Jump to content
IGNORED

Bad 18/19 for the Rams?


BCFCGav

Recommended Posts

Just now, Davefevs said:

The bit that I don’t get is if we play 442 and the opposition play say 433, they will have advantages in certain areas, and we will in others.  There is no magic formula / formation, it’s about getting the best out of your individuals and overall the team.  If you know you are playing 442 against 433, you should be trying to exploit your positions of advantage and minimising the opportunities the opponent has to take advantage of theirs.

The biggest problem I see is where we stay rigid to our set-up, often allowing overloads, e.g in the wide positions (against say Joe), yet 2 players (sometimes 3) aren’t marking anyone.  Leaders on the pitch and astute head-coaches stop that happening, or react quickly, either altering something or imposing their strengths further.

4-3-3 is a decent formation as you can play with one striker with two men behind operating in the channels, its fluid and can become 4-5-1 giving you extra bodies in midfield to over run the other team,

Personally I favour a 3-5-2 with wing backs, but you need the correct personal to play it, we had that imo when Bryan and little played at wing back, but we didn't have the quality in midfield or defense to cope wit the demands 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

The bit that I don’t get is if we play 442 and the opposition play say 433, they will have advantages in certain areas, and we will in others.  There is no magic formula / formation, it’s about getting the best out of your individuals and overall the team.  If you know you are playing 442 against 433, you should be trying to exploit your positions of advantage and minimising the opportunities the opponent has to take advantage of theirs.

The biggest problem I see is where we stay rigid to our set-up, often allowing overloads, e.g in the wide positions (against say Joe), yet 2 players (sometimes 3) aren’t marking anyone.  Leaders on the pitch and astute head-coaches stop that happening, or react quickly, either altering something or imposing their strengths further.

Take our 4-4-2 v Sheffield United last day.

Now I know we played poorly in any case, and particularly terrible first half but Sheffield United played a 3-5-2. 3-5-2 vs 4-4-2=advantage. Add in their ball playing centre back (O'Connell was it?) then suddenly you're pulled out of position increasingly. 3 vs 2 and then even 4 vs 2- Flint has come on leaps and bounds but he isn't the sort of centre back IMO who can step up into the midfield to make that extra man tell, Baker likewise. It could have been worse earlier in the season when Sheffield United played a 3-5-1-1- which is/was offeringg the scenario of a 3 v 2 which could become a 4 v 2 and even a 5 v 2. Overrun.

Agree on flexibility and we can improve in this sense-  but a notionally attacking approach with a 4-4-2 in that scenario v a decent side is asking for problems IMO. Brownhill Smith Pack in a 3...what's wrong with that?

15 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

4-3-3 is a decent formation as you can play with one striker with two men behind operating in the channels, its fluid and can become 4-5-1 giving you extra bodies in midfield to over run the other team,

Personally I favour a 3-5-2 with wing backs, but you need the correct personal to play it, we had that imo when Bryan and little played at wing back, but we didn't have the quality in midfield or defense to cope wit the demands 

Tend to agree- I favour the 4-3-3 myself, but 3-5-2 is definitely a good shout. Just think the higher a side goes, the less relevant a 4-4-2- definitely with wingers- becomes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Take our 4-4-2 v Sheffield United last day.

Now I know we played poorly in any case, and particularly terrible first half but Sheffield United played a 3-5-2. 3-5-2 vs 4-4-2=advantage. Add in their ball playing centre back (O'Connell was it?) then suddenly you're pulled out of position increasingly. 3 vs 2 and then even 4 vs 2- Flint has come on leaps and bounds but he isn't the sort of centre back IMO who can step up into the midfield to make that extra man tell, Baker likewise. It could have been worse earlier in the season when Sheffield United played a 3-5-1-1- which is/was offeringg the scenario of a 3 v 2 which could become a 4 v 2 and even a 5 v 2. Overrun.

Agree on flexibility and we can improve in this sense-  but a notionally attacking approach with a 4-4-2 in that scenario v a decent side is asking for problems IMO. Brownhill Smith Pack in a 3...what's wrong with that?

Tend to agree- I favour the 4-3-3 myself, but 3-5-2 is definitely a good shout. Just think the higher a side goes, the less relevant a 4-4-2- definitely with wingers- becomes.

traditional formations have gone out the window, I mean Barca prob the best footballing side on this planet often go without a striker, but any side with messi in it can do that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Take our 4-4-2 v Sheffield United last day.

Now I know we played poorly in any case, and particularly terrible first half but Sheffield United played a 3-5-2. 3-5-2 vs 4-4-2=advantage. Add in their ball playing centre back (O'Connell was it?) then suddenly you're pulled out of position increasingly. 3 vs 2 and then even 4 vs 2- Flint has come on leaps and bounds but he isn't the sort of centre back IMO who can step up into the midfield to make that extra man tell, Baker likewise. It could have been worse earlier in the season when Sheffield United played a 3-5-1-1- which is/was offeringg the scenario of a 3 v 2 which could become a 4 v 2 and even a 5 v 2. Overrun.

Agree on flexibility and we can improve in this sense-  but a notionally attacking approach with a 4-4-2 in that scenario v a decent side is asking for problems IMO. Brownhill Smith Pack in a 3...what's wrong with that?

Tend to agree- I favour the 4-3-3 myself, but 3-5-2 is definitely a good shout. Just think the higher a side goes, the less relevant a 4-4-2- definitely with wingers- becomes.

Wasn’t there for that game, but if you line up the players on the pitch you get something like this.

