Best formation-tactics?

Taking into account tha personnel available and the opponents might also determine formation and tactics I’m wondering what folk think our might be our favoured approach this season?

I like the 3 central defenders, but that doesn’t suit us playing with Gray and Stevenson out wide?? I really like the way Hanlon and Ambrose take adavantage of the space and stride forward with the ball. That can be hard against and has helped open up defences.

Playing 4 at the back allows us to play the two full backs with widemen in front. However, ai always want us to play two attackers, especially as we have a front two who are going to score plenty of goals together. One up front doesn’t seem to work for us. That leaves a traditional 442 formation, with Milligan and Mallan as the two obvious first choice players. Does that work against 5 in midfield which we often encounter against teams at ER.

I tend not to really pay too much attention to how other teams set out, and I don’t play champ manager, so can the more tactically informed give some insight into how we could get the best out the group of players we have.

In sayin* all this, we have so many new players and it’s too early yet to be sure how good they are. We’ve also had a lot of changes to the side already, probably due to injury and fitness of various players.

I’m intrigued by how we’re going to set up and whether Lennon changes our style?

Great to have permutations to suit the way the opposition play and where their threat comes from, to keep the oppo guessing about how we are going to set up, and also to be able to change things seamlessly if we need to mid-game.

I'd like to see more of the team that finished y'day, but maybe with Hanlon instead of Porteous?

It’s a good headache to have but fully fit, no suspensions, I really can’t work out Hibs best formation or starting line up.

Somethings got to give

We look really shaky with 3 at the back.

I’ve always thought 352 is a really dated formation.

It’s only successful in the short term and you don’t see any top sides playing it on a regular basis.

It puts too much pressure on the wing backs.

Thought it was 4-1-4-1 yesterday with Whittaker sitting in front of the back four and Kamberi up front. It lets you play Horgan on the left and Boyle on the right. The game was very enjoyable with these attacking options. Hope its more of the same next week and maybe Milligan in for Whittaker.

Kamberi and Maclaren have to play together so whatever the formation is it has to be 2 upfront.

I still like 352 which worked well for us last season.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daydreamer

Thought it was 4-1-4-1 yesterday with Whittaker sitting in front of the back four and Kamberi up front. It lets you play Horgan on the left and Boyle on the right. The game was very enjoyable with these attacking options. Hope its more of the same next week and maybe Milligan in for Whittaker.

---

Thin’ you’re probably right, but we played better with two up front.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IGRIGI

Kamberi and Maclaren have to play together so whatever the formation is it has to be 2 upfront.

I still like 352 which worked well for us last season.

---

I agree on both points.

I have no idea what other teams play, but we were good enough to impose ourselves and win against all of the top six with the 352 last season and played our best football with that formation.

______________Marciano
____Ambrose___McGregor___Hanlon
Gray___________Milligan________Stevenson
_______Mallan__________Horgan
____________Kamberi
___________________Maclaren

Defensive minded 3-5-2

______________Marciano
_____Ambrose__McGregor__Hanlon
______________Milligan__________
_______Mallan__________Slivka
Boyle_________________________Horgan
_________Kamberi___Maclaren

More attack focused 3-5-2
McGregor playing as a sweeper allowing Hanlon and Ambrose to sit a bit higher up the park and when defending Milligan can drop back into centre half with Ambrose and Hanlon covering the full back areas.

We need two up front to get the best from Kamberi and Maclaren.

We have three talented wingers, which takes two more places, and Mallan.

We need a defensive midfielder for balance.

And so by a process of elimination we have to play four at the back, unless we want to try 3-5-2 with Horgan in the middle and Boyle at RWB, but then there is no Gray and no place for Agyepong.

The good thing is that with wingers in front of them our full backs can concentrate on defending, which should make us more solid at the back.

The correct answer is therefore 4-1-3-2.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daydreamer

Thought it was 4-1-4-1 yesterday with Whittaker sitting in front of the back four and Kamberi up front. It lets you play Horgan on the left and Boyle on the right. The game was very enjoyable with these attacking options. Hope its more of the same next week and maybe Milligan in for Whittaker.

