Jump to content

Formation on Sunday. Your choice.


No Idle Talk
 Share

What formation would you like to see us play on Sunday?  

127 members have voted

  1. 1. What formation would you like to see us play on Sunday?


This poll is closed to new votes

  • Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.
  • Poll closed on 07/08/22 at 23:00

Recommended Posts

No Idle Talk

I am thinking a lot about Sunday's game. And about our formation in general. My personal opinion about the 3-4-3 thing is that it had it's place in time but it isn't working as well for us anymore. We don't lose a lot playing that way, but I just don't think it maximises the players that we have. I want to see us go back to playing 4-2-3-1. Or maybe even be really brave and try 4-3-3. But 4-3-3 isn't on Robbie's radar and I get that. So if we ditch 3-4-3 then 4-2-3-1 is what we're doing. That is absolutely what I want us to do on Sunday. It fits the players we have. In my opinion.

 

*Can we not let this thread get silly and people accuse other people of thinking they know better than Robbie Neilson. As fans we all have our own thoughts about formations, tactics, players etc. That's what makes football forums fun.

 

So just a straight question this one. Would you rather see us play 3-4-3 or 4-2-3-1 on Sunday?

 

 

Edited by No Idle Talk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No Idle Talk

Haha I've ballsed the poll! 😂

 

4-1-3-2 is 4-2-3-1.

 

SORRY!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bongo 1874
7 minutes ago, No Idle Talk said:

I am thinking a lot about Sunday's game. And about our formation in general. My personal opinion about the 3-4-3 thing is that it had it's place in time but it isn't working as well for us anymore. We don't lose a lot playing that way, but I just don't think it maximises the players that we have. I want to see us go back to playing 4-2-3-1. Or maybe even be really brave and try 4-3-3. But 4-3-3 isn't on Robbie's radar and I get that. So if we ditch 3-4-3 then 4-2-3-1 is what we're doing. That is absolutely what I want us to do on Sunday. It fits the players we have. In my opinion.

 

*Can we not let this thread get silly and people accuse other people of thinking they know better than Robbie Neilson. As fans we all have our own thoughts about formations, tactics, players etc. That's what makes football forums fun.

 

So just a straight question this one. Would you rather see us play 3-4-3 or 4-2-3-1 on Sunday?

 

 

433.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No Idle Talk
2 minutes ago, Bongo 1874 said:

433.

 

I'd love that mate. But as I said, it ain't gonna happen. Robbie has said the two formations we are playing this season are 3-4-3 or 4-2-3-1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No Idle Talk
7 minutes ago, HMFC01 said:

343 all the way to the group stages. 

 

Do you prefer that? If so, why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bongo 1874
1 minute ago, No Idle Talk said:

 

I'd love that mate. But as I said, it ain't gonna happen. Robbie has said the two formations we are playing this season are 3-4-3 or 4-2-3-1.

Many formations you can play just personally have never liked playing with a back 3 with the wingbacks tucking in and essentially making it a back 5 when out of possession, as long as we win that's what counts, I would like to see us press high with being aggressive in the tackle. 

 

We have good footballers. 

 

Team is there for Robbie etc, he just needs to manage it over the line. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No Idle Talk
1 minute ago, Bongo 1874 said:

Many formations you can play just personally have never liked playing with a back 3 with the wingbacks tucking in and essentially making it a back 5 when out of possession, as long as we win that's what counts, I would like to see us press high with being aggressive in the tackle. 

 

We have good footballers. 

 

Team is there for Robbie etc, he just needs to manage it over the line. 

 

There's nothing wrong with playing a back 3 in theory. Especially if you have three really good defenders in your squad. Which we did last season. Souttar, Halkett, and Kingsley were a great back three. 

 

But you have to fit the rest of your team around that. At the moment we are trying to fit Toby Sibbick in to John Souttar's position. And it's not really working. I think Sibbick would be a good defensive midfielder for us, but I'm not sure he's a centre back.

 

I'd like to see us play a back four with Natty RB, Halkett and Rowles at CB, Kingsley at LB. Harsh on Alex Cochrane but he will get games. If Rowles form drops then you push Kingsley in to centre back and play Cochrane at LB.

 

That's my thoughts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wee Mikey

I honestly don't know what the best starting formation would be for the derby.

 

But, what I'd like to see is both Shankland and Boyce up front. In the absence of a 'Simms type' the last thing I want to see is Shankland out on his own.

 

So, what formation is it that would allow Shankland to get into the box (where we've already seen how instinctive he can be) with Boyce giving H1b5' central defence trouble, and our wingers getting into good crossing positions?

 

Whatever that formation is, is the one for me.

 

Forrest's goal v Ross Co is the type of goal I imagine us scoring - he absolutely went for it. That lad also had a fine effort prior to his goal. But, you can never rule out a piece of individual brilliance a-la Bazza.

