New formation

[SlayerX]

We've been using a flat back four for how long? Since Craig Brown left? And we've qualified for nothing ever since. I'm not saying that the formation is the only reason why we've not qualified for anything major, but it certainly hasn't helped.

Our center backs simply aren't good enough to play in a flat back four, at least not at international level against top players, so it's time to bring back three center back and two wing-backs. If nothing else, the extra center back will naturally fill in a gap. Craig Brown saw this, so why hasn't the previous managers not seen it?

Plus, Andrew Robertson and Kieran Tierney are both marauding players, so why play them as defensive players?

It seems to me that the majority of Scotland fans have been brainwashed into thinking that we SHOULD play with four at the back.

The 4-2-3-1 formation is a defensive one. It's essentially 6 rigid defensive minded players and 4 attacking players. That's fine if the four attacking players are world class, but ours are not. Our striker(s) need as much help as they can get, and they'd get much more ammunition for Robertson and Tierney whipping balls in and pushing forward than they would with those two sitting back. The fact that Strachan plays that formation at home is shameful.

It's OK for Strachan to come out and say that the Scotland players play with fear, but what does he expect when he plays a formation that's built to defend.

I want to see a 3-5-2 or 3-4-2-1... just something different.

England will expect us to play a 4-2-3-1.

[Crawford Bridge]

Wing backs only work for the better sides.

It would just become a back 5 with no wide players further up the park if Scotland went with it. That would lead to the big boot down the middle as the main "tactic". 

[SlayerX]

3 minutes ago, Crawford Bridge said:

Wing backs only work for the better sides.

It would just become a back 5 with no wide players further up the park if Scotland went with it. That would lead to the big boot down the middle as the main "tactic". 

England would kill for Robertson or Tierney, so why not play them where they'll be more effective?

Also, were we that much better during the 90's? 

As opposed to 6 rigid defensive minded players when we're attacking? 

It's time to do something different.

[Jaggy Snake]

Both Robertson and Tierney play as part of a back four for their clubs. In fact, I would guess that’s the case for most of our defenders. Playing with three centrebacks and wingbacks takes time to adapt to and practice. It’s maybe something to try out in some friendlies but not just now.

More importantly, we struggle to pick two central defenders as it is, without adding a third, and with Calum Paterson out injured we don’t have any options for the right wingback. Tierney covered rightback against Slovenia and did well (though they barely tested him all game) but a right wingback has to provide your width in that system which you can’t do playing someone on the wrong side of the pitch.

The problem isn’t that 4-2-3-1 is not the correct formation for us, it usually is. The problem is that since he took over, Gordon Strachan has played it relentlessly regardless of our opposition.

[forameus]

4-2-3-1 is not "a defensive formation".  No formation is.  It's about how it's applied.  You can have a ridiculously attacking 4-2-3-1 or a rigid, defensive 4-3-3.  I don't even think our application of the system is particularly defensive.  

Having said that, we need to have some degree of defensiveness to make up for our piss poor options there.  We need to have at least one player shielding the two center backs, and it then follows that we should have one player alongside him to link the defensively minded midfielders with the more attacking ones.  So the 2 part in the formation is valid.  We're also quite well served with attacking midfielders, so makes sense to put 3 of them there.  2 up front is dead, so it's going to be 1.  So...4-2-3-1.  

While I would like to see us try a similar system to what the OP said, I'm not convinced the answer to playing 2 poor central defenders is to play 3.  Especially if we're telling the full backs to attack more.  If we come up against any team that plays advanced wingers, then one of two things will happen.  Either our full backs will get pegged back relentlessly and turn it into a 5 at the back (one less player getting forward) or the center backs have to come out.  The thought of someone like Grant Hanley lumbering out to take on a rampaging winger gives me the fear.  

So the problem isn't that 4-2-3-1 is used.  It isn't even that it's always used.  It's the application of it, and a lot of the time it's some players putting in absolutely dreadful performances that undermine any system the manager puts in place.

[Tartan Dave]

I've previously thought a 3 would be a good idea but not too sure anynore. Would probably mean Tierney at left centre half I reckon

[SlayerX]

Good comments, all.

