Victims of the system

[Prinny]

I'm still really happy with the result yesterday but I want to talk about why I don't like the tactics in combination with the personnel choices at the moment and why I think it needs to change now but especially when we have players available to do so/ in the transfer window. I think most people are smart enough to use formations as a short hand for where players play, and know that in reality it's about areas they're usually in, and what they're doing there, rather than a rigid spot they stand in, so just to be clear, that's what I'm doing here.

My premise is that Holden should change the players, so that they fit the roles as they are, rather than trying to cram players into a system.  Why I'm talking about it after such a great win is that Holden has shown the tendencies to keep a winning team and winning players no matter how they're performing until it becomes basically untenable. Taylor Moore is the example, Chris Brunt too.

So victims of the system (and beneficiaries) of the 4-3-3. I approve of the switch to the back 4, as it takes one of the poorly performing centre backs out of the lineup, and the wing backs who now become full backs, I think it's a neutral result for them.

1: Jack Hunt. Oh boy, he's not a good right back. I think he's been really good at right wing back though. He should have been booked (as should some of the Derby players for the same thing) for cynically stopping an attack, and he recklessly committed a couple of times to try and stop players because if he didn't he'd have been burned for pace. The difference between him having that cover of the right centre back and now he doesn't is so clear. On the other side Jay Dasilva actually benefits as time and again his one vs one ability shows up, and he can get back after providing an attacking threat. So if we're going to stick with this formation, we need to find a right back, who can play right back.

2: Chris Martin. He's had his worst two games in this formation IMO. With no one close to him, and no one to do the chasing up front, he's just ambling around, offering little from a pressing perspective and nothing much as the platform he can be. He's caught on or close to the half way line and instead of there being one move, it has to take two phases to get him into a dangerous position. We're all noticing that we don't have the ball very often any more, the ball goes to him, and comes straight back into a congested midfield.

3: Nahki Wells. I mean what does anyone expect sticking him as the left centre forward? It's an awful idea. He's a finisher, so moving him away from the goal, making him press and track people, or try to beat people without the pace or skill to do so? It's doesn't fit him at all. Again contrast that with the other side and Semenyo who this fits perfectly. We took Wells out of a system set up for him, and refused to do that, and now we're sticking him out wide... it's one of the worst signings we've made in recent years. And he's not even a bad player, just it doesn't fit at all.

4&5: Callum O'Dowda and Jamie Paterson. You're taking two players, and moving them away from what they do well to what they don't do well. Jamie is as quiet than his worst off games as he's focused on defending, and Callum can't use his ability to carry the ball as there's no space to run into. While they're working hard and focusing on the defensive side ironically that frees up Nagy who now has cover beside him, allowing him to look his best. Holden was playing Brunt over him, because of his pecking order selection policy.

So this is a special week, recovery informs selection policy more than normal. As we don't have that info conceptually (because we have imperfect information) I would change it to this with the players (seemingly) available. We can't do anything about Hunt, but we can fix the other situations IMO.

                  Bentley

    Hunt Vyner Kalas Dasilva

            Nagy      Rowe

                Paterson

Semenyo Diedhiou O'Dowda

Putting Rowe in allows Paterson to be further forwards and keeps Nagy able to go as well, it puts O'Dowda into a position where his ability to carry the ball and especially draw fouls can get us up the pitch alongside his better ability to press and track than Wells just purely from a physical standpoint, same with Diedhiou who offers more in that regards than Martin.

Like I said, delighted with the result yesterday, delighted with the league position, however I think we can do better going forwards if we stick with this system by putting more players in positions to succeed.

[Rocking Red Cyril]

Yes lot of sense on what you say there. And yes can see sense in the line up you give. But it seems the way of DH to not change a winning side. Watford away tough fixture might change that formation policy. 

Enjoyed your ideas. A good post 

[Silvio Dante]

@Prinny - Good thread. It’s always a shame when considered opinions don’t get traction of views so wanted to respond, in part, to stop this falling down the forum and so people can view.

Other reason to respond is to say while I think I broadly agree with the general thrust - that the new system has in part made some of our previously effective players less effective (thinking Pato and Martin specifically here) and is resulting in players like Wells being slightly out of position, there are a few things I’d say:

- I don’t necessarily agree on Hunt. He’s been part of a defence that has kept two clean sheets on the bounce, and I don’t think we’ve been threatened - despite ceding possession. That says to me we’re managing the possession well

- I probably wouldn’t change the personnel as much as suggested. Fam for Martin seems correct for the reasons given, but outside of that, I’d go unchanged. My rationale here is that if we are setting up to be more “rope a dope”, then on the times you do have possession you need those creative players/goal scorers to make the difference. Rowe in midfield doesn’t do that, and nor does COD in a front three. Although the system suits Pato less, he was still instrumental in the goal yesterday.

I guess my overarching counter is if we’re that much more solid with the creative players in and the three strikers, why then add a more defensive midfielder in one part and take a striker out in another? (Again, think the ceding of possession is deliberate as it’s about the areas we’re giving it up in)

Good food for thought though 

[Davefevs]

48 minutes ago, Prinny said:

I'm still really happy with the result yesterday but I want to talk about why I don't like the tactics in combination with the personnel choices at the moment and why I think it needs to change now but especially when we have players available to do so/ in the transfer window. I think most people are smart enough to use formations as a short hand for where players play, and know that in reality it's about areas they're usually in, and what they're doing there, rather than a rigid spot they stand in, so just to be clear, that's what I'm doing here.

