Defence - good individuals but not a good unit

[Top Robin]

Watching the game at the weekend and previous ones, to me it is clear that we do have reasonably decent individual defenders but as a unit we are nothing short of a shambles at times.

Sounds bizarre but some of the defenders can actually play well whilst the defence as a whole can be dreadful. 

The goal v Barnsley was keystone cops and an illustration of just that.

People will say we haven't let many in but that is more to do with Bents and very good fortune in many games.

[Rossi the Robin]

It’s the whole team in general.

Most teams that have come to AG in the last 4 years seem better drilled and seem to play out in little triangles whilst we don’t do that 

Like you say, individuals. Seems to be the result of awful random player recruitment that is mentioned quite often on here now

[Pezo]

We're just not physical enough everywhere else on the pitch infront of the defence, every team seems to do a little bit off the ball consistently - we seem to do next to nothing letting runners move with freedom. I'm only aware of Williams that I've seen hammer players off the ball before they become a problem.

[Silvio Dante]

I think some thought has to be given here to time - both as a unit, and at this level. If you look at Saturday, and a back line of Tanner-Kalas-Atkinson-Pring, then you’ve got three of them who haven’t played at this level before this season (two of which haven’t been here six months with the other injured until pre-season), and the other described by NP as not a captain in the traditional sense but someone who leads by example.

So, with that, I’d expect them to be relatively uncohesive. I also think that’s one of the reasons why NP likes Baker back there - again, not a great communicator, but the experience aids the collective.

Add in NP clearly hasn’t been happy with how the coaching has been done and you’re left with the following:

- Inexperienced players

- No established leader at this level

- Limited time together

- Poorly coached?

The good news is that the more they play, at least two of those will naturally improve. It’s another reason why this season is about laying foundations 

[Merrick's Marvels]

It's what happens in front of them that causes us to be at 6s and 7s a lot of the time.

On Saturday Kalas and Atkinson played very well together. Tanner and Pring, instructed to tuck in and cover, also played well especially when you consider they often had opponents galloping towards them in acres of space out wide as well.

If the rest of the team had been set up to 1) retain possession better and 2) offer better protection to the back 4, it might not have required such a monumental effort to beat.... the worst team in the league. 

I appreciate we have players missing through injury but even the ones available on Saturday might have been deployed rather more effectively, in my amateur analysis. But what do I know?

Perhaps the manager should be applauded for being brave and "going for it" in what was, pretty much, a must win fixture?    

Edited November 1, 2021 by Merrick's Marvels

[1960maaan]

You can take nearly every criticism levelled at the team over the last year , and they would be right to some extent.
 

31 minutes ago, Top Robin said:

defenders can actually play well whilst the defence as a whole can be dreadful.

True at times

 

24 minutes ago, Rossi the Robin said:

Most teams  seem better drilled and seem to play out in little triangles whilst we don’t do that 

True at times

 

6 minutes ago, Pezo said:

We're just not physical enough

True at times.

You can go on. As a team we look disjointed , and my big worry is that from early signs of improvement, we have gone backwards.
Pearson has tried to address injuries by changing medical and backroom staff. He's brought in "his" assistant and recently good rid of 2 coaches that have had , seemingly , little affect on the team. I wonder if this is another step towards getting his people around him, or at least people that see things his way. 
I would have hoped we could be controlling games, or at least keeping possession a little better now, but we look every bit as "Hot Potato " as any time over the last 18 months. 
There are mitigating circumstances for NP, inherited a poor unbalanced squad. Had to dump about 14 players some maybe not his choice. Minimum spending potential .Never had his full squad available, etc etc. But he's had the squad for 8 months now, including a pre-season , what is different?  You can go through the squad, we haven't got poor players, but we are a poor team. I doubt we will spend in January , unless we find a bargain or we are desperate.  So I think we need to see some sort of improvement before January , because if we don't , and we are flirting with relegation, I imagine Lansdown will be asking the big question again.

Stick or twist ?

