Team for Dunfermline

[Harry Chibber]

Could ask you the same about you're 3-1-3-3??

Defensive football doesn't work for ICT, especially at home. Never has. Attacking football has to return. 4-5-1 does not work, three strikers at home, that appeals to me. If you keep attacking the Pars on Saturday, that means that they'll have to hold more players back. Simple, and with Bayne probably going to run poor Bulvitis ragged, that's the best thing you can do and thus knock him out the game.

4-5-1 isn't a defensive formation, if you leave 1 sitting midfielder to protect the defence the remaining 5 players can all be given a license to attack. With your formation Gibson & Graham would crucify us on the wings and all it would take would be a couple of cross-field passes. I understand your urgency for an attacking team but that doesn't just mean throwing all your players as far forward as you can, even Brazil ain't that stoopid!

Infact, can you name a team in the world that plays or has played that formation?

Yes, Melbourne used it for for a good chunk of the season in the A League last year (was slightly different though, they went with the 3-4-3 with a diamond shaped midfield). They won the league, and were scoring for fun in some games. BTW - did consider bringing going with the world greatest ever formation, the 2-3-5, but with all the uproar there'd be from our boring football loving fans, I just couldn't be bothered arguing about it.

Melbourne FFS!!!

Considering there are so few teams that play such an extravegant formation you must find football very boring.

[caleykid1994]

--------------Esson------------------

Tokely----Bulvitus---Munro----Golly

---Hayes------Duncan--------Imrie

--------------Sanchez---------------

---------Foran---Barrowman-------

Id be happy with that

[ICTodd]

Attacking football at home for me -

-----------------------------------------Esson---------------------------------------------------

-----------Tokely-----------------------Munro-----------------------McBain-------------------

-------------------------------------------Cox----------------------------------------------------

---Hayes--------------------------------Imrie----------------------------------Djebi-Zadi-----

----------------Sanchez--------------Barrowman-------------Foran---------------------------

Subs - Allison, Proctor, Rooney, Ross, Golabek/Shinnie/Duncan

Interesting but I'd put Imrie out on the left for Djebi-Zadi, Cox forward and Duncan in the hole, then NO NO NO NO NO to Sanchez and put Rooney in his place.

[Renegade]

Esson

Tokely Bulvitis Munro Golly

Cox Duncan

Proctor Imrie Hayes

Foran

4-5-1, what evidence have to seen that says that style works at home?

No offence intended, but given some of the formations you come up with, you're in no position to be questioning what anyone else has to offer

I believe in attacking football, especially at home. Just because my formations aren't the norm, doesn't mean that they wouldn't work. We now live in a footballing society, where everyone is petrified to concede, and that is the downfall of football. The winner of a football match is the team that scores the most goals, not the team that can keep a clean sheet.

Could ask you the same about you're 3-1-3-3??

Defensive football doesn't work for ICT, especially at home. Never has. Attacking football has to return. 4-5-1 does not work, three strikers at home, that appeals to me. If you keep attacking the Pars on Saturday, that means that they'll have to hold more players back. Simple, and with Bayne probably going to run poor Bulvitis ragged, that's the best thing you can do and thus knock him out the game.

4-5-1 isn't a defensive formation, if you leave 1 sitting midfielder to protect the defence the remaining 5 players can all be given a license to attack. With your formation Gibson & Graham would crucify us on the wings and all it would take would be a couple of cross-field passes. I understand your urgency for an attacking team but that doesn't just mean throwing all your players as far forward as you can, even Brazil ain't that stoopid!

I go back to my previous point. If you score more than the other team, it doesn't matter how many they score, you win the game. After all that's the aim of the game.

Infact, can you name a team in the world that plays or has played that formation?

Yes, Melbourne used it for for a good chunk of the season in the A League last year (was slightly different though, they went with the 3-4-3 with a diamond shaped midfield). They won the league, and were scoring for fun in some games. BTW - did consider bringing going with the world greatest ever formation, the 2-3-5, but with all the uproar there'd be from our boring football loving fans, I just couldn't be bothered arguing about it.

Melbourne FFS!!!

Considering there are so few teams that play such an extravegant formation you must find football very boring.

At times yes, especially the defensive showings of Mr Butcher. No wonder football has gone that way. Years ago, the 2-3-5 was the most common formation, there was more goals, more entertainment and the aim of the game was to score more than the opposition. I like to think that over time, football will return to that philosophy.

