PDA

View Full Version : New Formation - A revival



Franck is God
22-03-2010, 12:36 AM
Decided that I am going to start a positive thread and a look back at one of the best sides that I have seen Hibs have on the pitch.

I think we should use a back three again, worked well for McLeish and I think we have almost a comparable squad now to then. We don't have God or Russell but other areas we are arguably stronger.

The side we used was generally


Colgan

Le God
Smith------------Fenwick

Lovell-------O'Neil--------Jack--------Laursen
Latapy

Zitelli----Mixu



Although we don't have any players as good as Sauzee or Latapy I think we have some decent players that could play the same system. I could see the side below doing fine.


Smith

Bamba
Hogg--------------Hanlon

Spoony----------McBride----------Miller------------Murray
Zemmama

Stokes--------Nish



It gives us three strong centre halves, plenty width from Spoony and Murray, a strong compact midfield which would allow Zemmama to play unrestricted and with very little defensive responsibilty, Riordan could probably play this role too.

500miles
22-03-2010, 12:39 AM
Bamba can't read a game like Sauzee, so the (widely discredited these days) back three falls to bits. Hogg is the best reader of the game in our defence, but I still wouldn't ask him to do Sauzee's job.

Dunbar Hibee
22-03-2010, 01:48 AM
Decided that I am going to start a positive thread and a look back at one of the best sides that I have seen Hibs have on the pitch.

I think we should use a back three again, worked well for McLeish and I think we have almost a comparable squad now to then. We don't have God or Russell but other areas we are arguably stronger.

The side we used was generally


Colgan

Le God
Smith------------Fenwick

Lovell-------O'Neil--------Jack--------Laursen
Latapy

Zitelli----Mixu



Although we don't have any players as good as Sauzee or Latapy I think we have some decent players that could play the same system. I could see the side below doing fine.


Smith

Bamba
Hogg--------------Hanlon

Spoony----------McBride----------Miller------------Murray
Zemmama

Stokes--------Nish



It gives us three strong centre halves, plenty width from Spoony and Murray, a strong compact midfield which would allow Zemmama to play unrestricted and with very little defensive responsibilty, Riordan could probably play this role too.



No Riordan :rolleyes:

Haymaker
22-03-2010, 03:35 AM
Very few modern day footballers can play in the sweeper role... its a dying position sadly.

rainman
22-03-2010, 03:58 AM
If McLeish had played 4-4-2 it would've been a success. If he'd played 4-5-1, 3-5-2, 3-3-4, it would've been a success.

We had very good players and a good manager who could organise and motivate.

Whover said the quote, "Tactics and formations don't win games, players do." was 100% correct and I think too many people get bogged down with tactics and formations. If yogi (or in fact Mixu) could've motivated the players to get the best out them, then the formation would be largely irrelevent.

We're not losing because of our formation. We're losing because the majority of our players either think they are better than they are, have one eye on a summer move or just don't give a f***.

GlesgaeHibby
22-03-2010, 08:05 AM
Very few modern day footballers can play in the sweeper role... its a dying position sadly.

:agree: Boozy played it well under Collins a few times. Not many could though.

I'd like to see us try the 442 Diamond formation. I'm sure that would work :devil:

HFC 0-7
22-03-2010, 08:10 AM
Decided that I am going to start a positive thread and a look back at one of the best sides that I have seen Hibs have on the pitch.

I think we should use a back three again, worked well for McLeish and I think we have almost a comparable squad now to then. We don't have God or Russell but other areas we are arguably stronger.

The side we used was generally


Colgan


Le God
Smith------------Fenwick


Lovell-------O'Neil--------Jack--------Laursen
Latapy


Zitelli----Mixu



Although we don't have any players as good as Sauzee or Latapy I think we have some decent players that could play the same system. I could see the side below doing fine.


Smith


Bamba
Hogg--------------Hanlon


Spoony----------McBride----------Miller------------Murray
Zemmama


Stokes--------Nish



It gives us three strong centre halves, plenty width from Spoony and Murray, a strong compact midfield which would allow Zemmama to play unrestricted and with very little defensive responsibilty, Riordan could probably play this role too.


I like the formation, just dont have the players for it. Bamba in the sweeper role would cause all sorts of problems, the biggest would be trying to keep him in there, he comes out of his position too often into the middle of midlfield to tackle, granted he wins a lot but if he didnt and we were playing him at sweeper, it would a big problem.

SalfordHibs
22-03-2010, 08:27 AM
Decided that I am going to start a positive thread and a look back at one of the best sides that I have seen Hibs have on the pitch.

I think we should use a back three again, worked well for McLeish and I think we have almost a comparable squad now to then. We don't have God or Russell but other areas we are arguably stronger.