[OneTeamInBristol]

As mentioned above think you can apply that to the whole team at the moment.

At times on Saturday, especially from goal kicks and set pieces, it looked as though none of the 11 players had ever met each other before. Seemingly absolutely no plan on what to do in those situations.

What do they practice all week in training?

[Clutton Caveman]

51 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

I think some thought has to be given here to time - both as a unit, and at this level. If you look at Saturday, and a back line of Tanner-Kalas-Atkinson-Pring, then you’ve got three of them who haven’t played at this level before this season (two of which haven’t been here six months with the other injured until pre-season), and the other described by NP as not a captain in the traditional sense but someone who leads by example.

So, with that, I’d expect them to be relatively uncohesive. I also think that’s one of the reasons why NP likes Baker back there - again, not a great communicator, but the experience aids the collective.

Add in NP clearly hasn’t been happy with how the coaching has been done and you’re left with the following:

- Inexperienced players

- No established leader at this level

- Limited time together

- Poorly coached?

The good news is that the more they play, at least two of those will naturally improve. It’s another reason why this season is about laying foundations 

I don't really see how you can blame the defence, when our midfield cannot hold the ball for 2 mins they are constantly under pressure. We are so poor at preventing crosses at time it looks like a defence v attack training drill and players picking up clearance at the edge of our box seem to have all the time in the world to control the ball and shoot. For every set piece we leave nobody up and so when we clear he ball it comes straight back. We focus on the defence because the play is so often close to our box. I don't see a single leader in our team. Even the quiet Kalas was clearly furious at how often the ball just came back.

[Davefevs]

Hypocrite alert coming up!!!

For me Saturday was a clash of formations.  @And Its Smithsaid Nige set up up wrong pre game, before he knew how we were playing but soothsayer that he is () he ended up being right imho.

Against a team like Barnsley who play a high line, the diamond has no room to operate.

Ignore the pitch markings on the graphic, but just look at Weimann, no space to operate in generally, and wasted. When we don’t have the ball, Barnsley got the ball to Kitching (5) or Andersen (6) who had un-pressured passes to Williams (2) and Brittain (7).  Iseka (11) and Cole (44) kept Tanner and Pring occupied, and their 2 WBs had the freedom of AG.  When Massengo tried to press Kitching on his own, Williams just gave a different angle and now Massengo out if the game too.  That was where his inexperience and slight ill-discipline came in.  On the other side Bakinson didn’t get dragged out, but also offered nothing to support Pring.

With the ball, especially with Bentley our FBs were stopped by their side forwards, but between Kalas, Atkinson and James coming deep we should’ve been able to create room to play out from the back.  Push Tanner and Pring high, drag Iseka and Cole with them, leaving Woodrow on his own against TK, RA and MJ.  Or if their 3 forwards stayed central, we then chip balls out to our FBs.

Ultimately we got it wrong with and without the ball.  Bar a few 3rd man runs from Weimann (which got him 2 goals) he was completely nullified.  Thank god for those couple of bits of quality, one of which was by Kalas stepping into midfield and breaking their structure with a good pass, and then a clever one-two.  Training ground stuff.

Pre-game I thought it might be 433.

In this set up, Barnsley cannot get any of their CBs on the ball.  Collins (GK) can chip balls out to the WBs, but once we know which wing it is going to we can quickly adjust to that side of the pitch.  If it goes to Brittain, Bakinson goes across to challenge / close him, James picks up Moon (15), Massengo picks up Gomes (17), we don’t need to worry about Williams at LWB when the ball is on the opposite wing.  We have a 4v3 at the back.  Happy days.

With the ball things do become a bit more difficult to play out, but if James drops in, Moon or Gomes need to go with him, meaning Massengo and Bakinson will attract Brittain or Williams infield.  Guess what, room then in behind them.  Easy…well in theory, but that should have been part of a plan to move them about.