[Harry Chibber]

Years ago, the 2-3-5 was the most common formation, there was more goals, more entertainment and the aim of the game was to score more than the opposition. I like to think that over time, football will return to that philosophy.

When did any team play 2-3-5?

[Renegade]

It was used up until the 40s and early 50s I believe. According to Wikipedia -

2-3-5 (The Pyramid)

The Pyramid FormationThe first long-term successful formation was first recorded in 1880.[1] However in "Association Football" published by Caxton in 1960, the following appears in Vol II, page 432: "Wrexham ... the first winner of the Welsh Cup in 1877 ... for the first time certainly in Wales and probably in Britain, a team played three half backs and five forwards ..."

The 2-3-5 was originally known as the Pyramid with the numerical formation being referenced retrospectively. By the 1890s it was the standard formation in Britain and had spread all over the world. With some variations it was used by most top level teams up to the 1940s.

For the first time a balance between attacking and defending was reached. When defending, the two defenders (fullbacks) would watch out for the opponent's wingers (the outside players in the attacking line); while the midfielders (halfbacks) would watch for the other three forwards.

The centre halfback had a key role in both helping to organize the team's attack and marking the opponent's centre forward, supposedly one of their most dangerous players.

It was this formation which gave rise to the convention of shirt numbers[2] but can appear confused when applied to the classic 4-4-2 line up, i.e.:

01 ? Goalkeeper

02 ? Right back

03 ? Left back

04 ? Centre midfielder (more defensive-minded)

05 ? Centre back

06 ? Centre back ('Libero')

07 ? Right winger

08 ? Centre midfielder (more attacking-minded)

09 ? Centre forward

10 ? Offensive midfielder (playmaker) / Second striker

11 ? Left winger

[edit] The Danubian school

The Danubian School of football is a modification of the 2-3-5 formation as played by the Austrians, Czechs and Hungarians in the 1920s, and taken to its peak by the Austrians in the 1930s. It relied on short-passing and individual skills.

Edited October 15, 2009 by Renegade

[Harry Chibber]

pre-war?? I think that's the land you're living in mate

[Renegade]

Why thank you. I did read though Man City were considering using it this season. Man U did something a bit different as well last season, and Roma have done it as well and that's the 4-6-0. Apparently it pulls the opposition defenders out of position and they can then attack with a front 4.

[mikeyboy]

Well since Caley only have two centre backs and lots of strikers we may as well use the pyramid formation.

[Renegade]

Too right. It's obvious that 4 defenders aint working, may as well just go with 2 and have the rest of the team attacking. That way you don't need so many staying back.

[mikeyboy]

Maybe the long punt up the pitch will work with so many upfront. :024:

[mikeyboy]

the team could be-

esson

tokely..munro

stradford..duncan..mcbain

imrie..sanchez..foran..rooney..hayes

I see no flaws! :024:

[Alex MacLeod]

I'd go 3-5-2

Esson

Tokely Munro Golabek

Cox McBain Duncan Imrie Hayes

Foran Sanchez

I dont, however expect there to be any change to Tuesdays team though Imrie and Duncan took pretty hard knocks. Hopefully they'll recover in time.

Edited October 15, 2009 by Alex MacLeod

[DornochCaley]

Use the good old 4-2-4!

[DornochJAGGIE]

--------------------ESSON------------------

PROCTOR----ROSSCOE-----GRANTY----GOLLY

HAYES-------COX---------McBAIN-----IMRIE

------------FORAN-------ODHIAMBO---------

I would like this to be the team, but TB will probably stick with the team that started on Tuesday.

[Georgeios]

--------------------ESSON------------------

PROCTOR----TOCTASTIC-----GRANTY----GOLLY

HAYES-------COX---------FORAN-----IMRIE

------------SANCHEZ---BARROWLOADS--------

With the bounce game and barrowloads finding the goal i thing we should be playing him

[fraser]

the team could be-

esson

tokely..munro

stradford..duncan..mcbain

imrie..sanchez..foran..rooney..hayes

I see no flaws!

i like it

[TopSix]

Esson

Tokely Bulvitis Munro Golly

Proctor Cox Duncan Hayes

Foran Imrie

I'd go with this but replace Sanchez for Cox

[mikeyboy]

Is Odihambo definatley fit for this game?

