Biamou still has lots to offer (3 Viewers)

[stupot07]

Wouldn’t matter who it was, the 1 feeds off scraps either way.

Bang on, his 2 chances yesterday, the first was created by himself lressing and intercepting a pass, and the second was a big punt down field.

You've only got to look at the expected goal stats, and we're 4th from bottom, because we don't create enough really good chances.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

 

---

[fatso]

Well that's just it, it's not the fact that we played 1 up front, it's the fact that the 1 was Biamou.

I agree with that!

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Bang on, his 2 chances yesterday, the first was created by himself lressing and intercepting a pass, and the second was a big punt down field.

You've only got to look at the expected goal stats, and we're 4th from bottom, because we don't create enough really good chances.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

MR has spoken before about it being more appropriate on some occasions to play 1 or 2 up front. In my view with the personnel we’ve got we can only really go for the latter. Tuesday and yesterday showed why.

 

[Hobo]

I would agree with all that, but again, the one up top isn’t the problem. Hypothetically if you had a more attack minded left wing back, Hamer in his preferred position alongside say Kelly/Sheaf/James and then another player in the O’Hare mould behind one striker, it is fine. Last year it was largely fine with McCallum and Allen or Shipley. If he was going to build a squad to play only one way, which it appears, he should have looked to recruit better replacements here. The entire set up is wrong and unbelievably negative. The two “attacking players” are terrible in front of goal, so even the odd chances they get, they squander


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree with most of that but we dont just play one way. We have used various formations tbrough out the season. We have often played two up top in games or for a good 30 mins in games.

Two up top just doesnt make us more potent in front of goal - we often actually lose the midfield and create less chances i.e Wycombe.

It is clear we are 3 or 4 quality players short which is no suprise as one of the leagues new boys.

 

[Dickie]

MR has spoken before about it being more appropriate on some occasions to play 1 or 2 up front. In my view with the personnel we’ve got we can only really go for the latter. Tuesday and yesterday showed why.

I still can’t get my head around why Robins went for 1 up front against bottom of the table Wycombe.

 

[shmmeee]

The two up front thing is the biggest myth on this site. We beat this exact team 1-4 last season with one up top. Having two strikers on the pitch means nothing if you can’t get the ball to them or midfielders up to support them. I bet Man City fans are constantly livid with being top of the league and largely playing 0 strikers! Imagine.
There are currently huge issues with how we are playing, the fact we didn’t have two strikers today isn’t one of them, the choice of the one striker, well that’s for another thread.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We played one up with one DM, one box to box and two AMs. We also played further up the pitch getting our wing backs involved regularly in the final third.

Now we don’t have two AMs who are up to scratch so we’ve got to compensate by putting another striker on, especially as our wing backs hold back after twenty minutes.

If we had another O’Hare or a Championship quality Shipley/Allen then we’d be fine with one up, but we don’t.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

I still can’t get my head around why Robins went for 1 up front against bottom of the table Wycombe.

More that he went for the identical team to the garbage on Tuesday

 

[procdoc]

More that he went for the identical team to the garbage on Tuesday

I can only think he was hoping for a reaction from the debacle against Luton. To be honest had we took the chances created in the last two games we would be sat on four points from those two games possibly. This is what happens when persisting with a shite striker

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

I can only think he was hoping for a reaction from the debacle against Luton. To be honest had we took the chances created in the last two games we would be sat on four points from those two games possibly. This is what happens when persisting with a shite striker

We could've had both games put to bed in the first 15-20 minutes, but from those points onward we created hardly anything. You can rinse and repeat that across so many of this season's poor results

 

[GaryMabbuttsLeftKnee]

We played one up with one DM, one box to box and two AMs. We also played further up the pitch getting our wing backs involved regularly in the final third.

Now we don’t have two AMs who are up to scratch so we’ve got to compensate by putting another striker on, especially as our wing backs hold back after twenty minutes.

If we had another O’Hare or a Championship quality Shipley/Allen then we’d be fine with one up, but we don’t.

That argument doesn’t make sense when it’s against a team bottom of the league who we beat with the exact same players last season. I’m not saying we shouldn’t ever go two up top, but everyone who’s saying “can’t believe we didn’t go two up top against Wycombe”. It’s just the lazy go to. Put more players up front = more goals. When instead tactically playing one up top (albeit it was with a player who can score) worked perfectly against that set up last season


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[shmmeee]

That argument doesn’t make sense when it’s against a team bottom of the league who we beat with the exact same players last season. I’m not saying we shouldn’t ever go two up top, but everyone who’s saying “can’t believe we didn’t go two up top against Wycombe”. It’s just the lazy go to. Put more players up front = more goals. When instead tactically playing one up top (albeit it was with a player who can score) worked perfectly against that set up last season


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Again, we played a forward three last season not a forward two. When we played them earlier in the season and won we played Shipley and O’Hare behind Walker. Then brought on Biamou and Baka and left O’Hare on. Last season we played Shipley and Westbrooke behind Godden.

The diamond with one up has one less attack minded player than the box and the box we played yesterday tried to fit Hamer, a defensive minded player, into the Shipley role.

I’m really not sure why this is hard. You’re arguing that we should’ve done the same as last year and I’m explaining why we’re not. I think the phrase “two up front” has triggered you TBH.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

That argument doesn’t make sense when it’s against a team bottom of the league who we beat with the exact same players last season. I’m not saying we shouldn’t ever go two up top, but everyone who’s saying “can’t believe we didn’t go two up top against Wycombe”. It’s just the lazy go to. Put more players up front = more goals. When instead tactically playing one up top (albeit it was with a player who can score) worked perfectly against that set up last season


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The arguments aren’t really ‘more strikers more goals’ though. We’re being sloppy in possession, unable to get either flowing passes or more direct football. The midfield is stacked with defensively minded players leaving it to O’Hare or the poor sod up front to do it themselves. It looks ineffective because that’s what it is. Yesterday I’d have started Shipley and just gone for the L1 selection if our aim was to replicate tactics.

Two up front gives us a better chance of the ball sticking in the opposing third and gives some flexibility for the two central midfielders behind O’Hare. The wing backs might also have more than one person to aim at in the box. Take Barnsley as an example, focus on being drilled in one system rather than being jacks of two trades and masters of none.

 

[GaryMabbuttsLeftKnee]

Again, we played a forward three last season not a forward two. When we played them earlier in the season and won we played Shipley and O’Hare behind Walker. Then brought on Biamou and Baka and left O’Hare on. Last season we played Shipley and Westbrooke behind Godden.

The diamond with one up has one less attack minded player than the box and the box we played yesterday tried to fit Hamer, a defensive minded player, into the Shipley role.

I’m really not sure why this is hard. You’re arguing that we should’ve done the same as last year and I’m explaining why we’re not. I think the phrase “two up front” has triggered you TBH.

“Triggered by the words two up front”, what does that even mean?

You haven’t explained anything. We could have gone Kelly/James & Hamer with Allen/Shipley and O’Hare behind Biamou. You’ve just said we play against better teams so are pushed back. With deeper wing backs and a diamond. None of that explains why we couldn’t have gone back to the box with one up top against Wycombe, a team who weren’t going to do that to us.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[GaryMabbuttsLeftKnee]

Yesterday I’d have started Shipley and just gone for the L1 selection if our aim was to replicate tactics.

This is literally my point


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

This is literally my point


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wires crossed perhaps