Daniel Farke

[Cjay]

I prefer the 4 man defence, but that would need a LCB in Struijk's class or better and maybe a better defender than Gudmundsson because in a 4 the wing backs need to be full backs a lot of the time. Bogle is passable

I don't.

It didn't work last season and see no reason it would work now consistently.

[Cjay]

Shouldn't you reveal the source of this so as to ascertain whether it has any merit or just someone sh*t stirring?

The Athletic.

In the Harry Wilson article.

[The Subhuman]

You for one

Posting regularly not accurate TBF

Are definitely a few from here with accounts on there

Think you'll find they're lapsed accounts. 64 hasn't posted for 7 years

[The Subhuman]

I don't.

It didn't work last season and see no reason it would work now consistently.

5 at the back would mean no place for Okafor and Wilson plays the 10. We might just get away with Bornauw at LCB if we play 5 at the back, double pivot. We could use a few mor formations for the app but this would be close to our best 352

My Lineup

by The Subhuman · 3-5-2

1

GK

Perri

6

DEF

Rodon

15

DEF

Bijol

23

DEF

Bornauw

2

MID

Bogle

22

MID

Tanaka

4

MID

Ampadu

18

MID

Stach

3

MID

Gudmundsson

8

FWD

Wilson

9

FWD

Calvert-Lewin

Substitutes

Built with motforum.com lineup builder

[1964white]

You for one

Posting regularly not accurate TBF

Are definitely a few from here with accounts on there

I've had accounts with them since about 2006.

I haven't posted on there in a very long time!

[Cjay]

Think you'll find they're lapsed accounts. 64 hasn't posted for 7 years

Definitely seen familiar names.

[Cjay]

I've had accounts with them since about 2006.

I haven't posted on there in a very long time!

Didn't say you posted but I know you have an account.

[Cjay]

5 at the back would mean no place for Okafor and Wilson plays the 10. We might just get away with Bornauw at LCB if we play 5 at the back, double pivot. We could use a few mor formations for the app but this would be close to our best 352

My Lineup

by The Subhuman · 3-5-2

1

GK

Perri

6

DEF

Rodon

15

DEF

Bijol

23

DEF

Bornauw

2

MID

Bogle

22

MID

Tanaka

4

MID

Ampadu

18

MID

Stach

3

MID

Gudmundsson

8

FWD

Wilson

9

FWD

Calvert-Lewin

Substitutes

Built with motforum.com lineup builder

I'm assuming will be more signings.

Is no logic for moving from something that worked to something that never has in our 2nd season as a promoted side.

DF has tried a back 4 Base formation 4 times now it hasn't worked.

So why risk it for a 5th after finding something that does?

Flexible in game fine, but base formation should remain the same imo.

Teams established themselves like Brentford, Bournemouth, Wolves and Brighton didn't do it by flipping after season 1.

Evolve slowly over multiple seasons not flip ASAP.

[weasel]

I'm assuming will be more signings.

Is no logic for moving from something that worked to something that never has in our 2nd season as a promoted side.

DF has tried a back 4 Base formation 4 times now it hasn't worked.

So why risk it for a 5th after finding something that does?

Flexible in game fine, but base formation should remain the same imo.

Teams established themselves like Brentford, Bournemouth, Wolves and Brighton didn't do it by flipping after season 1.

Evolve slowly over multiple seasons not flip ASAP.

Has he treid a base formation 4 times without success in the prem? Twice with Norwich but once again there is no counterbalance as there is no way of knowing whether a diffrent formation would have gooten more out of the players there. As it was in the second season it had looked like the team was beginning to find its feet when they sacked him.

This season and the 4 at the back saw us with 11 points after 12 games going into the match v Man City. So hardly like it was black and white in terms of one system failing and one then being an overwhelming success. Yes we seemed to do better, and took a better ppg average after the change, but maybe part of that was some players settling in, some players realising they were good enough ti make the step up, the team gelling and new players understanding the players roles that were already here, and vice versa, etc.

So whilst I would be keen to see us go with the 5 at the back I wouldn't be losing any sleep if we go back to a back 4. The back 5 was probably needed at the point it was introduced as we were looking weak defensively. However at that point we still had Perri as fist choice keeper and getting used to things, we were unsure of whether to go with Struyjk or Bijol, GG was getting used to his role and getting caught upfield a bit too much etc - all things that I would think would be improved since then so that if we did go to a back 4 there would be a better understanding, Rodon and Bijol knowing each other's game better, GG more in tune with his role, likely not Perri etc.