---

Would you not try and factor in Kamberi and MacLaren together up top?

Interesting thread. I think most would agree that you need to start by looking at what you've got in the squad before deciding on a best formation rather than the other way round.

We have four really good central defenders - all of whom are mobile. We also have two strikers who showed last year they can make a real difference for us if they play together.

Lennon has improved Boyle to the extent that he can now defend as well as attack - allowing us to play 3-5-2 without having two out-and-out full-backs in the wide areas.

Lennon has brought in Milligan - who is clearly a combative player for central midfield but looks more mobile and creative than an out-and-out holding player. When we have played three central defenders in the past plus a holding medfielder we have sometimes lacked creativity going forward. Whittaker can play this role but I'm thinking Lennon feels Milligan might do it better.

For me - with our squad 4-3-3 (like we played on Saturday until McLaren came on), 4-5-1 or 4-1-4-1 etc all mean that we won't get the best use out of our squad because two of our central defenders won't be playing and either McLaren or Kamberi will not be on the pitch.

3-5-2 allows us to play three of our four central defenders and to have width as well as two strikers on the pitch and bringing in Milligan will hopefully allow us to have some dig in central midfield without losing creativity in there.

The dilemma seems to be to do with fitting boyle and gray in to the starting 11, whilst keeping 2 up top. 442 feels weak in the middle to me, and i love how the 352 system worked for us last year, with ambrose and hanlon bombing forward. For what it's worth, i think SDG is mord important than boyle, though that may be controversial.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AgentDaleCooper

The dilemma seems to be to do with fitting boyle and gray in to the starting 11, whilst keeping 2 up top. 442 feels weak in the middle to me, and i love how the 352 system worked for us last year, with ambrose and hanlon bombing forward. For what it's worth, i think SDG is mord important than boyle, though that may be controversial.

---

I don't think it's controversial ADC. It's a valid argument. It's good for us to have such strong options isn't it? It also gives us options if Lewis is injured as we could play SDG on the right and maybe Boyle/Horgan or even Agyepong on the left?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AgentDaleCooper

The dilemma seems to be to do with fitting boyle and gray in to the starting 11, whilst keeping 2 up top. 442 feels weak in the middle to me, and i love how the 352 system worked for us last year, with ambrose and hanlon bombing forward. For what it's worth, i think SDG is mord important than boyle, though that may be controversial.

---

Gray based on current form can’t be left out, not a chance. Boyle is seen as one of our biggest attacking threats but Gray has 3 goals to his 1 so far this season. I’m a big fan of Boyle, but if we’re playing a back 3 and it’s a choice between the two of them at the moment I’d be choosing Gray all day long.

Now that players are coming back I think we can be flexible and change when we need to. Players are far more important than system. IMO, had Kamberi been available for instance, I’m sure we’d have a few extra points regardless of playing 442, 352, 433 or whatever.

The team that finished against Killie should be the starting 11 . Hanlon and Rocky would come in when fit for Efe and Bogdan . Boyle as a supersub . Gray is Captain and has to start . Flo needs Jamie up front .

I'd echo the comments earlier that it's an impossible task as ideally I'd want SDG and Boyle both playing their natural positions and 2 up front.

The closest I can get is:

Bogdan
Gray Ambrose Hanlon Stevenson
Milligan Mallan
Boyle ......... Horgan
Kamberi Maclaren

But I'd also rather Horgan was played more through the middle of an attacking 3. I also really liked the look of agyepong. At which point, I'd be inclined to try 1 up top again, so long as Kamberi got enough support from the attacking midfield.

Bogdan
Gray Ambrose Hanlon Stevenson
Milligan Mallan
Boyle Horgan Agyepong
Kamberi

None of which plays into my narrative that Slivka deserves a chance in a similar role to Horgans.

4-4-2

Bogdan/Rocky

Stevenson
Hanlon
McGregor
Gray

Horgan
Mallan
Milligan
Boyle

Kamberi
McLaren

4-2-2-2 or 4-1-3-2

Bogdan

Gray
McGregor
Hanlon
Stevenson

Milligan
Mallan

Boyle
Horgan

Flo
Jamie

or

Bogdan

Gray
Darren
Hanlon
Lewis

Milligan

Agyepong
Mallan
Horgan

Flo
Jamie

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by makaveli1875

The team that finished against Killie should be the starting 11 . Hanlon and Rocky would come in when fit for Efe and Bogdan . Boyle as a supersub . Gray is Captain and has to start . Flo needs Jamie up front .