My premise is that Holden should change the players, so that they fit the roles as they are, rather than trying to cram players into a system.  Why I'm talking about it after such a great win is that Holden has shown the tendencies to keep a winning team and winning players no matter how they're performing until it becomes basically untenable. Taylor Moore is the example, Chris Brunt too.

So victims of the system (and beneficiaries) of the 4-3-3. I approve of the switch to the back 4, as it takes one of the poorly performing centre backs out of the lineup, and the wing backs who now become full backs, I think it's a neutral result for them.

1: Jack Hunt. Oh boy, he's not a good right back. I think he's been really good at right wing back though. He should have been booked (as should some of the Derby players for the same thing) for cynically stopping an attack, and he recklessly committed a couple of times to try and stop players because if he didn't he'd have been burned for pace. The difference between him having that cover of the right centre back and now he doesn't is so clear. On the other side Jay Dasilva actually benefits as time and again his one vs one ability shows up, and he can get back after providing an attacking threat. So if we're going to stick with this formation, we need to find a right back, who can play right back.

agree 100%....win/lose situation, one gains, one loses depending on which way round you do it.

2: Chris Martin. He's had his worst two games in this formation IMO. With no one close to him, and no one to do the chasing up front, he's just ambling around, offering little from a pressing perspective and nothing much as the platform he can be. He's caught on or close to the half way line and instead of there being one move, it has to take two phases to get him into a dangerous position. We're all noticing that we don't have the ball very often any more, the ball goes to him, and comes straight back into a congested midfield.

he has indeed.  Is the problem him would be my question?  I think we can avoid answering that by playing Diedhiou on Wednesday.  But in an attempt to answer it, I think we have to look at two things.  1) service into him and 2) support around him.  Martin might be a centre-forward but he isn’t an out and out aerial target man.  I refer to him as a chest-down target man.  He hides the ball so well under pressure from his CB, and they can’t get around him.  But if you just lob 35-40 balls towards his head, you are losing what he’s good at.  The second point is the two midfielders  behind him.  Neither Pato or O’Dowda anticipate the loose ball as part of their natural game, so if Martin loses it they don’t win enough of the share.  Secondly, yesterday, neither of them got involved in the midfield passing anywhere near enough, so we weren’t playing midfield > attack we were playing defence > attack.  The few occasions we did play through the thirds we fashioned chances....one of those was Vyner stepping into it though, another was Dasilva coming inside.

3: Nahki Wells. I mean what does anyone expect sticking him as the left centre forward? It's an awful idea. He's a finisher, so moving him away from the goal, making him press and track people, or try to beat people without the pace or skill to do so? It's doesn't fit him at all. Again contrast that with the other side and Semenyo who this fits perfectly. We took Wells out of a system set up for him, and refused to do that, and now we're sticking him out wide... it's one of the worst signings we've made in recent years. And he's not even a bad player, just it doesn't fit at all.

I would prefer to see him central but I do think his natural movement when being asked to play LF is to drift inside.  He doesn’t play like a left winger.  I’m willing to see whether a bit of focus switches onto Semenyo and Wells benefits.  It was Wells getting across the front of Diedhiou yesterday for the goal.  It was Wells behind Semenyo’s glancing header had he let it go.  I’m just reserving judgement on this one.  My gut feel says not the greatest idea, but I think Holden is not one for conventional positions.

4&5: Callum O'Dowda and Jamie Paterson. You're taking two players, and moving them away from what they do well to what they don't do well. Jamie is as quiet than his worst off games as he's focused on defending, and Callum can't use his ability to carry the ball as there's no space to run into. While they're working hard and focusing on the defensive side ironically that frees up Nagy who now has cover beside him, allowing him to look his best. Holden was playing Brunt over him, because of his pecking order selection policy.

Paterson and O’Dowda are only beside Nagy w/o the ball.  Wyscout hasn’t updated yet, but Whoscored says JP 26 passes and CO 23.  Without passing arrows I’d suggest (from memory) that several of Callum’s were little passes back first time to the guy who passed it to him.  He worked hard enough off the ball but he no effect on our play with it.  Think there was one receipt down the left side where his cross got blocked.  They both need to offer more in general possession and this really reflects my point about Martin.

So this is a special week, recovery informs selection policy more than normal. As we don't have that info conceptually (because we have imperfect information) I would change it to this with the players (seemingly) available. We can't do anything about Hunt, but we can fix the other situations IMO.

                  Bentley

    Hunt Vyner Kalas Dasilva

            Nagy      Rowe

                Paterson

Semenyo Diedhiou O'Dowda

Putting Rowe in allows Paterson to be further forwards and keeps Nagy able to go as well, it puts O'Dowda into a position where his ability to carry the ball and especially draw fouls can get us up the pitch alongside his better ability to press and track than Wells just purely from a physical standpoint, same with Diedhiou who offers more in that regards than Martin.

Holden was hoping Bakinson would get a negative test as he’s fine in himself.  Massengo might be ok too, but based on that then I accept the constraints you’ve put on your team selection.

theoretically I see why you’ve plumped for O’Dowda as LF but in essence you’re as guilty of cramming a player in the same way as you’re accusing Holden of in your opening gambit.  My worry about playing him there is he will just allow himself to be marked by their RB/RWB and passing angles will be no better than when he played left wing in previous seasons.  In fact I think you give him ever less space to use his running quality, because he’ll invariably be receiving it facing his own goal.  I don’t see the intelligence in his movement to receive the ball to then face up his opponent and run at them.  Wells’s link-up play and movement was decent yesterday with limited service.

