on current form has to keep his place. He's a clever player and he's great at playing people in in tight situations.

 

I reckon Woodburn's got the engine for the RWB role, and by the looks of it Mckay maybe does as well. I can't remember which manager it was at Bayern Munich who converted Arjen Robben into a WB, but maybe it would work?

 

I often have a little chuckle at people's overly attacking lineups that pop up on here now and again, but this way you've still got 5 defensive players on the pitch. Haring could always drop in to cover CB while Souttar / Woodburn or Kingsley / Mckay double up on the opposition's wide players while we're defending.

 

We'd have the added threat of an actual penalty box striker to get on the end if all those crosses, while Boyce loves to drop into midfield so he'd help to boost the numbers in there when Haring has to drop off to CB. 

 

Pretty sure Mckay's right footed tho, so that could be one of (probably a few) flaws in this plan ..

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Rick Sanchez]

1 hour ago, Arfur said:

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

 

[Bazzas right boot]

I'm not sure a back 3 helps us as most teams play with 1 up front, 

 

I like a 442 in any varient. 

[Bazzas right boot]

1 hour ago, Arfur said:

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

 

 

WTF you been smoking? 

Beni at RWB? 

[Bazzas right boot]

Woodburn at RWB, Beni at RWB, 

 

Folk are on the sherbet today. 

 

 

[John Findlay]

30 minutes ago, loveofthegame said:

 

So fans aren't allowed to question things on a fans forum?

 

4-2-3-1 last year was an issue due to personnel as much as it was the formation itself. We didn't have the players to suit it.

 

I'm struggling to see how putting an extra attacking minded player into our team can be seen as a negative?! I believe we will draw too many games playing the current formation all season - i might be wrong, time will tell.

Alot of it is not questioning, its just constant criticism and it has been done to death.

[1971fozzy]

1 hour ago, Selkirkhmfc1874 said:

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

100%
hard games as well, so let’s see how we get on with the next 4 or 5 games

 

as folk have said if it’s not broke.  And defensively we are looking superb 

[David McCaig]

14 minutes ago, John Findlay said:

Alot of it is not questioning, its just constant criticism and it has been done to death.

There is no criticism at all in this thread, its simply a discussion of how we can switch where required to a more attacking formation.

 

If Smith is struggling with injury this discussion is all the more pertinent as we don't have a credible option at RWB to cover... the fact that people are suggesting Ben or Beni confirms that.

Edited September 13, 2021 by David McCaig

[David McCaig]

5 minutes ago, 1971fozzy said:

100%
hard games as well, so let’s see how we get on with the next 4 or 5 games

 

as folk have said if it’s not broke.  And defensively we are looking superb 

We are doing brilliantly, we just need to be wary that as we come up against teams with little interest in attacking us that we don't suffer by drawing too many games.

 

 

[davie1980]

1 hour ago, SomethingAboutObua said:

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

 

That's not a concern for me at all.

 

Haring is doing a good job and I reckon there's scope for improvement.

If Devlin or McEneff want to play they'll have to be better.

 

If they are, I'll have even less concern.

[KyleLafferty]

4231 is one of the worst formations in football and barely any team play it.

Edited September 13, 2021 by KyleLafferty

[Jambo92]

We've not created enough chances to make me feel confident that the current formation is the way forward, but the fixture list has been tough and still bedding in new players etc.  I do think we need a plan b that the team can switch to, we went 4411 for last 15 yesterday and it completely killed us in an attacking sense, so I do hope we experiment with some of the home games coming up so we aren't so rigid.

[MarkDevriesScores4]

Leave Beni where he is ffs 😂

[Taffin]

I think the 3 at the back and the two in the middle are solid. That 5 good players who protect our goal. Our issue is the other 5 who are meant to be attacking (the issue isn't their quality, it's what they're doing, or more accurately not doing).

 

Two of them are out and out defenders who offer little going forward from wing back and a striker who does lots of his work outside the the box (not a criticism of any of them, or the manager, it's just what we've got).

 

When we transition we want one of the two central midfielders to be start the move and get it worked out wide to one of the full backs who is then putting the ball into a box with 4 attackers in it it (striker, 2 AMs and the other wing back) or it going outside then back into one of the AMs and us playing through that way.

 

We look okay at doing the second one but we aren't achieving the first method often enough imo. When it does go wide, too often it's not the wing back out there, and when it is, the rest of them haven't got themselves into the box.

 

This makes us feel quite passive at times as we end up just passing it sideways which cuts off our options as the other team are now set. 

