Darlo Uncovered

At the risk of jumping on the band wagon after another poor performance and result it really does feel like we need to make a significant change rather than minor tweaks here and there.

There are clearly many on here who favour a 4-4-1-1 formation with Ainge dropping out but even that approach whilst increasing the number of bodies in the middle of the pitch does not really get the best out of limited resources.

For me we need to look to a 5-3-2 formation - I know we tried this when Tommy first came with fairly dire results but there are significant differences this time around.
1) In Hughes we have an organiser who can help the other 2 centre halves in Burn and Galbraith, we certainly had no one in that position last year, a crucial position in this system.
2) As much as I liked Phil Turnball he didn’t have the legs to cover the territory in front of the defence or down the flanks in the way Elliot and Wheatley can for us now.
3) In Ainge and Styche we have 2 proper centre forwards - last year we relied on Styche and anyone else.

With this formation we get the best out of Trotman and O’Hanlon who excel as attacking wing backs but who are too often caught up field leaving a defence of 2 not 4 when we turnover possession to our opponents. It is also very flexible with only 1 change it can switch to 4-4-2; 4-3-3 or even 4-5-1 depending on how the game is going.

And so to the downside and the title of these ramblings with this formation - if you assume Syers plays as the 3rd midfielder linking play between the midfield and forwards we then have 3 wingers on the bench (I know Thommo and Nicholson could deputise for him and could also provide options to change the formation if necessary) this is far too unbalanced and for me would require some use of the loan market so that one of these 3 can still be getting game time whilst also bringing in an additional central midfielder to cover for Elliot and Wheatley which we are now lacking since Hughes moved back into defence.

With a goalkeeper, Vaulks, A loan central midfielder, Saunders and either Thommo or Nicholson on the bench we should be covered for most eventualities but this would require some difficult conversations with some players who may be benched, hard work on the training pitch, and patience from us as fans but with 3/4 of the season left should get the best out of what we have got.

Hard to disagree with any of those views. I think Trotman and O'Hanlon would relish that formation.

Agree with the majority of this post.
However I would play Thommo instead of O'Hanlon at left wing back.
I am not convinced by O'Hanlon - Trottman has qualities going forward and is actually quite skillful at times and can beat players - O'Hanlon is more of a steady Eddie - lets not forget he was deemed surplus of requirements at Harrogate.

I think going back to 3 at the back would be a grave mistake.

1) it's a system that requires a lot of understanding between team mates, and drilling on the training ground. At the moment we look like we have neither.
2) it would completely marginalise our best player and second highest goalscorer of all time.

It is funny but I was thinking that opportunity for playing three at the back may be with us at the moment (realising that it has not been successful up to now). Since Hughes as moved into Centre half we have someone who is vocal, does a bit of organising and competent in the position. Trotman and O'Hanlon are not out and out fullbacks but more like wing backs so may solve some of the issues at the back.
My thoughts would be:-

Maddison
Burn-Hughes-Galbraith (this needs concentration so they don't get dragged out of position).
Trotman-Wheatley-Elliott-O'Hanlon
Syres - Nicholson ( or Thompson) - Could just play one here and two up front?
Styche (or Ainge / Saunders)

I am not a football manager so it could be rubbish of course. In the past when tried the three at the back were getting dragged altogether to the ball rather than keeping shape and watching off the ball movement but hoping Hughes experience stops that, this is just a thought of course and I am happy that I am not TW as whatever formation he picks someone will pick fault as we all have our own ideas.

I agree with point #1 - we are a part time team training a couple of times a week, so difficult to give the players time to learn a new system.

#2 I partly agree, Thompson is one of, if not our best player so we should try to accommodate - but the success of the team is bigger than one man.

If we are assuming 442 doesn't work with the current personnel then we're going to have to leave someone of quality out. Ainge, Syers and Thompson all have loads of quality but it's hard to fit them all in with Styche as well.

tdk1 wrote:I think going back to 3 at the back would be a grave mistake.

1) it's a system that requires a lot of understanding between team mates, and drilling on the training ground. At the moment we look like we have neither.
2) it would completely marginalise our best player and second highest goalscorer of all time.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

PierremontQuaker03 wrote:Agree with the majority of this post.
However I would play Thommo instead of O'Hanlon at left wing back.
I am not convinced by O'Hanlon - Trottman has qualities going forward and is actually quite skillful at times and can beat players - O'Hanlon is more of a steady Eddie - lets not forget he was deemed surplus of requirements at Harrogate.

