Our formation today?

I feel te need to point out that 5-3-2 is the same formation as 3-5-2. The defenders are wing backs when we attack and full backs when we defend.

It's the same as 4-3-3 or 4-5-1. Just depends whether you are wing more offensive or defensive as to which you call it!

Anyway, whatever the formation, I agree that this shows that Pearson is true to his woes saying people will get a chance. Those that won't are the ones that show the wrong attitude, aren't good enough, or worst of all, aren't good enough and have a bad attitude!!!

Given the fact that both Konchesky and Wellens don't even train 48 hours after a match, maybe it's not too much of a surprise that they didn't play another match so soon after.

If you think about the left-back position though, Dunge might be right and Konchesky may never have been 1st choice for Nige. After all, Tom Kennedy is a player that he signed and this was the first opportunity he had to pick him and he duly did so. Maybe playing Kennedy ahead of Konchesky on the wing might be an option although I'd be interested to know how Kennedy did going forward because I was under the impression that Tom got rave reviews and the MOTM award because of his defensive performance.

Unfortunately for Moore, I believe he is cup-tied next week and so will have to make way for Peltier. Worryingly, given he is our only centre back cover right now, Tunchev seemed to struggle but we know he has he quality there.

As for the result itself, it's very good to get three points where not many teams have done so and it could be exactly what we need - a scrappy, back's against the wall win at a tough ground to go to that will hopefully get this team's confidence back up and that can get us onto a winning run. The same thing happened this time last year when we went up to Hull and won in similar fashion and then went on a long winning run and if we are to get into the play-offs, then I think we need something similar to get ourselves right back into contention.

Obviously just my opinion, but I don't think 5-3-2 and 3-5-2 are the same.

The former IMO, is 5 defensive players, with the two full backs pushing on as a secondary part of their game.

In a 3-5-2 the two wing backs start in a higher position on the pitch, with more attacking responsibility. In the centre, one of the midfielders usual adopts a much more defensive role.

Keepthefaith: who cares mate? We won! Pearson found the right horse for the right course and we won the sort of game we've lost recently.

The set up is 5-3-2 when we don’t have the ball and 3-5-2 when we do. However has with all formations or set-ups they should be fluid. You don’t plat in straight lines the system must be fluid. Which means hard work, lots of movement and always trying to provide an option for the player on the ball. Today’s first half set-up means lots of movement and hard work especially for the wing backs and the two advanced midfields. But I like the system and would like to see us continue with it and see where we get to.

Pearson is clearly in a tinkering mood. Whilst he's trying new things, maybe we should go all out attack and play 2-2-6 in the next match. When we go a goal up, we can easily drop 4 players in to defence to go 6-2-2 and hold out for the draw.

If we go a goal behind, we should take Kasper off and replace him with Beckford so we can add a bit if weight to the attack.

Fluid football at it's best.

"Keepthefaith: who cares mate? We won!"

Okay, fair enough let's move on. Although we may end up having threads as vacant as Coventry's if we just clarify the results of our games and wish to filter what people should and shouldn't discuss!

For what it's worth, I think our formation is a huge part of our game and, as such, these boards, but to be fair, perhaps I should create a new thread if I wish to discuss it in more details.

In any case, it's far too late for me to be skulking about on here anyway!

Maybe I was being a bit flippant but I just feel that this one of those games where the result means so much more than how it was achieved. Will be very intetesting to see how we line up at Forest. We all called Sven for not having a plan B, well today I think we saw plans B,C,D and then E when down to 10 men!

Tbf Dunge, I made this thread with the absolute intention of discussing the formation in relation to the result; it undoubtably paid dividends taking the risk. I believe these things are just as important as a result, although as football is a hypocrit's game I don't believe that when we've lost! I wonder what we will play on sat? Your guess is as good as Cotterill's!

Sad to see Butterfield out for the season; he would have been an excellent signing.

Sorry, KTF.