---

Don’t think it’s as straight forward as saying that should be the team. You need to look at the opposition as well and I can’t imagine us going away to the likes of Ibrox and Tynecastle and just playing with a middle two of Milligan and Mallan.

I think it’s fair to say that we are better with the two strikers playing together and Lennon pretty much said after the game on Saturday that is what he wants to do. But I can still see him chopping and changing a bit elsewhere depending on the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by B.H.F.C

Don’t think it’s as straight forward as saying that should be the team. You need to look at the opposition as well and I can’t imagine us going away to the likes of Ibrox and Tynecastle and just playing with a middle two of Milligan and Mallan.

I think it’s fair to say that we are better with the two strikers playing together and Lennon pretty much said after the game on Saturday that is what he wants to do. But I can still see him chopping and changing a bit elsewhere depending on the game.

---

I think we did play that formation (352) throughout the second half of the season, regardless of the opposition (except for the game at Tynecastle). However, with the loss of the midfield trio, I do think we need to adapt and play to the strengths of the current squad, so you may well be right about a more flexible approach to the tactics and formation.

Formation will change depending on the opposition and whether we’re at home or away.

It really doesn’t matter, there’s no such thing as a strongest formation anyways.

The way the team is set up for kick off will usually change several times throughout the match.

Play with the two strikers and everything else can change game by game

For me Saturday made it very clear we need to go with the 2 upfront. Kamberi was lost without Jamie and was completely ineffectual till
He came on.

Milligan looks like he is going To go some way to replace the quality and the dig we had in midfield last season.

In terms of formation though I think the 3 at the back has ran its course and teams know how to hurt us when playing that way.

I’d probs be in favour of 4-3-1-2 with with either Horgan, Tam or Boyle in a free role, if it’s not Horgan I’d have him on the left of the midfield 3.

I think the fact we don't have an obvious tactic suits us. We'll probably end up well drilled in 3/4 systems and will more easily flex to whatever the opponents weaknesses are.

I like the 3-5-2 for the solidness it gives but we lose width and pace when it's Gray and Stevenson. If playing this I'd rather Boyle at RWB. The 4-5-1 gives us two wide options from Agyepong, Boyle and Horgan but you lose the Kamberi/Maclaren partnership. 4-4-2 gives width and attacking options, and may be an option with both Mallan and Milligan sitting deep.

One I'd like to see at some point would be more of a 3-4-3, with Boyle or Horgan given a free role off Kamberi and Maclaren.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pentlando

I think the fact we don't have an obvious tactic suits us. We'll probably end up well drilled in 3/4 systems and will more easily flex to whatever the opponents weaknesses are.

I like the 3-5-2 for the solidness it gives but we lose width and pace when it's Gray and Stevenson. If playing this I'd rather Boyle at RWB. The 4-5-1 gives us two wide options from Agyepong, Boyle and Horgan but you lose the Kamberi/Maclaren partnership. 4-4-2 gives width and attacking options, and may be an option with both Mallan and Milligan sitting deep.

One I'd like to see at some point would be more of a 3-4-3, with Boyle or Horgan given a free role off Kamberi and Maclaren.

---

I think players need to know their jobs. We have looked a complete shambles defensively of late and while individual error is a big part of that so is the lack of consistency in selection and a system that doesn't necessarily suit those in it. Our signings suggest to me that we may move away from. 532 as we bought two more wingers. Much depends on Milligan and his ability to give us drive, tackles and get us moving.

I have always liked the 4-2-3-1 formation. for example

Bogdan

Gray
Porteous
Hanlon
Stevenson

Milligan
Bartley

Horgan
Mallan
Boyle

Kamberi

Alternative Being 4-3-1-2

Bogdan

Gray
Hanlon
Porteous
Stevenson

Milligan
Mallan
Horgan

Boyle

Kamberi
MacLaren

I personally don't think the 3 at the back is working, as it shown by the amount of goals we are currently conceding !!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winston Ingram

We look really shaky with 3 at the back.

