After watching today we've got to ditch the 5-3-2 formation that Flynny seems to favour. 4-4-2 worked much better as a system second half.
I'd go with ;

Day

Pipe
Franks
Demetriou
Butler

Sheehan
Crofts
Bakinson
Marsh-Brown

Matt
Amond

I haven't seen any friendlies but I would hazard a guess at something like the below and to be fair Flynn usually favours 4 at the back

Day

Forbes
Franks
Demetriou
Butler

Dolan
Crofts
Cooper

Marsh-Brown
Wilmott

Amond

Subs: GK, Pipe, O'Brien, Bennett, Sheehan. Matt, Semenyo

SULLY34 wrote:After watching today we've got to ditch the 5-3-2 formation that Flynny seems to favour. 4-4-2 worked much better as a system second half.
I'd go with ;

Day

Pipe
Franks
Demetriou
Butler

Sheehan
Crofts
Bakinson
Marsh-Brown

Matt
Amond

I am not sure , I feel safer with a 5-3-2 and think Butler operates better in this system than a flat back 4.

Alan G Bryant wrote:

SULLY34 wrote:After watching today we've got to ditch the 5-3-2 formation that Flynny seems to favour. 4-4-2 worked much better as a system second half.
I'd go with ;

Day

Pipe
Franks
Demetriou
Butler

Sheehan
Crofts
Bakinson
Marsh-Brown

Matt
Amond

I am not sure , I feel safer with a 5-3-2 and think Butler operates better in this system than a flat back 4.

We had our work cut out playing 5-3-2 first half. Butler was overworked and often had 2 players to mark. I'd prefer 4-4-2 but we'll have to wait and see!

Yes, fair point, I am not sure if it is a good thing or bad thing switching systems at half time. Is Mike trying different systems as he does not know his preferred system or is it something we are planning this season depending on how we are getting on?

I think we will start with 4 at the back next Saturday, just not convinced it suits us.

Alan G Bryant wrote:Yes, fair point, I am not sure if it is a good thing or bad thing switching systems at half time. Is Mike trying different systems as he does not know his preferred system or is it something we are planning this season depending on how we are getting on?

I think we will start with 4 at the back next Saturday, just not convinced it suits us.

I didn't think Pipe would get much game time this season but after today he's still first choice RB.

SULLY34 wrote:

Alan G Bryant wrote:Yes, fair point, I am not sure if it is a good thing or bad thing switching systems at half time. Is Mike trying different systems as he does not know his preferred system or is it something we are planning this season depending on how we are getting on?

I think we will start with 4 at the back next Saturday, just not convinced it suits us.

I didn't think Pipe would get much game time this season but after today he's still first choice RB.

I thought he was immense today , and clearly the character that will up his game when he feels he needs too. I like marsh brown on the ball and Sheehan looks a better player than the end of last season.

Alan G Bryant wrote:

SULLY34 wrote:

Alan G Bryant wrote:Yes, fair point, I am not sure if it is a good thing or bad thing switching systems at half time. Is Mike trying different systems as he does not know his preferred system or is it something we are planning this season depending on how we are getting on?

I think we will start with 4 at the back next Saturday, just not convinced it suits us.

I didn't think Pipe would get much game time this season but after today he's still first choice RB.

I thought he was immense today , and clearly the character that will up his game when he feels he needs too. I like marsh brown on the ball and Sheehan looks a better player than the end of last season.

Both Sheehan and KMB had great 45mins.

Good to hear Marsh-Brown played well, I'd heard he was a flair player and he didn't have much confidence last week.

3-2-3-2 looks like our favoured system, (call it 3-5-2 or 5-3-2 if you like, it has 3CBs, 2 WBs and 2 DMs and two up front with the other 3 across the midfield), but sometimes different systems suit different opponents' strengths and weaknesses - what was happening better with 4-4-2 than 3-5-2?

As simple as matching up their wide men with our full-backs to stop them exploiting the space behind the wing backs, or did they only play one up front so we didn't need all three CBs?

SJG99 wrote:Good to hear Marsh-Brown played well, I'd heard he was a flair player and he didn't have much confidence last week.

3-2-3-2 looks like our favoured system, (call it 3-5-2 or 5-3-2 if you like, it has 3CBs, 2 WBs and 2 DMs and two up front with the other 3 across the midfield), but sometimes different systems suit different opponents' strengths and weaknesses - what was happening better with 4-4-2 than 3-5-2?

As simple as matching up their wide men with our full-backs to stop them exploiting the space behind the wing backs, or did they only play one up front so we didn't need all three CBs?

They played 2 front men but reverting back to 4-4-2 enabled us to attack down the flanks without leaving gaps. We can't go through the middle with high balls to strikers weak in the air. We've got to allow Pipe, Butler, Sheehan and KMB to attack down the flanks and second half we did.

SJG99 wrote:Good to hear Marsh-Brown played well, I'd heard he was a flair player and he didn't have much confidence last week.

3-2-3-2 looks like our favoured system, (call it 3-5-2 or 5-3-2 if you like, it has 3CBs, 2 WBs and 2 DMs and two up front with the other 3 across the midfield), but sometimes different systems suit different opponents' strengths and weaknesses - what was happening better with 4-4-2 than 3-5-2?

As simple as matching up their wide men with our full-backs to stop them exploiting the space behind the wing backs, or did they only play one up front so we didn't need all three CBs?

Playing with 3 CBs and 2 DMs like we often do is way too defensive.

Mansfield playing 352 so would expect us to mirror them in the first game