covcity4life
Well-Known Member
I'll take that as an admission of defeat
You forgot to quote me this timeI'll take that as an admission of defeat
You forgot to address the pointYou forgot to quote me this time
Based on we played an average side at best who hardly score goals give how we have cut open better teams this season and scored we set up far too negative against the wrong team therefore my opinion is we dropped points
Your logic is based on the fact we automatically would've won if we used the 3-5-2/ 3-5-1-1.
I personally don't think we would've benefitted by utilising our usual set-up because of how Birmingham like to play - capitalising on gaps down the flanks by getting the ball to their wingers (primarily Bela) and whipping the ball into the box for Jutkiewicz to get on the end of. (Something they attempted regularly on Friday night). What was that stat the panel mentioned? Jutkiewicz has scored more headed goals than any other player in the Championship since 2017 or something along the same lines?
Using a system that is notorious for leaving you exposed on the wings, coupled with the number of individual errors that we tend to make during games doesn't suggest to me that Robins made the wrong call. As whilst we probably would have provided more of a threat in attack using our usual formation, there's a risk that it would have left us further exposed.
We lost the aerial battle against Juke regardless.
We lost the aerial battle against Juke regardless.
Regardless of what formation we would've played it was an inevitability that they would have attempted to get balls into the box and as a consequence conceded headed chances - it's pretty much their only go-to tactic. We lost the ariel battle because Jutkiewicz is probably the best in the league at what he does and our defenders just didn't know how to cope with that.
How do you think we would've fared if more balls were sent into the box due to our flanks being left further exposed?
We’d have had an extra central defender competing with him for a start. We’d have bagged at least one or two ourselves going on their own defensive capabilities
Ah yes of course, because the extra central defender has worked miracles defensively so far this season....
We lost the aerial battle against Juke regardless.
As Clint says it’s pointless having an adult discussion with you
I guess the real adults are calling for the manager to be sacked in a thinly veiled manner
Im not saying he should be
We didn't tighten up though - they were just much less clinical than other teams.
On the flip side against other teams we were unsuccessful because we weren't clinical with some very good chances. Against Brum we didn't even have the chances to miss.
the last time the opposition had that few shots was against Barnsley in the other 0-0 draw.
Not realistic to expect the opposition not to have a decent chance or two in this league.
Not explicitly but everything you write on the subjects says it’s what you think we should do. You also have this habit of telling people to hide in rectums...
You know it’s funny being called immature when the dialogue was about keeping things tight despite Juke still bidding things in the air. If the answer is that he would have done so regardless of our formation then logically we should have shown more attacking ambition. Look at the goals we conceded in those 3 games. Just as you say the formation didn’t create all the goals we scored I argue it wasn’t at fault for the ones we conceded. Particularly as 4 were from set pieces or freak penalties
Biamou should have had at least one against Watford before they opened the scoring.
If we are gonna play walker and Godden and we need a CAM maybe he shades Shipley to start
But how many chances did we create ourselves?
It seems against teams that were less likely to score at the time (Barnsley and Brum) MR has looked at that and gone "we could be solid and get a clean sheet". IMO it's better to say "they're less likely to score so we might be able to afford giving them a few chances in favour of creating our own".
On the other hand he's approached games against quite clinical teams with more openness, affording them chances, when we don't have that same conversion rate for our chances. It's completely the wrong way round.
It probably would against a lone striker. Was it worth taking out all of our offensive capability and misplaying Hamer? The central 3 were starting to get some chemistry as were the front 2 and we actually had Dabo available at RWB. In my view we were too cautious in our approach to a side that was guilty of the same thing.