However Watford have played a 352 in every game this season, so I’m not sure if you’ve factored that in and how he’d face up to a RWB as a left-forward.

Paterson is definitely suited to the no10 as you suggest, but I think a combination of at least 2 out of 3 of Cleverley, Chalobah and Capoue (with possibly Garner) means Pato might get very little room.  It’s a tough one.

Like I said, delighted with the result yesterday, delighted with the league position, however I think we can do better going forwards if we stick with this system by putting more players in positions to succeed.

I think some of that comes with more bravery in possession in the middle of the pitch.  I think Dean will be wondering how he can impose his team and system over Ivic’s 352.  Semenyo would love the space in behind the attack minded Sema...but you wouldn’t want to let Sema get 1-on-1 with Hunt too often either.  All good fun....on paper.

Good thought provoking post....comments above.

[Bristolisredd]

only one set of fans are victims 

 

 

[AppyDAZE]

1 hour ago, Rocking Red Cyril said:

Yes lot of sense on what you say there. And yes can see sense in the line up you give. But it seems the way of DH to not change a winning side. Watford away tough fixture might change that formation policy. 

Enjoyed your ideas. A good post 

Watford at home.

[1960maaan]

1 hour ago, Prinny said:

I'm still really happy with the result yesterday but I want to talk about why I don't like the tactics in combination with the personnel choices at the moment and why I think it needs to change now but especially when we have players available to do so/ in the transfer window. I think most people are smart enough to use formations as a short hand for where players play, and know that in reality it's about areas they're usually in, and what they're doing there, rather than a rigid spot they stand in, so just to be clear, that's what I'm doing here.

My premise is that Holden should change the players, so that they fit the roles as they are, rather than trying to cram players into a system.  Why I'm talking about it after such a great win is that Holden has shown the tendencies to keep a winning team and winning players no matter how they're performing until it becomes basically untenable. Taylor Moore is the example, Chris Brunt too.

So victims of the system (and beneficiaries) of the 4-3-3. I approve of the switch to the back 4, as it takes one of the poorly performing centre backs out of the lineup, and the wing backs who now become full backs, I think it's a neutral result for them.

1: Jack Hunt. Oh boy, he's not a good right back. I think he's been really good at right wing back though. He should have been booked (as should some of the Derby players for the same thing) for cynically stopping an attack, and he recklessly committed a couple of times to try and stop players because if he didn't he'd have been burned for pace. The difference between him having that cover of the right centre back and now he doesn't is so clear. On the other side Jay Dasilva actually benefits as time and again his one vs one ability shows up, and he can get back after providing an attacking threat. So if we're going to stick with this formation, we need to find a right back, who can play right back.

2: Chris Martin. He's had his worst two games in this formation IMO. With no one close to him, and no one to do the chasing up front, he's just ambling around, offering little from a pressing perspective and nothing much as the platform he can be. He's caught on or close to the half way line and instead of there being one move, it has to take two phases to get him into a dangerous position. We're all noticing that we don't have the ball very often any more, the ball goes to him, and comes straight back into a congested midfield.

3: Nahki Wells. I mean what does anyone expect sticking him as the left centre forward? It's an awful idea. He's a finisher, so moving him away from the goal, making him press and track people, or try to beat people without the pace or skill to do so? It's doesn't fit him at all. Again contrast that with the other side and Semenyo who this fits perfectly. We took Wells out of a system set up for him, and refused to do that, and now we're sticking him out wide... it's one of the worst signings we've made in recent years. And he's not even a bad player, just it doesn't fit at all.

4&5: Callum O'Dowda and Jamie Paterson. You're taking two players, and moving them away from what they do well to what they don't do well. Jamie is as quiet than his worst off games as he's focused on defending, and Callum can't use his ability to carry the ball as there's no space to run into. While they're working hard and focusing on the defensive side ironically that frees up Nagy who now has cover beside him, allowing him to look his best. Holden was playing Brunt over him, because of his pecking order selection policy.

So this is a special week, recovery informs selection policy more than normal. As we don't have that info conceptually (because we have imperfect information) I would change it to this with the players (seemingly) available. We can't do anything about Hunt, but we can fix the other situations IMO.

                  Bentley

    Hunt Vyner Kalas Dasilva

            Nagy      Rowe

                Paterson

Semenyo Diedhiou O'Dowda

Putting Rowe in allows Paterson to be further forwards and keeps Nagy able to go as well, it puts O'Dowda into a position where his ability to carry the ball and especially draw fouls can get us up the pitch alongside his better ability to press and track than Wells just purely from a physical standpoint, same with Diedhiou who offers more in that regards than Martin.

Like I said, delighted with the result yesterday, delighted with the league position, however I think we can do better going forwards if we stick with this system by putting more players in positions to succeed.

Good post and some good points.

Going along with your thoughts , there are other tweaks we could use. Wells could do with playing down the middle, allowing for the fact we will play Martin or Fam and Semenyo will play if OK, we could use FD off the left. He's mobile and could use his height / aerial ability against a FB leaving NW in the box where he's most dangerous. If Semenyo is rotated COD could slot in. 
The problem is we lack options and until an hour before KO we won't know if anyone's fit, Holden has been forced into many of the decisions he's made. I've said it before, I think we have to wait until he has a virtually full squad to judge him properly. The last few wins have had the feel of grinding out results, but even ignoring the COVID thing, we still have 8 players missing so whatever I think of the style of our football at the moment, I feel he deserves some leeway.

