Liquid Gold
Well-Known Member
If we get 3 points on Saturday then things will calm down for a while but there has to be concern because we were absolutely awful last night.
The system we have played (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Nick
- Start date
Winny the Bish
Well-Known Member
100% this ends with one of them demanding to leave and it's either going to be JCH or Ponti
Grendel
Well-Known Member
3 at the back is always a recipe for disaster. Biamou as a lone striker in that formation might work as the opposition will be pissing themselves laughing at the thought he can deliver he may get a chance.
Then again as he spends the whole 90 minutes trying to hide behind a defender probably not.
cloughie
Well-Known Member
yes everything was fed to Jones and McNulty never had a sniff, formation forced due to injury and he gets 28 goals
Was it down to the managers poor direction originally?
Put that to the start of the formation /plan at the start of this season has he got it wrong again ?
In saying that I have faith in the manager before I get slaughtered for questioning
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
The start of this season is very like the start of last season - we looked poor with this exact 4-2-3-1 system and I'm amazed MR has gone back to it. One thing I admired about MR last season was that he had the nerve to admit it wasn't working and ditch the system (admittedly only due to injuries). I can only hope that this season progresses like last season did.
Last season we ironically only improved after season ending injuries to Jones and Andreu forced MR to eventually change the system to more of a 4-4-2. This gave Bayliss (and Kelly) more freedom to get forward and create (giving the opposition things to think about, pushing them back and relieving pressure on us defensively) and a partner to create space for McNulty. All of them thrived.
2 DCM and 1 up top means the three play deeper and the lone forward is isolated. This season I think is even worse because LOB doesn't come off his line at all, so the defence is deeper and thus everyone in front has to drop even deeper too. We're encouraging the opposition to push out and put us under pressure. That lets them create chances and gives them confidence, while we drop even deeper to try and stem the flow of chances creating a vicious circle.
This system is designed to be solid defensively, soak up pressure and hit on the counter , meaning strikers aren't going to get many chances and need to stick the few that come away. If you've not got strikers with particularly great strike ratios or clinical finishers (as we seem to have) it puts a lot of pressure on the team defensively to not concede as they've not got faith in the strikers to put the ball away. So they're edgy, nervous and more likely to make an error due to it.
We're playing a system that doesn't play to the attributes of any of our strikers, puts a leash on Bayliss' (and Kelly's when he's fit) creativity and passing and puts immense pressure on the defence to keep a clean sheet all while not being very attractive or entertaining to the fans. Just how is this going to work?
Last season we ironically only improved after season ending injuries to Jones and Andreu forced MR to eventually change the system to more of a 4-4-2. This gave Bayliss (and Kelly) more freedom to get forward and create (giving the opposition things to think about, pushing them back and relieving pressure on us defensively) and a partner to create space for McNulty. All of them thrived.
2 DCM and 1 up top means the three play deeper and the lone forward is isolated. This season I think is even worse because LOB doesn't come off his line at all, so the defence is deeper and thus everyone in front has to drop even deeper too. We're encouraging the opposition to push out and put us under pressure. That lets them create chances and gives them confidence, while we drop even deeper to try and stem the flow of chances creating a vicious circle.
This system is designed to be solid defensively, soak up pressure and hit on the counter , meaning strikers aren't going to get many chances and need to stick the few that come away. If you've not got strikers with particularly great strike ratios or clinical finishers (as we seem to have) it puts a lot of pressure on the team defensively to not concede as they've not got faith in the strikers to put the ball away. So they're edgy, nervous and more likely to make an error due to it.
We're playing a system that doesn't play to the attributes of any of our strikers, puts a leash on Bayliss' (and Kelly's when he's fit) creativity and passing and puts immense pressure on the defence to keep a clean sheet all while not being very attractive or entertaining to the fans. Just how is this going to work?
Greggs
Well-Known Member
We were organised at the back last season.
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
I've also got an issue with strikers playing those wide roles, which we've done since the days of Andy Morrell and not once has it worked. Strikers don't drop back or tend to have the defensive mindset to cover the full back, leaving them exposed. Attacking wise they're often not great crossers of the ball and even if they get the ball in a lone striker tends to get swamped by defenders and it's cleared.
If MR is adamant to play 4-2-3-1 personally I'd try full backs in those wide attacking positions, as at least they're used to playing wide and have more awareness of helping out behind. In the modern game they're more adept at getting forward and crossing and are more like wingers. Having said that Shipley would probably fit in well on the left (even though we've got four LB's on the books) and Jones will undoubtedly be on the right when he comes back so maybe until then Sterling (who has looked poor thus far) in front of Grimmer and hope he settles down is the way to go? Admittedly this seems to be what MR tried against Oxford without success.
When Kelly is available I can also see Doyle taking more of a backseat as the season progresses, being used as a sub to help close games out.
If MR is adamant to play 4-2-3-1 personally I'd try full backs in those wide attacking positions, as at least they're used to playing wide and have more awareness of helping out behind. In the modern game they're more adept at getting forward and crossing and are more like wingers. Having said that Shipley would probably fit in well on the left (even though we've got four LB's on the books) and Jones will undoubtedly be on the right when he comes back so maybe until then Sterling (who has looked poor thus far) in front of Grimmer and hope he settles down is the way to go? Admittedly this seems to be what MR tried against Oxford without success.
When Kelly is available I can also see Doyle taking more of a backseat as the season progresses, being used as a sub to help close games out.
Last edited: