***Heart Of Midlothian Football Club Vs St Johnstone*** Official Match Thread

[Bazzas right boot]

6 minutes ago, Famous 1874 said:

Don’t think we need to play a 3 at the back today. Get at them early on. 

 

Surely 3 at the back is more attacking than 4 at the back

 

What are you after, a 2-4-4?

Doubt we'll play that.

 

[kingantti1874]

2 minutes ago, Bazzas right boot said:

 

Surely 3 at the back is more attacking than 4 at the back

 

What are you after, a 2-4-4?

Doubt we'll play that.

 

Not necessarily 4-4-2 or 4-3-3 is more attaching than 3-5-2.

 

3-4-3 or some variation yes is more attacking 

 

 

[Bazzas right boot]

7 minutes ago, kingantti1874 said:

Not necessarily 4-4-2 or 4-3-3 is more attaching than 3-5-2.

 

3-4-3 or some variation yes is more attacking 

 

 

 

Is it?

352 or 343 has 3 defenders in it, 442 has 4.

Are you confusing a 352 turning into a 532?

 

Any formation can be attacking or defensive, as to my original point I'm not sure why 3 at the back is bad or defensive and why that poster is against it.

 

 

Edited November 25, 2023 by Bazzas right boot

[MTS1874]

Come on Hearts, 3 points please and on to the next game.

 

[Bad Religion]

Just now, Bazzas right boot said:

 

Is it?

352 has 3 defenders in it, 442 has 4.

Are you confusing a 352 turning into a 532?

 

Any formation can be attacking or defensive, as to my original point I'm not sure why 3 at the back is bad or defensive and why that poster is against it.

 

 

Do you ever ask yourself why you’re always in involved in arguments on here?

 

[JudyJudyJudy]

It’s a must win game 😎

[Bazzas right boot]

5 minutes ago, Bad Religion said:

Do you ever ask yourself why you’re always in involved in arguments on here?

 

 

It's a football forum.

A poster hopes we don't play 3 at the back, I asked him why.

 

It's called a debate/ discussion about the match and tactics. 

 

Try it, try discussing the subject rather than bouncing about picking arguments while ignoring the subject matter and contributing **** all to the op.

 

Have you ever though about that?

 

You're on ignore, I just seen your tag pop up strsight after I posted and behold, you're following me about contributing **** all, hence the ignore.

 

 

Edited November 25, 2023 by Bazzas right boot

[JudyJudyJudy]

Come on hearts 

[Unknown user]

9 minutes ago, Bad Religion said:

Do you ever ask yourself why you’re always in involved in arguments on here?

 

People can't deal with different opinions and get arsey when he calmly replies?

[Buster HMFC]

Got a feeling we're going to play well today 

[kingantti1874]

17 minutes ago, Bazzas right boot said:

 

Is it?

352 or 343 has 3 defenders in it, 442 has 4.

Are you confusing a 352 turning into a 532?

 

Any formation can be attacking or defensive, as to my original point I'm not sure why 3 at the back is bad or defensive and why that poster is against it.

 

 

im not confusing anything.
 

3-5-2 typically is a more defensive set up. 3 CB v 2CB. your wife men are asked to defend as well as attack making a 5 at the back.

 

in a 4 at the back the 2 in midfield have more licence to be forward. 
 

Of course, there are exception.  But 3-5-2 is typically used when teams want to be a bit more defensively robust.  
 

not really a debatable point tbh.

[Bad Religion]

2 minutes ago, Bazzas right boot said:

 

It's a football forum.

A poster hopes we don't play 3 at the back, I asked him why.

 

It's called a debate/ discussion about the match and tactics. 

 

Try it, try discussing the subject rather than bouncing about picking arguments while ignoring the subject matter and contributing **** all to the op.

 

Have you ever though about that?

 

You're on ignore, I just seen your tag pop up strsight after I posted and behold, you're following me about contributing **** all, hence the ignore.

 

 

 

I try my hardest to ignore the majority of posts and refrain from commenting. However, posts like the ones above that completely expose your lack of football knowledge can't be ignored.

[Bazzas right boot]

2 minutes ago, Buster HMFC said:

Got a feeling we're going to play well today 

 

 

Yip.

Gonna smash their back doors in!

 

 

Take a 1-0 tho🤣

[Bad Religion]

5 minutes ago, ǝǝɥʇᴉɯS said:

 

People can't deal with different opinions and get arsey when he calmly replies?

It’s not an opinion, it’s a basic lack of understanding. 

[Unknown user]

Just now, Bad Religion said:

It’s not an opinion, it’s a basic lack of understanding. 

 

It's an opinion, it's different to yours, that's all

[Bad Religion]

Just now, ǝǝɥʇᴉɯS said:

 

It's an opinion, it's different to yours, that's all

No it isn’t. 

