So, what’s wrong and how to fix it......

[bcfcredandwhite]

Pragmatic replies in perspective please - not an LJ bashing or Love-in fest  

Following a relatively good series of results, we have lost 3 games on the bounce - despite landing the striker that a lot of us were calling for in Wells  

So,  let’s look at what’s changed; 

1. Brownhill gone. Was he contributing  more than we gave him credit for? Possibly - but he was also ever-present in the team during our other losing streaks too, so maybe not. However, he was club captain and I’m assuming that means he had leadership qualities - which haven’t been replaced (?)

2. Weimann dropped. Was his constant energy and fitness more of a factor than we (LJ) realised? Should he come back into the starting 11?

3. New starters - Has the arrival of the new players upset the camaraderie in the dressing room, with Wells coming straight into the side at Weimann’s expense? To be fair, many of us were endorsing that selection change including myself.

4. Illness. Assuming press reports are true the squad was unable to train fully last week. Looking at some of the dire individual performances last night could they still be under the weather? I only watched the second half yesterday but they looked tired and lethargic, giving the ball away with poor passing and were second in most of the 50-50s (Bentley aside)

5. LJ - he picks the team and chooses the formation and tactics. I’ve always supported him and I am still more ‘in’ than ‘out’ but he screwed up yesterday - the thing is, I can’t say HOW he screwed up. Clearly his selection and tactics failed, but what SHOULD he have done? Were his selections forced? I’m not making excuses for him btw - just asking the question. It’s also valid to question who realistically would do better at this late stage of the season , given that the squad has NO players from the Cotts era in it now .

6. Are the players rebelling against the manager and deliberately playing badly to force a change? 
I really can’t see this - despite recent form we are still in touch with the promotion pack. Nobody would deliberately scupper the chance of a playoff place - even if they disagree with the formation and tactics they would be professional to win headers and complete passes, wouldn’t they?

7. Are we overreacting? After all, we are still 7th, and all teams lose games they should have won on paper. Brentford lost to Luton last night - isn’t that worse, considering they are higher than us in the league and Luton are lower than Huddersfield. 

8. A combination of some or all of the above? 

 

[bcfcredandwhite]

CORRECTION against point 5 - I think Cotts might have signed Smith(?)

[maxjak]

17 hours ago, bcfcredandwhite said:

Pragmatic replies in perspective please - not an LJ bashing or Love-in fest  

Following a relatively good series of results, we have lost 3 games on the bounce - despite landing the striker that a lot of us were calling for in Wells  

So,  let’s look at what’s changed; 

1. Brownhill gone. Was he contributing  more than we gave him credit for? Possibly - but he was also ever-present in the team during our other losing streaks too, so maybe not. However, he was club captain and I’m assuming that means he had leadership qualities - which haven’t been replaced (?)

2. Weimann dropped. Was his constant energy and fitness more of a factor than we (LJ) realised? Should he come back into the starting 11?

3. New starters - Has the arrival of the new players upset the camaraderie in the dressing room, with Wells coming straight into the side at Weimann’s expense? To be fair, many of us were endorsing that selection change including myself.

4. Illness. Assuming press reports are true the squad was unable to train fully last week. Looking at some of the dire individual performances last night could they still be under the weather? I only watched the second half yesterday but they looked tired and lethargic, giving the ball away with poor passing and were second in most of the 50-50s (Bentley aside)

5. LJ - he picks the team and chooses the formation and tactics. I’ve always supported him and I am still more ‘in’ than ‘out’ but he screwed up yesterday - the thing is, I can’t say HOW he screwed up. Clearly his selection and tactics failed, but what SHOULD he have done? Were his selections forced? I’m not making excuses for him btw - just asking the question. It’s also valid to question who realistically would do better at this late stage of the season , given that the squad has NO players from the Cotts era in it now .