Wednesday it could be last man standing gets a game, can't wait for some players to start coming back, as for Williams and Walsh, it can only be a let down after all this time and expectation.

[GrahamC]

Good OP.

I know it is an incredibly small sample size but Rowe’s only start for us in midfield was Huddersfield away last season & he was really poor & we were awful.

I think he is far better as a LWB or LB.

Paterson has surprised me, he got an excellent block in on the edge of our box yesterday & has done decently overall in a 3.

The point about recovery informing selection though is spot on.

[Prinny]

21 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

- I don’t necessarily agree on Hunt. He’s been part of a defence that has kept two clean sheets on the bounce, and I don’t think we’ve been threatened - despite ceding possession. That says to me we’re managing the possession well

It's hard for me to make the points when we're winning because it's easy to point at the results. I just see the trends of it being problematic, as it has been in the past, and vs not the 24th best team in the league I do see it as an issue. They got to great positions a lot IMO, but they didn't have people in the box. We saw those balls firing across the area a lot. I think it's exploitable, but it hasn't resulted in goals yet. I don't know what to do about it other than hang on until January. I know your point is more thoughtful than we're winning so it's fine, just I saw the same with our left sided centre back when we were in a three and we were winning, and people said it was fine, until it wasn't. I think that will happen again.

- I probably wouldn’t change the personnel as much as suggested. Fam for Martin seems correct for the reasons given, but outside of that, I’d go unchanged. My rationale here is that if we are setting up to be more “rope a dope”, then on the times you do have possession you need those creative players/goal scorers to make the difference. Rowe in midfield doesn’t do that, and nor does COD in a front three. Although the system suits Pato less, he was still instrumental in the goal yesterday.

This is why I like Pato and have backed him through the quiet patches, I think it's o.k. to have 1 player who can be quiet but effective in critical situations, but in this system we're also doing that to Martin and Wells and I think that's creating partially the disruption in our play. (Of course allowing for the issues of the week, but I think we were the same in the previous game  and would be the same going forwards.)

I guess my overarching counter is if we’re that much more solid with the creative players in and the three strikers, why then add a more defensive midfielder in one part and take a striker out in another? (Again, think the ceding of possession is deliberate as it’s about the areas we’re giving it up in)

I think my view is to put more people into areas where their skill set meets the demands of the role better as I don't actually agree we're that solid, and I can see a team with quality exploiting us in the new set up much like Norwich did with the old one. We'll find out mid week.

Genuine question, do you think Hunt is better as a wing back or do you see no real change when he's at full back?

3 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

he has indeed.  Is the problem him would be my question?  I think we can avoid answering that by playing Diedhiou on Wednesday.  But in an attempt to answer it, I think we have to look at two things.  1) service into him and 2) support around him.  Martin might be a centre-forward but he isn’t an out and out aerial target man.  I refer to him as a chest-down target man.  He hides the ball so well under pressure from his CB, and they can’t get around him.  But if you just lob 35-40 balls towards his head, you are losing what he’s good at.  The second point is the two midfielders  behind him.  Neither Pato or O’Dowda anticipate the loose ball as part of their natural game, so if Martin loses it they don’t win enough of the share.  Secondly, yesterday, neither of them got involved in the midfield passing anywhere near enough, so we weren’t playing midfield > attack we were playing defence > attack.  The few occasions we did play through the thirds we fashioned chances....one of those was Vyner stepping into it though, another was Dasilva coming inside.

So I do think it IS partly him and partly the system and partly the players around him. Good points about the players around him. I don't like an excuse mentality but perhaps energy conservation was a factor yesterday. You picked up on my term referring to him as a platform from earlier in the season IIRC. He needs others to help him, but him not having a player next to him to stretch the play means he's forced into non threatening situations because HE doesn't have the attributes to offer a threat on his own. Let's be clear I absolutely not saying he's bad,I way high on him from the start, but I don't think what w're asking him to do suits him.

I would prefer to see him central but I do think his natural movement when being asked to play LF is to drift inside.  He doesn’t play like a left winger.  I’m willing to see whether a bit of focus switches onto Semenyo and Wells benefits.  It was Wells getting across the front of Diedhiou yesterday for the goal.  It was Wells behind Semenyo’s glancing header had he let it go.  I’m just reserving judgement on this one.  My gut feel says not the greatest idea, but I think Holden is not one for conventional positions.

The back three as it was, was untenable, we had to do something. 

Paterson and O’Dowda are only beside Nagy w/o the ball.  Wyscout hasn’t updated yet, but Whoscored says JP 26 passes and CO 23.  Without passing arrows I’d suggest (from memory) that several of Callum’s were little passes back first time to the guy who passed it to him.  He worked hard enough off the ball but he no effect on our play with it.  Think there was one receipt down the left side where his cross got blocked.  They both need to offer more in general possession and this really reflects my point about Martin.

My whole problem with the system is that it reduces a lot of the threats of our team into these not effective generally but hope they come up at a critical time type of players. It's the xG of last season where performances don't match where we are in the table and it eventually falls apart. That's my concern.