[WageThief]

3 hours ago, David McCaig said:

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

 

 

Neilson suggested in his open goal interview released today that they have worked on two systems to play so perhaps the other one is a 4-2-3-1.  Or a 4-3-3 which is essentially the same thing.

 

I'd argue we'd be better off with our plan B being a 4-4-2 with two wingers given we've got Gnando or Woodburn who could be shifted upfront.  And a plethora of wingers.  Although if one striker dropped deeper it's basically the same thing anyway.

 

 

[Taffin]

12 minutes ago, Taffin said:

I think the 3 at the back and the two in the middle are solid. That 5 good players who protect our goal. Our issue is the other 5 who are meant to be attacking (the issue isn't their quality, it's what they're doing, or more accurately not doing).

 

Two of them are out and out defenders who offer little going forward from wing back and a striker who does lots of his work outside the the box (not a criticism of any of them, or the manager, it's just what we've got).

 

When we transition we want one of the two central midfielders to be start the move and get it worked out wide to one of the full backs who is then putting the ball into a box with 4 attackers in it it (striker, 2 AMs and the other wing back) or it going outside then back into one of the AMs and us playing through that way.

 

We look okay at doing the second one but we aren't achieving the first method often enough imo. When it does go wide, too often it's not the wing back out there, and when it is, the rest of them haven't got themselves into the box.

 

This makes us feel quite passive at times as we end up just passing it sideways which cuts off our options as the other team are now set. 

 

Just for clarity, I mean wing backs in the bold bit.

[CMc]

Should we abandon the system we spent all window recruiting for that has us undefeated in the league?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No. 

[WageThief]

12 minutes ago, KyleLafferty said:

4231 is one of the worst formations in football and barely any team play it.

 

It's all a bit of a faff really I think.  I am not saying there are no tactics but there is a bawhair between a lot of formations.  Depending on what players are told to do (or what they do through their own intelligence/lack of) they can all mean the same thing.  

 

We could finish 2nd this season playing a fancy 4-2-1-3 and it would be more to do with what Neilson wanted to do, and the quality of guys like Beni or Woodburn.  And the guy called Craig Gordon playing behind the 4.

 

 

[kila]

Think 3 at the back works well. We're quite solid defensively. Just lacking in attack in midfield so need to play one less defensive player there, which means Haring dropping out. Hopefully Devlin is just what we need there.

 

[Jambof3tornado]

3 hours ago, David McCaig said:

 

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.

Even big teams struggle to get quality in the wingback roles. You either have to sacrifice attacking traits or defensive ones, we have settled to 2 defensive minded players. Could we perhaps risk wb being a more attack minded player and switch them during games?, the 3 centre halfs are there if needed. 

Its not like the wbs need to cover marauding centre halfs because ours rarely wander, I do love it when they plod forward but it needs a final pass to be worthwhile. Soapy can drive with the ball and it adds a good attacking threat asmost teams back off until he's well into their half.

 

Plenty to think about for Mr Robbie and plenty games to go to make things better,I wanted him gone but we are stuck with him so he gets my backing but like any manager will be rightly criticised at times if I feel its justified.

 

 

 

 

[...andFulton'sBaggio]

1 hour ago, Smith's right boot said:

Woodburn at RWB, Beni at RWB, 

 

Folk are on the sherbet today. 

 

 

Ha ha, I don't thing Woodburn at RWB is THAT far fetched. Beni, on the other, I'm struggling to get my head around 

[Cruyff]

1 hour ago, loveofthegame said:

 

This entirely depends on personnel. I'd argue in many cases our current formation is a 5-2-3, not a 3-4-3.

5-4-1 in defence on the edge of our box.

3-4-3 in possession/build up play and we usually have at least wing back in the final third in attack so if both are forward, it can be 3-2-5.

[Fozzyonthefence]

23 minutes ago, CMc said:

Should we abandon the system we spent all window recruiting for that has us undefeated in the league?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No. 

Good managers will change tactics and formations as and when required, depending on the players available and to suit the opposition.  No reason why we can’t do this either - Hibs changed from a back 3 to back 4 during the game yesterday because it wasn’t working for them.  They got more of a foothold after that and had a few chances.  
 

I very much doubt Neilson will stick to the same formation for 38 league games.  I certainly hope not. 
 

Edit:  In fact hasn’t he already changed it against Aberdeen?

Edited September 13, 2021 by Fozzyonthefence

[LarrysRightFoot]

It sounds like Devlin is very much like Beni - however, once they get an understanding and trust they make decide amongst them that one of them will push forward/go at different times. 
 

