4-3-3 ??

by **Remember Colo** » Tue Aug 03, 2021 2:12 pm

Colback's Orange Tufts wrote: ↑
Mon Aug 02, 2021 9:05 am

KingOfMilwaukee wrote: ↑
Sun Aug 01, 2021 2:34 am

Really getting tired of him.

When he won his first Super Bowl it looked like the sky was the limit. But 12 years later not much has really changed. In fact, the facts are that Favre has been the better Packer, even if Aaron is the better passer.

Favre: 1 Super Bowl win, 2 Super Bowl appearances, 3 MVPs, all-time consecutive game streak
Rodgers: 1 Super Bowl win, 1 Super Bowl appearances, 3 MVPs.
I'm not an expert NFL fan, I watch a bit. Were the Packers teams Favre played with better than what Rodgers had to work with?

Like I assume one player having more rings/appearances than other isn't necessarily because they are better, could just be because have better surrounding players.

Like Brady wouldn't have won as many rings if he'd been traded to the Jets right?

Oh no doubt that's part of it, but I also think Rodgers' has had some underwhelming playoff moments, and in the end they get overshadowed by a dumb coaching decision or their defence not getting the job done. But I do think the narrative that they haven't surrounded him with good enough players is overblown - considering he still found ways to win MVPs. It kinda takes offensive weapons to win those...

by **Colback's Orange Tufts** » Mon Aug 02, 2021 9:05 am

KingOfMilwaukee wrote: ↑
Sun Aug 01, 2021 2:34 am

Remember Colo wrote: ↑
Fri Jul 30, 2021 2:07 pm
And which side of the Rodgers debate are you on?
Really getting tired of him.

When he won his first Super Bowl it looked like the sky was the limit. But 12 years later not much has really changed. In fact, the facts are that Favre has been the better Packer, even if Aaron is the better passer.

Favre: 1 Super Bowl win, 2 Super Bowl appearances, 3 MVPs, all-time consecutive game streak
Rodgers: 1 Super Bowl win, 1 Super Bowl appearances, 3 MVPs.

I'm not an expert NFL fan, I watch a bit. Were the Packers teams Favre played with better than what Rodgers had to work with?

Like I assume one player having more rings/appearances than other isn't necessarily because they are better, could just be because have better surrounding players.

Like Brady wouldn't have won as many rings if he'd been traded to the Jets right?

by **KingOfMilwaukee** » Sun Aug 01, 2021 2:34 am

Remember Colo wrote: ↑
Fri Jul 30, 2021 2:07 pm
And which side of the Rodgers debate are you on?

Really getting tired of him.

When he won his first Super Bowl it looked like the sky was the limit. But 12 years later not much has really changed. In fact, the facts are that Favre has been the better Packer, even if Aaron is the better passer.

Favre: 1 Super Bowl win, 2 Super Bowl appearances, 3 MVPs, all-time consecutive game streak
Rodgers: 1 Super Bowl win, 1 Super Bowl appearances, 3 MVPs.

by **gola** » Fri Jul 30, 2021 8:20 pm

Welcome mate x

by **Remember Colo** » Fri Jul 30, 2021 2:07 pm

KingOfMilwaukee wrote: ↑
Thu Jul 29, 2021 10:54 pm

krully wrote: ↑
Thu Jul 29, 2021 2:19 pm

bucks fan?

Id like to see us going with a more attacking formation, but the 5 at the back does seem to work with us and Bruce is a creature of habit. I am hopefully optimistic that there'll be more s**** in the league to keep us up like last season.
Yes indeed! Born in Milwaukee but live in Cali. Still have the pull to Green Bay and the Bucks.

And which side of the Rodgers debate are you on?

by **KingOfMilwaukee** » Thu Jul 29, 2021 10:54 pm

krully wrote: ↑
Thu Jul 29, 2021 2:19 pm

KingOfMilwaukee wrote: ↑
Thu Jul 29, 2021 2:30 am
Thanks for all the replies! What I've always found interesting is that if one tries to put their starting squad in a 4-3-3..... it really highlights the weaknesses of the squad in a way that 4-4-2 or 4-2-3-1 papers over. I find it a good exercise for parsing out where upgrades are needed, imho.
bucks fan?

Id like to see us going with a more attacking formation, but the 5 at the back does seem to work with us and Bruce is a creature of habit. I am hopefully optimistic that there'll be more s**** in the league to keep us up like last season.

Yes indeed! Born in Milwaukee but live in Cali. Still have the pull to Green Bay and the Bucks.

by **krully** » Thu Jul 29, 2021 2:19 pm

KingOfMilwaukee wrote: ↑
Thu Jul 29, 2021 2:30 am
Thanks for all the replies! What I've always found interesting is that if one tries to put their starting squad in a 4-3-3..... it really highlights the weaknesses of the squad in a way that 4-4-2 or 4-2-3-1 papers over. I find it a good exercise for parsing out where upgrades are needed, imho.

bucks fan?

