The Humble Realist Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 Please tell me if im the only one who thinks..... - Pack has been our best player in the 2 home games so why was he benched yday? -Why is cotts determined to play non central midfielders I.e.bryan and w.elliot ahead of actual central midfielders I.e.pack, m.elliot, reid -why is el abd playing on the right of the back 3 when its clear he is a middle of the 3 (really a middle of a 4) defender, hes always exposed -our shape has been poor in both the last 2 games due to all of the above -JET is the connundrum as we cant play 442 as we will be overrun in midfield and there is no room for JET and baldock in a 451 -for the record I support cotts , I am just a fan frustrated at us setting up the team wrong in the last 2 matches being forced into changes at half time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin phantom Posted February 5, 2014 Admin Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 That is just the tip of the iceberg at the moment unfortunately Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarcusX Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 Please tell me if im the only one who thinks..... - Pack has been our best player in the 2 home games so why was he benched yday? -Why is cotts determined to play non central midfielders I.e.bryan and w.elliot ahead of actual central midfielders I.e.pack, m.elliot, reid -why is el abd playing on the right of the back 3 when its clear he is a middle of the 3 (really a middle of a 4) defender, hes always exposed -our shape has been poor in both the last 2 games due to all of the above -JET is the connundrum as we cant play 442 as we will be overrun in midfield and there is no room for JET and baldock in a 451 -for the record I support cotts , I am just a fan frustrated at us setting up the team wrong in the last 2 matches being forced into changes at half time I was surprised Pack was dropped. I cant understand it unless he's tired, but no professional, at his age, should be tired still 3 days after a game. We *could* play 4-4-2 but your right, where would JET play? As per most our managers, I wanted him to do well and thought the people judging him before a ball had been kicked were odd. However his decisions in the last few games leave me concerned that he doesn't know what hes doing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Humble Realist Posted February 5, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 on trying new players in new positions surely we arent in a position to be doing this. We lost points yesterday because of it as for el abd , I know cotts thinks it but it obviously isnt working! El abd was exposed all match Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
screech Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 It's because when you are a manager you have to be seen to be clever by switching things around to make it look like you are doing something, when you should be picking players based on ability in their correct positions. One or two may be good enough to play several positions i.e Skuse when he was here, but the vast majority have made careers out of being good in one position. It's not rocket science, when you are a right sided central defender for example, you are used to receiving the ball in a totally different way to your friend who plays left sided, you shape your body to receive it differently because it arrives at you at a different angle. And you certainly wouldn't have two slow centre halfs defending your goal. You wouldn't set up a defense like it at Parks level, let alone 3rd tier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCFC_Dan Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 had nothing to lose by giving it a go. Apart from a home game when we're in a relegation battle? It's not the time to experiment, unless he was making a point to one or more of the established midfielders (as Johnson did.) To my mind, Cotterill should be trying to build a solid team: simple 4-4-2 with 2 solid banks of 4 in which everyone knows their job. Two centre halves; El-Abd OR Flint, plus a quicker one (Williams / Fontaine) and actual full backs at full back. Combative central midfield: 2 from Pack, Gillet and Elliot. Since we lack genuine quality out wide, play central midfielders there to maintain compactness and strength (e.g. Pack, or either Elliot), or play Burns there if we need to score. The players don't know how to play 3-5-2 properly, and there's no point in trying to shoe-horn 3 centre halves into a back 4 by playing someone like El-Abd out of position. He just needs to pick the best player for each position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin1988 Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 Bryan's played centrally in the yoof games plenty of times. He's more a centre mid than he is a left back, certainly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCFC_Dan Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 That's fear rather than trepidation speaking, and fear of relegation lead us sleepwalking to going down last time, because we were scared to change it up when it mattered Actually what I recommend is pretty much what O'Driscoll did last year. It just fell apart when Jon Stead got injured as we had no adequate replacement. It's also what Gary Johnson did in this exact same position in 2006. He brought in some dreadful players (Savage, McCammon etc.) but they did the jobs they were asked to do well enough. I don't consider it fear or trepidation. I consider it to be doing what has been proven to work time and time again. Look