The side we used was generally


Colgan


Le God
Smith------------Fenwick


Lovell-------O'Neil--------Jack--------Laursen
Latapy


Zitelli----Mixu



Although we don't have any players as good as Sauzee or Latapy I think we have some decent players that could play the same system. I could see the side below doing fine.


Smith


Bamba
Hogg--------------Hanlon


Spoony----------McBride----------Miller------------Murray
Zemmama


Stokes--------Nish



It gives us three strong centre halves, plenty width from Spoony and Murray, a strong compact midfield which would allow Zemmama to play unrestricted and with very little defensive responsibilty, Riordan could probably play this role too.


Thought this was a positive post :rolleyes:

noseyhibby
22-03-2010, 08:32 AM
I see where you're coming from, but I'm beginning to think it matters little our formation/shape/personnel as the fundamental problem is lack of fight, resolve, belief and passion to win. Too many shirkers on board. Back to your tactics. Yes, it could work with the right players but sadly we don't have the quality at our disposal to set ourselves up in the way you advocate. Who, really, could do the Sauzee role? This said, we could experiment, but now that we're in the business end of the season it's too late too go down the route of radical change.

Franck is God
22-03-2010, 10:11 AM
I just figured that it would be a formation that might get the best out of the players we have.

Few sides play more than 2 strikers so you would think 3 against two would be fine. Bamba is definitely not Sauzee but he is comfortable with the ball at his feet and can certainly bring it out of defense knowing that he would have two players behind him at all times. I would have Hogg and Hanlon before Smith and Fenwick, would also take Smith over Colgan.

Miller gets completely bogged down in the centre and having 5 stretched accross could give him the time and space to be more creative.

As we don't really play with wide midfielders right now using a wing back system might suit Murray and Spoony and allow them to get down the wing and get balls into the box with less emphasis on defending.

This system also allows you to have a player in a completely free role to just get on the ball and try to do something with it, I used Zemmama in my team above but it is a role Deek has all the ability to do well in, take away their defensive duties and just let them play.

I know not many top teams round Europe play this system but then we're not a top team. I want to see us play football again and this kind of system gives our better players a chance to shine. What is negative about that?

Positive optimistic Franck is back!

Keith_M
22-03-2010, 10:38 AM
Stuff the formation, our season's finished anyway.


I'd drop most of the first team and put out the kids in their place. Tell them to go out and fight for every ball and enjoy themselves. I'd rather watch that than the slow puncture, that I've been watching the last few weeks, continue until it's completely flat.

Hainan Hibs
22-03-2010, 10:43 AM
I like the 3-5-2 formation but I don't think we have the players for it.

Also agree that it doesn't matter what formation we play, the players don't have the fight just now.

mim
22-03-2010, 12:27 PM
St Mirren played this formation in the League Cup Final yesterday and completely dominated the best side in the league for most of the game.

Are posters really suggesting that the Buddies have better quality players to allow them to play this system?

I have been advocating this for most of the season. We do have the players to play this system, although it may be too late now to implement it.

Spoony and Murray are the key to this - they have the ability and energy to provide width going forward and also protect the back three.

We don't have a Sauzee, but neither do St Mirren and they were very comfortable at the back yesterday until they decided to commit suicide by trying to force a win in 90 minutes, instead of playing away until Rangers wilted.

Tollhouse Hibee
22-03-2010, 12:43 PM
St Mirren played this formation in the League Cup Final yesterday and completely dominated the best side in the league for most of the game.

Are posters really suggesting that the Buddies have better quality players to allow them to play this system?

I have been advocating this for most of the season. We do have the players to play this system, although it may be too late now to implement it.

Spoony and Murray are the key to this - they have the ability and energy to provide width going forward and also protect the back three.

We don't have a Sauzee, but neither do St Mirren and they were very comfortable at the back yesterday until they decided to commit suicide by trying to force a win in 90 minutes, instead of playing away until Rangers wilted.

i think we need a major system change to get the best out of what we have. how often do we actually get wide and stretch teams???

Haymaker
22-03-2010, 01:01 PM
If McLeish had played 4-4-2 it would've been a success. If he'd played 4-5-1, 3-5-2, 3-3-4, it would've been a success.

We had very good players and a good manager who could organise and motivate.

Whover said the quote, "Tactics and formations don't win games, players do." was 100% correct and I think too many people get bogged down with tactics and formations. If yogi (or in fact Mixu) could've motivated the players to get the best out them, then the formation would be largely irrelevent.

We're not losing because of our formation. We're losing because the majority of our players either think they are better than they are, have one eye on a summer move or just don't give a f***.


Charles Hughes said similar in many of his books on football, along the lines of "even the best system of play cannot rectify a mis-placed pass, poor control, poor first touch" among other things. The man knows his football.

Formations help but it isnt the be all and end all of football.