Jump to content
IGNORED

Time for 3.5.2 on Mon


tinman85

Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, tinman85 said:

I've been to a lot of games home and away and our best performance for me was Fulham away. We dominated the midfield. Why was that? Pack held and Brownhill and Smith had licence to go forward. It worked to perfection.  Would like to see those three again 

 We were over run in the middle of the pitch yesterday, Pack and Smith looked all alone . 

I imagine that Pato and Brownhill were told to occupy their fullbacks out wide but it wasn't very effective.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, tinman85 said:

I've been to a lot of games home and away and our best performance for me was Fulham away. We dominated the midfield. Why was that? Pack held and Brownhill and Smith had licence to go forward. It worked to perfection.  Would like to see those three again 

4-3-1-2 can have Pato or O’Dowda behind the front two. Personally feel Brownhill is much better in CM. He’s a more attacking Korey Smith. Playing narrow will give room for Bryan and Pisano to push forward as well. We need to get our high press back and as you say 3 in the middle is the best way for that imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, tinman85 said:

I've been to a lot of games home and away and our best performance for me was Fulham away. We dominated the midfield. Why was that? Pack held and Brownhill and Smith had licence to go forward. It worked to perfection.  Would like to see those three again 

We were very good at Fulham yes and you keep saying this- but by what metrics did we  'dominate' the midfield?

43% possession,  certainly in the first half it was a lot less. Down to ten for half an hour they were, yeah we were played very well, but I can't see how we dominated as such, in the midfield at least. Not in terms of passing, perhaps in other, more important areas we bossed that area at Fulham.

Nonetheless, for all that- those 3 in whatever combination are a must moving forward IMO, in our central midfield. Would make s a better

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, tinman85 said:

4.4.2 isn't working. We concede goals and don't control the midfield.  

Time to go for:

Fielding 

Wright Flint Baker

Pisano and Bryan wing backs

Smith Brownhill Pack

Reid Diedhiou

 

Seven games to go, level on points with fifth, lost once in five and we want to change the formation that’s got us into this position?

I’m not one for burying heads in the sand, things aren’t perfect, but Jesus Christ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, tinman85 said:

He didn't play badly at all under Cotts in a three 

Sorry but he isn't comfortable defending in wide areas and neither is Flint.  If you play both of them it has to be a back 4.  If one is playing then a back 3 is possible especially as Wright, Kelly and Maggers can play RCB / LCB perfectly well as they're comfortable defending in wide areas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, The Journalist said:

Seven games to go, level on points with fifth, lost once in five and we want to change the formation that’s got us into this position?

I’m not one for burying heads in the sand, things aren’t perfect, but Jesus Christ.

Thing is, we've been poor for around 3 months. We have also played or switched to 3-5-2 a couple of times this year. If we get in the top six it looks like we will be stumbling over the line, then probably playing teams who are in form. Who knows, a change may be the thing we need to re-ignite our season, if we carry on the way we have been going of late I doubt we are going to make it. 
I know we have only lost one in five , but the last 3 of those have been poor, and I include the win over Ipswich .
Of course this is only forum talk as LJ won't change things around. I wouldn't be surprised to see 3 CB's start with Pisano dropping out, and sticking to the usual 4-4-2. COD may be fit for the bench , but the only other change I see is Kelly in and Bryan to LMF. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, The Journalist said:

Seven games to go, level on points with fifth, lost once in five and we want to change the formation that’s got us into this position?

I’m not one for burying heads in the sand, things aren’t perfect, but Jesus Christ.

Glass too half full... Ban this man NOW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, Paterson & Reid both play their best in the same position. Paterson was on form when Fammy was injured, Reid replaced Fammy and Paterson took Reids position. Patersons loss of form is since he's been pushed out wide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Unan said:

Unfortunately, Paterson & Reid both play their best in the same position. Paterson was on form when Fammy was injured, Reid replaced Fammy and Paterson took Reids position. Patersons loss of form is since he's been pushed out wide.

But Paterson was in form before the injury to Fam playing where he is now. First few months he was up there in the top of the chances created charts throughout Europe. He does play well centrally but don’t think you can place his lack of form squarely on his position when he has had success where he has been playing these last few months. He is just out of sorts and needs to be dropped. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 31/03/2018 at 10:53, Olé said:

Part of me would like to see Flint and Hegeler at the back, just to remind Baker and Wright that you don't automatically keep your place if you defend like they did yesterday.

