I'm led to believe it was 3-5-2 but Tumchev was getting exposed by Zaha so switched to 4-4-2 in the second half.

Note to John Gee however. That's Nigel Pearson, the one you believe only has one way of playing, that has played 4-3-3, 3-5-2 and 4-4-2 within the space of 2 games (albeit with mixed results).

I don't think you can argue that he's not willing to move from 4-4-2 after that!!

Having said all that, I find his team selection crazy today. Kennedy not had a look in for a year, Tunchev back in and a young right back!! I can't help but feel at least one of those players were put in to make a point.

By the sound of it, Kennedy and Moore played well. Do they keep their place fr the next game? Who knows!!

Can't argue with a winning team; continue until proven wrong. It worked today, and by the looks of it the team that played was one that wanted to play for the club.

I'm not sad at all to see Konchesky and Wellens dropped; Konchesky has been a defensive worry for a while and Richie just hasn't turned up for most of the season.

I think King is on borrowed time though; he's in the team for reputation at the moment. Remove his goal-scoring and he is an inneffective midfielder who does nothing to justify his place; instead of rounding him into a more complete player, which removes his main attributes, give him less pressure. Sven tried that and it worked to a point, but nullified the rest of the team.

Realistically, it's King or the team, and I think today proves it should be the team.

I should clarify; allow King free reign to roam as an attacking midfielder off the striker, rather than a more defensive/complete midfielder.

Team spirit sounded good on the radio; think this is the way we must continue.

My friend texted me a couple of times after the game and stated we definitely did not set up 3-5-2 in the first half but rather 5-3-2.

I believe Pantsil has Malaria apparently, and Pelts and Konchesky had knocks, additionally Berner has been released; so I feel the inclusion of Kennedy and Moore was just logical changes.

Gallagher and Wellens being dropped I would suggest related to tactical changes or a point being made. I think he took a punt with Tunchev, it didn't quite work, but it was good to see he saw this at half time and looked to change it (although I would have preferred if we had shifted Abe to sit in front of Mills and Bamba).

Kennedy was apparently great, and according to my mate 'looked like a Premiership left back we'd got on loan'. He wasn't as complimentary about Moore, although he is still young.

If everyone was fit, I would bring in Peltier and possibly Konchesky for the cup game, although, dependent upon formation, perhaps consider Kennedy on the left wing if we opted for a 4-4-2?

Re: King

There were multiple times when King cleared the ball with defensive headers or through tracking his man.

Playing 5-3-2, we don't have the option to play an out and out attacking midfielder, although I appreciate the opinion that if this is the case, King isn't the member of the squad to play box-to-box - although, if we were to continue playing this role in the team, I can't really think of any better option than him at the moment??

KTF, I think you've hit the nail on the head; there isn't a better option at the moment. Of all the players who haven't turned up, King was the one worth risking; goals are priceless, especially when we only have one striker in Nugent who regularly scores. I imagine if we had two strikers firing then King may be more expendable. Hopefully, this result, the formation and the team selected should give the squad the kick up the jacksie it badly needed. Ironically, considering how many we have, I think we need a solid, box to box midfielder (Ben Kay at Huddersfield?), 2 wingers and a striker.

Glad to hear Kennedy played well; I suspect most of us wouldn't even have considered him for the squad, let alone start. He had been playing excellently for Peterborough, so i guess he was reasonably fit to go straight in. I'd be tempted to start him again against Forest; actually, I'm not sure I would change the team.

Have'nt Konchesky & Peltier got slight knocks (not dropped).Kennedy & Moore had good games.

As for the future i would like to see Kennedy play left midfield to compliment Konchesky as they both are good defending & attacking,with Kennedy taking corners & putting some decent crosses in.

I also thought King had a decent game today.
Along with Kasper who again made some good saves.

I appreciate Wellens and King and their contributions to our squad. However, to be brutally honest, despite our influx of midfielders in the summer, we still have no player to directly challenge either King or Wellens for their roles as goalscoring midfielder and creative playmaker respectively.

Recently however, neither have really performed in these roles so, without the option of a straight change-up we have decided to change the formation in recent games.

Moving forward, maybe we don't need the specific role we expect from King if we are going to look to bring in wingers (and maybe, unfairly, we expect him to play this role even when he has obviously has been asked to play a different position by the manager), but a 4-4-2 does needs an inform creative midfielder. And despite a punt at Johnson, Sven didn't ever really consider bringing in cover for Wellens.

As I said on another thread, I'd like us to put a bid in for Butterfield.

Good shout on Butterfield; he tore us apart at Oakwell. Shouldn't cost too much either. As for wingers, Cameron Stewart would be excellent, and young Albert Adomah(?) at Bristol City would be worth a punt, though he is a bit like a reverse Lloyd Dyer. Bristol City aren't known for selling to us, however.

Oh, and Nick Powell at Crewe; in a few years he will be something special.

Extraordinary team, very welcome result.
How did Tunchev do? And was Bamba playing in any more of a midfield role, as some have urged?

I cannot imagine that Konch was dropped for any other reason than injury/illness.

With how open the top half of the division is, we have been unfortunate for this season to coincide with when we are splashing the cash. I think the majority of players from top half teams, who are playing on a regular basis, would only really consider a move to the top 4 or 5 teams of this division or above.

I think realistically for me, Butterfield, Ward, Maynard, Sharp....and Yeates at Watford would be my preference for a winger, he's setting up a goal every three games, mainly from balls in to the box. Other than that, we may get a player or two from Hull if they want to follow Pearson, but I can't see it.

There is, of course, the other option; loans from the Premier League. Pearson has an outstanding record on this respect, and I think it may be our most realistic way to bring in new recruits. Kebe's contract is up in 6 months isn't it?

It sounded like a 5-3-2 on the radio, which seemed to confuse both us and Crystal Palace. Fortunately, we came out on top in a mistake-ridden first half.

It also sounded like Kennedy played well (kept their winger in check), Schlupp was lively, Schmeichel made some decent saves and Bamba had a strong game. (I take that from the fact that Alan Young wasn't whining about him today, which indiciates to those who like him that he was fantastic.)

Incidentally, regarding what to read into the team selection, I deduce the following:

- Peltier and Konchesky are both tired and Pearson thought they needed a rest. (Konchesky may not get his place back!)

- Either Pantsil does indeed have malaria or he's on his way. Ball is almost certainly on his way. (Good - his legs have gone.)

- Schlupp's effort was noticed enough to give him a start ahead of Beckford. I expect the same thing to happen for the next match.

- Wellens was dropped. Craig Shakespeare suggested as much pre-match. Quite why he wasn't on the bench is another matter. So were Gallagher and Dyer, although they didn't really fit into the formation.

So I don't think there's too much to read into it. The gamble was in the formation and we seem to have got away with it.

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.