at what Pulis is doing with Palace: Holloway had them passing the ball around the back 4 and losing it half the time. Pulis puts the best player available in each position in a simple 4-4-2 and has made them solid and hard to beat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aizoon Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 It's because when you are a manager you have to be seen to be clever by switching things around to make it look like you are doing something, when you should be picking players based on ability in their correct positions. One or two may be good enough to play several positions i.e Skuse when he was here, but the vast majority have made careers out of being good in one position. It's not rocket science, when you are a right sided central defender for example, you are used to receiving the ball in a totally different way to your friend who plays left sided, you shape your body to receive it differently because it arrives at you at a different angle. And you certainly wouldn't have two slow centre halfs defending your goal. You wouldn't set up a defense like it at Parks level, let alone 3rd tier. Nail head hit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aizoon Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 Why 4-4-2? Because every player we get in, even if he's a Martian international, knows how to play it, and know what he's supposed to do. Simples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cider_dog Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 4-4-2 is like speaking English for the most Div 1 Pro footballers. Any other formation is like asking Aden Flint to speak Cantonese. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCFC_Dan Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 The results would say different re SOD. seriously not down to just Stead, we were awful and just going through the motions, we werent hard to beat and hammerings vs Derby, Charlton, Huddersfield, Burnley and someone else Im forgetting where we shipped goals like confetti occured, and we were shipping 2 in most games we lost. Hardly hard to beat. SOD admitted several times that he was playing a certain way to avoid relegation so we didnt get relegated and wouldnt deviate because he didnt have the players, and we went down with a whimper. Results under SO'D prior to Stead's injury: L 0-1 W 2-1 W 2-0 L 0-2 W 2-0 L 1-2 L 1-2 W 5-3 D 0-0 D 0-0 W 2-0 Not invincible, I concede, but 5 wins and 2 draws from 11 games is not awful. Aside from the 5-3 vs Barnsley we only conceded 2 goals at the most and there were 5 clean sheets in those 11 games. The points total is 17 from a possible 33, which is not promotion form but it's not relegation form either. I'd call it solid enough. There are no thrashings in there. After Stead's injury it's a different story: L 1-2 L 0-3 D 1-1 L 3-1 L 1-2 L 0-1 D 0-0 L 1-3 L 4-1 Only 1 clean sheet and 2 points from those 9 games and conceding 3+ goals in nearly half of them. These are the thrashings and capitulations you're remembering. Now by all means blame O'Driscoll for not changing his approach, for not replacing Stead with a loan player, for not motivating the players better. I won't argue. But don't tell me it was all hopeless when the facts say that prior to the injury we had become harder to beat and got better results. As for Palace, Pulis took over on 24th November. Prior to that they had 2 wins and 1 draw from 12 games. Since then they've had 5 wins (3 home, 2 away) and 1 draw from 14, keeping 5 clean sheets in the process. Also, unless I'm reading Soccerbase wrong, It also took Pulis 9 days to get a win, not a month. Formations may be "ceremonial" for good teams with a fluid offence, but they're still crucial defensively. Chelsea beat Man City by being disciplined and holding their defensive shape. Stoke have stayed in the Premier League for years by playing rigidly. It's not the only approach and it won't win much on its own but it definitely works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid in the Riot Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 Well put Dan. Good to see RMLF back on here getting schooled as usual. I thought he was gone for good after being so wildly inaccurate on the abilities of Luke Freeman. Well, if you don't watch games... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCFC_Dan Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 Im going to stick my neck out and say that he wasnt completely instrumental therefore to the results we got( whilst appreciating his goals were helpful) and thus his injury wasnt that pivotal.I appreciate what you were trying to show, however i dont completely agree with it Am not seeing the crucial in terms of defence, what with the rise of zonal over man marking, albeit not always successfully, it's more about bodies in the right places than vs the right man, as I understand it The results suggest that there's a very dramatic collapse in form following the win over Middlesbrough in which Stead was injured, and Sean O'Driscoll stated in an interview that the injury was pivotal in the season. However, I agree that it does not necessarily follow that the injury caused the collapse. It could have been co-incidental. Perhaps losing at Wolves in itself sapped belief from the team and that alone was responsible. Personally I believe that Stead was vital as a personality on the pitch, rather than purely for his goals. Even if he didn't score or assist, he was always working hard up front to win and hold the ball and he had a positive effect on morale. I don't wish to disagree with you in general terms. The game