Pearson

[Merrick's Marvels]

30 minutes ago, spudski said:

Thanks for your reply and thoughts.

I'm guessing by your view of having one playing centrally, you have a restricted view of the 433.

The modern 433 is very versatile and has lots of mobility. 

As an example the front 3 can rotate.

The fullbacks can also be used like a wing back on occasion. 

This article is very easy to read and in layman's term as to the 433 versatility.

https://www.coachesvoice.com/cv/4-3-3-football-tactics-explained-formation-liverpool-klopp-barcelona-guardiola/#:~:text=What is a 4-3,more advanced to either side. 

I could easily see the following.

-------------------------Max--------------------------- 

Vyner------Atkinson----Naismith---Pring 

-----------------------james------------------------- 

-------williams---------------scott--------------- 

----------------------Weimann----------------------

--------------Conway----------Wells--------------

You have Kalas that can play CB as well.

Also Semenyo in one of the front three.

 

 

 

 

I personally can't see how that improves us! 

That defence looks scary but I do like the idea of Weimann-Wells-Conway. We need to find a role for Weimann that allows him to score goals. But Pearson has continually used him to plug gaps in wide areas and midfield - which speaks volumes about our other midfield choices and I personally don’t think yours works in a 433. Played as a narrow 3 and full backs pushed up alongside, we're reasonably solid but that leaves the sort of weaknesses you highlighted in the first place and are wanting to get away from! 

Kalas isn't fit. We need to cash in Semenyo asap. 

Without a radical re-shaping of the squad, I can't see that Pearson has too many options. 

Thanks for the link.

Edited December 18, 2022 by Merrick's Marvels

[W-S-M Seagull]

4 hours ago, spudski said:

I'll agree to disagree with you.

We have players that are capable and imo would be more affective and efficient in playing a more ' central' way.

We rely too much on wide play...both offensively in generally poor crossing, and weak wide defensive areas, where we get exposed and targeted. 

We are quite capable of playing a more 433 pattern. 

That's the simplistic answer.

This isn't Championship manager. 

We don't have wingers to play 433 and even if we did, we'd have to drop one of Wells or Conway. So what's the point in that? 

I don't think defensively we have the right players to play a back 4. 

[MC RISK77]

13 hours ago, redkev said:

Barton anyone

He is doing a great job at Rovers- don’t think anyone could deny that.

[daored]

10 hours ago, spudski said:

Thanks for your reply and thoughts.

I'm guessing by your view of having one playing centrally, you have a restricted view of the 433.

The modern 433 is very versatile and has lots of mobility. 

As an example the front 3 can rotate.

The fullbacks can also be used like a wing back on occasion. 

This article is very easy to read and in layman's term as to the 433 versatility.

https://www.coachesvoice.com/cv/4-3-3-football-tactics-explained-formation-liverpool-klopp-barcelona-guardiola/#:~:text=What is a 4-3,more advanced to either side. 

I could easily see the following.

-------------------------Max--------------------------- 

Vyner------Atkinson----Naismith---Pring 

-----------------------james------------------------- 

-------williams---------------scott--------------- 

----------------------Weimann----------------------

--------------Conway----------Wells--------------

You have Kalas that can play CB as well.

Also Semenyo in one of the front three.

 

 

 

 

Agreed - I think we’re trying to play a 3-5-2 without the players. Personally I wouldn’t play Naismith as a CB in a two - possibly as a LB or midfielder in a two. My stance on that formation would be 4-3-1-2

 

                O’Leary

Tanner Vyner Atkinson Pring 

       Williams Scott James

                  Weinmann

            Conway Wells

Naismith could rotate with James & Williams 

Sykes could play as the ‘10’ at times for Weinmann 

 

[spudski]

8 hours ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

This isn't Championship manager. 

We don't have wingers to play 433 and even if we did, we'd have to drop one of Wells or Conway. So what's the point in that? 

I don't think defensively we have the right players to play a back 4. 

You don't use ' wingers' as such in a 433. 

We actually play wider now, and rely on attacks down the flanks, than we would playing traditional wingers. 