If Beni and Devlin work as a pair that base should allow the wingbacks confidence to attack. The problem though is Smith in particular isn’t a wingback. 

Edited September 13, 2021 by LarrysRightFoot

[Lfhearts]

Barrie Mackay in the starting team after 25 minutes, this is jkb at its finest.

[GinRummy]

5 minutes ago, Lfhearts said:

Barrie Mackay in the starting team after 25 minutes, this is jkb at its finest.

Who would you play in a 3-4-3 or 4-2-3-1 in the attacking positions?

[loveofthegame]

49 minutes ago, Cruyff said:

5-4-1 in defence on the edge of our box.

3-4-3 in possession/build up play and we usually have at least wing back in the final third in attack so if both are forward, it can be 3-2-5.

yeah fair, but I would still go back to my point re personnel. All very well getting those guys forward but when they’re naturally defensive you won’t get as much from them.

 

Anyway I was largely playing devil’s advocate. Not complaining about our start to the season, just slightly concerned re the number of chances we’ve created in the big games so far. 

[GinRummy]

1 hour ago, CMc said:

Should we abandon the system we spent all window recruiting for that has us undefeated in the league?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No. 

We didn’t spend all summer recruiting for one specific formation. Robbie said very early this season he had two formations in mind and confirmed as much in his open goal. He also said when Woodburn signed he wanted him to play a number ten role.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

No.

 

For some teams the 3-4-3 is a chance to take defensive responsibilities off the fullbacks and let them rove forwards as wingbacks, but for us, the back three allows us to let the CHs get forward on the attack far more. The obvious benefit here is that it lets Souttar, quite possibly our best outfield player, step forward and take on the role of a kind of deep-lying playmaker. Kingsley and Halkett are less skilled but they step forward too.

 

To me, freeing up Souttar to be his best and most impactful is what the back 3 is all about.

 

It also lets Beni and Haring worry less about sitting in front of the defense and be a bit more daring.

 

Whenever we switch to a back 4, we become far more predictable and teams sit on our passing lanes. I know Neilson has said he wants to be able to play both but I'd be perfectly happy if we never set up in a back 4 the rest of the season. It always seems to tend us towards dreary football.

[jr ewing]

Accommodate your best 11. Easy. 

[Rick Sanchez]

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

[Diadora Van Basten]

I would prefer 4-2-3-1 to 3-4-3 as it means we have 4 attackers on the pitch rather than 3.

 

We aren’t creating enough chances and the main reason we are unbeaten is due to Craig Gordon playing out of his skin.

[Lfhearts]

Robbie says one thing does another always has and probably always will.

[merseyjambo]

You can’t play 3-4-3 with 7 more naturally defensive players.

 

Change Haring for a more naturally attacking midfielder and it helps.

 

I think the biggest problem with it is, our best and most natural striker is being asked to do a lot of work outside the box because our midfield is more naturally defensive. 
 

Our wing backs are not exactly delivering decent crosses either. The one decent one they put in had Hanlon almost put it in his own net.

 

4-2-3-1 with the players we have now in comparison to those available against Aberdeen would be a better fit. 
 

Gordon

 

Smith

Soutar

Halkett

Cochrane

 

Beni

Haring/Devlin/Kingsley/Halliday

 

Mackay

Woodburn

GMS

 

Boyce

 

It allows a bit more natural width with Mackay and GMS, Boyce can do more of his work inside the box and Woodburn playing where he looked most dangerous yesterday. Playing just off the striker and putting little balls in for them to try and get on to

[CMc]

3 hours ago, Fozzyonthefence said:

Good managers will change tactics and formations as and when required, depending on the players available and to suit the opposition.  No reason why we can’t do this either - Hibs changed from a back 3 to back 4 during the game yesterday because it wasn’t working for them.  They got more of a foothold after that and had a few chances.  
 

I very much doubt Neilson will stick to the same formation for 38 league games.  I certainly hope not. 
 

Edit:  In fact hasn’t he already changed it against Aberdeen?

Consensus was our performance fell apart after switching tactics in that game, no?

 

Nothing wrong with being flexible. However we recruited for a certain template. Unless I misunderstood the OP, he was suggesting we ditch it. 

[GinRummy]

4 minutes ago, CMc said:

Consensus was our performance fell apart after switching tactics in that game, no?

 

Nothing wrong with being flexible. However we recruited for a certain template. Unless I misunderstood the OP, he was suggesting we ditch it. 