I’ve always thought 352 is a really dated formation.

It’s only successful in the short term and you don’t see any top sides playing it on a regular basis.

It puts too much pressure on the wing backs.

---

It became dated in the late 90s when a lot of teams shifted to one up top. Playing three at the back meant you had two spares instead of one, which left you short somewhere else on the pitch.

Nowadays I think you do see top sides using it. Juve are the obvious example and Chelsea won the league using it a couple of seasons back. Guardiola has used it on and off at all three of his clubs.

The trick isn’t so much the shape as having the quality of players to make it work, particularly the centre half who steps out. Bonucci is the prime example but I think David Luiz is a good example too. He had been much maligned but when fitted into that role, it suited his strengths.

Ambrose and Hanlon as two centre backs = weak. Neither are capable of attacking balls into the box, and neither can tackle.

They need to be in a three with someone like McGregor or Porteous to do the 'dirty' stuff.

With Stevenson on the left, we only have Gray in that back four who has a bit of dig.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye

It became dated in the late 90s when a lot of teams shifted to one up top. Playing three at the back meant you had two spares instead of one, which left you short somewhere else on the pitch.

Nowadays I think you do see top sides using it. Juve are the obvious example and Chelsea won the league using it a couple of seasons back. Guardiola has used it on and off at all three of his clubs.

The trick isn’t so much the shape as having the quality of players to make it work, particularly the centre half who steps out. Bonucci is the prime example but I think David Luiz is a good example too. He had been much maligned but when fitted into that role, it suited his strengths.

---

Chelsea weren’t successfully with it. They were successful with a 3-4-3 with Hazard and Willian who played in the wide positions in a front 3 which took a load of pressure off the wing backs. They’re form fell off a cliff at the start of last season when they moved to 3-5-2. Hazard wanted to play central so they moved him in behind Morata and stuck an extra man in midfield.

Juve also tended to go with 3-4-3. Last season they played Mandzukic left, Higuain central and Dybala on the right. When they did go 3-5-2 they’d drop Mandzukic and move Dybala central.

Other than that I can think of no one. We have one successful side in Italy using it occasionally.

A brilliant example was the nick of England’s wing backs in the WC semi’s. Young was clearly knackered in the first half and Trippier was carried off with exhaustion.

Bogdan/Marciano (can’t really tell who’s better, both are good)

Gray
Porteous
Hanlon/McGregor
Stevenson

Horgan
Mallan
Milligan
Boyle

Kamberi
Maclaren


Obviously the notable things there are that Ambrose doesn’t feature and Porteous is a starter. As good a footballer as Efe Ambrose is, he is still shaky defensively and if we were to play the 442 I think we’d need 2 really reliable and solid centre halves. As for Porteous, he may not be our best defender yet but he is not far behind. We can’t hold him back any longer and if he is to progress he has to be playing for us week in week out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winston Ingram

Chelsea weren’t successfully with it. They were successful with a 3-4-3 with Hazard and Willian who played in the wide positions in a front 3 which took a load of pressure off the wing backs. They’re form fell off a cliff at the start of last season when they moved to 3-5-2. Hazard wanted to play central so they moved him in behind Morata and stuck an extra man in midfield.

Juve also tended to go with 3-4-3. Last season they played Mandzukic left, Higuain central and Dybala on the right. When they did go 3-5-2 they’d drop Mandzukic and move Dybala central.

Other than that I can think of no one. We have one successful side in Italy using it occasionally.

A brilliant example was the nick of England’s wing backs in the WC semi’s. Young was clearly knackered in the first half and Trippier was carried off with exhaustion.

---

Sorry, my bad wording, I was talking more generally about three at the back. With Juve there was and is a huge amount of fluidity and movement in front of the three, so it could be a 4-3 or a 5-2 from minute to minute. And Guardiola uses it though again, it will vary during episodes of the game.

As for England it got them their best World Cup campaign since in nearly thirty years. Little surprise they had exhausted players, especially in such a hot World Cup.