Saturday's formation(s)

[mendesstormer]

Commentators seemed to think we started off with a 4231 against Bournemouth. I thought it was more of a 3421, with Dier staying back most of the time and Eriksen frequently drifting into centre mid. Or were we actually switching between the two formations at will?? What did anyone else think? Anyone have one of those handy average position maps for the game. Would be interesting to see.

 

[Shadydan]

We don't have a set formation to be honest.

 

[thefierycamel]

We always do that when it's 4 at the back on paper. Eric drops between Toby and Jan when we're in possession to allow the fullbacks to push up the pitch. He also generally gets the ball from hugo

 

[nicdic]

We play a much more fluid system when in a 4-2-3-1 with Dier in the middle. Was one of the reasons why the shift to a back three helped, as I think we struggled in the four with Wanyama as the DM.

 

[mendesstormer]

We always do that when it's 4 at the back on paper. Eric drops between Toby and Jan when we're in possession to allow the fullbacks to push up the pitch. He also generally gets the ball from hugo

Yes but it seemed to be more fluid than ever, not just a case of ED dropping back to cover when needed.

 

[mendesstormer]

So, does anyone know how to get one of those average position maps for the game?

 

[nicdic]

 

[nicdic]

Yes but it seemed to be more fluid than ever, not just a case of ED dropping back to cover when needed.

Always been the way in the 4-2-3-1 with Dier.

 

[mendesstormer]

View attachment 29493

Well, that map kinda confirms it. You can't say Dier's playing in midfield if that's his average position throughout the game. I'd say (if pressed) it was 3421, morphing into a 4231 as needed - rather than the other way round.

Oh, and thanks for the map, btw.

 

[nicdic]

Well, that map kinda confirms it. You can't say Dier's playing in midfield if that's his average position throughout the game. I'd say (if pressed) it was 3421, morphing into a 4231 as needed - rather than the other way round.

Oh, and thanks for the map, btw.

No problem for the map.

You're wrong though.

This is us in a 3-4-2-1.

 

[DJS]

We play a much more fluid system when in a 4-2-3-1 with Dier in the middle. Was one of the reasons why the shift to a back three helped, as I think we struggled in the four with Wanyama as the DM.

This is what I was going to post.

4-2-3-1 only seems to work fluidly with Dier in there as he can drop back and allow full backs to push up more.

If Wanyama plays then it should be in a 3-4-2-1 as with our players style doesn't seem to work so well in a 4-2-3-1 alongside Dembele.

 

[absolute bobbins]

Lets play 1 - 10

 

[mendesstormer]

No problem for the map.

You're wrong though.

This is us in a 3-4-2-1.

View attachment 29495

Can't see a big difference, to be honest.

Well, OK - Eric's moved to the right of Toby. Subtle, but yes maybe it's different.

 

[nicdic]

Can't see a big difference, to be honest.

Well, OK - Eric's moved to the right of Toby. Subtle, but yes maybe it's different.

If we were playing a three Toby and Jan would have been far wider. And Dier far deeper. Our starting formation was definitely a 4-2-3-1, but when we play that shape with Dier he creates a third centre back often.