[superjack]

42 minutes ago, Famous 1874 said:

Don’t think we need to play a 3 at the back today. Get at them early on. 

I feel if we do play with 3 at the back, as st J will be sitting deep all game, we shouldn't need midfielders sitting deep at all.

Go 3 4 3, beni/hoff and lowri in the middle with instructions to push up.

[Bazzas right boot]

1 minute ago, kingantti1874 said:

im not confusing anything.
 

3-5-2 typically is a more defensive set up. 3 CB v 2CB. your wife men are asked to defend as well as attack making a 5 at the back.

 

in a 4 at the back the 2 in midfield have more licence to be forward. 
 

Of course, there are exception.  But 3-5-2 is typically used when teams want to be a bit more defensively robust.  
 

not really a debatable point tbh.

 

 

Really depends on how they are set up, 3 at the back is very common and many attacking teams play 3 at the back,  many attacking teams also play with 1 striker.

 

It's more about the set up rather than formation imo.

I wouldn't view 3 at the back as defensive today, maybe you would.

 

I don't see why folk would think 3 at the back was defensive today - if we go that route  and hope we don't play 3 at the back.

Maybe he'll reply with his concerns himself. 

 

 

 

[FarmerTweedy]

21 minutes ago, Bad Religion said:

Do you ever ask yourself why you’re always in involved in arguments on here?

 

He asked himself once, then asked himself again and disagreed with his first answer, and ended up arguing with himself! 

[Buster HMFC]

6 minutes ago, Bazzas right boot said:

 

 

Yip.

Gonna smash their back doors in!

 

 

Take a 1-0 tho🤣

And me being honest 🤣 I honestly think we'll win by 2 or

[Bazzas right boot]

1 minute ago, FarmerTweedy said:

He asked himself once, then asked himself again and disagreed with his first answer, and ended up arguing with himself! 

 

No I didn't.

 

[Bazzas right boot]

2 minutes ago, FarmerTweedy said:

He asked himself once, then asked himself again and disagreed with his first answer, and ended up arguing with himself! 

 

Yes I did.

[longmalx]

3 at the back for me and perhaps even dry Denholm at RWB if showing promise there- if not Forrest does an ok job there for me.

 

Key is that Devlin and Beni don’t start otherwise Devlin will just run around trying to play football. Has to be Beni with 2 of Calem/Grant/Lowry in the middle.

[Unknown user]

6 minutes ago, Bad Religion said:

No it isn’t. 

 

[Bazzas right boot]

6 minutes ago, Bad Religion said:

No it isn’t. 

 

 

Try contributing to the topic.

 

You've came in on this thread with the goal to wind folk up and to argue with folk.

 

Irony at it's finest.

[hearts00]

Can’t see us changing shape today after the recent performances. 
 

Especially as we don’t have a right back. 
 

The 3 can work but you have to sacrifice Devlin if Beni plays and the RWB in a game like this has to essentially be a winger, Forrest/Oda. 

[tiger Rudi]

Ahh the banter on here cracks me up 🤣. Just to add my tuppence worth. 3 at the back playing against the OF would be considered defensive, fully expecting the full backs to be pushed back effectively making a 5.

A 3 at the back against any other teams in the league in my view could be really attack minded if the wide men do get up the park and are contributing to the game mostly in the opposition half. Let's hope that's what happens today. 

[Jambof3tornado]

17 minutes ago, kingantti1874 said:

im not confusing anything.
 

3-5-2 typically is a more defensive set up. 3 CB v 2CB. your wife men are asked to defend as well as attack making a 5 at the back.

 

in a 4 at the back the 2 in midfield have more licence to be forward. 
 

Of course, there are exception.  But 3-5-2 is typically used when teams want to be a bit more defensively robust.  
 

not really a debatable point tbh.

I think the players mindset is more crucial in whether a formation is more or less attacking/defensive.

[ford donald]

11 minutes ago, Buster HMFC said:

And me being honest 🤣 I honestly think we'll win by 2 or

 

3-0

[OTT]

8 minutes ago, hearts00 said:

Can’t see us changing shape today after the recent performances. 
 

Especially as we don’t have a right back. 
 

The 3 can work but you have to sacrifice Devlin if Beni plays and the RWB in a game like this has to essentially be a winger, Forrest/Oda. 

 

Yep Forrests workrate down that right side is important if we're using wingers/wingbacks. 

[HMFC01]

4 hours ago, Tommy Brown said:

Why do you think Tuchel could be in for the sack?

I don't follow much European football.

But top of the league and comfortably through in the Champions league.

He's only  just in job?

 

What am I missing.

 

 

I know.    Top of the league.   I just don't find him at all impressive.   If they don't win the league he's got to be for the sack.    Unless they win the Champions League.    I can't see that happening. 

