Jump to content
IGNORED

Square Pegs? Round Holes?


Silvio Dante

Recommended Posts

It’s easy to say we were poor today - we were. We’ve gained a point we didn’t deserve though and “we move on”.

What I’m more interested in is why we were so poor. The simple answer is injuries - but that’s also oversimplification to a degree.

A couple of points:

- The first half was the first time we’ve lined up 5-3-2 and Jack Hunt wasn’t RB (I think). I quoted a stat here the other day where we have the biggest disparity of chances between creation from the right and from the left - a huge part of that is Hunt. 
 

I like Pereira- but much like Rowe he plays a more defensive role as a WB. Most of our running wide first half was Weimann.

So, what did that mean?

Our outlet balls were either long, or into a congested midfield central area. Wigan knew that and pressed accordingly - which meant that after the first ten, they were the better side first half.

- So to second half. And it becomes 4-4-2. With KP on the left and wanting to drift in - again, we’ve rarely seen him in that system, and certainly not on the left. This meant we   again got narrower, but as it was 4 at the back Rowe couldn’t push into the space left by Palmer, and the CB’s had less passing options - so we couldn’t move the ball as well as the first half at the back. Things improved when Massengo came on, but that was also offset by a poor Szmodics.

So, for me yes there were bad performances individually. But there is also something in the nature of players that meant their effectiveness was lessened/non existent in the respective formations each half - and irrespective of injuries, that has to be considered next time out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

It’s easy to say we were poor today - we were. We’ve gained a point we didn’t deserve though and “we move on”.

What I’m more interested in is why we were so poor. The simple answer is injuries - but that’s also oversimplification to a degree.

A couple of points: 

- The first half was the first time we’ve lined up 5-3-2 and Jack Hunt wasn’t RB (I think). I quoted a stat here the other day where we have the biggest disparity of chances between creation from the right and from the left - a huge part of that is Hunt. 
I like Pereira- but much like Rowe he plays a more defensive role as a WB. Most of our running wide first half was Weimann.

So, what did that mean?

Our outlet balls were either long, or into a congested midfield central area. Wigan knew that and pressed accordingly - which meant that after the first ten, they were the better side first half.

- So to second half. And it becomes 4-4-2. With KP on the left and wanting to drift in - again, we’ve rarely seen him in that system, and certainly not on the left. This meant we   again got narrower, but as it was 4 at the back Rowe couldn’t push into the space left by Palmer, and the CB’s had less passing options - so we couldn’t move the ball as well as the first half at the back. Things improved when Massengo came on, but that was also offset by a poor Szmodics.

So, for me yes there were bad performances individually. But there is also something in the nature of players that meant their effectiveness was lessened/non existent in the respective formations each half - and irrespective of injuries, that has to be considered next time out.

We did 4-4-2 with KP on the left vs Boro at home. We have seen it not be great already.

However, "irrespective of injuries". You just can't say that. We generally (generally because we can match a team like Charlton diamond and beat them with superior talent which RARELY is the case) have two effective ways of playing IMO, Palmer behind quick mobile strikers who we play through balls to in the 5-3-2, and Eliasson with strikers to aim crosses at in the 4-4-2. Both these ways of playing are affected by the suspension and injuries up front. Plan A and plan B are out and we played a decent side today. So what do we end up with? Performances like today.

We have a glut of players not helping the first team at the moment, the injuries yes, but also some trade-able assets. If we got rid of those and had a more balanced forward line our game plans wouldn't be ruined with one injury. There's not much we can do next time out, but it's something we have to fix by the end of the next transfer window IMO. Injuries should have been taken into account in the forward areas.

My question for you is, with this EXACT set of personnel available what is an effective formation/team selection? I'm not entirely sure there is one if we have these poor individual performances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Prinny said:

We did 4-4-2 with KP on the left vs Boro at home. We have seen it not be great already.

However, "irrespective of injuries". You just can't say that. We generally (generally because we can match a team like Charlton diamond and beat them with superior talent which RARELY is the case) have two effective ways of playing IMO, Palmer behind quick mobile strikers who we play through balls to in the 5-3-2, and Eliasson with strikers to aim crosses at in the 4-4-2. Both these ways of playing are affected by the suspension and injuries up front. Plan A and plan B are out and we played a decent side today. So what do we end up with? Performances like today.