2188913B-BA53-450C-85C3-BF2FC76E024F.jpeg.e6f4cf4d40d719a168afdd76178d925d.jpeg

So assuming we played 442 (Transfermarkt said 4231) then typically you’d except the line-ups to be:

  • Reid and Diedhiou to occupy their 3 CBs
  • Our 4 Midfielders against their 5
  • Our 4 Defenders against their front 2

In effect 2 of our defenders aren’t marking, or at least 1 of them if you want a spare man.  That’s what allow the 5 Man Utd midfield to win the game / battle.

If O’Connell was getting on the ball and dictating play, why didn’t we push Eliasson forward, behind Stevens and let Brownhill move forward.  Either Stevens drops back and condenses O’Connell’s space, or O’Connell is left with Eliasson to worry about.  That might mean us changing our shape, but hey-ho.  

The more pressing question is we undoubtedly know how to play 442 v 352 generically, so what was the plan, especially when you know O’Connell likes to play.  Sounds like poor prep imho.

Our 352 in 14/15 was based on us being so much better player for player than our opponents, but also Litts starting pisition was often like a right winger.  In fear of us their LM would stay back and voila, Ayling had acres to motor forward.  In the games where their LM played like a LW, we found it much harder.  Funnily enough the running of Done and Murphy for Sheffield Utd that season was smart in that it exposed the gaps behind our WBs, and left our 3 CBs marking nothing.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Wasn’t there for that game, but if you line up the players on the pitch you get something like this.

2188913B-BA53-450C-85C3-BF2FC76E024F.jpeg.e6f4cf4d40d719a168afdd76178d925d.jpeg

So assuming we played 442 (Transfermarkt said 4231) then typically you’d except the line-ups to be:

  •  Reid and Diedhiou to occupy their 3 CBs
  •  Our 4 Midfielders against their 5
  • Our 4 Defenders against their front 2

 In effect 2 of our defenders aren’t marking, or at least 1 of them if you want a spare man.  That’s what allow the 5 Man Utd midfield to win the game / battle.

 If O’Connell was getting on the ball and dictating play, why didn’t we push Eliasson forward, behind Stevens and let Brownhill move forward.  Either Stevens drops back and condenses O’Connell’s space, or O’Connell is left with Eliasson to worry about.  That might mean us changing our shape, but hey-ho.  

The more pressing question is we undoubtedly know how to play 442 v 352 generically, so what was the plan, especially when you know O’Connell likes to play.  Sounds like poor prep imho.

Our 352 in 14/15 was based on us being so much better player for player than our opponents, but also Litts starting pisition was often like a right winger.  In fear of us their LM would stay back and voila, Ayling had acres to motor forward.  In the games where their LM played like a LW, we found it much harder.  Funnily enough the running of Done and Murphy for Sheffield Utd that season was smart in that it exposed the gaps behind our WBs, and left our 3 CBs marking nothing.

  

Hard to pin down formations tbh- thought given how we use (misuse) Paterson wide and with Eliasson it was more of a 4-4-2 personally but I suppose a case could be made for 4-2-3-1 too. Sofascore had it as a 4-4-2.

To go through that:

  •  Reid and Diedhiou to occupy their 3 CBs- Means there's a spare centre back (O'Connell maybe)? who can step up in the style previously described- but if not it means there's a spare man albeit marking space. Marking nobody.
  •  Our 4 Midfielders against their 5- Outnumbered but crucially the outmanning is the central 3 vs the central 2.
  • Our 4 Defenders against their front 2- Less to mark- however when they used the 3-5-1-1 as they did earlier in the season, indeed for a lot of it- Brooks for Clarke, then it became really interesting. Brooks floating between the lines, almost like a 3-6-1 at times and yet when he pushes on a 3-5-1-1. Unsure how our 4-4-2 would have handled that level of fluidity tbh- on the flanks maybe?? It would have caused us issues all over the pitch though IMO.

Agree- yeah 2 of our defenders left spare, but the problem is do we have the centre back capable of stepping up into midfield? For me Hegeler would be the one in this example, but that would mean dropping Baker probably. Talking centrally.

Not so much the case that O'Connell was getting on it and dictating play all the time, more that he could push up and do it if necessary- that's one of the advantages of a back 3, but if there is a ball playing CB in there. I think a change in shape would have helped us counteract it very well- but not a 4-4-2 seemingly with 2 wingers. Do you mean Brownhill and Eliasson on the wings? It would have caused them issues given they are/were quite central top heavy but chasing the ball, outnumbered in the centre on a hot day- a hot day with a midday kickoff would have left us pretty open IMO (as indeed it did first half), but then again it might have forced Sheffield United to double up on the flanks.

Not sure what you mean by this point? Poor prep how exactly- do you mean formation wise, shape wise or that we should have been more counterattacking?

My personal preference with the current personnel for a 4-3-3 or similar, but 3-5-2 would be interesting- definitely Little pushed high and as you say created space for Ayling. I missed that game funnily enough, v Sheffield United in the promotion season- were Done and Murphy on the wings? We were essentially in our back 3 marking space in the game you refer to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re 14/15 - Done and Murphy played up top, but all their runs were in to out.  They rarely ran inside, it was either to exploit the gaps in behind the WBs, or drag Williams and Ayling into the channels, and expose Flint on his own.

Re Poor Prep - what I mean us that we knew Utd would set up like they did, so what the plan pre-game to stop O’Connell coming forward (or Basham who got forward lots in the game up there)?  What was the pre-game plan for their 5 v 4 (3 v 2 centrally)?  To my mind it sounds like whatever it was we either didn’t execute it or we didn’t consider it enough in the first place and just went out and played....and hoped!

We could’ve easily matched them up with the players we had.

I don’t think i’ve Got a clue how we will play next season until we see a few ins and outs.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...