Personally, I'd have Ricketts and/or Ream involved somewhere in the back 4. That won't happen, though, and I'm pretty sure the back 4 will be as you state.

Like the look of your team. The only thing I would say is that, after Leeds, I don't think Mavies or Eagles deserved to be dropped (and nor will they be).

I'd start Eagles on the right, Petrov on the left, and have Mavies in behind - let's see if he's more effective in what is, for me, his best position.

I think we'll play 4-4-2, though. The team is likely to be the same as against Leeds, with the only possible change being Sordell for Afobe. For all of its imbalances and imperfections, I think we'll start with the same 11, though, unfortunately.

I was thinking about this earlier.

I'd play 4321:

Bogdan
Ricketts
Knight
Ream
Warnock

Andrews
Spearing
Mavies

Eagles
Sordell

N'Gog

Currently our 'wide players', Mavies and Eagles, tuck inside anyway. So we might as well start then there. It's narrow, but it's always narrow.

I think Sordell and N'Gog offer some movement, pace and decisiveness. Something which we don't have with KD up too. Eagles and Mavies also offer a threat through the middle.

Like you said though, it's academic because Coyle will play a 442 with KD and Sordell (hopefully) up top.

Hey Dutty. I don't think Eagles on the right works as he is continually cutting into the middle and that exposes Mears at RB to no cover at all.

If the team are going to defend as a collective unit. He needs to play CYL who is a natural winger and will give Mears the cover he needs.

If Eagles and Mavies have to play then Andrews has to be dropped in place and OC goes with a 4-1-4-1.
-----------------Bogdan
Mears-----Mills-----Knight----Warnock
-----------------Spearing
Lee----Eagles----Mavies----Petrov
------------------SKD

There is a school of thought in coaching, and I have some sympathy with it, that all these 4s and 3s and 5s and 2s don't really make any difference once the players are out on the pitch - they all play according to where their instincts take them. If you want the team to play 4-4-2, you pick players who wil naturally behave that way. Hence Mavies is not a wide player even if it says that on the team sheet. Players who like to play wide wil drift out wide, players who like to sneak in behind the target man will hang around in the "hole", players who like to scrap in midfield will stay in that area. But wherever you happen to be at any given time, there are only three positional rules:

- if one of your team mates has got the ball, get in space and give him an option
- if one of their players has got the ball and he's near you, tackle him
- if their team has got the ball and the player in possession is not near you, mark someone and get goal side-ball side of him.

Thus JAH: some people would describe your first suggestion as 4-5-1 (you did), others would say it is the continental "christmas tree" 4-2-3-1, in fact there is no difference they are both the same - any team with five midfielders should make sure a couple of them have defensive instincts.

Same with 4-3-3: it's a team that has five midfielders of whom two like to attack on the wings.

JAH's second suggestion is a slightly more attacking variant of 4-5-1 in that four of the five midfielders prefer to get forward.

the trouble is we played 4-5-1 with skd on his own up front at hull and lost 3-1. we can go any formation you like tomorrow it wont make any difference as our coaching set up is useless.we probably will win tomorrow though as our players will be too good for them it wont be from any tactical masterclass from coyle and the gang though.

You know what. I've got to the stage where frankly I don't really care what formation gets played just so long as the players play well for the WHOLE match instead of their usual 2 15-20 minute spells and the defence don't make their usual mess up.

I don't care what formation we play as long as we score more goals than the opposition.

I would like us to keep a clean sheet but that might be asking too much.

We will see.

See what you're saying, JAH. It's a tough one. Lee and Petrov are our only out and out wingers (except Wylde, who isn't anywhere near the team).

I think Mears should be up to the job of covering that side against weaker teams. That's why I'd still play Eagles there. Your second team would probably only work if Mavies was deeper and Eagles in behind - but we all know about Mavies' shortcomings in central midfield.

Lee has been really poor so far, but he needs game time to improve. Undoubtedly the team would be better balanced with him and Petrov on the wings. If we're playing with two deeper central midfielders (most likely candidates are Andrews and Spearing), then that leaves a toss up between Eagles and Mavies for the advanced role. Both are good players at this level and probably wouldn't be too impressed with being out of the side. For the sake of balancing the team, it might be worth it, though. It's the old fitting the team around the players or players around the team conundrum.

You simpletons know nothing about football.

1 point in 2 home games in the Championship may appear negative, but there are points issued at the end of the season for 'knowing football' - So relax, sit back & stick your 451 up your behind..

We are on a roll...... RnFnR!!!!!!

And I type stuff for a reaction!!!!!

That's what I call a confession.

Well done CEF, it's the best way on 606....

I remember when ALL teams played 2 3 5

And the football was better too

We should be beating teams like Millwall whether we play 4-4-2, 4-5-1, 10-0-0, 1-2-7 ...

But we probably won't ...

We will