fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Haha, yes I've mentioned it once or twice
Haha, yes I've mentioned it once or twiceYou love the old “unconfirmed” transfer fee don’t you
With just one extra chance taken in each home game we would be in 6th and 6 points behind LutonI think we ARE close though.
If we had one single striker who was taking half the chances we have been creating we'd have won a lot more games and be very close to the top 6, if not in it.
I think we are close to being a good side. The failure to take excellent chances has cost us dearly.
Just 31 goals scored in 30 games tells you everything you need to know.
Results disagree with Robins.
As does the lame attempt at getting back into the game at the weekend.
Never thought of it that way.Do the results disagree? Hasn't Chaplin started 10 of our 11 wins? We hit form when he joined so I'd be surprised if the results were better without him.
Do the results disagree? Hasn't Chaplin started 10 of our 11 wins? We hit form when he joined so I'd be surprised if the results were better without him.
I think that Chaplin needs to be dropped for a game but based on what others have just said about results had a quick look at form with and without him...
8 games not started (first 6 when not signed and then Pompy ineligible and he didn't start against Luton, effectively only dropped once!)
22 games has started
We've picked up 5 points out of 24 without him (21%) and 34 points out of 66 with him starting (52%)
Quite interesting how much of a difference there is...
Agree. Should be two.Here are some stats as well (obviously might not be 100% accurate) . Have a look at the formations played for each game.
This is what I mean by Robins trying to shoehorn things in at detriment to the team through stubborness. It would be interesting to see how many of those Chaplin was closer up front to another player (and who) and the system played.
It certainly looks that playing a lone striker doesn't work.
View attachment 11404
Here are some stats as well (obviously might not be 100% accurate) . Have a look at the formations played for each game.
This is what I mean by Robins trying to shoehorn things in at detriment to the team through stubborness. It would be interesting to see how many of those Chaplin was closer up front to another player (and who) and the system played.
It certainly looks that playing a lone striker doesn't work.
View attachment 11404
The truth is there's very little difference between the 4-4-2, 4-2-3-1 and the 4-4-1-1. Attacking formations can be redundant anyway as players naturally pick up certain positions. For example, when Bright played on the left against Wimbledon, he spent a lot of time playing centrally. Do we really think Thomas plays any different in a 4-2-3-1 to a 4-4-2? The only difference I see is Chaplin noticeably starts deeper in the 4-2-3-1 but he tends to drop deep in the 4-4-2 anyway.
Maybe I'm not tactically nuanced enough to notice the differences.
The difference usually is the strikers and how one is pretty much a central midfielder.
If Thomas gets the ball on the right and runs down the wing, we have 1 in the box against their defence.
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?