We actually went 442 for part of the second half, but as Martin was knackered, it meant they had 3 CBs to play around 2 forwards (one of which was tired), so they exploited being able to either move the ball forward with their side CBs, or able to launch the ball forward with no pressure.  Brittain and Williams gambling high up, create a 5v4 on our back line in effect.

I was disappointed by this.

I know Nige says he is focussing more on us at the mo’ because we aren’t executing ourselves, but I really hope this wasn’t blasé opposition analysis.

So, a game where our formation v their formation caused us lots of problems, but even in the diamond, there were still ways to exploit their 343, we just didn’t spot them….they came by chance I reckon.

Guess what, another opponent with wingbacks tomorrow - Birmingham.  They play a 352 so a different set of problems / opportunities.

 

[Paul G]

Just now, Davefevs said:

Hypocrite alert coming up!!!

For me Saturday was a clash of formations.  @And Its Smithsaid Nige set up up wrong pre game, before he knew how we were playing but soothsayer that he is () he ended up being right imho.

Against a team like Barnsley who play a high line, the diamond has no room to operate.

Ignore the pitch markings on the graphic, but just look at Weimann, no space to operate in generally, and wasted. When we don’t have the ball, Barnsley got the ball to Kitching (5) or Andersen (6) who had un-pressured passes to Williams (2) and Brittain (7).  Iseka (11) and Cole (44) kept Tanner and Pring occupied, and their 2 WBs had the freedom of AG.  When Massengo tried to press Kitching on his own, Williams just gave a different angle and now Massengo out if the game too.  That was where his inexperience and slight ill-discipline came in.  On the other side Bakinson didn’t get dragged out, but also offered nothing to support Pring.

With the ball, especially with Bentley our FBs were stopped by their side forwards, but between Kalas, Atkinson and James coming deep we should’ve been able to create room to play out from the back.  Push Tanner and Pring high, drag Iseka and Cole with them, leaving Woodrow on his own against TK, RA and MJ.  Or if their 3 forwards stayed central, we then chip balls out to our FBs.

Ultimately we got it wrong with and without the ball.  Bar a few 3rd man runs from Weimann (which got him 2 goals) he was completely nullified.  Thank god for those couple of bits of quality, one of which was by Kalas stepping into midfield and breaking their structure with a good pass, and then a clever one-two.  Training ground stuff.

Pre-game I thought it might be 433.

In this set up, Barnsley cannot get any of their CBs on the ball.  Collins (GK) can chip balls out to the WBs, but once we know which wing it is going to we can quickly adjust to that side of the pitch.  If it goes to Brittain, Bakinson goes across to challenge / close him, James picks up Moon (15), Massengo picks up Gomes (17), we don’t need to worry about Williams at LWB when the ball is on the opposite wing.  We have a 4v3 at the back.  Happy days.

With the ball things do become a bit more difficult to play out, but if James drops in, Moon or Gomes need to go with him, meaning Massengo and Bakinson will attract Brittain or Williams infield.  Guess what, room then in behind them.  Easy…well in theory, but that should have been part of a plan to move them about.

We actually went 442 for part of the second half, but as Martin was knackered, it meant they had 3 CBs to play around 2 forwards (one of which was tired), so they exploited being able to either move the ball forward with their side CBs, or able to launch the ball forward with no pressure.  Brittain and Williams gambling high up, create a 5v4 on our back line in effect.

I was disappointed by this.

I know Nige says he is focussing more on us at the mo’ because we aren’t executing ourselves, but I really hope this wasn’t blasé opposition analysis.

So, a game where our formation v their formation caused us lots of problems, but even in the diamond, there were still ways to exploit their 343, we just didn’t spot them….they came by chance I reckon.

Guess what, another opponent with wingbacks tomorrow - Birmingham.  They play a 352 so a different set of problems / opportunities.

 

I saw Nige telling them to go 4-4-1-1 in the second half, whether they did or not is another question but I have my doubts as there was no cover on the right of midfield at all.

[RedRock]

Yep, agree with the OP. 
 

The last two of Barnsley’s chances - the one that hit the post/angle, the other Cole’s miss - just demonstrates how far we are off a cohesive unit. It was schoolboy defending. Just awful. 
 