Id like to see us going with a more attacking formation, but the 5 at the back does seem to work with us and Bruce is a creature of habit. I am hopefully optimistic that there'll be more s**** in the league to keep us up like last season.

by **Remember Colo** » Thu Jul 29, 2021 2:12 pm

KingOfMilwaukee wrote: ↑
Thu Jul 29, 2021 2:30 am
Thanks for all the replies! What I've always found interesting is that if one tries to put their starting squad in a 4-3-3..... it really highlights the weaknesses of the squad in a way that 4-4-2 or 4-2-3-1 papers over. I find it a good exercise for parsing out where upgrades are needed, imho.

I like that point! For example, as others have stated, we hardly have competent traditional fullbacks, but have a few players that can be effective wingbacks. And I'm all for deploying those, but it really limits your tactical flexibility if you have to swap out those two players depending on formation.

by **KingOfMilwaukee** » Thu Jul 29, 2021 2:30 am

Thanks for all the replies! What I've always found interesting is that if one tries to put their starting squad in a 4-3-3..... it really highlights the weaknesses of the squad in a way that 4-4-2 or 4-2-3-1 papers over. I find it a good exercise for parsing out where upgrades are needed, imho.

by **Remember Colo** » Wed Jul 28, 2021 9:19 pm

ALF wrote: ↑
Wed Jul 28, 2021 7:01 pm

Remember Colo wrote: ↑
Wed Jul 28, 2021 3:41 pm

Maybe I'm off-base, but I'm not even sure what Dummett is anymore - and I say that because of how often he's seemingly been injured the past few years. As far as I'm concerned, he's too poor in the air and marking in the box to be an effective CB, and too passive and probably lacking the skill necessary to produce in the attacking half. At this point he feels a bit like Hayden, 2 players who are a bit limited and make for good subs when you really need to shut up shop, but in sides that attack so little ensure you are under even more pressure than you can often handle for 90 minutes.
Think that's harsh. Dummett played very well as the LCB in a 3. He's perfectly suited to that position.

Maybe harsh, but even though our April and May bailed us out last season, and he was playing CB for most of that, I didn't really feel our defending was the reason for survival, with the only 2 clean sheets at the end. He's fine as a back-up defender who can play either position, but I don't think he's good enough to be first choice for either - which I don't mean as a damning indictment.

by **ALF** » Wed Jul 28, 2021 7:01 pm

Remember Colo wrote: ↑
Wed Jul 28, 2021 3:41 pm

Colly wrote: ↑
Wed Jul 28, 2021 2:54 pm

Do you think it does? Dummett's not a wing back but at the same time he's nowhere near the "CB playing at LB" that believe make him out to be, while Manquillo is a typically orthodox full back. You might not get goals from either of them but they're both happy to get across the halfway line. For me we invite far more pressure with the 3 CBs plus Hayden formation.
Maybe I'm off-base, but I'm not even sure what Dummett is anymore - and I say that because of how often he's seemingly been injured the past few years. As far as I'm concerned, he's too poor in the air and marking in the box to be an effective CB, and too passive and probably lacking the skill necessary to produce in the attacking half. At this point he feels a bit like Hayden, 2 players who are a bit limited and make for good subs when you really need to shut up shop, but in sides that attack so little ensure you are under even more pressure than you can often handle for 90 minutes.

Think that's harsh. Dummett played very well as the LCB in a 3. He's perfectly suited to that position.

by **Remember Colo** » Wed Jul 28, 2021 3:41 pm

Colly wrote: ↑
Wed Jul 28, 2021 2:54 pm

Bodacious Benny wrote: ↑
Wed Jul 28, 2021 11:37 am
Yeah, Dummett and Manquillo can do a job at LB/RB but both are limited (very in Dummett's case) going forward and it really restricts us and invites pressure back on.
Do you think it does? Dummett's not a wing back but at the same time he's nowhere near the "CB playing at LB" that believe make him out to be, while Manquillo is a typically orthodox full back. You might not get goals from either of them but they're both happy to get across the halfway line. For me we invite far more pressure with the 3 CBs plus Hayden formation.

Maybe I'm off-base, but I'm not even sure what Dummett is anymore - and I say that because of how often he's seemingly been injured the past few years. As far as I'm concerned, he's too poor in the air and marking in the box to be an effective CB, and too passive and probably lacking the skill necessary to produce in the attacking half. At this point he feels a bit like Hayden, 2 players who are a bit limited and make for good subs when you really need to shut up shop, but in sides that attack so little ensure you are under even more pressure than you can often handle for 90 minutes.

by **Colly** » Wed Jul 28, 2021 2:54 pm

Bodacious Benny wrote: ↑
Wed Jul 28, 2021 11:37 am
Yeah, Dummett and Manquillo can do a job at LB/RB but both are limited (very in Dummett's case) going forward and it really restricts us and invites pressure back on.

