The Manager, 5-2-3 and Home Matches

[Radford 72]

Taken from @StAnalysis on Twitter:

We've played 753 minutes (over 8 full games) at home in the 5-2-3, with just the 1 open play goal.

Why is the manager persevering with this formation and is anyone enjoying watching us at home any more when we are using it?

[dave mc]

3-4-3 surely 

[mainstand]

3 minutes ago, Radford 72 said:

Taken from @StAnalysis on Twitter:

We've played 753 minutes (over 8 full games) at home in the 5-2-3, with just the 1 open play goal.

Why is the manager persevering with this formation and is anyone enjoying watching us at home any more when we are using it?

Do you have the teams we played? 

[Pat McGroin]

Just now, mainstand said:

Do you have the teams we played? 

I’d have hoped we’d have sneaked more than a goal against the top 8 sides in England at home tbh 

[Radford 72]

1 hour ago, mainstand said:

Do you have the teams we played? 

I don't have access to the detail of Wyscout but according to Transfermarkt, we started 5-2-3 (3-4-3) against:

Aberdeen, Hibs, Celtic, United, Killie, Motherwell, Rangers and Aberdeen again. 

We scored from open play only against Killie. 

We started with 2 strikers against St Mirren, County, Livingston, Hamilton and St Mirren. 

We scored in 3 of those games and creating chances certainly wasn't a problem against Accies, where we had 28 shots.

I'm not sure that 3-5-2 is a solve-all at home but it's definitely better than 5-2-3/3-4-3.

Are you happy with the latter system at home? 

[Linky]

I think Davidson seems like a lovely guy,  but I’m worried that he can’t see when someone is underperforming or a system isn’t working. His after-match interview every game is that he’s happy with the performance/we did ok/we were unlucky, etc.

Tommy would’ve been raging at some of the performances this season.

[rik2304]

CD needs to be adaptable. He's experienced enough to see this surely. The home form and performances are horrible.

[mainstand]

2 hours ago, Radford 72 said:

I don't have access to the detail of Wyscout but according to Transfermarkt, we started 5-2-3 (3-4-3) against:

Aberdeen, Hibs, Celtic, United, Killie, Motherwell, Rangers and Aberdeen again. 

We scored from open play only against Killie. 

We started with 2 strikers against St Mirren, County, Livingston, Hamilton and St Mirren. 

We scored in 3 of those games and creating chances certainly wasn't a problem against Accies, where we had 28 shots.

I'm not sure that 3-5-2 is a solve-all at home but it's definitely better than 5-2-3/3-4-3.

Are you happy with the latter system at home? 

Cheers Radford. I actually quite like the 3-4-3 but can see why folk moan about it if the goals don't come. You missed an option of a 3-4-1-2 but irrespective of formation it's all down to players on the day. 

 

3 hours ago, Pat McGroin said:

I’d have hoped we’d have sneaked more than a goal against the top 8 sides in England at home tbh 

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit

[SaintJet]

2 hours ago, Radford 72 said:

I don't have access to the detail of Wyscout but according to Transfermarkt, we started 5-2-3 (3-4-3) against:

Aberdeen, Hibs, Celtic, United, Killie, Motherwell, Rangers and Aberdeen again. 

We scored from open play only against Killie. 

We started with 2 strikers against St Mirren, County, Livingston, Hamilton and St Mirren. 

We scored in 3 of those games and creating chances certainly wasn't a problem against Accies, where we had 28 shots.

I'm not sure that 3-5-2 is a solve-all at home but it's definitely better than 5-2-3/3-4-3.

Are you happy with the latter system at home? 

You won't appreciate this but statistics are for losers

[saintgscot]

5 hours ago, Radford 72 said:

I don't have access to the detail of Wyscout but according to Transfermarkt, we started 5-2-3 (3-4-3) against:

Aberdeen, Hibs, Celtic, United, Killie, Motherwell, Rangers and Aberdeen again. 

We scored from open play only against Killie. 

We started with 2 strikers against St Mirren, County, Livingston, Hamilton and St Mirren. 

We scored in 3 of those games and creating chances certainly wasn't a problem against Accies, where we had 28 shots.

I'm not sure that 3-5-2 is a solve-all at home but it's definitely better than 5-2-3/3-4-3.

Are you happy with the latter system at home? 

Think he needs two upfront 

[Radford 72]

11 hours ago, mainstand said:

I actually quite like the 3-4-3 but can see why folk moan about it if the goals don't come. You missed an option of a 3-4-1-2 but irrespective of formation it's all down to players on the day. 

Like it generally (i.e. for Liverpool, Man City etc...) or for Saints? 

I thought it took some getting used to in the early weeks of the season as it was a big change from the previous manager. Added to watching the games only on TV and I struggled to buy into it but there's no doubt that the manager got the players well versed in it and for a while in the autumn, I thought we looked a decent team. 

You've been posting on these forums as long as me and I know you've always been strong on players make a performance, not tactics but it doesn't really tally for me that we can score goals and get results on the road but find it so hard at McDiarmid. I just think we are past the stage of keeping on and simply hoping for a change of fortune. 