Holden was hoping Bakinson would get a negative test as he’s fine in himself.  Massengo might be ok too, but based on that then I accept the constraints you’ve put on your team selection.

theoretically I see why you’ve plumped for O’Dowda as LF but in essence you’re as guilty of cramming a player in the same way as you’re accusing Holden of in your opening gambit.  My worry about playing him there is he will just allow himself to be marked by their RB/RWB and passing angles will be no better than when he played left wing in previous seasons.  In fact I think you give him ever less space to use his running quality, because he’ll invariably be receiving it facing his own goal.  I don’t see the intelligence in his movement to receive the ball to then face up his opponent and run at them.  Wells’s link-up play and movement was decent yesterday with limited service.

So I actually agree that O'Dowda absolutely isn't suited to the role I've given him, so I'm glad you brought it up, I just simply think, he has more good attributes there than Wells does, so it's an improvement. If we continue this formation past January, that position is in critical need. I agree on the assessment of O'Dowda generally but other teams have to account for his pace and running, and that either means they go tight and take the risk he does something or they back off creating that breathing room to clear our lines. If he's up against the LCB and we win possession, his physical attributes give us a genuine threat where as Wells just can't do that.

However Watford have played a 352 in every game this season, so I’m not sure if you’ve factored that in and how he’d face up to a RWB as a left-forward.

I don't think he'll be very good, when I was suffering through the ROI games watching him play the RCF role whatever it was, he disappeared. But with the way we're sitting deep and his better physical attributes, IMO it's better, but absolutely not good!

Paterson is definitely suited to the no10 as you suggest, but I think a combination of at least 2 out of 3 of Cleverley, Chalobah and Capoue (with possibly Garner) means Pato might get very little room.  It’s a tough one.

I think some of that comes with more bravery in possession in the middle of the pitch.  I think Dean will be wondering how he can impose his team and system over Ivic’s 352.  Semenyo would love the space in behind the attack minded Sema...but you wouldn’t want to let Sema get 1-on-1 with Hunt too often either.  All good fun....on paper.

That ability to step up into midfield as a defender and create an overload, or the fullback having the confidence to take a risk (because they can actually recover) is vital to our success, agreed.

I think both of you are right to point out issues with what I want to be done, and I see the issues too. I think it reduces the amount of players who aren't in a great position to succeed down from 5 (Martin, Hunt, O'Dowda, Paterson, Wells), to 2 (Hunt, O'Dowda) and upgrades one of those positions slightly hopefully resulting in better overall play. But thanks to both for well thought out and considered replies.

[tin]

Good post, @Prinny. I’ve banged on in the past about playing square pegs in square holes and I definitely agree with your points COD and Pato. 

The only thing I disagree with is the central midfield role for Rowe, and if you’re talking about victims of the system where does Massengo fit in (pre-COVID)? I’d have him in ahead of Rowe in CM all day long. What Holden’s issue is with him, we don’t know, and let’s not forget Nagy would probably still be out in the cold if not for Bakinson’s migraine. 

[Prinny]

Just now, tin said:

Good post, @Prinny. I’ve banged on in the past about playing square pegs in square holes and I definitely agree with your points COD and Pato. 

The only thing I disagree with is the central midfield role for Rowe, and if you’re talking about victims of the system where does Massengo fit in (pre-COVID)? I’d have him in ahead of Rowe in CM all day long. What Holden’s issue is with him, we don’t know. 

So I was just taking the players we know are available as in were on the bench yesterday as the selection criteria, I would also have Massengo over him but unsure on if he's ok. I think it's purely Holden's rating of players rather than some conspiracy. He seems to have a list and then work down it, like how Nagy was behind Brunt, until Brunt was awful and unavailable and he HAD to change it. I think Massengo is at the end of the list and we won't see him until it's impossible to not pick him.

6 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

Good OP.

I know it is an incredibly small sample size but Rowe’s only start for us in midfield was Huddersfield away last season & he was really poor & we were awful.

I think he is far better as a LWB or LB.

Paterson has surprised me, he got an excellent block in on the edge of our box yesterday & has done decently overall in a 3.

The point about recovery informing selection though is spot on.

My choices were Rowe or Brunt... in order to better balance out the team! So I get the concerns over Rowe, but at least we've seen him do a decent job on the pitch this season, maybe that's the most emotional and irrational part of the team choice so I'm ok with it being picked out!

[tin]

1 minute ago, Prinny said:

So I was just taking the players we know are available as in were on the bench yesterday as the selection criteria, I would also have Massengo over him but unsure on if he's ok. I think it's purely Holden's rating of players rather than some conspiracy. He seems to have a list and then work down it, like how Nagy was behind Brunt, until Brunt was awful and unavailable and he HAD to change it. I think Massengo is at the end of the list and we won't see him until it's impossible to not pick him.

I agree it’s Holden’s rating of a player rather than a conspiracy. Nagy was only one ahead of HNM in the CM pecking order before Huddersfield and would probably still be out in the cold if Bakinson played that game. Brunt should be at the very bottom of that list, IMHO, and if it’s a choice between him and Rowe, Rowe should get the nod. Brunt offers nothing. 

[Prinny]

16 minutes ago, 1960maaan said:

Good post and some good points.