We have a glut of players not helping the first team at the moment, the injuries yes, but also some trade-able assets. If we got rid of those and had a more balanced forward line our game plans wouldn't be ruined with one injury. There's not much we can do next time out, but it's something we have to fix by the end of the next transfer window IMO. Injuries should have been taken into account in the forward areas.

My question for you is, with this EXACT set of personnel available what is an effective formation/team selection? I'm not entirely sure there is one if we have these poor individual performances.

It’s a good question. And it doesn’t have an easy answer.

However, what I think the answer is not is to play formations that don’t suit the personnel. We’ll increase the likelihood of good as opposed to poor individual performances if people are playing in a system that gets the most out of them.

TBH, I agree that Massengo needed a rest. The bizarre aspect is that per LJ post match, Nagy may be back in the mix for Friday so we could have eked until then.

Notwithstanding that, with our starting 11 instead of 5-3-2 as it was I’d have gone 4-4-2. Baker LB, Rowe CDM, KP ACM and COD/Josh in the middle - or I’d have kept 5-3-2 and swapped COD and Rowe from the starting side. (I do think COD did well today)

If I assume Massengo and Nagy are fit for at least 45 on Friday, I think we go 4-4-2 diamond - Nagy/Massengo at base, Palmer at point. Rowe LB. Its still very central but I think it’s the best we have.

Incidentally, I think 5-3-2 is our best lineup. However, we’re buggered on that now both through JD being out - and especially Hunt based on this year 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

It’s a good question. And it doesn’t have an easy answer.

However, what I think the answer is not is to play formations that don’t suit the personnel. We’ll increase the likelihood of good as opposed to poor individual performances if people are playing in a system that gets the most out of them.

TBH, I agree that Massengo needed a rest. The bizarre aspect is that per LJ post match, Nagy may be back in the mix for Friday so we could have eked until then.

Notwithstanding that, with our starting 11 instead of 5-3-2 as it was I’d have gone 4-4-2. Baker LB, Rowe CDM, KP ACM and COD/Josh in the middle - or I’d have kept 5-3-2 and swapped COD and Rowe from the starting side. (I do think COD did well today)

If I assume Massengo and Nagy are fit for at least 45 on Friday, I think we go 4-4-2 diamond - Nagy/Massengo at base, Palmer at point. Rowe LB. Its still very central but I think it’s the best we have.

Incidentally, I think 5-3-2 is our best lineup. However, we’re buggered on that now both through JD being out - and especially Hunt based on this year 

To use Johnsonisms we have a lot of golf clubs, but we don't have a spare driver or putter if they break.

Any 5-3-2 still has the Palmer behind Rodri (who was awful) and Weimann who is a worker not a great last shoulder player. Does that work? Because we haven't seen it work yet IMO.

I think Baker in a 4 with less cover (caus narrower diamond midfield) vs their right winger today is the definition of a square peg! Same with O'Dowda. Not saying it couldn't work in other situations of course. Agree we miss Hunt in the Wing Back role.

I like the diamond idea as a plan C, we haven't been able to utilise yet. But it still need individuals, specifically Rodri or Semenyo and Palmer to not play as poorly as they have been.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Prinny said:

My question for you is, with this EXACT set of personnel available what is an effective formation/team selection? I'm not entirely sure there is one if we have these poor individual performances.

Formations vary from opposition to opposition but the a 4-4-2 template from which LJ can adapt to the opposition tactics is a basic starting point.

Yesterday at deferent stages I saw the team change shape/formation many times. At one point City were three at the back, then four and five at the back. Then we were five across the midfield which became four with two up top.......it changes throughout the game.

Some posters argue that 4-4-2 is too rigid and if the team stay in that formation all game then it is too rigid but as I just said the 4-4-2 is the template from which every other formation can be moulded.

Poor individual performances can happen in any team and according to LJ post match there were several below par yesterday but personally I would give Some of the credit to Wigan whose performance certainly surprised me.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Robbored said:

Formations vary from opposition to opposition but the a 4-4-2 template from which LJ can adapt to the opposition tactics is a basic starting point.

Yesterday at deferent stages I saw the team change shape/formation many times. At one point City were three at the back, then four and five at the back. Then we were five across the midfield which became four with two up top.......it changes throughout the game.