[Johnboy]

--------------------ESSON------------------

PROCTOR----TOCTASTIC-----GRANTY----GOLLY

HAYES-------COX---------FORAN-----IMRIE

------------SANCHEZ---BARROWLOADS--------

With the bounce game and barrowloads finding the goal i thing we should be playing him

Young Nick Ross scored as well so I'd go with :

--------------------ESSON------------------

PROCTOR----TOCTASTIC-----GRANTY----GOLLY

ROSS-----FORAN-----IMRIE-----HAYES

--------SANCHEZ---BARROWLOADS--------

[ictchris]

There's a reason that no-one plays 2/3/5 anymore.

The best way to space players out in the defence is to cover the back line with four players. We haven't been losing at home because of the number of defenders we have on the pitch, we've been losing because of the mistakes they've been making. With regards to play attacking football - you don't have to have x number of players playing as 'attackers' to play attacking football. A 4-4-2 formation is no bar to playing attacking football, it just depends on what players you pick and how you go about the game.

Conversely, playing the formation Renegade suggests would lead to certain defeat. I don't even think that we'd score many goals playing like that.

-----------------------------------------Esson---------------------------------------------------

-----------Tokely-----------------------Munro-----------------------McBain-------------------

-------------------------------------------Cox----------------------------------------------------

---Hayes--------------------------------Imrie----------------------------------Djebi-Zadi-----

----------------Sanchez--------------Barrowman-------------Foran---------------------------

Three central strikers playing in between two 'wide' men? One of the keys to opening up opposition defences is making intelligent runs into space. There wouldn't be any space to exploit given that we'd have three players playing across the middle. None of these players would be used to playing in this way with two other strikers in the central area so building understanding and good interplay between the forwards would be very difficult.

Also, with this formation you are effectively surrendering the midfield by having one player sitting back (in thsi case Cox). A single player couldn't physically cover the area required and he would be overrun. Hayes and Djebi-Zadi already have to cover the entirity of the flanks so asking them to tuck in when required would be unrealistic.

Defensively it's obvious that any team playing this formation would concede a lot of goals. Three central defenders is a discredited system that is barely used anymore at the top level of football, it's easy to pick apart by attacking wide areas. In this formation this tactic would be especially devastating - play a ball into the wide area (where you'd normally expect a full back to be) and pull one of the central defenders wide. This would expose space in the middle of the defence for opposition forwards or midfield runners to exploit. The defensive system would also have the flaws of the attacking system, in that our defenders have no experience of playing in a back three with no full backs or wing backs. The obvious outball for a central defender is to lay off to the full back, that's taken away in this formation. In fact, what playing this way would lead to is far more long balls simply because there isn't anyone to pass to on the rare occasion when our defenders would get the ball (rather than pick it out of our own net).

I don't normally go into detail on Renegade's crazy scheme's but it's worth doing so simply because people seem actually to be giving credence to these fantastical ideas as a potential system toplay! Literally, incredible stuff.

[ictchris]

Having watched us the other night I think we will probably go unchanged. However, I would make a couple of tweaks.

-------------------------Esson-----------------------------

---Tokely-----Bulvitis-------Munro-----Golabek-------

---Hayes---------Cox-------Duncan-----Imrie---------

--------------Sanchez-------Foran-----------------------

It's a little harsh to drop Proctor but he isn't really an attacking option on right midfield - he's good at holding the position and defending but he doesn't get forward or past his man. Imrie is better wide left than up front so I'd put Hayes on the right, Imrie on the left and get them pushing up to support Foran and Sanchez.

I can see the logic behind Imrie up front though and we could do with some pace up top. I'd also rather see Barrowman on the bench than Eagle.

[Libero]

------------------------ESSON-----------------------

PROCTOR------TOKELY-------MUNRO-------GOLLY

HAYES---------COX----------DUNCAN--------IMRIE

------------BARROWMAN-------FORAN---------------

With Foran and Imrie swapping positions periodically

[Harry Chibber]

I don't normally go into detail on Renegade's crazy scheme's but it's worth doing so simply because people seem actually to be giving credence to these fantastical ideas as a potential system toplay! Literally, incredible stuff.

You think you'd be suprised that our fans would actually buy into it but sadly I'm not

[dead_ball_specialist]

IMHO Cox and Duncan aren't working together. They're both defensive minded midfielders who struggle in the final third. This is why so many of our moves seem to break down when we get to the edge of our opponents box. We need an attacking number 10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Playmaker) who'll link up with our front 2. I would go with...

----------------Esson------------------

Tokely--Bulvitis--Munro--Djebi Zadi

----------------Cox--------------------

Ross----------------------------Hayes

----------------Imrie------------------

------Odiambo--------Foran----------