Going along with your thoughts , there are other tweaks we could use. Wells could do with playing down the middle, allowing for the fact we will play Martin or Fam and Semenyo will play if OK, we could use FD off the left. He's mobile and could use his height / aerial ability against a FB leaving NW in the box where he's most dangerous. If Semenyo is rotated COD could slot in. 
The problem is we lack options and until an hour before KO we won't know if anyone's fit, Holden has been forced into many of the decisions he's made. I've said it before, I think we have to wait until he has a virtually full squad to judge him properly. The last few wins have had the feel of grinding out results, but even ignoring the COVID thing, we still have 8 players missing so whatever I think of the style of our football at the moment, I feel he deserves some leeway.

Wednesday it could be last man standing gets a game, can't wait for some players to start coming back, as for Williams and Walsh, it can only be a let down after all this time and expectation.

Me too, but I still think it's ok to say what we think we can do better while also praising the results and allowing for the circumstances. 

I'm giving him until we have a full squad and probably the next two transfer windows if we're ticking along in the top 10 or so. It'll take time to sort out the close to if not 30 man squad he was left with and deal with the contracts we have running out, and we haven't seen close to his best (what I think HE THINKS is his best) midfield yet as neither Williams or Walsh have appeared.

[Silvio Dante]

19 minutes ago, Prinny said:

Genuine question, do you think Hunt is better as a wing back or do you see no real change when he's at full back?

I think both of you are right to point out issues with what I want to be done, and I see the issues too. I think it reduces the amount of players who aren't in a great position to succeed down from 5 (Martin, Hunt, O'Dowda, Paterson, Wells), to 2 (Hunt, O'Dowda) and upgrades one of those positions slightly hopefully resulting in better overall play. But thanks to both for well thought out and considered replies.

Short answer is I think Hunt is better as a wing back than a full back. I think he’s ok at the latter but good at the former.

However, what I do see when he plays wing back is he runs out of gas at about 70 minutes. Not a shock, puts a real shift in when does. 
 

Maybe one of the happy side effects of the new system, is that in the absence of Sessegnon, we have one senior right back/RWB. And if we played him as a wing back, with the volume of games currently, he’d likely be spent in short order.

Definitely better as a wing back. But ok at full back and managing his workload in the 4-3-3 seems a nice benefit 

[Lanterne Rouge]

Just now, Silvio Dante said:

Short answer is I think Hunt is better as a wing back than a full back. I think he’s ok at the latter but good at the former.

However, what I do see when he plays wing back is he runs out of gas at about 70 minutes. Not a shock, puts a real shift in when does. 
 

Maybe one of the happy side effects of the new system, is that in the absence of Sessegnon, we have one senior right back/RWB. And if we played him as a wing back, with the volume of games currently, he’d likely be spent in short order.

Definitely better as a wing back. But ok at full back and managing his workload in the 4-3-3 seems a nice benefit 

I guess with the signing of Mariappa though we could rotate him a bit with Zak should we feel the need.

[1960maaan]

5 minutes ago, Prinny said:

Me too, but I still think it's ok to say what we think we can do better while also praising the results and allowing for the circumstances. 

Absolutely.
I have had to bite my tongue a bit, try not to post things that are too knee jerk. The last 3 games we have conceded possession for various reasons, yesterday looked worse as there was no press against a side that like to keep the ball. There have been a few things I haven't been happy with but the only criticism that stands up is the subs, I would like to see him a little more proactive. It does sound almost ungrateful , but I do try to be level headed, nt get too excited after a win, or too down after a loss. I really hope we can get a few players fit soon.

[Silvio Dante]

3 minutes ago, Lanterne Rouge said:

I guess with the signing of Mariappa though we could rotate him a bit with Zak should we feel the need.

We could, but I’ve always been of the view that partnerships are vital for success - particularly at CB. You don’t tend to see much rotation in that position and rotating unless we absolutely need to would be madness when Zak and Tomas are developing a partnership.

Look back at the Norwich game. Defence nowhere near same wavelength and undone by basic balls.  

[CyderInACan]

1 hour ago, Bristolisredd said:

only one set of fans are victims 

 

 

Jimmy Corkhill

[1960maaan]

17 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

We could, but I’ve always been of the view that partnerships are vital for success - particularly at CB. You don’t tend to see much rotation in that position and rotating unless we absolutely need to would be madness when Zak and Tomas are developing a partnership.

Look back at the Norwich game. Defence nowhere near same wavelength and undone by basic balls.  

The problem this season has thrown up, even more than others is the relentless run of games. Rotation is essential.
What also comes into it is that we only have one RB/RWB. I can see Vyner being used there and that would mean TM, TK and Mariappa rotating the CB slots until Baker and/or Mawson are back. 
In principle I agree with you, just don't think it's possible as much this year. Didn't't they say something like 9 games in 29 days?

[Robbored]

1 hour ago, 1960maaan said:

The problem this season has thrown up, even more than others is the relentless run of games. Rotation is essential.
What also comes into it is that we only have one RB/RWB. I can see Vyner being used there and that would mean TM, TK and Mariappa rotating the CB slots until Baker and/or Mawson are back. 
In principle I agree with you, just don't think it's possible as much this year. Didn't't they say something like 9 games in 29 days?

Yep and that’s exactly why the current crop of injured players inhibits Deano from rotating the squad as he’d like 

A lot of emphasis is on formations particularly on here but listening to Deano earlier this season he used the words ‘fluidity and flexibility’ when talking about the way he likes his team to play and that formations change many times throughout a game and to much importance is put on formations.

In every game that I watched at AG last season that fluidity was obvious for anyone who cared to notice . I can remember on several occasions seeing the formation change within a few seconds depending  on where and who had possession of the ball and to hear Deano confirm what I’d noticed was music to my ears.