Opposition players left unmarked and in loads of space on the edge of the 6 yard box, a ‘rush’ keeper, four players going for one opponent. Nah, that’s totally shambolic. 

The problem is the entire team look like a bunch of strangers. Midfield is AWOL. Attacking play just bewilders me.

 

I’m still behind NP. Increasingly though, I think he is dependent on having excellent coaches to deliver his ideas and players with a certain DNA. He has at the moment got neither and, boy, is that not reflected in the performances on the pitch. 
 

It was an absolute shambles of a Club that Nige inherited. This is why he is being given time by most to sort it. We need some signs of progress soon and I remain optimistic that it will happen. 

 

 

[And Its Smith]

18 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Hypocrite alert coming up!!!

For me Saturday was a clash of formations.  @And Its Smithsaid Nige set up up wrong pre game, before he knew how we were playing but soothsayer that he is () he ended up being right imho.

Against a team like Barnsley who play a high line, the diamond has no room to operate.

Ignore the pitch markings on the graphic, but just look at Weimann, no space to operate in generally, and wasted. When we don’t have the ball, Barnsley got the ball to Kitching (5) or Andersen (6) who had un-pressured passes to Williams (2) and Brittain (7).  Iseka (11) and Cole (44) kept Tanner and Pring occupied, and their 2 WBs had the freedom of AG.  When Massengo tried to press Kitching on his own, Williams just gave a different angle and now Massengo out if the game too.  That was where his inexperience and slight ill-discipline came in.  On the other side Bakinson didn’t get dragged out, but also offered nothing to support Pring.

With the ball, especially with Bentley our FBs were stopped by their side forwards, but between Kalas, Atkinson and James coming deep we should’ve been able to create room to play out from the back.  Push Tanner and Pring high, drag Iseka and Cole with them, leaving Woodrow on his own against TK, RA and MJ.  Or if their 3 forwards stayed central, we then chip balls out to our FBs.

Ultimately we got it wrong with and without the ball.  Bar a few 3rd man runs from Weimann (which got him 2 goals) he was completely nullified.  Thank god for those couple of bits of quality, one of which was by Kalas stepping into midfield and breaking their structure with a good pass, and then a clever one-two.  Training ground stuff.

Pre-game I thought it might be 433.

In this set up, Barnsley cannot get any of their CBs on the ball.  Collins (GK) can chip balls out to the WBs, but once we know which wing it is going to we can quickly adjust to that side of the pitch.  If it goes to Brittain, Bakinson goes across to challenge / close him, James picks up Moon (15), Massengo picks up Gomes (17), we don’t need to worry about Williams at LWB when the ball is on the opposite wing.  We have a 4v3 at the back.  Happy days.

With the ball things do become a bit more difficult to play out, but if James drops in, Moon or Gomes need to go with him, meaning Massengo and Bakinson will attract Brittain or Williams infield.  Guess what, room then in behind them.  Easy…well in theory, but that should have been part of a plan to move them about.

We actually went 442 for part of the second half, but as Martin was knackered, it meant they had 3 CBs to play around 2 forwards (one of which was tired), so they exploited being able to either move the ball forward with their side CBs, or able to launch the ball forward with no pressure.  Brittain and Williams gambling high up, create a 5v4 on our back line in effect.

I was disappointed by this.

I know Nige says he is focussing more on us at the mo’ because we aren’t executing ourselves, but I really hope this wasn’t blasé opposition analysis.

So, a game where our formation v their formation caused us lots of problems, but even in the diamond, there were still ways to exploit their 343, we just didn’t spot them….they came by chance I reckon.

Guess what, another opponent with wingbacks tomorrow - Birmingham.  They play a 352 so a different set of problems / opportunities.

 

Not quite what I said, or at least not quite what a meant!  I believed that whatever the formation, we would have at least 1 but probably 2 players playing out of position. As it transpired, one could argue we had no players playing out of position but then I did not foresee a diamond…a formation I hate and never imagined would be used!  
 