6. Are the players rebelling against the manager and deliberately playing badly to force a change? 
I really can’t see this - despite recent form we are still in touch with the promotion pack. Nobody would deliberately scupper the chance of a playoff place - even if they disagree with the formation and tactics they would be professional to win headers and complete passes, wouldn’t they?

7. Are we overreacting? After all, we are still 7th, and all teams lose games they should have won on paper. Brentford lost to Luton last night - isn’t that worse, considering they are higher than us in the league and Luton are lower than Huddersfield. 

8. A combination of some or all of the above? 

 

With reference to your opening statement..........you have told us what is wrong...............but NOT how to fix it?

[mozo]

I worry that Johnson will keep experimenting with the line up until we win, which is a continuation of our problematic mix and match approach. 

It seems like it won't be long before Kasey Palmer is crow-barred into the line up, meaning another new system, more rotation, more uncertainty, continued inconsistency. 

[bcfcredandwhite]

40 minutes ago, maxjak said:

With reference to your opening statement..........you have told us what is wrong...............but NOT how to fix it?

I know - because I DON’T know (if you see what I mean!!) 

(Actually I haven’t TOLD you what’s wrong - just made some suggestions  )

Many people want Johnson gone (many also don’t) but apart from those 2 camps arguing with each other there have been few suggestions (that I have seen) on here about how to fix things on the pitch. 
Other than ‘tinkering’ with the side, how else can we fix it? It’s basically trial and error (the last 3 games being errors) 

[downendcity]

Too much chopping and changing of selections, formations and tactics.

With our current form , if the trend continues we will end up nowhere, so on the principle of madness being that you keep doing what you've been doing , but expecting a different result, do something different.

How about deciding the best way to get the best and most effective team team from the players available,

If that involves a formation that can't include Elliason, then do it. If it means playing a lone striker and that striker is Wells, but that this means leaving Famara out, then do it. If it means leaving out 2 recent signings who aren't match fit enough to cope with the physical pressure of a championship run in, then do it. If it means leaving out some of your favourite players, but gives us a stronger midfield and defence, then do it.

Having made the tough decisions then for God's sake try and stick with it for the rest of the season , injuries and suspensions permitting, so that the players know what they are doing from one game to the next, and who  they are playing with and how they are meant to be playing, as a team. I know it sounds to simple , but it can hardly be a worse course of action than the one we seem to be on just now.

[David Brent]

There really is a difference in Brentford losing against Luton to our recent performances. Brentford were away, had 19 shots and 69% possession. With respect, it’s a completely different situation to ours

[Monkeh]

whats wrong: - they way the team is set up and being instructed to play

How to fix it: - replace the head coach with someone who knows how to get the best out of players and takes responsibility for failings instead of throwing everyone from the COO down under the bus

[bcfcredandwhite]

3 hours ago, downendcity said:

Too much chopping and changing of selections, formations and tactics.

With our current form , if the trend continues we will end up nowhere, so on the principle of madness being that you keep doing what you've been doing , but expecting a different result, do something different.

How about deciding the best way to get the best and most effective team team from the players available,

If that involves a formation that can't include Elliason, then do it. If it means playing a lone striker and that striker is Wells, but that this means leaving Famara out, then do it. If it means leaving out 2 recent signings who aren't match fit enough to cope with the physical pressure of a championship run in, then do it. If it means leaving out some of your favourite players, but gives us a stronger midfield and defence, then do it.

Having made the tough decisions then for God's sake try and stick with it for the rest of the season , injuries and suspensions permitting, so that the players know what they are doing from one game to the next, and who  they are playing with and how they are meant to be playing, as a team. I know it sounds to simple , but it can hardly be a worse course of action than the one we seem to be on just now.

 But - you could also apply the old saying: ‘if you always do what you’ve always done, you’ll always get what you’ve always got...’

Sticking with a losing formula is what got Cotts sacked. Let’s face it, if LJ fielded the same side that got spanked the previous game there would be some ‘questions’ asked (putting it politely!)