 

With Forrest, Shankland, Boyce, and Cochrane causing all sorts of problems I can see us ripping through H1b5' defence.

 

Having said that, our mid-field pairing last Saturday really wasn't the best so it'll be interesting to see if we stick or twist. I suspect twist.

 

If H1b5 resort to their semi-final tactics of kicking us off the park then hopefully the ref is on the case this time. If not, then our formation will be the least of our worries.

 

The very last thing we need is Bazza getting crocked by that thug Newall. Ditto anyone getting scythed by the gurning, gormless Porteous.

 

Rocky isn't such a bad 'un, but he gifts fouls right, left, and centre.

 

Och, having mused about it, it's bleedin' H1b5 we're up against. Any formation will see us give 'em a hiding.

 

Their formation? It wouldn't surprise me if they accidentally fielded an extra 5 outfield players and went for a 5-4-3-2-1. 😉

 

We'd still give them a doing.

 

Wee Lee's dream formation:-

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bull's-eye

Don't think I'll be concerning myself how the players line up for the kick off tbh.

 

Football has moved on, formations are about 20 years old. The woman's game is a classic example, slow, passive and rigid in formation. Outdated and not used anymore.

 

We have intelligent players who can manage the game, keep up the intensity without losing the plot and we win. As usual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4-2-3-1 for me:

Gordon

Atkinson  Halkett  Rowles  Cochrane

Grant  Devlin

Forrest  Boyce  McKay

Shankland

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Skacelsid

Our game changers are in forward areas, that's where we need the ball to be, even if by route one at times. Playing it about at the back, especially for the first half hour will just invite pressure and errors, it is a Derby and we need to be at it right away.....

Gordon

Smith  Halkett  Rowles  Cochrane

Grant  Devlin

Forrest  Boyce  McKay

Shankland

 

Edited by Skacelsid
typing error
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Voice of reason

I’ll never understand the fixation people have with one formation. Good coaches and players will be able to switch effortlessly between them. It should depend on the players you have available, the opposition and how the game is going. As a coach, I have won games playing 433, 442, 352, 343, 451 etc. Formations don’t win games - don’t get sucked into being a fan of one over others in my opinion.

 

The poll is therefore flawed. You can’t say as fans we all have a right to a view on a forum and then limit the option of your favourite formation against Robbies. It has to be all the main formations. Robbie’s a good coach and will be open to playing any formation that wins a certain game - it’s pretty insulting to think he only ever considers 2 formations or he doesn’t change mid-match as required.

 

Anyway, we all have our own favourites. Mines is 433 as a general rule. I only play 4231 when parking the bus. It’s basically a defensively setup 451 with two stay at home fullbacks and two sitting mids. Of course, it can be tweaked to be more attacking thus the silliness of having favourite formations. You’ll see 4231 used a lot by lower table teams to be hard to beat. The mistake in the poll, 4132, is a more attacking formation actually- although it’s just a 442 with a sitting mid. I’d prefer that against weaker teams than 4231 as well. Everyone has an opinion and they shouldn’t be limited.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

jamboozy

4,1,3,2 full backs pushing on when we break, if we break.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A_A wehatethehibs

I would go with as close to the same 11 and formation that beat Hibs 3-1 4 months ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, No Idle Talk said:

 

Do you prefer that? If so, why?

 

I'd prefer our players stick to a starting formation so they get used to it.   343 is a decent balance of defence and attack.   It will get us further in competitions.   As far as I know we can easily change to 4231 during the game.   

 

I think we still have a long way to go to fill the positions for a strong team.    

 

My personal preference is usually 433.   It will depend on the players available.    I could just as well start off with 451 for a cautious approach. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tenor said:

4-2-3-1 for me:

Gordon

Atkinson  Halkett  Rowles  Cochrane

Grant  Devlin

Forrest  Boyce  McKay

Shankland

Winner

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rory Mcilroy

Caught 10 mins of training yesterday and they were doing a lot on shape out of possession, interestingly enough it was constantly 4 at the back. Maybe nothing to get excited about but would love to see it tomorrow. 

 

DU on Thursday took a risk by playing a midfield and attack that was all about taking the game to AZ. Watching them made me think we need to prioritise getting McKay, Forrest, Grant, Shankland and Boyce into the starting 11 and building the team around them. The vermin won't be able handle that quality. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tenor said:

4-2-3-1 for me:

Gordon

Atkinson  Halkett  Rowles  Cochrane

Grant  Devlin

Forrest  Boyce  McKay

Shankland

Thats the team for me. If Atkinson is fully fit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can see both sides of it. 
 

We get all our better attacking players on the field with 4231. 
 