Do you think it does? Dummett's not a wing back but at the same time he's nowhere near the "CB playing at LB" that believe make him out to be, while Manquillo is a typically orthodox full back. You might not get goals from either of them but they're both happy to get across the halfway line. For me we invite far more pressure with the 3 CBs plus Hayden formation.

by **Captain Obvious** » Wed Jul 28, 2021 12:24 pm

Given how we ended the season I'd be fairly sure we'll play 3 CBs with Murphy and Ritchie as the wing backs.

by **TJR** » Wed Jul 28, 2021 11:40 am

It would probably be something like:

Dubravka
Krafth Lascelles Fernandez Dummett
Willock Hayden Shelvey
StMaximin Wilson Fraser

Though I think our squad is better suited to playing one of the variations of the 3-5-2 and I think we will play that. I'd expect us to play something like this, with Murphy and Ritchie as wing backs and Almiron in the 10 role allowing the two forwards to roam wide on occasion.

Dubravka
Schar Lascelles Fernandez
Murphy Willock Hayden Ritchie
Almiron
StMaximin Wilson

by **bodacious benny** » Wed Jul 28, 2021 11:37 am

Yeah, Dummett and Manquillo can do a job at LB/RB but both are limited (very in Dummett's case) going forward and it really restricts us and invites pressure back on.

by **Sanchino** » Wed Jul 28, 2021 10:13 am

Bodacious Benny wrote: ↑
Wed Jul 28, 2021 8:27 am
Happy first post!

I think the trouble is with 4-3-3 is that neither Lewis, Ritchie or Murphy are good enough defensively as out and out left backs playing in a four. Murphy seems to do really well as a RWB when we play 3 centre backs, and same with Ritchie as a LWB. So if we did ever play 4 at the back regularly I think we'd need to sign a decent LB and a RB.

This.. I mean we do have Manquillo who can play as a RB solidly enough in a back four & Dummet can play LB but that will mean we'll lack attacking thrust down that side as he's good defensively but average/limited offensively as he doesn't have the pace, skill or technical ability to beat his man and bomb forward all the time. Maybe if we got someone in like Jetro it'll work as he can play LWB but also comfortable as a LB in a back four.

If we wanted to be brave, adventurous and expansive I'll try this.. (don't think Bruce will actually ever do this..)

Dubra
Murphy Lascelles Fernandez Jetro*
Willock Hayden
Miggy*
ASM Wilson Fraser

*If we sign him if not try someone like Manquillo there as he's played there before, eventually Lewis should improve & make that position his own or if you want to be a bit more on the safe side & go abit more defensive then stick Dummet in there.

*Miggy can interchange with Willock while Hayden guards & sweeps up everything in the defensive line between defence & midfield. Willock can play the box-to-box role well.. him & Miggy can support Wilson while ASM & Fraser give us width, pace & trickery on the wings.

Against the ''bigger'' sides if we're playing away we could be abit more cautious & revert to a back five or instead of having Fraser on the wing put Miggy in there & put Longstaff in midfield to help Hayden with the defensive midfield burden. Something like this..

Dubra
Manquillo Lascelles Fernandez Jetro*
Longstaff Hayden
Willock
ASM Wilson Miggy/Murphy*

*Maybe put ASM on the left & Murphy on the right.

We have options but we need quality too.. we need a box-to-box midfielder with or without Willock, a striker/winger to support Wilson with the scoring & maybe another full-back. A CB too now that's Lejune's gone.. loan out Watts & Matty Longstaff to a Champs side.

by **bodacious benny** » Wed Jul 28, 2021 8:27 am

Happy first post!

I think the trouble is with 4-3-3 is that neither Lewis, Ritchie or Murphy are good enough defensively as out and out left backs playing in a four. Murphy seems to do really well as a RWB when we play 3 centre backs, and same with Ritchie as a LWB. So if we did ever play 4 at the back regularly I think we'd need to sign a decent LB and a RB.

by **Don Sholeone** » Wed Jul 28, 2021 8:26 am

Colback's Orange Tufts wrote: ↑
Wed Jul 28, 2021 5:29 am
Problem is that Brucw will want to force Joelinton into the line up

Name a better player who's going to be kept out if Joelinton plays.

by **Colback's Orange Tufts** » Wed Jul 28, 2021 5:29 am

Problem is that Brucw will want to force Joelinton into the line up

4-3-3 ??

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: 4-3-3 ??

Re: 4-3-3 ??

Re: 4-3-3 ??

Re: 4-3-3 ??

Re: 4-3-3 ??

Re: 4-3-3 ??

Re: 4-3-3 ??

Re: 4-3-3 ??

Re: 4-3-3 ??

Re: 4-3-3 ??

Re: 4-3-3 ??

Re: 4-3-3 ??

Re: 4-3-3 ??

Re: 4-3-3 ??

Re: 4-3-3 ??

Re: 4-3-3 ??

Re: 4-3-3 ??

Re: 4-3-3 ??

Re: 4-3-3 ??

Re: 4-3-3 ??

Re: 4-3-3 ??