[chubby1973]

2 hours ago, Neil Lovatt said:

Just a wee reminder that the match today is sponsored in the name of the late Andy Lovatt (my dad). A lifelong Jambo.

 

His family and friends will be clapping on the 80th minute in honour of him. So please join in if you can. 
 

Many thanks. 

Sorry for your loss.  I knew your dad many years ago as he was friends with my stepdad. Will certainly take part in this.

[SMJ_1874]

55 minutes ago, Bazzas right boot said:

 

It's a football forum.

A poster hopes we don't play 3 at the back, I asked him why.

 

It's called a debate/ discussion about the match and tactics. 

 

Try it, try discussing the subject rather than bouncing about picking arguments while ignoring the subject matter and contributing **** all to the op.

 

Have you ever though about that?

 

You're on ignore, I just seen your tag pop up strsight after I posted and behold, you're following me about contributing **** all, hence the ignore.

 

 

For the avoidance of doubt we are playing with 3 at the back. 

[FarmerTweedy]

36 minutes ago, Bazzas right boot said:

 

No I didn't.

 

 

36 minutes ago, Bazzas right boot said:

 

Yes I did.

👏

[Bad Religion]

31 minutes ago, Bazzas right boot said:

 

 

Try contributing to the topic.

 

You've came in on this thread with the goal to wind folk up and to argue with folk.

 

Irony at it's finest.

Tosh, it’s the Official Match thread, not a thread created to educate you about the intricacies of formation and tactics. If you want to start a thread on that, start one. 
 

To humour you however. Playing 4 at the back allows us to put another man into the midfield, preferably an attacking option, or another man up front. Granted we’re not exactly blessed with attacking midfielders at the moment. 
 

 

[alicante jambo]

Nipping over to flower of scotland bar hopefully the put the game on. Im going 3 or 4 nill. Itll click today.

[kila]

 

[Luckies1874]

Clark

 

Kingsley  Kent  Rowles

 

Forrest                    Cochrane

 

Beningame  Grant 

 

Lowry     Boyce 

 

Shankland 

[Mirror]

3-4-1-2 ?

[kila]

 

                          Boyce     Shanks               

 

Cochrane     Lowry     Grant       Beni        Forrest

 

                  Kingsley   Rowles        Kent        

 

                                    Clark

 

 

🤷‍♂️

[Dazo]

Decent team, good options on the bench. 

[liam11]

Folk already annoyed on Twitter about Devlin not starting.

 

Imo he’s not needed from the start, we’re going to have about 75% of the ball, ball players in the middle clearly is the idea.

[HMFC01]

4 minutes ago, kila said:

 

😀

I like that team. 

 

Who to score.   Quite a few of Hearts players could be confident today. 

 

Boyce perhaps. 

 

We have a good amount of pace on the bench. 

 

My 1-0 prediction might turn to goal fest. 

 

Edited November 25, 2023 by HMFC01

[Japan Jambo]

5-0 followed by a resounding rendition of “One Craig Levein” please!

[Buster HMFC]

36 minutes ago, ford donald said:

 

3-0

8 mate. I'm keeping my options open so I can say I told you so 🤣🤣

[Worthing Jambo]

Just now, Japan Jambo said:

5-0 followed by a resounding rendition of “One Craig Levein” please!

Or, more aptly, “you’re getting sacked in the morning “.🤭🤣

[Fozzyonthefence]

1 minute ago, Dazo said:

Decent team, good options on the bench. 

Other than Boyce starting looks not bad but real lack of pace.   Really miss McKay in games like this to open up these types of teams that like to sit in.  Probably another tight, frustrating game or will it be one when we finally turn up?🤷‍♂️

[fabienleclerq]

1 hour ago, Bazzas right boot said:

 

Is it?

352 or 343 has 3 defenders in it, 442 has 4.

Are you confusing a 352 turning into a 532?

 

Any formation can be attacking or defensive, as to my original point I'm not sure why 3 at the back is bad or defensive and why that poster is against it.

 

 

 

352 would normally have 5 defenders really though wouldn't it?

 

Your more likely to play wing backs than wingers as such. And instead of potentially two out wide there is one.

 

Anyway regardless its how you play rather than the formation that dictates attacking or defensive. 4 at the back isn't less defensive than 3 necessarily. 

[indianajones]

Tinkerman mk2. 

 

A settled starting eleven would be a dream. 

[GinRummy]

4 minutes ago, liam11 said:

Folk already annoyed on Twitter about Devlin not starting.

 

Imo he’s not needed from the start, we’re going to have about 75% of the ball, ball players in the middle clearly is the idea.

It’s a fair point that we need him more against stronger sides who don’t sit in. As long as he gets the minutes even if not starting. No point in him sitting on the bench for a month as an unused sub then chucked in against rangers or away to Aberdeen.