Hopefully there is wide acceptance that the formation didn’t work and we did not win because of it.  I don’t want to see it again! Although I also don’t want to see anyone playing out of position, namely Weimann and Wells.  They are not wide players. 

I still maintain though that at this stage of where we are, player confidence is the biggest single issue. Like you, I am hoping for Wells and Weimann up front tomorrow but I don’t want to see a number 10 as well.  
 

[1960maaan]

 @Davefevs 

That's my problem with us and a back 4, we get narrow. I know we don't seem to suit a 3CB set up, but from Johnsons time we have set our back 4 very narrow with tucked in FB's and give opposition wide mens room.
Remember Bryan getting dogs abuse for giving his winger/wide man too much room. I'd go back to Scott Golbourne, when he came back I really liked him. Looked like a proper FB. Time under LJ and he gradually was coached to play narrower, it seems it's what we do.

 

[spudski]

I think the biggest problem we have when defending, is the gaps wide between defence and midfield.

There is so much space to exploit. Just ping diagonal balls into that space. It's easy. All too often no defensive midfielder to cover and and full back left on his own to shift across.

By then it's too late...you either get a cross whipped in and last ditch defending/ goalkeeping in the box, or a midfield runner, receiving ball from wide as he runs into the box.

It's been like it for ages...and one reason why I'd revert to 442 with our present crop.

We play so narrow...it's so easy to exploit. Basics...

[Davefevs]

9 minutes ago, 1960maaan said:

 @Davefevs 

That's my problem with us and a back 4, we get narrow. I know we don't seem to suit a 3CB set up, but from Johnsons time we have set our back 4 very narrow with tucked in FB's and give opposition wide mens room.
Remember Bryan getting dogs abuse for giving his winger/wide man too much room. I'd go back to Scott Golbourne, when he came back I really liked him. Looked like a proper FB. Time under LJ and he gradually was coached to play narrower, it seems it's what we do.

 

For me, a back four doesn’t have to be narrow, but you probably need one if your CM to take responsibility to screen the 2CBs when the ball comes from wide, back inside.

3 minutes ago, spudski said:

I think the biggest problem we have when defending, is the gaps wide between defence and midfield.

There is so much space to exploit. Just ping diagonal balls into that space. It's easy. All too often no defensive midfielder to cover and and full back left on his own to shift across.

By then it's too late...you either get a cross whipped in and last ditch defending/ goalkeeping in the box, or a midfield runner, receiving ball from wide as he runs into the box.

It's been like it for ages...and one reason why I'd revert to 442 with our present crop.

We play so narrow...it's so easy to exploit. Basics...

I agree, with the current players and form / injuries, I think we set up 442, whether they two up top is a genuine two or not.

@And Its Smith yes, agree on diamond.  When we are knocking it around with confidence, perhaps with Williams back, then maybe, but it reminds me of Bagatelle, and that marble always gets through in the end.

[Kolsch]

I’ve watched most games this season from a far (on stream admittedly) however the problem to me is our midfield. They are very poor defensively when it comes to breaking up attacks and also helping our full backs. 
 

Yes they are busy and put in a shift but a lot of their defensive movement seems reactive so they are always one step behind. I think we really need to work on positioning without the ball especially our midfielders.

[1960maaan]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

but you probably need one if your CM to take responsibility to screen the 2CBs when the ball comes from wide, back inside.

On an unrelated note ....

Any one seen or heard anything of Zak Vyner lately ? 

[TMWANG50]

45 minutes ago, 1960maaan said:

On an unrelated note ....

Any one seen or heard anything of Zak Vyner lately ? 

Nige obviously doesn't think he is putting it in during training same with KP. Quite strange when Vyner and Taylor Moore were in the early Holden days seen as two promising CB's at this level if coached properly albeit still liable to mistakes. I think the problem with Vyner for me is that he is a centre back but we have tried to make him a right back or a centre mid which he probably isn't good enoguh to be at this level on a consistent basis.

