This formation (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Evans1883
- Start date
Warwickhunt
Well-Known Member
Wrong type of players for this formation, we also are very weak on the ball
No excuses, this is SPs team, not inherited, and they arent good enough, certainly not in last game and a half. If Huddersfield want this tripe, they are welcome to it
Nick
Administrator
Of course it would?
SkyBlue_Bear83
Well-Known Member
It seemed to work better when Haynes came on, Pugh and Clarke don't get forward enough from wing back for it to be effective. If we're gonna play wing backs get two fast wing backs and try and get them reaching the byline.
Dimi_Konstantflapalot
Well-Known Member
That first half was as bad as I have seen in recent times.
stupot07
Well-Known Member
To be fair, getting miller another striker on, instead of mccoid and a midfielder helped too. 361....
SkyBlue_Bear83
Well-Known Member
Agreed Swanson was appalling up alongside Mcquoid, he done decent when he dropped in to midfield.
LJC_CCFC
Active Member
RIGHT
The problem is the formation plain and simple, if you can't see this you're as blind as Pressley.
Clarke and Pugh aren't wing backs, yet at times are our only attacking threat. They along with the two forwards find themselves in forward areas but have no midfielders to link up with.
The midfield three don't know what their exact roles are, and only have each other to pass the ball to, before ultimately going backwards.
The whole structure is wrong and as a result we invite pressure on, whilst allowing the other team to dominate the ball.
When we occasionally get forward, they're aren't enough bodies in advanced positions for us to create anything.
These are good players, they just haven't a fucking clue how to play this system. Play 4-4-2 and we would reap the rewards. 5-3-2 just restricts a teams ability to attack. Even the Dutch got it wrong in the WC against Costa Rica, if they'ed set up in a 4-3-3 they would have won the game easily, by setting up in a 5-3-2 they allowed Costa Rica possession and a foothold in the game
The problem is the formation plain and simple, if you can't see this you're as blind as Pressley.
Clarke and Pugh aren't wing backs, yet at times are our only attacking threat. They along with the two forwards find themselves in forward areas but have no midfielders to link up with.
The midfield three don't know what their exact roles are, and only have each other to pass the ball to, before ultimately going backwards.
The whole structure is wrong and as a result we invite pressure on, whilst allowing the other team to dominate the ball.
When we occasionally get forward, they're aren't enough bodies in advanced positions for us to create anything.
These are good players, they just haven't a fucking clue how to play this system. Play 4-4-2 and we would reap the rewards. 5-3-2 just restricts a teams ability to attack. Even the Dutch got it wrong in the WC against Costa Rica, if they'ed set up in a 4-3-3 they would have won the game easily, by setting up in a 5-3-2 they allowed Costa Rica possession and a foothold in the game
SkyBlue_Bear83
Well-Known Member
Clarke and Pugh look clueless at wing back, Haynes was better than both of them in 30 minutes.
percy
Member
i thought mcquiod did ok and linked up well with swanson but they was starved of any decent service and were left isolated from the midfield. 352 works well if you have plenty of possesion which obviously wasnt the case tonight. i thought the gap between the lines was appalling and just invited the pressure on. a 442 with a narrow back four is what i would have reverted to to negate the pressure which would have forced them out wide.
ccfc1234
Well-Known Member
4-4-2
----------Allsop-------------
Clarke-Webster-Ruda--Haynes
Obrian-Fleck-Thomas--Pugh
---Tudgay----Swanson-
5-3-2
-----------Allsop---------
---Clarke--Webster-Ruda--
OBrian------------------Pugh/Haynes
-----Fleck-???DM---Swanson
------Tudgay----????ST---
IF and its a big IF we can sign a RWB, DM and ST then we could play 5-3-2 if not we need to play 4-4-2 as it suits the players we have right now more.
----------Allsop-------------
Clarke-Webster-Ruda--Haynes
Obrian-Fleck-Thomas--Pugh
---Tudgay----Swanson-
5-3-2
-----------Allsop---------
---Clarke--Webster-Ruda--
OBrian------------------Pugh/Haynes
-----Fleck-???DM---Swanson
------Tudgay----????ST---
IF and its a big IF we can sign a RWB, DM and ST then we could play 5-3-2 if not we need to play 4-4-2 as it suits the players we have right now more.
