Pearcy Posted November 6, 2013 Report Share Posted November 6, 2013 SOD admits to not liking using wingers yet tonight we played Wagstaff and Bryan for the entire 90 mins and we won our first home League game. I don't think this is just a coincidence. I can't remember SOD using wingers in any other game. I've been saying for weeks that I'm not a fan of the 'narrow', compact game that SOD likes to play. Do people think the formation and playing wingers is going to be something he continues to play or do you all think we will revert back to the narrow game? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Welcome To The Jungle Posted November 6, 2013 Report Share Posted November 6, 2013 The narrow game is fine if you have good full backs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fiale Posted November 6, 2013 Report Share Posted November 6, 2013 Wingers ? Thought we played pretty much the same as the rest of the season. Some good, some bad and some outright ugly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordan Tansley Posted November 6, 2013 Report Share Posted November 6, 2013 SOD admits to not liking using wingers yet tonight we played Wagstaff and Bryan for the entire 90 mins and we won our first home League game. I don't think this is just a coincidence. I can't remember SOD using wingers in any other game. I've been saying for weeks that I'm not a fan of the 'narrow', compact game that SOD likes to play. Do people think the formation and playing wingers is going to be something he continues to play or do you all think we will revert back to the narrow game? But Wagstaff played central midfield. So we didn't play with two wingers. Do people watch the game? I mean some mugs next to me started abusing everyone when Maloney went off for flint, despite it being obvious that he had been carrying a knock for 10 minutes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Wendall Posted November 6, 2013 Report Share Posted November 6, 2013 I'd suggest they've been more wide midfielders than wingers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeh Posted November 6, 2013 Report Share Posted November 6, 2013 we haven't played with an orthdox winger this season, We've played wide midfielders who cut inside and clean up in the middle but not wingers, A winger will hug the touch line somthing nether Bryan or Wagstaff do, Albert is a winger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marksy Posted November 6, 2013 Report Share Posted November 6, 2013 Wagstaff is a winger is he ? Is that what YOU would call him ? Yea i noticed how he was taking on their fullbacks with his pace and dribbling skills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pearcy Posted November 6, 2013 Author Report Share Posted November 6, 2013 It looked to me like we had more width than usual and we were not so narrow. I agree that Wagstaff isn't usually classed as a winger but last night he appeared to get into wider positions than usual and linked up with Maloney well. Joe Bryan was definitely hugging the touchline more and was linking up well with JET and Shorey. To me we looked like we caused them problems by sending the ball out wide and I'd personally like to see more of that. If other people disagree fair enough but this is just what I noticed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Always Believesham Posted November 6, 2013 Report Share Posted November 6, 2013 Do people watch the game? I mean some mugs next to me started abusing everyone when Maloney went off for flint, despite it being obvious that he had been carrying a knock for 10 minutes. Round by me, fans were calling for a change - and they saw a sub get up and were disappointed that it wasn't an attacking change, I don't agree with them, but none of them by me were questioning whether Maloney should go off (by me anyway). Don't think wingers made a difference - fitness did though. It wasn't an exciting performance by any strech but Crawley's players didn't stay switched on when it mattered. It's pub football stuff but if the players don't do anything stupid and get themselves in touching distance with 15 minutes to go, any game is winnable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sephjnr Posted November 6, 2013 Report Share Posted November 6, 2013 I've been saying for weeks that I'm not a fan of the 'narrow', compact game that SOD likes to play. Please explain why you don't like it as I've been to almost every home game and saw far more hoof-and-hope-ball from the players than 'narrow' controlling play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pearcy Posted November 6, 2013 Author Report Share Posted November 6, 2013 Please explain why you don't like it as I've been to almost every home game and saw far more hoof-and-hope-ball from the players than 'narrow' controlling play. You've been to every home game and you think we've been 'controlling' the game by playing narrow. Well I've also been to every home game and I would argue that we haven't 'controlled' one single game. Playing narrow has led to us losing games because our opponents simply get the ball out wide. I don't think we've controlled play either in most games so if that's what a narrow game is supposed to bring in my opinion it's failing. Why don't I like the narrow game? Well the answer to that is simple. My football philosophy is if you get the ball out wide and get crosses into the box and men in the box you will create chances and score goals. If you rely on a more compact game then their is more players in a small area making teams difficult to get through so you are more reliant on players making mistakes to break teams down. I believe every inch of the pitch should be used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sephjnr Posted November 6, 2013 Report Share Posted November 6, 2013 You've been to every home game and you think we've been 'controlling' the game by playing narrow. Since when did I accuse us of 'controlling' anything? Read my quote again word-for-word. I asked you to explain something that's clearly not been evident in 7 months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fiale Posted November 6, 2013 Report Share Posted November 6, 2013 You've been to every home game and you think we've been 'controlling' the game by playing narrow. Well I've also been to every home game and I would argue that we haven't 'controlled' one single game. Playing narrow has led to us losing games because our opponents simply get the ball out wide. I don't think we've controlled play either in most games so if that's what a narrow game is supposed to bring in my opinion it's failing. Why don't I like the narrow game? Well the answer to that is simple. My football philosophy is if you get the ball out wide and get crosses into the box and men in the box you will create chances and score goals. If you rely on a more compact game then their is more players in a small area making teams difficult to get through so you are more reliant on players making mistakes to break teams down. I believe every inch of the pitch should be used. Your philosophy however is a phallacy .. Playing wide, wingers and crosses from the wings does not bring as much success as a more narrow midfield playing mostly through the middle... As they say, our eyes and minds can believe what they say, but the numbers don't lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.