has moved on and the approach I advocate is an outdated one and certainly not something the club should adopt as a model. However, I do think it has its place and it's what I was expecting to see from Cotterill when he arrived. Basically, if he's not going to simplify things and organise the team, I don't see what value he's added over O'Driscoll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Humble Realist Posted February 5, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 To me football is simple. Play players in their actual positions . When struggling make yourself hard to beat. We havent done this in our last 2 home games . We got away with it against Carlisle, but Coventry ran rings round us with no shape, was men against boys in the first half Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wayne allisons tongues Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 I think the defeat at burnley took a lot out of the team. We had a penalty saved in 85th min think Davies took it and would of made it 2 2. That game the players battled away but when the penalty was saved you could see the team sink and I think that told them our time was up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spudski Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 Every one does it. Vasko as CF for GJ and Murray as Striker as well, been all kinds of weird connotations with players playing all over. You dont know untill you try what works and what doesn't. had nothing to lose by giving it a go. Sure it didnt work, but least there is an attempt to see what does and doesnt work. As for position, now is surely the time to see if we can get something that works, rather than stick with something that doesnt? You don't experiment in league games unless you are forced too, either through injury or lack of players in certain positions. You certainly don't experiment when you can't afford to leak points...ok when going for promotion maybe, but not fighting relegation. This is what the training ground is for. You practice on their, until you find something that works. SC has brought in players, played them out of position and given a message to the rest of the squad that he doesn't think they are good enough... if he doesn't believe in them, then how are they going to believe in themselves, him or his tactics? No wonder the football being played is like watching headless chickens. Find a system and plan on the training ground, then keep practicing and stick to the basics until out of trouble. By the sound of it, no one has a clue what to do and have no faith...in their own ability or the managers judgement. A recipe for relegation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redrobbin Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 When your in a relegation battle. You tinker and experiment with formations to see if they work on the training pitch! Not on a match day. ! It's a bit concerning that SC is undecided on his best midfield. Maybe he should take a peek at the old DVD 's. That he refused to watch so not to; " cloud his judgement". Well his perseption of what his best eleven is seems a bit murky at present. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxjak Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 It's because when you are a manager you have to be seen to be clever by switching things around to make it look like you are doing something, when you should be picking players based on ability in their correct positions. One or two may be good enough to play several positions i.e Skuse when he was here, but the vast majority have made careers out of being good in one position. It's not rocket science, when you are a right sided central defender for example, you are used to receiving the ball in a totally different way to your friend who plays left sided, you shape your body to receive it differently because it arrives at you at a different angle. And you certainly wouldn't have two slow centre halfs defending your goal. You wouldn't set up a defense like it at Parks level, let alone 3rd tier. Do you fancy taking over for the next 17 games? As the present coach is out of his depth........and needs to go on gardening leave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spudski Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 Just to pick up on both posts. A recipe for relegation?, yet for the first time this season, pretty much we arent in the relegation places. Sure it's on GD. however that's a massive boon and not something to beat the club about seeing as we've clawed our way from it As said, plenty moaned at Carey in Midfield during Wilson, or Sproule or Murray as striker or whoever in which position. Im sure all of those 'moaning' about the experimentation would have prefered Tinnion to stay as a Centre/LB and Orr to stay as a RM amongst others as that was their original start position. No? Didnt think so and it was first team appearances that initiated the change. See also Rosenior playing all over the pitch etc No? okay then, stop being lead by fear, let the new guy find his feet, something people criticising him were all too keen to do for his predecessor and let him get on with it, rather than hauling him over the coals every 5 secs As said sure we arent great, league position sums that up. However we ARE in general better than we were, if we stay up then bloody fantastic, however that means that the manager has to see how his team works competatively and there will be misfires. This is as opposed to several other managers who did nothing and expected us to stay up You've totally missed the point fella... You don't experiment