Only looking at individual personnel, Sibbick for Boyce is a good swap. 
 

Devlin, Grant, Mckay, Forrest, Boyce, Shankland looks good on paper. 
 

I would say it looks easier to change the game starting from 343. Swapping from that to the 4231 would be easier than the other way round. The proposed line up for 4231 also leaves us with very little in the bench (arguably because all the best players are starting - another perspective would be all the attackers are). 
 

I worry 343 would negate Cochrane who was our best player on Saturday. Would also put a lot of pressure on Smith/Atkinson. The fullbacks would need Devlin to cover and would probably not have licence to attack simultaneously which could limit our width. 
 

In summary, 4231 is all the eggs in the Plan A basket with little scope to change but has all our most creative players starting (and therefore few tactical changes available from bench). Allows up to six players getting forward. Could be susceptible to counter attacks.  
 

343 sacrifices a creative player on paper but possibly allows all of the front seven to push up more and provides greater width. Gives us more gears in the gear box and greater scope to change through both personnel and shape. Risks leaving our front three potentially a bit isolated from rest of the side (as first half on Saturday). Playing Grant helped mitigate this though. 
 

Either way, it’s Hibs. We’ve got too much for them in either shape. I would be comfortable either way. 
 

I would probably narrowly go for the 343 on the grounds they got away with kicking lumps out of us in the semi and we would have no senior attacking players on the bench if we start them all in the 343 and get a couple of injuries. 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr Rabbit

If we go with 4 at the back I think it’s more likely he’ll bring in devlin and grant into the middle, with grant being the more attacking.

 

He might look at Boyce’s experience in these games versus Grant however it would be harsh as Grant did more than enough last week to deserve a start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Weonly151
2 hours ago, Skacelsid said:

Our game changers are in forward areas, that's where we need the ball to be, even if by route one at times. Playing it about at the back, especially for the first half hour will just invite pressure and errors, it is a Derby and we need to be at it right away.....

Gordon

Smith  Halkett  Rowles  Cochrane

Grant  Devlin

Forrest  Boyce  McKay

Shankland

 

This is the team I'd go for as well 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

martoon

4-2-3-1 for me.

 

Hearts must get control of the midfield right from the start on Sunday. The 2 and 3 should allow that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Disco Dave
4 hours ago, Tenor said:

4-2-3-1 for me:

Gordon

Atkinson  Halkett  Rowles  Cochrane

Grant  Devlin

Forrest  Boyce  McKay

Shankland


This would be my team all day long but with Kingsley in there if fit (swap out either Rowles or Cochrane).
 

However, I fear last Saturday’s negative starting formation was a dress rehearsal for tomorrow and we will be set up more defensively than this. Hope I’m wrong!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MR INCREDIBLE
4 hours ago, Tenor said:

4-2-3-1 for me:

Gordon

Atkinson  Halkett  Rowles  Cochrane

Grant  Devlin

Forrest  Boyce  McKay

Shankland

Good team 👍

Would maybe swap Devlin for Haring as we need a bit height for set pieces etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No Idle Talk
24 minutes ago, martoon said:

4-2-3-1 for me.

 

Hearts must get control of the midfield right from the start on Sunday. The 2 and 3 should allow that.

 

That is one of the things I don't like about 3-4-3. There is a tendency for us to get outnumbered 3 v 2 in central midfield. It's easier to fix that issue playing 4-2-3-1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No Idle Talk
3 hours ago, Voice of reason said:

I’ll never understand the fixation people have with one formation. Good coaches and players will be able to switch effortlessly between them. It should depend on the players you have available, the opposition and how the game is going. As a coach, I have won games playing 433, 442, 352, 343, 451 etc. Formations don’t win games - don’t get sucked into being a fan of one over others in my opinion.

 

The poll is therefore flawed. You can’t say as fans we all have a right to a view on a forum and then limit the option of your favourite formation against Robbies. It has to be all the main formations. Robbie’s a good coach and will be open to playing any formation that wins a certain game - it’s pretty insulting to think he only ever considers 2 formations or he doesn’t change mid-match as required.

 

Anyway, we all have our own favourites. Mines is 433 as a general rule. I only play 4231 when parking the bus. It’s basically a defensively setup 451 with two stay at home fullbacks and two sitting mids. Of course, it can be tweaked to be more attacking thus the silliness of having favourite formations. You’ll see 4231 used a lot by lower table teams to be hard to beat. The mistake in the poll, 4132, is a more attacking formation actually- although it’s just a 442 with a sitting mid. I’d prefer that against weaker teams than 4231 as well. Everyone has an opinion and they shouldn’t be limited.

 

 

Robbie has literally said himself that the two formations we will be using this season are 3-4-3 and 4-2-3-1. As was the case last season. 