I never ever try to work out what the formation is judging on the starting 11. 

Deano also said that they work of fluidity and flexibility up at Failand so every players is familiar with the system and can adapt quickly to any given situation. No player is a “victim of the system”

Ideally whichever 11 starts the game they’ll all know how to change shape - it’s a significant part of their training. It should be almost instinctive.

What is vital is having enough players of a recognised type. CBs, full backs, midfielders and strikers and if one of those positions is short as it it was at CB it’s necessary to bring in reinforcements.

 

 

 

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, Silvio Dante said:

Short answer is I think Hunt is better as a wing back than a full back. I think he’s ok at the latter but good at the former.

However, what I do see when he plays wing back is he runs out of gas at about 70 minutes. Not a shock, puts a real shift in when does. 
 

Maybe one of the happy side effects of the new system, is that in the absence of Sessegnon, we have one senior right back/RWB. And if we played him as a wing back, with the volume of games currently, he’d likely be spent in short order.

Definitely better as a wing back. But ok at full back and managing his workload in the 4-3-3 seems a nice benefit 

I agree that Hunt is better as a WB, just like Dasilva is better as a LB, but both are capable in the other role.  Hunt has played a great deal of football as a conventional RB across his career...and I do think he’s suffered at times from what he’s had in front of him.  His best RM imho was Watkins....but you can take your pick of Weimann, Eliasson and O’Dowda who didn’t help him much from a technical defensive perspective.  Weimann and Eliasson offered legs but not much nous.  I think Semenyo is learning quickly but imagine Hunt with Brownhill for example in front of him.

1 hour ago, Lanterne Rouge said:

I guess with the signing of Mariappa though we could rotate him a bit with Zak should we feel the need.

Or.....avoid changing Kalas and Vyner and play Mariappa at RB.  He’s played a significant amount of his career at RB and possibly easier to settle in that position that CB.  Of course Taylor Moore can play RB.  His early games for City were at RB.

1 hour ago, 1960maaan said:

Absolutely.
I have had to bite my tongue a bit, try not to post things that are too knee jerk. The last 3 games we have conceded possession for various reasons, yesterday looked worse as there was no press against a side that like to keep the ball. There have been a few things I haven't been happy with but the only criticism that stands up is the subs, I would like to see him a little more proactive. It does sound almost ungrateful , but I do try to be level headed, nt get too excited after a win, or too down after a loss. I really hope we can get a few players fit soon.

Yesterday Holden was the one who showed his hand first....possibly a tad later than the 60 minute mark I thought he needed to make it.  But we created two good chances in the 10 minutes that followed...Pato’s and the goal.

[Davefevs]

10 minutes ago, JonDolman said:

Yep, Massengo alongside Nagy for me if Bakinson, Williams and Walsh all out.

Like I have said before, in this system O'Dowda on the wing and dropping Wells to the bench and picking that extra proper midfielder giving Paterson more freedom, and Nagy too.

Massengo played alongside Nagy in Fulham and Huddersfield wins last season. I don't know how many times they played together, but as long as we have a Paterson type floating but dropping back in to form a 3, then I don't see why that can't be a very hard working and actually quite solid looking 3.

We might not talk about Massengo so much now with all the midfielders we have, but there were some fantastic performances last season. 

In my opinion this season so far Bentley, Hunt, Rowe, Nagy, Weimann and Semenyo all been better under Holden than LJ.

I don't see why Massengo won't be the same. Brunt can then stay on the bench as a good option with 20 to go, hopefully to help see out a win.

6 starts.

I rate Massengo.  If he’s fit over this next 8 games I’d be giving him minutes...his energy is much needed.

[1960maaan]

9 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Yesterday Holden was the one who showed his hand first....possibly a tad later than the 60 minute mark I thought he needed to make it.  But we created two good chances in the 10 minutes that followed...Pato’s and the goal.

True, as you know I wanted a change even earlier though , it's more of a comment on previous games though. 

4 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I rate Massengo.  If he’s fit over this next 8 games I’d be giving him minutes...his energy is much needed.

From last season, though you could question his strength, he showed skill and ability and no little vision. He looked like he'd bulked up over lockdown Mk1 and I'm a little disappointed he's not featured yet. I'm guessing there were other reasons he wasn't involved yesterday.

[E.G.Red]

1 hour ago, 1960maaan said:

True, as you know I wanted a change even earlier though , it's more of a comment on previous games though. 

From last season, though you could question his strength, he showed skill and ability and no little vision. He looked like he'd bulked up over lockdown Mk1 and I'm a little disappointed he's not featured yet. I'm guessing there were other reasons he wasn't involved yesterday.

In the pre match interview, Paul Simpson said Massengo had been experiencing chest pains although not Covid related. May or not be available for Wednesday.

[Prinny]

Bringing this back as today is a great example of what my OP is about.

O'Dowda going forward was effective in that front left area for both goals, Nagy able to get forwards, because there's cover.

Wells and Martin generally ineffective, and the one time they are effective, they're in their effective areas. Close to the goal for Martin, in the box for Wells.

So while some people think formations don't matter, and who don't see why they do, today shows why they are wrong. This second half where we've made the change in midfield to what I've suggested, two 6s and one 8 puts more people in positions to succeed generally, led to us being much more effective in the general play. So I hope Holden learns from his fix, and we start that way next time.