Touched on it in the Killie thread but suspect we are past the stage of moving to a back four this season (having only started with it once) but I think the 3-5-2/3-4-1-2 has been more effective at home and we need to try it more often. 

Saw the benefits of the 5-2-3 in defending a lead against Hibs but we were fortunate to get ahead with it. It's not about ditching it completely but there is a lack of flexibility from the manager IMO and they will probably make us predicable. 

Cheers for the constructive reply.

[blueheaven]

I'd be interested to see the success of the formation over the season as a whole, rather than just in home games. I'm not sure what actual difference there is between home and away this season, given the empty grounds.

But anyway - as I've said in a previous thread, I think the formation has cost us a lot of points this season, and will continue to do so. The central striker is left with too much ground to cover so ends up running all over the pitch instead of getting in front of goal. I think it's very telling that May and Hendry, who started the season as our first choice strikers, have both struggled with the system and lost a lot of form and effectiveness as a result. Not having May and Hendry at their best is only ever going to be detrimental to our results.

We also end up overloaded in the wide areas - I think there was one particular game a few weeks back where we had three players all trying to do the same job on the right wing, while we had nothing happening through the middle. That imbalance is largely redressed when we switch to 3-5-2 and we all saw how much more threatening, effective and direct we looked when we had Melamed and Kane playing through the middle with three central midfielders behind them. I'm really left scratching my head over why that approach was abandoned when it seemed to be bearing fruit (and, for me, it was also a lot better to watch).

I firmly believe that with the players we have we should be significantly higher up the league. The one saving grace is that the table is so tight that it probably wouldn't take much to turn it round - but Davidson just seems incredibly inflexible, which to me is a worry. 

 

 

[SlickDT]

I actually think with the right players the formation could work- the issue is we currently don’t have the players to match the system.

My general issues with the formation just now are that our wing-backs and the two players wider than the striker rarely get into “dangerous” positions. I rated McNamara but thought he often didn’t add much attacking threat from wide. The formation looks a lot better when someone like Rooney commits to get down the line and even trying to make inroads into the box (like he did at Hampden). Teams seem fine with allowing us to play the ball into the deeper wider positions knowing it’s rare Conway or co will get in a position to play a dangerous cross and even if he did your looking at a loan striker in the box with limited aerial presence.

Personally for me I’d prefer to see us go with two upfront and Spoony with a bit of a free role behind depending when at home. Spoony grafts hard and I’d trust him to slot back into a deeper position to cover if one of the wing-backs is caught out further forward and someone needs to come across to cover.

Would also allow Kane an opportunity to link up with someone a bit closer rather than just being a “first line of defence”.

[mainstand]

11 hours ago, Radford 72 said:

Like it generally (i.e. for Liverpool, Man City etc...) or for Saints? 

I thought it took some getting used to in the early weeks of the season as it was a big change from the previous manager. Added to watching the games only on TV and I struggled to buy into it but there's no doubt that the manager got the players well versed in it and for a while in the autumn, I thought we looked a decent team. 

You've been posting on these forums as long as me and I know you've always been strong on players make a performance, not tactics but it doesn't really tally for me that we can score goals and get results on the road but find it so hard at McDiarmid. I just think we are past the stage of keeping on and simply hoping for a change of fortune. 

Touched on it in the Killie thread but suspect we are past the stage of moving to a back four this season (having only started with it once) but I think the 3-5-2/3-4-1-2 has been more effective at home and we need to try it more often. 

Saw the benefits of the 5-2-3 in defending a lead against Hibs but we were fortunate to get ahead with it. It's not about ditching it completely but there is a lack of flexibility from the manager IMO and they will probably make us predicable. 

Cheers for the constructive reply.

Radford cheers the formation can be a very attractive one but to be successful you need your defense to be tight as a 3 and the wing backs to play high allowing the 3 to play as a 3. 

Last week at Hampden was perfect in that both the wingbacks were very successful in getting forward. 

Moving one of the three into a position in front of the midfield and allowing your other 2 to play as a front 2. I think that would allow you to play may guy and Chris with may able to drop in and make a 3 in midfield when your wing backs drop in to a 5.

But as I have said many times irrespective of what shape it will only work if the players are switched on to it. 

[Cagey]

11 minutes ago, mainstand said:

Radford cheers the formation can be a very attractive one but to be successful you need your defense to be tight as a 3 and the wing backs to play high allowing the 3 to play as a 3. 

Last week at Hampden was perfect in that both the wingbacks were very successful in getting forward. 

Moving one of the three into a position in front of the midfield and allowing your other 2 to play as a front 2. I think that would allow you to play may guy and Chris with may able to drop in and make a 3 in midfield when your wing backs drop in to a 5.

But as I have said many times irrespective of what shape it will only work if the players are switched on to it. 

Keep May away from midfield. He will only give away the ball.

[mainstand]

1 hour ago, Cagey said:

Keep May away from midfield. He will only give away the ball.

stop being a grumpy auld git