 

It's not a matter of stifling people's opinions. It just seems a bit pointless to discuss how the match will go if we play 4-4-2 or 2-3-5 because neither of those things will be happening. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

martoon
13 minutes ago, No Idle Talk said:

 

That is one of the things I don't like about 3-4-3. There is a tendency for us to get outnumbered 3 v 2 in central midfield. It's easier to fix that issue playing 4-2-3-1.

 

It's happened a lot with 3-4-3.

 

We struggle to get a foothold, don't start games well...I'd hate that to happen on Sunday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No Idle Talk
3 minutes ago, martoon said:

 

It's happened a lot with 3-4-3.

 

We struggle to get a foothold, don't start games well...I'd hate that to happen on Sunday.

 

Aye. 

 

We seem to have this weird thing going on where we either start well and drop off in the second half or we struggle in the first half then come on strong in the second half. Putting together a full 90min performance seems to be a bit of an issue. Puzzling. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John Findlay

Couldn't give a toss what the formation is tomorrow, as long as we score more goals than them, and beat them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eldar Hadzimehmedovic

4231 looks better on paper and that team above is exactly what I'd go for but then I'm not a football coach. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gorgie Spiv

3-4-3 is really a 5 2 3.

 

Against county the back 5 went to a flat back 5 numerous times and invited county onto us.   We have quality players higher up the pitch and this formation plays into weaker teams hands.

 

4 2 3 1.      Get the diamond up the top end and it fills the gap between the holding midfielders and shankland.  

 

Smith can play as a defensive rb and make a back 3 when cochrane goes forward.    Haring in the holding 2 can drop into a back 3 (makes a back 5) when needed.   

 

I feel we have much better players than hibs all over the pack, but the 3-4-3 becomes too deep and lets hibs into the game   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No Idle Talk
46 minutes ago, Eldar Hadzimehmedovic said:

4231 looks better on paper and that team above is exactly what I'd go for but then I'm not a football coach. 

 

You could be. Have you tried? 😁

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No Idle Talk
40 minutes ago, Gorgie Spiv said:

3-4-3 is really a 5 2 3.

 

Against county the back 5 went to a flat back 5 numerous times and invited county onto us.   We have quality players higher up the pitch and this formation plays into weaker teams hands.

 

4 2 3 1.      Get the diamond up the top end and it fills the gap between the holding midfielders and shankland.  

 

Smith can play as a defensive rb and make a back 3 when cochrane goes forward.    Haring in the holding 2 can drop into a back 3 (makes a back 5) when needed.   

 

I feel we have much better players than hibs all over the pack, but the 3-4-3 becomes too deep and lets hibs into the game   

 

Good post. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ArcticJambo
8 hours ago, Tenor said:

4-2-3-1 for me:

Gordon

Atkinson  Halkett  Rowles  Cochrane

Grant  Devlin

Forrest  Boyce  McKay

Shankland

For tomorrow, this works for me. :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pasquale for King

4231

Gordon

 

Atkinson

Halkett

Rowes

Cochrane

 

Haring

Devlin

 

Forrest

Grant

McKay

 

Shankland

 

Go at them from the start and this could well be one to remember. 
 

But it’s likely to be 343 and caution. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bazzas right boot

4231 or 41311.

Seems more fluid and balanced to me. 

3 defenders nowadays seems to pose a lot more questions as teams tend to go with 1 up top. 

 

And if he doesn't do it I'll bang on about it for the week with my superior football knowledge and tactical nous about how obvious and better it is. 

Even if we win.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom Hardy’s Dug

We were all mostly screaming for 4-2-3-1 before the Hibs double header last season then we won 2 out of 2 playing 3-4-3.

 

I understand people might have preferred formations but the notion that our 3-;-3 is a busted flush is ridiculous. Absolutely no evidence of that at all.

 

We should beat Hibs no matter the formation tomorrow and I’m not that fussed either way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

superjack
11 hours ago, Tenor said:

4-2-3-1 for me:

Gordon

Atkinson  Halkett  Rowles  Cochrane

Grant  Devlin

Forrest  Boyce  McKay

Shankland

Your post saved me typing..

However, if Kingsley was fit I would probably have opted for a 343. When he comes out with the ball and joining in the attack, he is brilliant. Kingsley Wouldn't get forward as much in a back 4.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Tenor said:

4-2-3-1 for me:

Gordon

Atkinson  Halkett  Rowles  Cochrane

Grant  Devlin

Forrest  Boyce  McKay

Shankland


My only issue with that team is height at set pieces. Harring gives us extra cover in that department and is also more defensive generally. Don’t get me wrong on the ball and in transition that’s a good side but if they start shelling balls into the area we’re light on cover. We may go for that formation but Harring and Devlin will play with Boyce dropping out for Grant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share



×
×
  • Create New...