Some posters argue that 4-4-2 is too rigid and if the team stay in that formation all game then it is too rigid but as I just said the 4-4-2 is the template from which every other formation can be moulded.

Poor individual performances can happen in any team and according to LJ post match there were several below par yesterday but personally I would give Some of the credit to Wigan whose performance certainly surprised me.

 

Only with the right players!

Eliasson in a 4-4-2 is winger, end of. He seldom comes inside IMO.

4-4-2 in the traditional sense is pretty rigid, but nonetheless yes, formations are on paper neutral. Question LJ in this respect though, in terms of the flexibnility and fluiditiy of shape.

Agreed- thought Reading 2nd half were pretty sharp, and last season Wigan at AG likewise. I think there is a tendency perhaps to underestimate just how even and how strong this League actually is. Saw people on social media elsewhere predicting nice comfortable, easy win...nah.  3-0, 5-0? What a laugh!

14 hours ago, Silvio Dante said:

It’s easy to say we were poor today - we were. We’ve gained a point we didn’t deserve though and “we move on”.

What I’m more interested in is why we were so poor. The simple answer is injuries - but that’s also oversimplification to a degree.

A couple of points:

- The first half was the first time we’ve lined up 5-3-2 and Jack Hunt wasn’t RB (I think). I quoted a stat here the other day where we have the biggest disparity of chances between creation from the right and from the left - a huge part of that is Hunt. 
 

I like Pereira- but much like Rowe he plays a more defensive role as a WB. Most of our running wide first half was Weimann.

So, what did that mean?

Our outlet balls were either long, or into a congested midfield central area. Wigan knew that and pressed accordingly - which meant that after the first ten, they were the better side first half.

- So to second half. And it becomes 4-4-2. With KP on the left and wanting to drift in - again, we’ve rarely seen him in that system, and certainly not on the left. This meant we   again got narrower, but as it was 4 at the back Rowe couldn’t push into the space left by Palmer, and the CB’s had less passing options - so we couldn’t move the ball as well as the first half at the back. Things improved when Massengo came on, but that was also offset by a poor Szmodics.

So, for me yes there were bad performances individually. But there is also something in the nature of players that meant their effectiveness was lessened/non existent in the respective formations each half - and irrespective of injuries, that has to be considered next time out.

Don't forget a CM 3 of Brownhill, Palmer and O'Dowdca. Technically good, yes. Energy, yes. Balance and stability? Barely! Injuries are a real killer for us right now though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can blame transfers, coaching, tactics, selection but, fundamentally, it comes down to the players. 

So disappointing that a number of our fringe players, when given the chance, are just not stepping up to the plate. Immensely frustrating that yet another of our ‘magic’ players  is consistently, inconsistent and, seemingly, doesn’t fit our teamwork ethic. 

Huge appreciation though to the likes of ‘low cost’ Rowe and Williams who set consistently high standards and have dragged us through matches.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, RedRock said:

You can blame transfers, coaching, tactics, selection but, fundamentally, it comes down to the players. 

So disappointing that a number of our fringe players, when given the chance, are just not stepping up to the plate. Immensely frustrating that yet another of our ‘magic’ players  is consistently, inconsistent and, seemingly, doesn’t fit our teamwork ethic. 

Huge appreciation though to the likes of ‘low cost’ Rowe and Williams who set consistently high standards and have dragged us through matches.  

Could you list them?

I'd say we are ticking along, given the injuries. Some may not be good enough, some may not be good enough yet and some will be struggling in unfamiliar positions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Could you list them?

I'd say we are ticking along, given the injuries. Some may not be good enough, some may not be good enough yet and some will be struggling in unfamiliar positions.

Try Semenyo, Smodics, Watkins for starters. At the beginning of the season we believed that any of these, and others could come into the side seamlessly without any issues. Not the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Could you list them?

I'd say we are ticking along, given the injuries. Some may not be good enough, some may not be good enough yet and some will be struggling in unfamiliar positions.

I think the thing is that a player differs from a total fringe (not in squad) to become a consistent first 18 player, to a regular so people’s definition of fringe may vary. For example, I don’t see Elliasson as an automatic pick, but he’s definitely not fringe.

Its reasonable to state that Moore and Rowe would have been considered fringe at the start of the season - unlikely to be in the team, possibly not the 18 each week - but are now not. So, you have to include them in the fringe conversation - and provide the according credit.