Seems to be O Hanlons fault this week... FFS

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

PierremontQuaker03 wrote:Agree with the majority of this post.
However I would play Thommo instead of O'Hanlon at left wing back.

Are you being serious? Thompson at left wing back?

I know we're meant to be polite, but what on earth makes anyone think you'd get the best out of Thommo at left wing back? I mean the massive problems are so obvious I don't have to point them out.

It's fairly simple. We are at our best playing the 4-5-1 with Syers behind Styche. Hughes at CB with Galbraith or Burn. Ainge on the bench. This has been repeatedly proven to work.

No messing around with a system we'd be unfamiliar with. Three at the back didn't last year and I don't believe we have the players to make it work this time.

HarrytheQuaker wrote:

PierremontQuaker03 wrote:Agree with the majority of this post.
However I would play Thommo instead of O'Hanlon at left wing back.
I am not convinced by O'Hanlon - Trottman has qualities going forward and is actually quite skillful at times and can beat players - O'Hanlon is more of a steady Eddie - lets not forget he was deemed surplus of requirements at Harrogate.

Seems to be O Hanlons fault this week... FFS

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

Didn't say it was his fault at all, just my opinion that in a 3-5-2 I would play Tommo at LWB and was commentating that, in my opinion, I have not been convinced by by O'Hanlon. So shoot me for having an opinion.

Darlogramps wrote:

PierremontQuaker03 wrote:Agree with the majority of this post.
However I would play Thommo instead of O'Hanlon at left wing back.

Are you being serious? Thompson at left wing back?

I know we're meant to be polite, but what on earth makes anyone think you'd get the best out of Thommo at left wing back?

We are not getting the best out of Thommo at the minute - I am agreeing with this post to try and change the formation as we are not good enough to play 4-4-2 at present.

PierremontQuaker03 wrote:

Darlogramps wrote:

PierremontQuaker03 wrote:Agree with the majority of this post.
However I would play Thommo instead of O'Hanlon at left wing back.

Are you being serious? Thompson at left wing back?

I know we're meant to be polite, but what on earth makes anyone think you'd get the best out of Thommo at left wing back?

We are not getting the best out of Thommo at the minute - I am agreeing with this post to try and change the formation as we are not good enough to play 4-4-2 at present.

And you think we'd get the best out of Thommo at left wing back? Seriously?

I can't believe I need to spell it out but he's not a defender. It would be open season down our left hand side, dragging the CBs out of position and creating space for opposition forwards.

And you marginalize Thommo even more because he's having to start from deeper and a position he's unsuited to. We played him at right wing back last season and it caused massive problems. Even TW swiftly abandoned the experiment.

4-5-1 has been proven to work and helped Thommo be more effective. Just needs Saint Tommy to have the balls to drop Ainge.

If you think playing Thommo at left wing back will get the best out of him and be beneficial for the team, I'm staggered.

PierremontQuaker03 wrote:

HarrytheQuaker wrote:

PierremontQuaker03 wrote:Agree with the majority of this post.
However I would play Thommo instead of O'Hanlon at left wing back.
I am not convinced by O'Hanlon - Trottman has qualities going forward and is actually quite skillful at times and can beat players - O'Hanlon is more of a steady Eddie - lets not forget he was deemed surplus of requirements at Harrogate.

Seems to be O Hanlons fault this week... FFS

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

Didn't say it was his fault at all, just my opinion that in a 3-5-2 I would play Tommo at LWB and was commentating that, in my opinion, I have not been convinced by by O'Hanlon. So shoot me for having an opinion.

Everyone can have an opinion but SERIOUSLY TOMMO at Left wing back, keep smoking the woodbines

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

Darlogramps wrote:

PierremontQuaker03 wrote:

Darlogramps wrote:

PierremontQuaker03 wrote:Agree with the majority of this post.
However I would play Thommo instead of O'Hanlon at left wing back.

....... Just needs Saint Tommy to have the balls to drop Ainge.

got it in one DG

If we desperate to play 4-5-1 and Syers is unavailable we'd be better of playing Thommo in Syers role with Henshaw and Nicholson on the wings.

I'm with Gramps, we should play one of Ainge or Styche, with the other being an excellent option from the bench. Both up front together isn't working.