It's not like we ever beat Brentford anyway.

Against Brentford that isn’t the worst suggestion either.  They aren’t physical.  

For those suggesting a 532, do you think Pisano can get up and down like a typical wing-back.  I rate Pisano, but if I was gonna play 532, he’d be my RCB, not RWB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 30/03/2018 at 20:42, JoeAman08 said:

Idk. We have had 2 weeks to work on a different formation so the fact we didn’t use it today means unlikely to see it. On paper looks like it would work but would expose Wright and Baker one on one more and they can be rash at times. Think 442 could work still but LJ not rotating and keeping things fresh has cost us. Give Bryan a few games at LM where he can get forward more. Would probably be a nice change for him. Pato can use a break. Think Brownhill should get some minutes in CM next to Pack or Smith. Eliasson should get a game or 2 to impress. 

Everything seems safe atm. Let us stick with these boys who tbf got us in the mix but 46 games needs changes. Have to use the squad in meaningful games at times. Not just physically tiring but mentally 46 is a grind. Hell it is a grind for us watching!! Mix it up a bit even 442 and I think things can change. If not, well we can’t get much worse

"LJ not rotating has cost us"

laughable

Nevermind all the injuries that meant he hasn't been able to

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 31/03/2018 at 17:41, The Journalist said:

Seven games to go, level on points with fifth, lost once in five and we want to change the formation that’s got us into this position?

I’m not one for burying heads in the sand, things aren’t perfect, but Jesus Christ.

The formation that's seen us drop from 2nd to 7th and win 3 in 15!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, RedNight said:

"LJ not rotating has cost us"

laughable

Nevermind all the injuries that meant he hasn't been able to

He did have chance to give players one game rest, but chose not to.  He may have thought it would’ve weakened us.  His choice, but there was opportunity.  Whether a one game break would be enough, no idea.  With all the science he must have thought hard about whether seeing a player go stale against playing a Taylor, Woodrow, Walsh, Eliasson, etc was the right choice?

There are many little examples of choices where I reckon he’d have done it differently in hindsight.

Would I have send Vyner out on loan when he did, nope.  Said it at the time.  Then Baker gets red carded, Wright us carrying a knock, and he changes too many players around when he could’ve had better options.

Sounds like i’m Being really OTT negative, but he’s done good things too....i’m Just arguing your challenge that he couldn’t rotate. He could have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RedNight said:

"LJ not rotating has cost us"

laughable

Nevermind all the injuries that meant he hasn't been able to

Or the fact he rarely played Vyner, Kelly, Eliasson and Taylor when he easily could have rotated them in to give the likes of Paterson, Bryan and Reid a break when they have clearly been run ragged and the evidence is in the form of those players and the team in general. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

He did have chance to give players one game rest, but chose not to.  He may have thought it would’ve weakened us.  His choice, but there was opportunity.  Whether a one game break would be enough, no idea.  With all the science he must have thought hard about whether seeing a player go stale against playing a Taylor, Woodrow, Walsh, Eliasson, etc was the right choice?

There are many little examples of choices where I reckon he’d have done it differently in hindsight.

Would I have send Vyner out on loan when he did, nope.  Said it at the time.  Then Baker gets red carded, Wright us carrying a knock, and he changes too many players around when he could’ve had better options.

Sounds like i’m Being really OTT negative, but he’s done good things too....i’m Just arguing your challenge that he couldn’t rotate. He could have.

Didn’t see this. We feel the same way. There were and will be more chances to play some of our rotation type players. For me a game like Burton we could have rested say a Korey Smith for Walsh. Or played an Eliasson to keep the width moving Brownhill inside. Before Vyner went on loan we used Korey Smith at RB a few times. Could have just slotted Vyner in. Kelly been playing well and Pato out of form but yet starts Pato instead of playing Bryan ahead of Kelly. 

I am not saying make 4-5 changes in a game but 1-2 should be able to happen in a good team which we are. It is the whole point in having 2 per position. No good having that if you just stick with a core 13-14 players. We have had a good season but burnout has cost us and it could have been avoided to some degree even with the injuries. 

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...