That’s twice you’ve said we recruited for 3-4-3. It’s still incorrect. Try it a third time, you never know it might suddenly become true. 

[CMc]

3 minutes ago, GinRummy said:

That’s twice you’ve said we recruited for 3-4-3. It’s still incorrect. Try it a third time, you never know it might suddenly become true. 

You don’t think we recruited with our primary formation in mind?

[GinRummy]

5 minutes ago, CMc said:

You don’t think we recruited with our primary formation in mind?

No. We recruited a balanced squad that can play in most modern formations. If we had recruited for 3-4-3 we wouldn’t have signed Woodburn who Robbie sees as a number 10 and would have signed someone with a better engine than Michael Smith to play RWB. I’d be very surprised if the way we set up doesn’t change in the next 4 or 5 games. 

[gnasher75]

4 hours ago, Taffin said:

I think the 3 at the back and the two in the middle are solid. That 5 good players who protect our goal. Our issue is the other 5 who are meant to be attacking (the issue isn't their quality, it's what they're doing, or more accurately not doing).

 

Two of them are out and out defenders who offer little going forward from wing back and a striker who does lots of his work outside the the box (not a criticism of any of them, or the manager, it's just what we've got).

 

When we transition we want one of the two central midfielders to be start the move and get it worked out wide to one of the full backs who is then putting the ball into a box with 4 attackers in it it (striker, 2 AMs and the other wing back) or it going outside then back into one of the AMs and us playing through that way.

 

We look okay at doing the second one but we aren't achieving the first method often enough imo. When it does go wide, too often it's not the wing back out there, and when it is, the rest of them haven't got themselves into the box.

 

This makes us feel quite passive at times as we end up just passing it sideways which cuts off our options as the other team are now set. 

 

Exactly this. And especially the bit highlighted.

 

I said in a post earlier that for all the work Boyce does for the team I would love him to just get in the box more. We frequently have players looking to put a cross in and there is no one in the box to aim for. 

 

Maybe there's an argument for Boyce playing as a no.10 supporting Gnanduillet, with any two of Woodburn, Mackay, GMS and Ginnelly playing in the wide roles in a 4 2 3 1 / 4 4 2.

 

Or if we stick with 3 4 3 we play with a more defensive minded wing back on one side and a more natural winger on the either side. Smith and MacKay for example or Cochrane and Ginnelly.

 

[spacerjoe]

7 hours ago, GinRummy said:

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. 
 

 

 

We're a work in progress. Why not allow it some time and this new team to gel? Some of them haven't even played 90 mins yet.

 

Savage already said we're building a team over a number of windows. I'd rather we let the team keeping working on a consistent approach and then add more quality where needed over time.

 

 

[GinRummy]

7 minutes ago, spacerjoe said:

 

We're a work in progress. Why not allow it some time and this new team to gel? Some of them haven't even played 90 mins yet.

 

Savage already said we're building a team over a number of windows. I'd rather we let the team keeping working on a consistent approach and then add more quality where needed over time.

 

 

What do you mean ‘allow it some time’. What am I doing to prevent it getting time. I’m happy with how it’s going but with a few tweaks it could work better. 

[blairdin]

Robbie likes the 3-4-3 formation because it can be adapted seamlessly to a 5-4-1 by simply adjusting the positioning of the wide players. This is our style, and we essentially have two players for each of the key outfield positions in this general set up. 

 

The issue with our 3-4-3 is it's still a safety first solid first approach, even in the attacking sense - our centre halfs look comfortable, and we have any two from Beni, Haring and Devlin ahead of them.

 

The creativity is intended to come from the two playing either side of Boycie on the teamsheet with the wingbacks overlapping to give width. The issue is the wing backs selected are usually more defensive minded players, Boycie ends up isolated and too much possession goes side to side. 

 

Overall, I think our preferred way of playing lacks ambition. I hope Robbie does change it, as I think if we unshackle these players they are capable of better. Right now, we're over coached.

 

 

 

 

 

[spacerjoe]

Just now, GinRummy said:

What do you mean ‘allow it some time’. What am I doing to prevent it getting time. I’m happy with how it’s going but with a few tweaks it could work better. 

You said we should be changing the formation before it loses us points.

 

That is not allowing it time.

[spacerjoe]

2 hours ago, Rick Sanchez said:

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

 

Beaten today by a 3-4-3 formation, with 2 defenders playing as wing backs. The one on the right an old Irishman to boot. 😉

 

[GinRummy]

15 minutes ago, spacerjoe said:

You said we should be changing the formation before it loses us points.

 

That is not allowing it time.

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.