We are always going to concede chances every game - it’s proved We conceded less on Friday so give up on that one. He will always get a couple of chances - the first one even looked like it could have been offside
Why would it? We've played and lost against teams who use a lone striker or a variation of such. Blackburn, Forest and Brentford. Jutkiewicz is difficult to play against for even the most experienced Championship defender and one of the best at what he does in the division. So, throwing as many CBs as possible into the back line in order to mitigate the ariel threat from Jutkiewicz still may not have delivered a miracle solution. As at the end of the day individual errors still exist in the usual formation (in my opinion the chances of mistakes are actually enhanced) and both the 3-5-2/ 3-5-1-1 leave us more exposed on the wings - especially against teams who predominantly utilise wingers to service their lone striker.
Playing Hamer in what at times almost looked like RM was the wrong move. There's no getting away from that.
That might be the case but we were still conceding two goals per game and silly mistakes were still being made. Claiming they were starting to get some chemistry is nothing more than sugar coating the situation.
We were too cautious I'll also accept that, but that wasn't all that unsurprising given we've conceded the most goals in the league.
I have t even said play 4-5-2 but given we managed a point more than our last two games it’s an opinion I suppose....
We lose against Forest because Max lost us the game at the very end. Whether a flat 4 or 3 with wing backs you still have Dabo defending against the wingers and he has never been strong at that. We had two weeks to work on issues in training and in my view we have spent it on the wrong thing. It is tricky with injuries right now and I get that, but we went over cautious in the wrong game I think.
It took two goals for us to lose. The first goal, whilst I thought looked offside, was down to terrible defending yet again.
Really? I thought Dabo's defending came on leaps and bounds last season so I have to say I strongly disagree on that.
What was the right thing to work on though in your view? Personally, I thought the two things to work on was cut out the mistakes (which I think we're probably going to struggle to do) and stop conceding the number of goals we have done.
One of those came off, yes admittedly at the expense of no goals scored, but expecting Robins to come up with a vaccine for our multiple ills in just two weeks isn't realistic. As Robins said, we can at least use this as a building block.
I thought we had made progress attacking wise by finding the net more often and generally creating more and better chances. Looking at the high number conceded from set pieces I’d have invested time on those and have worked on forcing players to work with the ball under pressure. As you will find me saying in the Forest thread when it happened that first goal was caused by Rose not coming forward with the other defenders playing everyone inside. No you don’t fix everything in a fortnight but it takes even more time to learn a quite different system.
Dabo’s strength is still his attacking game as he showed glimpses of when he was able to go forward.
Taking Rose out of the team was a must. I don't like to use this term often with our players but he's been terrible all season and has cost us goals. Whether thats down to fatigue after his lengthy lay-off, or the Championship being too much too soon, I'm not too sure. But, I don't consider it a coincidence that we've kept a clean sheet when he's not played.
You've just highlighted a fundamental flaw with the 3-5-1-1/3-5-2 which I keep on pressing though. You have to have CBs that are good at this level of distributing the ball under pressure, otherwise the chances of errors are raised. At least in the formation we played on Friday our CBs weren't given license to see and use more of the ball. Something that is an accident waiting to happen as I've previously stated. We can't use the 3-5-1-1/3-5-2 every game and Robins should have worked on two formations during pre-season. Most managers do this so I'm baffled as to why Robins seems to miss this memo and has to wait to adopt a new system until injuries force his hand. (Reference to League 2 campaign and last season).
He's certainly better as a WB but his defensive game is fine and his athleticism/physicality are able get him out of trouble more than the average RB. He won't look out of place in a flat back four.
I kind of get where all of you are coming from. I personally have my own ideas on what our best formation is and players I'd want in it. But really what I want is the manager to make his mind up.
Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk
I think part of the problem is sometimes he's having his mind made up for him due to injuries and to a lesser extent suspensions.
That's why he played one up front Friday.
Of course that isn't an excuse for some of his bizarre decisions, playing Hamer out wide for starters.
He had biamou and bakayoko both of whom he’s offered extended contracts on the bench
and it's clear to me that he won't start them, I think Max burnt his bridges after Forest.
Would the money have been better spent on bringing someone in?
Possibly, but that would still have consisted of a punt because we definitely can't afford a proven Championship quality striker.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?