You've only got to watch with your own eyes and back it up with stats to see where our offensive play comes from. 

I've never played Championship manager...so I wouldn't know.

 

But I do follow football strategies closely as an interest.

[Davefevs]

2 hours ago, daored said:

Agreed - I think we’re trying to play a 3-5-2 without the players. Personally I wouldn’t play Naismith as a CB in a two - possibly as a LB or midfielder in a two. My stance on that formation would be 4-3-1-2

 

                O’Leary

Tanner Vyner Atkinson Pring 

       Williams Scott James

                  Weinmann

            Conway Wells

Naismith could rotate with James & Williams 

Sykes could play as the ‘10’ at times for Weinmann 

 

The 4312 was what I alluded to in my response to Headhunter yesterday.  Obviously relies on the right personnel, nor would I be averse to playing just one up top with two no10s (4321).  I don’t think we need a target man, Conway and Wells have proven that.  I could happily see Weimann and Scott behind Conway or Semenyo or Wells.  What I do see as crucial in a back four system is the player who screens the 2x CBs…hence why I was keen on Rinomhota, to play like a “Kante”.

[Red-Robbo]

5 hours ago, MC RISK77 said:

He is doing a great job at Rovers- don’t think anyone could deny that.

 

Different ballgame in the Championship, but I don't think Barton is a terrible manager. Just a terrible person. I'd never want him at the club, for the same reason I didn't want Danny Simpson. 

[Mattredrobin]

I am in the camp of keeping Pearson based on the fact that some of our players simply aren't good enough, I've felt he needs time to sort that problem out........... but he really is begining to  irritate me with his speaking out about players, he's tried lots of different players at the back and things still aren't improving they can't all not be good enough, and like lots have said he doesn't take responsibility or not much anyway, I still think a new manager would have the same problems but may add some confidence to the squad, which I think is lacking. I think if we drop into the bottom 3 then the board may have to react. Just hope its not to late by then.

[Spike]

14 hours ago, spudski said:

Thanks for your reply and thoughts.

I'm guessing by your view of having one playing centrally, you have a restricted view of the 433.

The modern 433 is very versatile and has lots of mobility. 

As an example the front 3 can rotate.

The fullbacks can also be used like a wing back on occasion. 

This article is very easy to read and in layman's term as to the 433 versatility.

https://www.coachesvoice.com/cv/4-3-3-football-tactics-explained-formation-liverpool-klopp-barcelona-guardiola/#:~:text=What is a 4-3,more advanced to either side. 

I could easily see the following.

-------------------------Max--------------------------- 

Vyner------Atkinson----Naismith---Pring 

-----------------------james------------------------- 

-------williams---------------scott--------------- 

----------------------Weimann----------------------

--------------Conway----------Wells--------------

You have Kalas that can play CB as well.

Also Semenyo in one of the front three.

 

 

 

 

In all honesty I don't think that works for us because Scott is not a box to box midfielder and should be advanced and being coached to run at players in the middle of the pitch as that's his strength. The 4-3-3 is an incredible formation with the right players but the most important factor in a 4-3-3 in modern football is the midfield. Take a look at Liverpool at the moment, it's just not working for them and it's because their midfield isn't good enought to run that 4-3-3. If you're going to play 4-3-3 then that middle 3 has to be peak performance, they need to be able to run a full 90 and two of the three need to be able to do a bit of everything. A good example is Arsenal, flying this season and when they use the 4-3-3 they have Partey as the defensive midfielder who is world class and allows the other two midfielders more freedom, neither James nor Williams are so good at defending the midfield that they can free the other two midfielders up and they rely on help from their midfielders.  Next Arsenal have Xhaka and Odegaard in the middle, both players are great at playing passes, both will give you a full 90 minutes if needed and both can chase down relentlessly. Scott may be able to chase down relentlessly but his tackling is not great and there is no chance Williams can chase down non stop, the man is clunky at best with his movement. Simply put a 4-3-3 relies on the midfield and requires wide strikers/ wingers who can play as inside forwards, cutting in from wide positions with the other striker playing a deeper role to pull players about. Wells is not a wide inside forward style striker, he's more of a poacher which the modern 4-3-3 doesn't use and we don't have anyone who can play the inside forward role, I mean the game against Stoke showed that Weimann cannot cut in from a wide position well as the one chance he had he cut inside well but then couldn't get the angle right for his shot.