Fine, OK, if pushed back it WILL turn into a back five, but that's the point; going forward it'll be a back three. As it is, when we're pushed back we're defending with 6 players, and when we're attacking we're still defending with 6 players. 

I just want to see something else. Strachan used a formation, it worked for a couple of games, and then he's stuck with it through thick and thin. I honestly think he doesn't know what he's doing. I mean, he said that he thought that Tom Cairney was a right midfielder, that's why he didn't pick the lad, and he's surprised by how good he is in the middle.... Couldn't have Strachan tried him in the middle?!

The thing is, the 4-2-3-1 IS a defensive formation, no matter how you deploy it, I mean, unless you tell one of the anchor-men to turn into a box-to-box midfielder once we have the ball, etc. It lacks fluidity and flexibility and we struggle, even against the weaker teams. If we go into the England match with a 4-2-3-1, and attempt to soak up pressure and play on the counter, we are dead.

I remember back in the '00 play-offs when we played England (and beat them at Wembley) we played a 3-5-2 and our high octane play meant that Beckham was pretty much a right-back for the entire 90 minutes. Did we have better defenders then? Other than Colin Hendry, I'd say no.

I would go with:

-------------Gordon

------Berra---Martin---Kingsley

Tierney------------------Robertson

---Armstrong---Brown---Cairney

------Griffith---Martin/S.Fletcher

Are Kingley, Armstrong and Cairney too inexperienced at this level? Maybe, but all three should've been in the squad a year or so ago. 

Or:

-------------Gordon

------Berra---Martin---Kingsley

Tierney------------------Robertson

---------Brown---D.Fletcher

------Armstrong---Cairney

-----------Griffith
 

[Dindeleux]

England would kill for Robertson or Tierney

No they wouldn't, they will be quite happy with Danny Rose and no jail time.

Rose, IMO, better than both of these players.

[SlayerX]

1 minute ago, Dindeleux said:

 

No they wouldn't, they will be quite happy with Danny Rose and no jail time.

Rose, IMO, better than both of these players.

 

Well, that's your opinion.

I do think that Tierney has potential to be better.. he is only 19, you know.

[LiviLion]

Don't think anyone would score against us if we put 3 at the back. Not even Gibraltar. 

[forameus]

38 minutes ago, SlayerX said:

Good comments, all.

Fine, OK, if pushed back it WILL turn into a back five, but that's the point; going forward it'll be a back three. As it is, when we're pushed back we're defending with 6 players, and when we're attacking we're still defending with 6 players. 

I just want to see something else. Strachan used a formation, it worked for a couple of games, and then he's stuck with it through thick and thin. I honestly think he doesn't know what he's doing. I mean, he said that he thought that Tom Cairney was a right midfielder, that's why he didn't pick the lad, and he's surprised by how good he is in the middle.... Couldn't have Strachan tried him in the middle?!

The thing is, the 4-2-3-1 IS a defensive formation, no matter how you deploy it, I mean, unless you tell one of the anchor-men to turn into a box-to-box midfielder once we have the ball, etc. It lacks fluidity and flexibility and we struggle, even against the weaker teams. If we go into the England match with a 4-2-3-1, and attempt to soak up pressure and play on the counter, we are dead.

I remember back in the '00 play-offs when we played England (and beat them at Wembley) we played a 3-5-2 and our high octane play meant that Beckham was pretty much a right-back for the entire 90 minutes. Did we have better defenders then? Other than Colin Hendry, I'd say no.

I would go with:

-------------Gordon

------Berra---Martin---Kingsley

Tierney------------------Robertson

---Armstrong---Brown---Cairney

------Griffith---Martin/S.Fletcher

Are Kingley, Armstrong and Cairney too inexperienced at this level? Maybe, but all three should've been in the squad a year or so ago. 

Or:

-------------Gordon

------Berra---Martin---Kingsley

Tierney------------------Robertson

---------Brown---D.Fletcher

------Armstrong---Cairney

-----------Griffith
 

No it isn't.  Formations aren't defensive, systems are.  We could easily play 5 forward-thinking midfielders in the 2-3 part.  It doesn't have to be two sitting midfielders, and even if they are sitting, they don't need to be all the time.  It's quite telling that the formation you suggest will totally not always be defensive (even though it will if we're playing any kind of quality that see how easy it would be to pen our only source of width back), yet this one will.  