There are probably two which I think you could class as fringe who haven’t stepped up - that being Szmodics and Semenyo. Watkins probably hasn’t had the time to say he hasn’t impacted. It’s interesting that the “fringe” players who haven’t excelled to date are those in the more forward positions - harder to make an impact or something else?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, The Horse With No Name said:

Try Semenyo, Smodics, Watkins for starters. At the beginning of the season we believed that any of these, and others could come into the side seamlessly without any issues. Not the case.

Not ready and probably didn't help his development by recalling from Newport, arguably not ready, unable to recapture his Barnsley form of 3 seasons ago.

Unsure we've always played the first 2 in their optimum positions too- Szmodics certainly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, The Horse With No Name said:

Try Semenyo, Smodics, Watkins for starters. At the beginning of the season we believed that any of these, and others could come into the side seamlessly without any issues. Not the case.

Add Adelakun to that list as well, this should have been his break-through season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 27/10/2019 at 18:04, Silvio Dante said:

It’s easy to say we were poor today - we were. We’ve gained a point we didn’t deserve though and “we move on”.

What I’m more interested in is why we were so poor. The simple answer is injuries - but that’s also oversimplification to a degree.

A couple of points:

- The first half was the first time we’ve lined up 5-3-2 and Jack Hunt wasn’t RB (I think). I quoted a stat here the other day where we have the biggest disparity of chances between creation from the right and from the left - a huge part of that is Hunt. 
 

I like Pereira- but much like Rowe he plays a more defensive role as a WB. Most of our running wide first half was Weimann.

So, what did that mean?

Our outlet balls were either long, or into a congested midfield central area. Wigan knew that and pressed accordingly - which meant that after the first ten, they were the better side first half.

- So to second half. And it becomes 4-4-2. With KP on the left and wanting to drift in - again, we’ve rarely seen him in that system, and certainly not on the left. This meant we   again got narrower, but as it was 4 at the back Rowe couldn’t push into the space left by Palmer, and the CB’s had less passing options - so we couldn’t move the ball as well as the first half at the back. Things improved when Massengo came on, but that was also offset by a poor Szmodics.

So, for me yes there were bad performances individually. But there is also something in the nature of players that meant their effectiveness was lessened/non existent in the respective formations each half - and irrespective of injuries, that has to be considered next time out.

You might be interested to know we've never won a game this season when we've started 352...

We have most success when we go 3412 and 442.

We played awfully against Wigan...funnily imo, what we missed at set pieces both ends, especially defending corners was Famara. And that's exactly where they dominated as well as shots on target...again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, spudski said:

You might be interested to know we've never won a game this season when we've started 352...

We have most success when we go 3412 and 442.

We played awfully against Wigan...funnily imo, what we missed at set pieces both ends, especially defending corners was Famara. And that's exactly where they dominated as well as shots on target...again.

Problem for me was how many corners they had. We should not have worried too much about what they can do from them as Baker would only help us slightly against their huge targets in the box.

We should have instead played to our own strengths with the same attacking intent we showed at the end of the Charlton game.

Out pass them, out play them, which I would hope would limit how often they can get in positions to force those corners.

Would rather face say 3 corners without Baker and a team that is on the front foot, than put Baker to try and deal better with them but face 10 corners.

I know that is easier said than done. But I really think Baker left of a 3 after how we played midweek on the front foot with Moore and Williams in a back 4 was very negative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, JonDolman said:

Problem for me was how many corners they had. We should not have worried too much about what they can do from them as Baker would only help us slightly against their huge targets in the box.

We should have instead played to our own strengths with the same attacking intent we showed at the end of the Charlton game.

Out pass them, out play them, which I would hope would limit how often they can get in positions to force those corners.

Would rather face say 3 corners without Baker and a team that is on the front foot, than put Baker to try and deal better with them but face 10 corners.

I know that is easier said than done. But I really think Baker left of a 3 after how we played midweek on the front foot with Moore and Williams in a back 4 was very negative.

They went 4-3-3, we went with a curious CM 3, and one that would have left us susceptible to quick breaks through the middle- O'Dowda, Brownhill and Palmer.

Unsuitable, disjointed- the back 3 may be able to absorb it but with wing backs it's asking a lot...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

They went 4-3-3, we went with a curious CM 3, and one that would have left us susceptible to quick breaks through the middle- O'Dowda, Brownhill and Palmer.