SkyBlue_Bear83
Well-Known Member
Adams and Christie would have made ideal wing backs this season
covcity4life
Well-Known Member
to play devils advocate the formation did stop cardiff having any clear cut chances for the most part.
FabianDebec
New Member
Did anybody else think we looked unfit?
woody11462
Well-Known Member
One of the major issues this formation seems to bring is that when we move the ball forward to the strikers, there is too large a distance between them and the midfield. Something Bradford did very well is they didn't play the ball until Hanson had players around him to gather up after his touch. We have two strikers that both want to come deep but because 1) the quality of the ball to them is poor and 2) they have no support from midfield. The only players who looked like getting in behind their defence where O'Brien who makes some good runs from midfield and Miller when he came on. Both McQuoid, who gave a similar performance to the Bradford game and Tudgay both like to come to collect the ball. If we are going to play to their strengths then the ball needs to be to feet or in to space.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
"Clarke and Pugh aren't wing backs, yet at times are our only attacking threat. They along with the two forwards find themselves in forward areas but have no midfielders to link up with.
The midfield three don't know what their exact roles are, and only have each other to pass the ball to, before ultimately going backwards. The whole structure is wrong and as a result we invite pressure on, whilst allowing the other team to dominate the ball. When we occasionally get forward, they're aren't enough bodies in advanced positions for us to create anything"
"One of the major issues this formation seems to bring is that when we move the ball forward to the strikers, there is too large a distance between them and the midfield. Something Bradford did very well is they didn't play the ball until Hanson had players around him to gather up after his touch. We have two strikers that both want to come deep but because 1) the quality of the ball to them is poor and 2) they have no support from midfield. The only players who looked like getting in behind their defence where O'Brien who makes some good runs from midfield and Miller when he came on. Both McQuoid, who gave a similar performance to the Bradford game and Tudgay both like to come to collect the ball. If we are going to play to their strengths then the ball needs to be to feet or in to space. "
I would add a few other things
1) The quality of passing. Considering how much time is apparently spent on this training the passing first half was woeful. Any system will break down if players do not get their heads up or repeatedly try to pass through opposition players.
2) There has to be pace both in terms of physical speed but also in terms of passing (and thought). Our passing when it was accurate often looked laboured and indecisive.
3) Generally midfielders need to break the lines and get beyond the front players, it happened far too rarely. There seemed little desire to even try for many of the players
4) the depth at which we defended especially first half made it difficult for any system to work. The back three were often defending the penalty area when the ball was in the opposition half. Quite often if 2 of the 3 pushed up the third stayed 20yds behind. That makes the gaps between back and midfield or defence and forwards far to big and allows other teams to play between the lines. Trying to play the pressing game when we set up like that is going to mean extended running to the fill gaps and just is not going to work. What we succeeded in doing was to expand the areas of play to suit the opposition and as a result created little pressure on the ball.
5) There seemed precious little leadership or nous. You can excuse the likes of Finch & Haynes not seeing things in a match situation but Clarke, Pugh, Webster(in particular) have the experience to see things needed to improve. Playing higher wasn't rocket science yet the manager and senior pros did nothing about it until 70 minutes in when Cardiff took the foot off the gas. They stuck rigidly to something that was not working - that is a worry in itself
532 can work ...... would seem to be this seasons flavour of the season for a lot of teams following the world cup ...... but it relies on players capable of doing it, the skill sets & speed being available in the squad, and being set up right on the pitch in the first place. Saw little to convince me that much of that was there last night.
I just wonder if SP has gone too far the other way in trying to stifle goals against.........