[Davefevs]

2 hours ago, Prinny said:

Bringing this back as today is a great example of what my OP is about.

O'Dowda going forward was effective in that front left area for both goals, Nagy able to get forwards, because there's cover.

Wells and Martin generally ineffective, and the one time they are effective, they're in their effective areas. Close to the goal for Martin, in the box for Wells.

So while some people think formations don't matter, and who don't see why they do, today shows why they are wrong. This second half where we've made the change in midfield to what I've suggested, two 6s and one 8 puts more people in positions to succeed generally, led to us being much more effective in the general play. So I hope Holden learns from his fix, and we start that way next time.

I’ve never said that formations don’t matter, I just say a formation alone doesn’t win you the game.  Some people think it does.  It’s a combination of the two....and depends on opponents formation and players too.  We’ve win and lost games in each formation this season, there is no magic formation.

Undoubtedly the little switches Holden made today in system and personnel and personnel in that tweaked system improved us.

1 hour ago, JonDolman said:

I don't get why anyone would say formations don't matter!

First half we had a back 4 in a 433 with Marriappa ineffective going forward and narrow. Semenyo was high up and not getting the ball partly because of this.

Wells was high up the other side not really tracking back very well.

Nagy and O'Dowda were so far away from Brunt at times. Brunt has no pace and QPR had so much room to run at our defence, it was amazing we only conceded 1.

2nd half going to a sort of 4231, but could say 442 with O'Dowda up top but coming short and wide. It worked superbly well. The same players except Rowe on for Dasilva, but a far far more solid look and far better going forward too. Rowe helped of course, but it was far more than just that.

Changing where the players played on the pitch is what made all the difference. Moving Nagy alongside Brunt and O'Dowda further up changed everything.

I would really like us to go with a double pivot in front of a back 4 next game. We have good options there. Bakinson and Nagy could compliment each other well. Brunt at least did get 90 under his belt and if any role suits him then it's probably the one he did 2nd half with a partner alongside him. When Williams and Walsh will be back we will be spoilt for choice in that position. 

And if we can have O'Dowda or Pato in the 10 then it gives us a really solid look off the ball as they come deep to make it a 3 in midfield.

[Prinny]

6 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I’ve never said that formations don’t matter, I just say a formation alone doesn’t win you the game.  Some people think it does.  It’s a combination of the two....and depends on opponents formation and players too.  We’ve win and lost games in each formation this season, there is no magic formation.

Undoubtedly the little switches Holden made today in system and personnel and personnel in that tweaked system improved us.

The more you can correctly identify the strengths and weakness of your players, the more you can put them into positions to succeed, the better the opportunity to get results IMO.

Formations are really important to me because they dictate how much time a player spends in areas where they are likely to succeed. And Holden can definitely do better working this out AHEAD of time. If I can, and you can, and lots of others can, he and his England youth coaches should be able to.

We've only lost one game where all the players are in what I'd deem sensible positions that suit their strengths, and that was Middlesborough where we were comfortable and it's a massive individual error, which happens and demonstrates it's also about players as well as systems even if you care about systems/formations like I do

[Davefevs]

16 minutes ago, Prinny said:

The more you can correctly identify the strengths and weakness of your players, the more you can put them into positions to succeed, the better the opportunity to get results IMO.

Formations are really important to me because they dictate how much time a player spends in areas where they are likely to succeed. And Holden can definitely do better working this out AHEAD of time. If I can, and you can, and lots of others can, he and his England youth coaches should be able to.

We've only lost one game where all the players are in what I'd deem sensible positions that suit their strengths, and that was Middlesborough where we were comfortable and it's a massive individual error, which happens and demonstrates it's also about players as well as systems even if you care about systems/formations like I do

It’s a combo isn’t it?

It’s more that it bugs me when people “we must play xyz or abc formation, it’s negative....or it’s too open” etc, or 451 is defensive.  You could argue that second half was a mix of 4231 / 4213 / 4411 in different situations, eventually 541 at the end.

[Prinny]

1 minute ago, Davefevs said:

It’s a combo isn’t it?

It’s more that it bugs me when people “we must play xyz or abc formation, it’s negative....or it’s too open” etc, or 451 is defensive.  You could argue that second half was a mix of 4231 / 4213 / 4411 in different situations, eventually 541 at the end.

Absolutely it's a combo.

I think it's ok to go "we must play this formation" (I want us to play this formation) when you take into account the available personnel. I've seen some posts of "this formation never works" and that's not true if it's anything remotely sensible if you have appropriate talent.

I'm sure I'm guilty of saying stuff like "I hate 1 up front at home" instead of "I hate one up front at home, when it's Fam, and we're punting balls at him, and he's getting no support, and there's no runners to advance the play up the field, and we have no balls coming from wide into the box. We should all aim to be less lazy when we speak to people we don't know.

[Davefevs]

9 hours ago, Prinny said:

Absolutely it's a combo.

I think it's ok to go "we must play this formation" (I want us to play this formation) when you take into account the available personnel. I've seen some posts of "this formation never works" and that's not true if it's anything remotely sensible if you have appropriate talent.

I'm sure I'm guilty of saying stuff like "I hate 1 up front at home" instead of "I hate one up front at home, when it's Fam, and we're punting balls at him, and he's getting no support, and there's no runners to advance the play up the field, and we have no balls coming from wide into the box. We should all aim to be less lazy when we speak to people we don't know.

Boom