Unsuitable, disjointed- the back 3 may be able to absorb it but with wing backs it's asking a lot...

I've only just watched highlights. We put in Baker I'm guessing  because he is supposed to be good in the air. Who's mainly at fault for both goals? Baker.

Both times he fails to get close enough. Does not do what the likes of Kalas or Wright do. Use their body strength to put off the guy heading the ball. It has happened too many times with Baker. He gets away with it on here so often.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m pretty rubbish at spotting formations actually on the pitch, but was interested to read Brendan Rogers likes 4 1 4 1 at Leicester - I bet LJ knows this. I thought at one point in the second half we were doing similar - was this a fleeting formation or did anyone else think this - it was after we had played all the subs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

They went 4-3-3, we went with a curious CM 3, and one that would have left us susceptible to quick breaks through the middle- O'Dowda, Brownhill and Palmer.

Unsuitable, disjointed- the back 3 may be able to absorb it but with wing backs it's asking a lot...

 

11 hours ago, JonDolman said:

I've only just watched highlights. We put in Baker I'm guessing  because he is supposed to be good in the air. Who's mainly at fault for both goals? Baker.

Both times he fails to get close enough. Does not do what the likes of Kalas or Wright do. Use their body strength to put off the guy heading the ball. It has happened too many times with Baker. He gets away with it on here so often.

Agree with both of you, the CM 3 of JB, COD & KP was always a high risk, and frankly just did not work, left us overrun in midfield and contributed to KP being so ineffective because he was coming deep all the time to collect the ball. Although I got pilloried for it, Massengo (even if he was tired) and Brownhill with either one of COD, KP operating in front of them would have been sooo much better!

As for Baker, spot on at fault for both their goals, way too easily outjumped.

Would much rather go 4-4-2 at home, with Williams & Moore (whilst Kalas is out) and Eliasson starting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, spudski said:

You might be interested to know we've never won a game this season when we've started 352...

We have most success when we go 3412 and 442.

We played awfully against Wigan...funnily imo, what we missed at set pieces both ends, especially defending corners was Famara. And that's exactly where they dominated as well as shots on target...again.

I'll get slaughtered for this (probably) but I'd give Szmodics a go on Friday, the 1 behind Rodri and Weimann. He isn't just a scoring midfielder but creates and has a decent assist record. Most importantly, he wants the ball and wants to drive forward. We can't judge him on his limited time to date. I'd agree with the 3-4-1-2 for Friday with Brownhill and Massengo (but it will more likely be O'Dowda) behind Szmodics. I also have a feeling that Bailey Wright will start (not my choice but a feeling) on the right of a three with Moore central (if fit) and Williams benched. Pereira and Rowe make up the numbers. Another problem I saw up front on Sunday was Rodri and Weimann were hot sure when or where to go as they had no idea what the other was going to do which led to a degree of stasis and even distances. Once Rodri went off, Weimann was free to roam. I don't see this as a problem with more training ground work. I'd have Weimann bomb forward and Rodri run the line in between Szmodics and Weimann.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Didn't do his development any favours, distinct lack of loan last season to a higher end League One club probably helped him to stagnate.

If not L1, a loan back to Scunny will have got him regular game time, and also have eased whatever the Tribunal settlement was ?

I wonder about his "DNA" though although it would have been interesting to know how the club was sold to him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing that really disappoints me during this injury crisis is that our under 21 squad cannot be used to bridge the gap. Normally when you bring a kid in you will get a full on totally committed player for 2 or 3 games until he needs a rest. At the moment it seems that few are ready to make the step up. 

Together with signing some forwards I think bringing this squad to a level where they can provide effective cover for the first team is a real priority. 

If the under 21's can do this we have less need to buy squad players and can more money on some real quality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Loon plage said:

If not L1, a loan back to Scunny will have got him regular game time, and also have eased whatever the Tribunal settlement was ?

I wonder about his "DNA" though although it would have been interesting to know how the club was sold to him.

Agreed. It had gone to Tribunal hadn't it, think one of the reasons we held him back a bit, in case it pushed it up if he was flourishing say in League One- had it been a loan return though, might have helped us come to one independent of the Tribunal?

Unsure either way tbh- we've seen so little of him it can be hard to judge!

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...