[Fordy62]

To be fair with the Barnsley goal, I genuinely think it was quite good forward play and should be given more credit that it has been. 

[1960maaan]

1 minute ago, TMWANG50 said:

Nige obviously doesn't think he is putting it in during training same with KP. Quite strange when Vyner and Taylor Moore were in the early Holden days seen as two promising CB's at this level if coached properly albeit still liable to mistakes. I think the problem with Vyner for me is that he is a centre back but we have tried to make him a right back or a centre mid which he probably isn't good enough to be at this level on a consistent basis.

He was doing a good job at CB, he did a good job for Nige at DMF, it seems odd for him to be cast adrift after a few average performances at FB/WB.  
I did see someone said he had a knock, not heard anything else though. Real shame IMO, I really think he's a good player.

2 minutes ago, Fordy62 said:

To be fair with the Barnsley goal, I genuinely think it was quite good forward play and should be given more credit that it has been. 

Agree. Looked at it again this morning to see who was at fault.
Quick  throw catches us out a little, James was pointing to free man but Pring & Atkinson not close enough. Good movement and first time ball and they are in. James can't foul and Cole gets an arm across him early, scuffed cross and deflected shot. You can always do better in defending, but I'd say Barnsley were alert , movement and speed of thought, fair play to them. 

[Fordy62]

1 minute ago, 1960maaan said:

He was doing a good job at CB, he did a good job for Nige at DMF, it seems odd for him to be cast adrift after a few average performances at FB/WB.  
I did see someone said he had a knock, not heard anything else though. Real shame IMO, I really think he's a good player.

Agree. Looked at it again this morning to see who was at fault.
Quick  throw catches us out a little, James was pointing to free man but Pring & Atkinson not close enough. Good movement and first time ball and they are in. James can't foul and Cole gets an arm across him early, scuffed cross and deflected shot. You can always do better in defending, but I'd say Barnsley were alert , movement and speed of thought, fair play to them. 

Then there’s the hard luck of our player (I forget who) try to punch the ball into the crowd, only to see it bounce straight up on to the arms of the player taking the throw. 99 times of of a hundred the ball goes into the stands are we’re not caught out like that. 

[Davefevs]

Out of interest where are some of you picking up Nige's tactical instructions from in such detail....or are we interpreting fingers / signs?  Or is someone sat just behind him listening hard?

[pillred]

23 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Out of interest where are some of you picking up Nige's tactical instructions from in such detail....or are we interpreting fingers / signs?  Or is someone sat just behind him listening hard?

It's not that exiting is it :laugh:.

[Mr Popodopolous]

People say Barnsley worst side in the League but not convinced that some of their underlying numbers are.

I digress, about us. Goal was relatively soft to concede I thought but well worked as well- somewhere in the middle perhaps. Good points there @JonDolman although watching the highlights back, thought we had reasonable numbers actually in and around the box, but perhaps not spread out effectively. At times anyway.

5 hours ago, spudski said:

I think the biggest problem we have when defending, is the gaps wide between defence and midfield.

There is so much space to exploit. Just ping diagonal balls into that space. It's easy. All too often no defensive midfielder to cover and and full back left on his own to shift across.

By then it's too late...you either get a cross whipped in and last ditch defending/ goalkeeping in the box, or a midfield runner, receiving ball from wide as he runs into the box.

It's been like it for ages...and one reason why I'd revert to 442 with our present crop.

We play so narrow...it's so easy to exploit. Basics...

I can see the appeal in blocking the wide areas with a full back and a winger/wide midfielder whatever, but if you have natural full backs in wide areas this in turn leaves you open in CM- 4-4-2 vs 4-3-3 or the correct type of 4-2-3-1...perhaps even any type of 4-2-3-1. If it was Vyner and Baker at fullback I could understand the narrow defence but it's not that natural if say Tanner and one of DaSilva and Pring are told to go so narrow- in the same way that Vyner and Baker at full back would see the side pulled out of position.

