Would 5-3-2 make a difference?

[matty_f]

Yesterday our defence was left horribly exposed time after time and could have conceded more than the three we did. I started a thread asking what the issue was and one of the common responses was a lack of support from midfield.

Do you think a 5-3-2 formation would help?

I reckon if we played:

Stack
O'Hanlon Murray Hanlon
Towell Booth
Scott Palsson Osbourne

O'Connor Griffiths

We would tighten up in the wide areas whilst leaving a fairly solid spine to the team, and still have enough firepower to get goals.

Thoughts?

[3pm]

Fair question Matty.

My personal view is that the formation wouldn't make a real difference until we actually get more out the XI who play. It's a team game but I don't see too many grafting like O'Connor. If we had more who worked harder then it may give the defence some respite. The midfield need to have a look at themselves, particularly Palsson, as they don't do anywhere enough. The back 4 need to work better as a unit as well regardless of whether it's a 3 or 4.

[R'Albin]

Yesterday our defence was left horribly exposed time after time and could have conceded more than the three we did. I started a thread asking what the issue was and one of the common responses was a lack of support from midfield.

Do you think a 5-3-2 formation would help?

I reckon if we played:

Stack
O'Hanlon Murray Hanlon
Towell Booth
Scott Palsson Osbourne

O'Connor Griffiths



We would tighten up in the wide areas whilst leaving a fairly solid spine to the team, and still have enough firepower to get goals.

Thoughts?

I think a 5-3-2would work well, but I would rather we made Towell and Booth play out wide as that formation would be too narrow IMO, but we could definately do with the extra cover because as you say our defence is often left exposed by the midfield.

[HibbyKeith]

Fair question Matty.

My personal view is that the formation wouldn't make a real difference until we actually get more out the XI who play. It's a team game but I don't see too many grafting like O'Connor. If we had more who worked harder then it may give the defence some respite. The midfield need to have a look at themselves, particularly Palsson, as they don't do anywhere enough. The back 4 need to work better as a unit as well regardless of whether it's a 3 or 4.

:agree: to quote yogi of all people.. "hard work will always beat talent if talent doesn't work hard enough"

[matty_f]

Fair question Matty.

My personal view is that the formation wouldn't make a real difference until we actually get more out the XI who play. It's a team game but I don't see too many grafting like O'Connor. If we had more who worked harder then it may give the defence some respite. The midfield need to have a look at themselves, particularly Palsson, as they don't do anywhere enough. The back 4 need to work better as a unit as well regardless of whether it's a 3 or 4.

I agree with the workrate bit but I do think that's improving. I don't think effort's the main issue with Palsson, I think the role he plays makes it look like he's not bursting a gut because he's sitting back and not covering every blade of grass. That's not to say I don't think he could do more, though.

The back four definitely need to work better as a unit. They don't talk to each other enough and they look, on the face of it, to be too 'nice'. Murray's slack header back that let Ranking in yesterday - got a handshake/high 5 type acknowledgement from Stack. O'Hanlon, Hanlon and Stack should have let him know not to be so slack again in no uncertain terms. Agogo giving the ball away for their second - gets off lightly from his teammates. Wotherspoon doesn't track Rankin for their first, nobody says boo to him, and Hanlon switches off and lets Dixon get in front of him to tuck away the rebound - nothing from his teammates either.

There doesn't seem to be anyone in that defence setting a standard and demanding more from their team mates. Considering our captain and vice-captain made up half of that back four yesterday, that's a worry.

[matty_f]

I think a 5-3-2would work well, but I would rather we made Towell and Booth play out wide as that formation would be too narrow IMO, but we could definately do with the extra cover because as you say our defence is often left exposed by the midfield.

The idea is that Towell and Booth would push wide and play as proper wing backs, they're both decent getting forward and would be able to do so without leaving the defence horribly exposed.

[R'Albin]

The idea is that Towell and Booth would push wide and play as proper wing backs, they're both decent getting forward and would be able to do so without leaving the defence horribly exposed.

Yeah that's what I was thinking:agree:

I think Booth and Towell would prosper in more attacking positions as well, and if we have more cover at the back then that puts less pressure on them, because this has been one of the main problems this year.

[Green and white]

Most ridiculous formation in the world mate. Far too narrow, we played with 4 at the back today with 2 DMC so why would we drop to 3 at the back with the 2DMC. Fair enough our wide full backs were very aggressive which left the back wide open at times but we need to be realistic here.

[R'Albin]

Most ridiculous formation in the world mate. Far too narrow, we played with 4 at the back today with 2 DMC so why would we drop to 3 at the back with the 2DMC. Fair enough our wide full backs were very aggressive which left the back wide open at times but we need to be realistic here.

You've obviously never seen any of Jimmy Calderwood's teams play:greengrin

[matty_f]

Most ridiculous formation in the world mate. Far too narrow, we played with 4 at the back today with 2 DMC so why would we drop to 3 at the back with the 2DMC. Fair enough our wide full backs were very aggressive which left the back wide open at times but we need to be realistic here.

5 -3-2 is 5 defensive players, not 3.

