How often then?
Mostly I remember a couple of seasons ago, where we were known as the team nicking points from late goals.
Does Robins lack ambition ? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Deity
- Start date
How often then?
Mostly I remember a couple of seasons ago, where we were known as the team nicking points from late goals.
slowpoke
Well-Known Member
Think the type of players Robins has signed is based on us continuing with our tried and trusted wing back and back three system, might change during a game due to circumstances at the time.
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
It's really strange, I can't get my head around it.
It will probably be Fadz's last season so who knows how that might change things going forward but he's a huge player for us and 5 at the back suits him down yo the ground.
Can't believe some people have a problem with the 5 CB's we have on the books now. One is a loan, and the other is heading towards an age where it will be difficult to maintain playing at Championship level. Another is able to cover at WB and CDM. Surely that's not too many CB's?
BlueSkiesForever
Well-Known Member
I don’t want to start another full blown argument like I had the other day with another member so I just want to say I’m not having a go at all, I don’t disagree with you that we’ve progressed under 5 at the back but I wonder with the new signings we’ve got whether 4 at the back could suit us more. I always feel we’re lacking that one extra midfielder to make a run into the box or for someone to pass to when starting an attack and maybe 4 at the back would help that.
I admit that Wright looked bad the other day (albeit neither of the strikers had much service) but as others have mentioned on here, I think there could be a case to make him play out wide and if we went 4 at the back he could then play as a winger. He seems to lose concentration in the box and I just wonder if giving him the time and space to play out wide, using his pace, running with the ball, maybe he could perform better? Sakamoto likewise would make a great winger and then we’ve got Simms/Godden up front, O’Hare in CAM and Sheaf/Eccles/Lati/Allen etc in midfield. Personally it sounds interesting but I know others disagree.
I’m not saying 4 at the back is definitely the way forward, and I agree that 5 at the back works alright for us but I think we should just keep our options open.
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
It’s not an argument. It was a shitshow moment from players that had done the full 90.
letsallsingtogether
Well-Known Member
Stop it you are making them look even more stupid.
The level of stupidity on this thread is amazing. If we were getting spanked every week I’d be behind a formation change but we are not losing games. The game we were utterly diabolical in against Cardiff we still only lost by one goal. There is nothing wrong with our formation.
As for the 5 first team centre halves, we play three so 5 decent options is only a good thing. The notion that Kitching was signed instead of a midfielder is ridiculous. We clearly wanted one hence our late move for John Swift.
Some of you really need to start educating yourselves on the nuances of professional football. Nothing is as black and white as it seems on the surface. The amount of planning that goes into every game from a tactical perspective is incredibly detailed.
Robins and his coaches don’t panic if we don’t play well or if we lose a game, they aren’t complete bedwetters like some of you on here. They planned the recruitment on maintaining three at the back with wingbacks.
The profile of player we signed needed to fit into our system. That takes some players a bit longer to adjust. For example I don’t think Wright and Simms have played in this formation on a regular basis. Ayari probably hasn’t either.
They will be putting the work in on the training ground, fine tuning the new players into the system we play. They will be analysing individual statistics after every game to see where individual players need to improve.
They will analyse team statistics to see what tweaks need to be made in the next game. They will do all this whilst analysing the opposition.
How the opposition sets up impacts team selection, pinpointing their dangermen, how deep or how high we should defend, there is so much that goes into it.
So in short, we should definitely not change formation as it stands
As for the 5 first team centre halves, we play three so 5 decent options is only a good thing. The notion that Kitching was signed instead of a midfielder is ridiculous. We clearly wanted one hence our late move for John Swift.
Some of you really need to start educating yourselves on the nuances of professional football. Nothing is as black and white as it seems on the surface. The amount of planning that goes into every game from a tactical perspective is incredibly detailed.
Robins and his coaches don’t panic if we don’t play well or if we lose a game, they aren’t complete bedwetters like some of you on here. They planned the recruitment on maintaining three at the back with wingbacks.
The profile of player we signed needed to fit into our system. That takes some players a bit longer to adjust. For example I don’t think Wright and Simms have played in this formation on a regular basis. Ayari probably hasn’t either.
They will be putting the work in on the training ground, fine tuning the new players into the system we play. They will be analysing individual statistics after every game to see where individual players need to improve.
They will analyse team statistics to see what tweaks need to be made in the next game. They will do all this whilst analysing the opposition.
How the opposition sets up impacts team selection, pinpointing their dangermen, how deep or how high we should defend, there is so much that goes into it.