It's not all about formations and shapes but...no easy answers of course. Depends what you want too, I think we need a bit more stability, control and yes possession and then the attacking play can be built from there.

4-2-3-1 vs 4-4-2 of the traditional kind...

Could Weimann maybe drop in and help form a 3 out of possession or pull wide right and one of the wide men tuck in to compensate? Maybe but anyway...

2 full backs, 2 CBs...2 CMs, 2 wide men/wingers, 2 strikers. 4-4-2.

vs

The defence and CM the same...wide men too but they might be more in and out, central and wide- vice versa- in a 4-2-3-1. The striker yes but that attacking midfielder if he is one who can go back and forth can drop and pick up that space between the lines, perhaps cause havoc if he's the right type of player. A wide man drops central to help...then you leave your full back exposed. A striker pulls wider- you get pinned back a bit and his partner is isolated up the pitch! If it's in straight lines then not only does it leave the side tactically perhaps outmanouvered and uncomfortable in their positions but easier to pull out of shape and again exploit that extra space.

Even if it's more of a traditional 10, they can have license and run at that space between the lines and perhaps have some fun.

We all know the downside risk of a 4-4-2 of a fairly traditional kind vs a 4-3-3. 

A 4-1-4-1 vs a 4-4-2

This can vary- if it's a fairly traditional DM then that can perhaps mean that the strikers are a bit isolated 2 CBs and a DM vs two strikers and matched up elsewhere...although 1 vs 2 may help you defensively but as you will need to tuck someone in or push someone up to match up the 2 v 3, gaps can appear at your end. If it's one of those modern types it can be trickier still, perhaps you see them drop into a 3-4-3/3-4-1-2/3-5-2 something like that.

You then have a 2 vs 3 problem up front, you have 2 vs 2 in wide areas, 2 vs 2 centrally and again you will need to pull someone out to compensate, thereby opening up space once again and unbalancing your original shape/setup. There must be some advantage to the 4-4-2 side in that scenario that I am missing however. Depends on which version of the base of a back 3 the opposition go to as well. 3-5-2 could provide with an advantage on the flanks for the 4-4-2 side eg.

Edited November 1, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

3 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I can see the appeal in blocking the wide areas with a full back and a winger/wide midfielder whatever, but if you have natural full backs in wide areas this in turn leaves you open in CM- 4-4-2 vs 4-3-3 or the correct type of 4-2-3-1...

I guess the major point is Barnsley didn't play 433, nor 4231, but 343....it was 3v2 in our favour in midfield on Saturday.

TBF even Gary Owers on BBCRB said Barnsley we playing a 433 in his pre-match words, which was wrong.

[Henry]

49 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Out of interest where are some of you picking up Nige's tactical instructions from in such detail....or are we interpreting fingers / signs?  Or is someone sat just behind him listening hard?

There was a bit of RobinsTV where you could make out, from lip reading and his fingers, he signalled, 4-4-1-1.

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

I guess the major point is Barnsley didn't play 433, nor 4231, but 343....it was 3v2 in our favour in midfield on Saturday.

TBF even Gary Owers on BBCRB said Barnsley we playing a 433 in his pre-match words, which was wrong.

Agreed, that post was just talking in general terms. They seemed to dominate 2nd half, quite worrying! Too narrow a back 4 in those circs feels counterproductive, unless it's say Vyner and Baker as fullbacks/wide defenders.

Barnsley definitely don't play a 4-3-3. Unsure they play a back 4 in general, certainly didn't under Ismael.

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, Henry said:

There was a bit of RobinsTV where you could make out, from lip reading and his fingers, he signalled, 4-4-1-1.

Ta

55 minutes ago, JonDolman said:

Nige put his fingers up very slowly and you could lip read too him saying 4-4-1-1.

And then at the end did the same with his fingers showing 5-4-1.

It was literally the very end of the game though when he went 5 at the back.

Ta

Was partly watching cricket, trying to keep my nerves in tact!