 

[Dr Balls]

It’s the same problem that we have had in years: getting the midfield balance right. On recent evidence, we need 3 central midfielders so as not to be outnumbered. Then the question comes do you play 3 or 4 at the back. I would suggest 4 is fine as long as we have a central defender combination that you can trust. Against Matt Smith at Millwall, one of them has to be Baker for the aerial battle.

Up front Wells should start. Behind him he needs players who can play the ball forward to him, plus cover the full backs as needed. Pick 2 out of Weimann, Paterson and Palmer. My preference would be to give Pato a break and see what the other 2 can do. We certainly need a lot more creativity, plus speed of thought and action.

On the bench I would have Fam & Eliasson allowing the option to change things around up front, particularly against tiring defenders.

Whether you want to call the formation 4-3-3 or 4-4-2-1, doesn’t matter but it’s certainly worth a try compared to what we have seen recently, which has been woeful at best.

[bcfcredandwhite]

1 hour ago, Dr Balls said:

It’s the same problem that we have had in years: getting the midfield balance right. On recent evidence, we need 3 central midfielders so as not to be outnumbered. Then the question comes do you play 3 or 4 at the back. I would suggest 4 is fine as long as we have a central defender combination that you can trust. Against Matt Smith at Millwall, one of them has to be Baker for the aerial battle.

Up front Wells should start. Behind him he needs players who can play the ball forward to him, plus cover the full backs as needed. Pick 2 out of Weimann, Paterson and Palmer. My preference would be to give Pato a break and see what the other 2 can do. We certainly need a lot more creativity, plus speed of thought and action.

On the bench I would have Fam & Eliasson allowing the option to change things around up front, particularly against tiring defenders.

Whether you want to call the formation 4-3-3 or 4-4-2-1, doesn’t matter but it’s certainly worth a try compared to what we have seen recently, which has been woeful at best.

This is one of the most sensible posts I’ve read in recent weeks

spot on. 

[The Dolman Pragmatist]

1 hour ago, Dr Balls said:

It’s the same problem that we have had in years: getting the midfield balance right. On recent evidence, we need 3 central midfielders so as not to be outnumbered. Then the question comes do you play 3 or 4 at the back. I would suggest 4 is fine as long as we have a central defender combination that you can trust. Against Matt Smith at Millwall, one of them has to be Baker for the aerial battle.

Up front Wells should start. Behind him he needs players who can play the ball forward to him, plus cover the full backs as needed. Pick 2 out of Weimann, Paterson and Palmer. My preference would be to give Pato a break and see what the other 2 can do. We certainly need a lot more creativity, plus speed of thought and action.

On the bench I would have Fam & Eliasson allowing the option to change things around up front, particularly against tiring defenders.

Whether you want to call the formation 4-3-3 or 4-4-2-1, doesn’t matter but it’s certainly worth a try compared to what we have seen recently, which has been woeful at best.

4-4-2-1 would certainly be worth a try

[Guest]

For me there are 2 things.

Losing Korey. We can see how much we miss him when he isn't here.

Trying to fit in Wells. Like I said on a previous thread we have had good success when going Fam up top on his own.

It's not just Wells, but when LJ has gone with Weimann up top with Fam we have had similar problems to what we are seeing now.

The answer to me seems to be play one of either Fam or Wells. Go 4141 or 4231. Get some control in the midfield. Make us more solid as a unit as well as having more options to pass to.

Another option would be to go 352 with Wells and Weimann rather like the Afobe and Weimann partnership we saw earlier in the season.

It doesn't look good when LJ himself doesn't seem to understand why we are playing so badly. I don't see a lack of effort from the players.

[Spud55]

2 hours ago, bcfcredandwhite said:

 But - you could also apply the old saying: ‘if you always do what you’ve always done, you’ll always get what you’ve always got...’

Sticking with a losing formula is what got Cotts sacked. Let’s face it, if LJ fielded the same side that got spanked the previous game there would be some ‘questions’ asked (putting it politely!)