So in short, we should definitely not change formation as it stands
BlueSkiesForever
Well-Known Member
I am one of those that would like to see 4 at the back but I think you make a great point about our management/coaching of our play style. We’re currently set up to play 5 at the back and I think it wouldn’t be a good thing to switch to 4 at the back mid-way through a season, as you say it takes a lot of practice to get the players used to a particular way of playing and to change it would take a lot of time and effort, something which I think would be better spent honing Wright and Simms ability and awareness of the game.
I’m still a firm believer of 4 at the back and I think it’s the better of the two in general but Robins is clearly more comfortable with 5 so we should stick with it for the time being. I only bring it up as I would just love to see it with the players we have, I know it’s probably not wise to do it but just to see it in a non-competitive way, it’d be so interesting to see the difference, good or bad. Something like a pre-season friendly would just be something fun, something that doesn’t really matter. It’s pure speculation and enjoyment rather than a serious idea that I expect Robins to implement.
I suppose probably the main driver behind any conversation about 4 vs 5 with regards to Cov is the lack of goals we score. I think if you set up with more defensive players you’re probably likely to concede less but also less likely to score, which is literally what we’ve seen for most of the season. I’m not really arsed at this stage though, I’d much rather our midfield try more dribbles and shots and our strikers link up better rather than worry about 4 vs 5.
Last edited:
Earlsdon_Skyblue1
Well-Known Member
Yeah my comments are largely attributed to the back 5 rather than anything else to be fair. It's a big peeve of mine. For football in general I just don't like it. I can't recall the last time Robins changed that.
long way home
Well-Known Member
He will learn a lot more about the new signings with time which will help him going forward. Lati yesterday has proved he can switch up to mid, Saka proved he could switch and play multiple positions and Kitching looked at ease yesterday against a good side. Now he knew what he was signing but he is now seeing the level and capabilities of each. More work needs to go into all of them and i still think he is working out certain things. But 11 games in, im happy with what i see and what he is saying.
Robins knows he needs a few more quality bodies in and they will be players that can make a difference at the top end of the pitch. But all is steps to building a squad full of our players with the aim of improving on last season.
Robins knows he needs a few more quality bodies in and they will be players that can make a difference at the top end of the pitch. But all is steps to building a squad full of our players with the aim of improving on last season.
BrisbaneBronco
Well-Known Member
With almost a quarter of the season gone, we have lost just 2 games without being able to field a full strength team. We are more likely to reach the play offs than not imo.
Cov kid 55
Well-Known Member
I’ve only seen him in that friendly at Exeter, so you have more knowledge of him than me. It was, however, quite a competitive friendly, and it was Exeter not Forest Green Rovers that I was mentioning.
Legia Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
For those that want 5 at the back - are you happy to do without Fadz in the team right now, because that would be the logical outcome? This might well be his final year with us, but at the moment we still need his leadership at the back. I supect our defence would leak far more goals playing a back 4. A back 4 also ordinarily means having to play more defensive minded full backs, rather than the more advanced wing backs we have been signing, so doing so would automatically hamper the attacking instincts of Van Ewijk, Dasilva and Sakamoto. The only time I see us playing a back 4 is when we need to throw caution to the wind near the end of a game we are losing, as MR did a couple of times last season.
I’m happy with 5 at the back but would like to see more in game flexibility.
on Saturday Norwich had stopped trying to attack and were defending deep. We didn’t need 3 centre half’s and could easily have pushed one further forward to attack the various crosses we were putting in, after all Thomas and Kitching have a good scoring record for their position.
What ever the merits of Godden, Simms, and Wright attacking crosses from teams defending deep isn’t one of them !
on Saturday Norwich had stopped trying to attack and were defending deep. We didn’t need 3 centre half’s and could easily have pushed one further forward to attack the various crosses we were putting in, after all Thomas and Kitching have a good scoring record for their position.
What ever the merits of Godden, Simms, and Wright attacking crosses from teams defending deep isn’t one of them !
Johhny Blue
Well-Known Member
You must be a maths wizard at school
Let me know when your resits are and I’ll help you .
skybluecam
Well-Known Member
I think you're looking at it too simplistically.
We saw all of the wide centre backs (Kitching/Binks/Thomas) step into midfield and beyond at times on Saturday. It's obvious they've been signed because of their ability on the ball as well as defensively. Late on they pushed up and wide, and the wing backs were playing as wingers.
That's how we were playing in possession - looks pretty attacking to me...
SBAndy
Well-Known Member
How many bastard times. Centre backs so far more than just mark players.