on match day when you are in a relegation battle. He has plenty of time during the week to experiment...not just 90 mins on a Saturday or Tuesday. Plus how he has gone about team selections, formations that don't work ( across the whole team not just midfield ) and what he says in public. He in my mind is beginning to lose the players...no belief in his own ability, no belief in them, no idea on team selection or tactics. Everyone it seems, is confused and not believing, and even less motivated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spudski Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 Unfortunately it seems SC is a fan of the very modern thinking formation 3-6-1 Great if you have the players to do it and understand it...but it's obvious we don't. He seems stubborn in his outlook and insistent on that's the way we should start games. Then reverts to a more traditional formation when we are behind. One of the weaknesses of the formation is the fact that it can often "collapse" if the opposing team gets the ball behind the defense and into the attacking corner. This is what is often happening in games. The strategic underpinning of the 3-6-1 formation is the idea that the most effective offensive plays are those that start out from a position high up the pitch. Rather than trying to create chances through steady buildup, it tries to generate most of its offense on the counterattack. Defense, therefore, is active and aggressive, rather than reactive and risk-averse. The objective is to crowd the midfield, compress the active area of the pitch, surround the ball and win possession high up the pitch. Again we don't do that. He's trying to play this way, with players who are either incapable, don't understand, or what I prefer to believe, trying to find a formation that will accommodate JET. Either way it's not working. You can be a flexible as you like...but it's obvious to see we don't have the players to do this. As for losing the players... yes I believe he is. I know SoD has gone...and it's history, but the players believed in what he was trying to do. I really think from the players attitude that they don't have faith in SC...just my pennys worth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spudski Posted February 6, 2014 Report Share Posted February 6, 2014 Not sure it's the effort or fitness...but the Instructions from the Coach on what areas to cover and not move from.,, all about laws of average. It also doesn't help when you've got one player just jogging about...that does effect players around you. I remember doing a training exercise on controlling tempo by movement on the pitch and how it can effect the opposition, but also your own players...it was a really interesting exercise and surprising in it's results. Either way...I don't agree with SC experimenting so much in games. Do it on the training pitch. Just hope he see's sense soon and gets a grip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redrobbin Posted February 6, 2014 Report Share Posted February 6, 2014 In any team. Especially one languishing at the foot of league one. You play to your squads strengths. This means playing them in the positions they are a customed too, and have probably been playing in for the majority of their professional footballing life, if not their entire footballing life. The fact of the matter is that there arn't too many versatile quality players applying their trade in league one. Players who are able to adapt and play at their optimum standard in a position they are not accustomed to. As suggest by one poster SC is playing these players out of position to teach them a lesson.? May I suggest that if you are unhappy with a player for whatever reason, you sideline that player. And bring someone else in from the squad to do his job. You don't play him out of position. Putting the shape and effectiveness of the team in jeopardy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redrobbin Posted February 7, 2014 Report Share Posted February 7, 2014 Play to their position? Which 'formation' is the best then, seeing that we havent had the players to play 4-4-2 since GJ left and as mentioned been hammered when we've tried it by and large. If you mean another formation, which one do you mean. As not everyone is going to be coached or in a certain way or to a specfic formation, players are often asked to play in different ways these days.. You can then get on the 'position' debate.. Define positions, over areas these days I think you are over complicating/analysing things slightly. Football is football and shouldn't be turned into some sort of science. What I am basiclly saying is that the two recent home games we have played the formation or personnel were wrong. Hence the half time changes in both games. SC tactics playing three at the back with el ald playing on the right where he was beaten for pace, was exposed every time their left sided player ran down that flank. And basiclly looked uncomfortable all night. He is used to playing I the middle of a back four. Ask a Brighton fan where is best position is. Because we are certainly not playing him in it. The first Half of both games were carbon copies of each other, we were very fortunate against Carlisle the game could have been out of sight before half time as it turned out the game was already lost In the first half onTuesday night. Which makes you wonder why he stuck with the three at the back on the Tuesday. Ok we wanted five in midfield so we wouldn't get over run, but onTuesday night that was exactly what happened I the first half anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.