Early days but it needs to improve markedly on last night
The midfield three don't know what their exact roles are, and only have each other to pass the ball to, before ultimately going backwards. The whole structure is wrong and as a result we invite pressure on, whilst allowing the other team to dominate the ball. When we occasionally get forward, they're aren't enough bodies in advanced positions for us to create anything"
"One of the major issues this formation seems to bring is that when we move the ball forward to the strikers, there is too large a distance between them and the midfield. Something Bradford did very well is they didn't play the ball until Hanson had players around him to gather up after his touch. We have two strikers that both want to come deep but because 1) the quality of the ball to them is poor and 2) they have no support from midfield. The only players who looked like getting in behind their defence where O'Brien who makes some good runs from midfield and Miller when he came on. Both McQuoid, who gave a similar performance to the Bradford game and Tudgay both like to come to collect the ball. If we are going to play to their strengths then the ball needs to be to feet or in to space. "
I would add a few other things
1) The quality of passing. Considering how much time is apparently spent on this training the passing first half was woeful. Any system will break down if players do not get their heads up or repeatedly try to pass through opposition players.
2) There has to be pace both in terms of physical speed but also in terms of passing (and thought). Our passing when it was accurate often looked laboured and indecisive.
3) Generally midfielders need to break the lines and get beyond the front players, it happened far too rarely. There seemed little desire to even try for many of the players
4) the depth at which we defended especially first half made it difficult for any system to work. The back three were often defending the penalty area when the ball was in the opposition half. Quite often if 2 of the 3 pushed up the third stayed 20yds behind. That makes the gaps between back and midfield or defence and forwards far to big and allows other teams to play between the lines. Trying to play the pressing game when we set up like that is going to mean extended running to the fill gaps and just is not going to work. What we succeeded in doing was to expand the areas of play to suit the opposition and as a result created little pressure on the ball.
5) There seemed precious little leadership or nous. You can excuse the likes of Finch & Haynes not seeing things in a match situation but Clarke, Pugh, Webster(in particular) have the experience to see things needed to improve. Playing higher wasn't rocket science yet the manager and senior pros did nothing about it until 70 minutes in when Cardiff took the foot off the gas. They stuck rigidly to something that was not working - that is a worry in itself
532 can work ...... would seem to be this seasons flavour of the season for a lot of teams following the world cup ...... but it relies on players capable of doing it, the skill sets & speed being available in the squad, and being set up right on the pitch in the first place. Saw little to convince me that much of that was there last night.
I just wonder if SP has gone too far the other way in trying to stifle goals against.........
Early days but it needs to improve markedly on last night
Last edited:
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Of the midfield 3; Fleck is not fit enough and isn't covering enough ground. Daniels is so bereft of confidence he plays in and around the centre circle. O Brien made some good forward runs at times.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Yes. Very much so.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Wouldn't say it was the fittest CCFC team I have ever seen but I think the base problem is the lack of speed & mobility in many of the positions. It has been a problem for a long time Last season Wilson had electric speed up front which gave an outlet for a quick pass or even a poor pass. Now he has gone I am not sure that option exists anymore.
That in turn highlights how immobile and lacking in speed our players are generally, especially in the back four and central midfield. It has been a problem for sometime.
Not sure that as yet most of the players understand the roles they are being asked to play. That in part has to be down to the manager and coaching staff not getting a clear and consistent message across. Fuzzy thinking all round perhaps
If the players are not fit then what have the coaching staff been doing since June. The modern player is monitored closely and fitness issues should have been addressed weeks ago
To be able to even attempt to play with such gaps between the lines and press high then fitness will need to improve ..... or change how we play.
That in turn highlights how immobile and lacking in speed our players are generally, especially in the back four and central midfield. It has been a problem for sometime.
Not sure that as yet most of the players understand the roles they are being asked to play. That in part has to be down to the manager and coaching staff not getting a clear and consistent message across. Fuzzy thinking all round perhaps
If the players are not fit then what have the coaching staff been doing since June. The modern player is monitored closely and fitness issues should have been addressed weeks ago
To be able to even attempt to play with such gaps between the lines and press high then fitness will need to improve ..... or change how we play.
Gint11
Well-Known Member
It doesn't sound like we suit this formation. Said it before, we were weak at the back last season with a bank of 4 and leaking goals, going 3 at the back is a terrible move. Easy for me to say now we have lost 2 but still, isn't it obvious? Get us back to 4-4-2 and play people where they should be. I was under the impression O Brien and Swanson were wingers, not central Midfielders. Sack Clarke off because he is pants and get a Name in up front that can score goals.