The modern 4-3-3 just doesn't suit our current squad and is more suited to clubs with players who are top of the league team players. I'd also add Vyner as a Right back with no right sided midfielder to protect him... not a chance, he's get shredded by any capable wide player as we've seen on many occasions, Vyner should be in the middle as he naturally positions himself that way hence he's always caught out as the ride sided center back because he drifts infield and leaves a gap between out wing back and himself which gets exploited. The only thing I do not understand is why Vyner isn't being played as the Central center back in our current system. Kai is better on the left side being allowed to go forward, Vyner is best in the middle due to his natural positioning for a central role and Tanner would be the perfect fit for the right side of the back 3 as he can defend but he naturally positions himself more to the right due to playing right back and on the right side of the defence. 

I still don't understand why Pearson doesn't try a back three with Tanner on the right side, Vyner in the middle and Kai on the left, it would best suit them all based on their natural positioning and would address the situation of having to put King in the middle. Pearson keeps talking a lot of about trust which makes me think that some players are arguing with him about the role he wants them to play, I mean it would explain Atkinson as he's more naturally left sided with his positioning but so is Kai and Kai has the better passing so it would make sense that Atkinson has clashed with Pearson about where in that back 3 Pearson wants him to play, of course that's all guess work but I have a feeling Pearsons main issues is we're trying to play a system where he wants a player to say "Yes, I'll own that role", King is obviously liked by Pearson because he's willing to do that and in many ways I think that's why I've not turned on Pearson yet, because I think he's got players who are used to getting their way and refusing to adapt. When Atkinson came in he was on the left side of the back 3 and Kai was in the middle, the issue is the central man in that back three needs to sit back and watch the game, he's the last man essentially and Pearson knows we need Kai to have a little freedom as he's got that pass that none of the other defenders have so he's moved Kai into the left position and now we need someone to play that central role, take command of the back line and lead them. I don't think Pearson feels we have a leader in the defence and that's the centre back he wants to sign. Personally I'd give Vyner a go there, he's better there and when he last played there with Pring and Tanner either side of him we actually looked strong at the back as he played naturally in the middle and his confidence went up because of it.

 

[spudski]

46 minutes ago, Spike said:

In all honesty I don't think that works for us because Scott is not a box to box midfielder and should be advanced and being coached to run at players in the middle of the pitch as that's his strength. The 4-3-3 is an incredible formation with the right players but the most important factor in a 4-3-3 in modern football is the midfield. Take a look at Liverpool at the moment, it's just not working for them and it's because their midfield isn't good enought to run that 4-3-3. If you're going to play 4-3-3 then that middle 3 has to be peak performance, they need to be able to run a full 90 and two of the three need to be able to do a bit of everything. A good example is Arsenal, flying this season and when they use the 4-3-3 they have Partey as the defensive midfielder who is world class and allows the other two midfielders more freedom, neither James nor Williams are so good at defending the midfield that they can free the other two midfielders up and they rely on help from their midfielders.  Next Arsenal have Xhaka and Odegaard in the middle, both players are great at playing passes, both will give you a full 90 minutes if needed and both can chase down relentlessly. Scott may be able to chase down relentlessly but his tackling is not great and there is no chance Williams can chase down non stop, the man is clunky at best with his movement. Simply put a 4-3-3 relies on the midfield and requires wide strikers/ wingers who can play as inside forwards, cutting in from wide positions with the other striker playing a deeper role to pull players about. Wells is not a wide inside forward style striker, he's more of a poacher which the modern 4-3-3 doesn't use and we don't have anyone who can play the inside forward role, I mean the game against Stoke showed that Weimann cannot cut in from a wide position well as the one chance he had he cut inside well but then couldn't get the angle right for his shot.