I don't really care what formation we played in a match nigh-on 17 years ago.  We may as well point to how we played against England in 1967, it's probably just about as relevant.  3-5-2 is an option, but if it's set up as poorly as our current system sometimes is, it'll be just as pish.  conversely, setting up the system properly and having the players carry out their jobs properly would see just as much benefit.

[SlayerX]

11 minutes ago, forameus said:

No it isn't.  Formations aren't defensive, systems are.  We could easily play 5 forward-thinking midfielders in the 2-3 part.  It doesn't have to be two sitting midfielders, and even if they are sitting, they don't need to be all the time.  It's quite telling that the formation you suggest will totally not always be defensive (even though it will if we're playing any kind of quality that see how easy it would be to pen our only source of width back), yet this one will.  

I don't really care what formation we played in a match nigh-on 17 years ago.  We may as well point to how we played against England in 1967, it's probably just about as relevant.  3-5-2 is an option, but if it's set up as poorly as our current system sometimes is, it'll be just as pish.  conversely, setting up the system properly and having the players carry out their jobs properly would see just as much benefit.

Agreed, systems dictate a formation, but not always, certainly not in the case of Strachan and his weird love affair with 4-2-3-2. Let's be honest, we're sub-standard, so we're going to get pinned back no matter who we play (within reason). Playing with back three gives us an attacking outlet, plus it'll put to bed the whole James Forrest debate.

Strange time to experiment? Yes, but we should've been trying something different when it became evident that teams had sussed us out.

Yep, I agree, which is why I hope Strachan can go out with a roar instead of a whimper... as this could be his final big match in charge.

[accies1874]

3-4-2-1 could suit us. Mulgrew could certainly play the sweeper role in the middle of a back 3 with Martin and Tierney either side, our full-backs are tailored to being wing-backs and we have an abundance of players to play as an inside forward. The midfield pairing is where problems lie. I don't know how many of our central midfielders are suited to playing in a two.

[SlayerX]

1 minute ago, accies1874 said:

3-4-2-1 could suit us. Mulgrew could certainly play the sweeper role in the middle of a back 3 with Martin and Tierney either side, our full-backs are tailored to being wing-backs and we have an abundance of players to play as an inside forward. The midfield pairing is where problems lie. I don't know how many of our central midfielders are suited to playing in a two.

The middle two I'd go for Darren Fletcher and Scott Brown, failing that, maybe Barry Bannan, or just someone who can keep the ball and keep us ticking over.

With the two inside forwards I'd give them free-roles and just tell them to do what they do best, and with Armstrong and Cairney or Bannan in those roles, who knows what could happen. Hell, even Ryan Fraser, as his pace would frighten most teams... probably not England, though.

I'm just frustrated that we see the same old tired system over and over, and it never works.

[Dindeleux]

Well, that's your opinion.
I do think that Tierney has potential to be better.. he is only 19, you know.

Yeh I do know.

Can't imagine England wanting to "kill" for him though.

[SlayerX]

1 minute ago, Dindeleux said:

 

Yeh I do know.

Can't imagine England wanting to "kill" for him though.

 

Really? How about maim? Injure? Call a derogatory name?

We'll see how far he develops.

[Dindeleux]

Hopefully he develops to be better than Marcelo.

Will be interesting to see if Spurs try to sign Robertson or Tierney in the summer, doubt it.

[SlayerX]

Hopefully.

That would be great (If they actually got game time) but I can't see it happening. None of the major teams in England would take a chance on a Scottish player, hell, most (like Arsenal) don't even bother scouting up here.

[Dindeleux]

Why would they when they can pick up better players elsewhere? Doesn't make sense.

[SlayerX]

Can they? Van Bronkhorst and Arteta done not too badly for them.

But yes, you're absolutely correct: Richard Wright, Francis Jeffers, Chamakh, Senderos, Squillaci, etc, were all amazing acquisitions, so much better than their Scottish equivalents...