[LeithBoozy]

Most ridiculous formation in the world mate. Far too narrow, we played with 4 at the back today with 2 DMC so why would we drop to 3 at the back with the 2DMC. Fair enough our wide full backs were very aggressive which left the back wide open at times but we need to be realistic here.Or Harry Potters. :rolleyes:

[aussie_hibee]

The problem with formations is that by making one area stronger, you must weaken another. By putting 5 in midfield, you must sacrifice a striker or a defender. To play 3 in midfield, you must sacrifice width and expose your full backs to 2 on 1 situations. When a certain formation works it is down to having a certain section of the team that can pick up that slack and cover the weakness. 3-5-2 only works when you have 3 quality centre halves or 2 and a composed sweeper that reads the games AND two wide men that can get forward and back and do the job of 2 men each. Allowing the spare centre mud to have free time on the ball and run the show. Of course you also need a creative midfielder for that! 4-3-3 and you can have a striker dropping off but again you lose width and can become 1 dimensional or 3 flat across the top but than closes space in behind opposition full backs as they sit and pick the 3 up. It's all about work rate and having someone in the tram that can take advantage of the extra possession that workrate brings. We don't have 2 good enough for the central spots at the back so we definitely don't have enough to fill 3 spots centrally at the back! Personally I think we need to stick with 4-4-2. Get the centre halves back to the basics of head and volley defending UNTIL the mistakes stop and the confidence grows. The wide men need to track back to cover their full backs and get forward and get crosses in. Griffiths and O'Connor up front. A centre mid of Scott and osbourne / pallson. We have the players and ability it's about certain positions working harder and helping their mates. The rest will fall in to place. All IMHO of course!!!

[crash]

The idea is that Towell and Booth would push wide and play as proper wing backs, they're both decent getting forward and would be able to do so without leaving the defence horribly exposed.

What is your definition of the defence being "horribly exposed".

[matty_f]

What is your definition of the defence being "horribly exposed".


Did you see what happened yesterday? Pretty much that.:greengrin

[thebakerboy]

I jave been saying for a while that we don't have any proper full backs at the club at all , Booth and Towell are really wide mid fielders so therefore you have to fit the system to the players not the players to the system as Messers Caldwell , Hughes and Mixu tried to do. To this end I think Murray would make a good sweeper and we could then go with 5 3 2 when the opposition have the ball and 3 5 2 when we have the ball , this means the wing backs have to do a lot of work but they are both young and should be fit.

[matty_f]

I jave been saying for a while that we don't have any proper full backs at the club at all , Booth and Towell are really wide mid fielders so therefore you have to fit the system to the players not the players to the system as Messers Caldwell , Hughes and Mixu tried to do. To this end I think Murray would make a good sweeper and we could then go with 5 3 2 when the opposition have the ball and 3 5 2 when we have the ball , this means the wing backs have to do a lot of work but they are both young and should be fit.

:agree: I agree with that. Would definitely be worth a shot and it's a pretty versatile formation as well.

[Dashing Bob S]

What is your definition of the defence being "horribly exposed".

"...Hearts defender Thomson was left horribly exposed..."


Problem is, it was on Facebook.

[R'Albin]

"...Hearts defender Thomson was left horribly exposed..."


Problem is, it was on Facebook.

:tee hee:

[Green and white]

You've obviously never seen any of Jimmy Calderwood's teams play:greengrin

haha funny you say that I used to travel to Hibs away to Aberdeen with the Aberdeen bus because I lived in the Highlands at the time. Jimmy Calderwood is a bit a mutant though eh.


I think we should stick with 443/442/4231 because realistically that's the only formations that merit any success in the game. Our youth teams should also be playing with the same philosophy, formation and tactics as our first team because it's important they know there role when they break through.

[calumb]

Disnae matter what formation is played as there are too many players at Hibs that have no idea on the basics of marking and tracking players.
The first goal yesterday was a classic example of the goals Hibs have been losing all season in where wotherspoon lost the runner into the box then Hanlon failed to
pick up the man in the box.
Don't think a tatical change is needed maybe just the players being told who is to pick up who when we don't have the ball.

[bob12345]

Whether you look at it as 3-5-2 or 5-3-2 you leave both of our wide players open to being outnumbered 2 on 1 throughout the game. A good winger is rubbing his hands together, knowing every time the wing back is dragged out of position he'll get bags of room - or if picked up the defence will have huge holes in it (dragging centre halves to touchline). It was effective in the early 2000s but is barely ever used now, as it was found out time and again.

[Bayern Bru]

I agree that Booth and Towell are not out and out full backs and I also don't think we can have the same formation for every game. Ideally we'd have different formations to suit certain games or - and I know this is a big ask - changeable formations, like 532 to 352 as Matty suggests.

One of our problems is, in my opinion, that we're too static in terms of changing shape (when we have one). Maybe the zonal marking lets us down, or it's down to individuals.

From recent games, it seems that with GOC/Agogo dropping back into an attacking mid position, or Sparky out wide, it gives us more options, and it seems to be working. It's going slowly, but I think progress is being made, however minimal.

[Hamish]

CC is a 4 at the back man as far as I am aware. Whether the influence of BB would change this I don't know. Did the Hearts or Killie go a 3 at the back when Jefferies and Brown were there:dunno:

I said months ago that 3 5 2 or 5 3 2 might be a better formation for the players we have.

[NORTHERNHIBBY]

Even if we moved to 5-3-2, the only difference that would make is that we would have 5 players at the back not sure what they doing instead of 4.