 

I don't think that's the case, I can't claim to speak for everyone who wants Johnson gone, but from my point of view it's the complete lack of plan and "identity" that is my problem. 

I can deal with the performances if we had this identity, but as it is the plan changes all the time and the second anything goes against us the plan is binned and another seemingly random plan is tried. 

 

[bcfcredandwhite]

1 hour ago, JonDolman said:

For me there are 2 things.

Losing Korey. We can see how much we miss him when he isn't here.

Trying to fit in Wells. Like I said on a previous thread we have had good success when going Fam up top on his own.

It's not just Wells, but when LJ has gone with Weimann up top with Fam we have had similar problems to what we are seeing now.

The answer to me seems to be play one of either Fam or Wells. Go 4141 or 4231. Get some control in the midfield. Make us more solid as a unit as well as having more options to pass to.

Another option would be to go 352 with Wells and Weimann rather like the Afobe and Weimann partnership we saw earlier in the season.

It doesn't look good when LJ himself doesn't seem to understand why we are playing so badly. I don't see a lack of effort from the players.

I agree with most of this post, but the bit about the lack of effort - maybe not effort, but they looked poor on Tuesday. Particularly with passing and getting to the 50-50 headers. Huddersfield were better 80% of the time for what I saw. That’s not directly LJs fault (although possibly indirectly if the players are trying to follow 5hite orders)

maybe it was the ‘illness’ but the players themselves were poor - as well as any blame LJ deserves..

[ExiledAjax]

To be honest the answer is that across the whole season not much has changed at all.

We started the season conceding a lot of possession, taking a few high quality shots and allowing our opponents to shoot at will - from areas with low chances of scoring. Over the first ten games we averaged 44.4% possession, with only two of those games being above 50% (Birmingham away and Stoke away). We took 112 shots, 35 of which were on target, 17 of which were goals (so that is 48% shot on target to goal conversion). We allowed 155 shots, 43 of which were on target, and conceded 13 goals. Points gained: 17.

Now look at the last ten games. Average possession of 40.7%, again with only two being over 50% (Birmingham again, and WBA). Shots for is 91, 27 on target and 10 goals (only 37% conversion). Shots against is 161, 51 on target and conceded 15. Points gained: 15.

So basically despite the changes that you list out, despite the differences in personnel, formations, weather, fashion, tactics etc the ultimate effectiveness and style of the team has remained largely consistent. We've even broadly garnered the same number of points from the last ten as we did from the first ten. We're a bit more shot-shy but really the biggest change is the percentage of our shots on target that become goals. That I think can be put down to one thing: fortune.

[mozo]

18 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

To be honest the answer is that across the whole season not much has changed at all.

We started the season conceding a lot of possession, taking a few high quality shots and allowing our opponents to shoot at will - from areas with low chances of scoring. Over the first ten games we averaged 44.4% possession, with only two of those games being above 50% (Birmingham away and Stoke away). We took 112 shots, 35 of which were on target, 17 of which were goals (so that is 48% shot on target to goal conversion). We allowed 155 shots, 43 of which were on target, and conceded 13 goals. Points gained: 17.

Now look at the last ten games. Average possession of 40.7%, again with only two being over 50% (Birmingham again, and WBA). Shots for is 91, 27 on target and 10 goals (only 37% conversion). Shots against is 161, 51 on target and conceded 15. Points gained: 15.

So basically despite the changes that you list out, despite the differences in personnel, formations, weather, fashion, tactics etc the ultimate effectiveness and style of the team has remained largely consistent. We've even broadly garnered the same number of points form the last ten as we did form the first ten. The biggest change is the percentage of our shots on target that become goals. That I think can be put down to one thing: fortune.

Major differences are that we were organised, confident in our roles, limiting opposition to long shots, dangerous on the counter, snapping at the heels of opposition, neat passing in triangles...

Gradually we became more negative and less effective. We look lost, confidence shot, confused about roles and formation.