So for me I think we will see a bit of a mic between 4 and 5 at the back, maybe more cautious away from home but with the option to go to a 4 if we are chasing the game - however we also saw that just cos we started with 5 at the back it didn't mean we had to make subs to change to 4 at the back with the likes of Rodon and JJ often morphing into right wingers.

Too much is made over formations. Better to have players who have a bit of flexibility and the understanding and game reading ability to adapt as the situation demands. Harry Wilson seemingly falls into that category as someone who can play in a few different positions and even if he starts a match in one position will likely have freedom to wander and create havoc.

[1964white]

Definitely seen familiar names.

They'll be under different usernames, they are not as obvious or predictable as I am.

[weasel]

They'll be under different usernames, they are not as obvious or predictable as I am.

Dead right Kenny

[Cjay]

They'll be under different usernames, they are not as obvious or predictable as I am.

They either made identical posts or have similar names.

I haven't imagined it

[Cjay]

Has he treid a base formation 4 times without success in the prem? Twice with Norwich but once again there is no counterbalance as there is no way of knowing whether a diffrent formation would have gooten more out of the players there. As it was in the second season it had looked like the team was beginning to find its feet when they sacked him.

This season and the 4 at the back saw us with 11 points after 12 games going into the match v Man City. So hardly like it was black and white in terms of one system failing and one then being an overwhelming success. Yes we seemed to do better, and took a better ppg average after the change, but maybe part of that was some players settling in, some players realising they were good enough ti make the step up, the team gelling and new players understanding the players roles that were already here, and vice versa, etc.

So whilst I would be keen to see us go with the 5 at the back I wouldn't be losing any sleep if we go back to a back 4. The back 5 was probably needed at the point it was introduced as we were looking weak defensively. However at that point we still had Perri as fist choice keeper and getting used to things, we were unsure of whether to go with Struyjk or Bijol, GG was getting used to his role and getting caught upfield a bit too much etc - all things that I would think would be improved since then so that if we did go to a back 4 there would be a better understanding, Rodon and Bijol knowing each other's game better, GG more in tune with his role, likely not Perri etc.

So for me I think we will see a bit of a mic between 4 and 5 at the back, maybe more cautious away from home but with the option to go to a 4 if we are chasing the game - however we also saw that just cos we started with 5 at the back it didn't mean we had to make subs to change to 4 at the back with the likes of Rodon and JJ often morphing into right wingers.

Too much is made over formations. Better to have players who have a bit of flexibility and the understanding and game reading ability to adapt as the situation demands. Harry Wilson seemingly falls into that category as someone who can play in a few different positions and even if he starts a match in one position will likely have freedom to wander and create havoc.

He's finally earned a bit of respect and rebuilt his reputation to a point? If it ain't broke why change it.

Build on it.

We can speculate on what may or may not have happened given more time at Norwich or Mönchengladbach but bottom line is they sacked him.

We were close to doing it as well.

We found something that worked, basically all our players had their best form using it.

Why change?

It can only be wanting to prove his way works.

And for me it's unnecessary and risky if that is what we do.

Ego? Who knows

I Hope it's wrong and we do progress what we used last season.

Flexible in game fine that's normal.

But starting again with possession based back 4 stuff I hope not because imo we will never have the player quality to make it work.

[Carrick Dave]

Hearing murmurs of discord between Daniel and the board over base formation and therefore targets, might be nonsense.

[Victor_OTT_17]

Hearing murmurs of discord between Daniel and the board over base formation and therefore targets, might be nonsense.

Depends where the rumours are from? If you are making it up, then yeah, complete bull5h1t

[Carrick Dave]

Depends where the rumours are from? If you are making it up, then yeah, complete bull5h1t

Very constructive Victor. I've better things to be at.

[Cjay]

Hearing murmurs of discord between Daniel and the board over base formation and therefore targets, might be nonsense.

Think that was obvious tbh given the comments DF made end of the season.

He wanted full control, the board didn't.

You'd hope they have worked it out by now

[Carrick Dave]

Think that was obvious tbh given the comments DF made end of the season.

He wanted full control, the board didn't.

You'd hope they have worked it out by now

Not obvious, might not even be accurate.

I was wondering if anyone else had heard similar recently.

[Victor_OTT_17]

Very constructive Victor. I've better things to be at.

Can't take a joke I see? Did you not see the 'laugh emoji'

Off you go then misery guts...

[Victor_OTT_17]

might not even be accurate.

Probably isn't if it's from you