[spudski]

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

People say Barnsley worst side in the League but not convinced that some of their underlying numbers are.

I digress, about us. Goal was relatively soft to concede I thought but well worked as well- somewhere in the middle perhaps. Good points there @JonDolman although watching the highlights back, thought we had reasonable numbers actually in and around the box, but perhaps not spread out effectively. At times anyway.

I can see the appeal in blocking the wide areas with a full back and a winger/wide midfielder whatever, but if you have natural full backs in wide areas this in turn leaves you open in CM- 4-4-2 vs 4-3-3 or the correct type of 4-2-3-1...perhaps even any type of 4-2-3-1. If it was Vyner and Baker at fullback I could understand the narrow defence but it's not that natural if say Tanner and one of DaSilva and Pring are told to go so narrow- in the same way that Vyner and Baker at full back would see the side pulled out of position.

It's not all about formations and shapes but...no easy answers of course. Depends what you want too, I think we need a bit more stability, control and yes possession and then the attacking play can be built from there.

4-2-3-1 vs 4-4-2 of the traditional kind...

Could Weimann maybe drop in and help form a 3 out of possession or pull wide right and one of the wide men tuck in to compensate? Maybe but anyway...

2 full backs, 2 CBs...2 CMs, 2 wide men/wingers, 2 strikers. 4-4-2.

vs

The defence and CM the same...wide men too but they might be more in and out, central and wide- vice versa- in a 4-2-3-1. The striker yes but that attacking midfielder if he is one who can go back and forth can drop and pick up that space between the lines, perhaps cause havoc if he's the right type of player. A wide man drops central to help...then you leave your full back exposed. A striker pulls wider- you get pinned back a bit and his partner is isolated up the pitch! If it's in straight lines then not only does it leave the side tactically perhaps outmanouvered and uncomfortable in their positions but easier to pull out of shape and again exploit that extra space.

Even if it's more of a traditional 10, they can have license and run at that space between the lines and perhaps have some fun.

We all know the downside risk of a 4-4-2 of a fairly traditional kind vs a 4-3-3. 

A 4-1-4-1 vs a 4-4-2

This can vary- if it's a fairly traditional DM then that can perhaps mean that the strikers are a bit isolated 2 CBs and a DM vs two strikers and matched up elsewhere...although 1 vs 2 may help you defensively but as you will need to tuck someone in or push someone up to match up the 2 v 3, gaps can appear at your end. If it's one of those modern types it can be trickier still, perhaps you see them drop into a 3-4-3/3-4-1-2/3-5-2 something like that.

You then have a 2 vs 3 problem up front, you have 2 vs 2 in wide areas, 2 vs 2 centrally and again you will need to pull someone out to compensate, thereby opening up space once again and unbalancing your original shape/setup. There must be some advantage to the 4-4-2 side in that scenario that I am missing however. Depends on which version of the base of a back 3 the opposition go to as well. 3-5-2 could provide with an advantage on the flanks for the 4-4-2 side eg.

The problem we have regardless of playing 4 at the back with natural full backs or a three, is not so much the defence but the back up from midfield.

So often you see the hole being exploited, with overload of players. More often than not, a full back having to deal with 2 offensive players, whilst our midfield adjust too slowly...worried they are leaving gaps centrally because one of the forwards isn't dropping quick enough.

It's still very passive when dropping back from midfield...Massengo an exception.

442 would certainly help at the moment as nearly every team has seen our weakness.

[Robbored]

8 minutes ago, spudski said:

The problem we have regardless of playing 4 at the back with natural full backs or a three, is not so much the defence but the back up from midfield.

So often you see the hole being exploited, with overload of players. More often than not, a full back having to deal with 2 offensive players, whilst our midfield adjust too slowly...worried they are leaving gaps centrally because one of the forwards isn't dropping quick enough.

It's still very passive when dropping back from midfield...Massengo an exception.

442 would certainly help at the moment as nearly every team has seen our weakness.

It’s strange because when Nige was asked what formation he prefers he said 4-4-2…………….