The modern 4-3-3 just doesn't suit our current squad and is more suited to clubs with players who are top of the league team players. I'd also add Vyner as a Right back with no right sided midfielder to protect him... not a chance, he's get shredded by any capable wide player as we've seen on many occasions, Vyner should be in the middle as he naturally positions himself that way hence he's always caught out as the ride sided center back because he drifts infield and leaves a gap between out wing back and himself which gets exploited. The only thing I do not understand is why Vyner isn't being played as the Central center back in our current system. Kai is better on the left side being allowed to go forward, Vyner is best in the middle due to his natural positioning for a central role and Tanner would be the perfect fit for the right side of the back 3 as he can defend but he naturally positions himself more to the right due to playing right back and on the right side of the defence. 

I still don't understand why Pearson doesn't try a back three with Tanner on the right side, Vyner in the middle and Kai on the left, it would best suit them all based on their natural positioning and would address the situation of having to put King in the middle. Pearson keeps talking a lot of about trust which makes me think that some players are arguing with him about the role he wants them to play, I mean it would explain Atkinson as he's more naturally left sided with his positioning but so is Kai and Kai has the better passing so it would make sense that Atkinson has clashed with Pearson about where in that back 3 Pearson wants him to play, of course that's all guess work but I have a feeling Pearsons main issues is we're trying to play a system where he wants a player to say "Yes, I'll own that role", King is obviously liked by Pearson because he's willing to do that and in many ways I think that's why I've not turned on Pearson yet, because I think he's got players who are used to getting their way and refusing to adapt. When Atkinson came in he was on the left side of the back 3 and Kai was in the middle, the issue is the central man in that back three needs to sit back and watch the game, he's the last man essentially and Pearson knows we need Kai to have a little freedom as he's got that pass that none of the other defenders have so he's moved Kai into the left position and now we need someone to play that central role, take command of the back line and lead them. I don't think Pearson feels we have a leader in the defence and that's the centre back he wants to sign. Personally I'd give Vyner a go there, he's better there and when he last played there with Pring and Tanner either side of him we actually looked strong at the back as he played naturally in the middle and his confidence went up because of it.

 

Thanks for taking the time to reply in such a detailed manner.

I'll take some time to digest it. 

The thing with formations, they have to be fluid, not restrictive.

For example, look at the positioning our forwards take up presently. 

All three can be in different positions, either wide or central. Then you have the link up of the AMs and wing backs.

It's about fluidity these days. 

[DaveInSA]

I’m enjoying the way this thread has moved from bashing Pearson, to the nuances of formations. I’m learning a lot.

My view on Pearson. He was dealt a poor hand. 

There is stuff he’s done well versus stuff not so good. He steadied the ship but we’re unable to kick on. 

I think he may be testing the character of the squad. Maybe he’s challenging Atkinson to see what he’s made of. Can he respond? And if he does will that make him a better player? 

Maybe it’s crude, but Vyner, Pring and Wells have all returned to this team and performed. So is there method in the madness - at least trying to figure out who he can build around this summer.

But.

He might have overcooked it.

Why?

Because I think our players (in the main) are fragile and they need to feel comfortable in order to perform. They had it at the start of the season but it’s gone now. We go a goal up in games and then it falls to bits. We’re a soft touch and have a weak underbelly.

I still think that collectively this squad is so unbalanced and inconsistent that we really have to just survive. If everyone has their day, we can beat any team in this division. The problem is this rarely happens and we often have 2 or 3 players at a 4 or 5 out of 10. Which inevitably means giving away at least one soft goal a game.

The squad is miles away from challenging week-in-week-out in this division - absolutely miles away. 

People need to face this reality and see it for what it is.

[Spike]

7 hours ago, spudski said:

Thanks for taking the time to reply in such a detailed manner.

I'll take some time to digest it. 

The thing with formations, they have to be fluid, not restrictive.

For example, look at the positioning our forwards take up presently. 

All three can be in different positions, either wide or central. Then you have the link up of the AMs and wing backs.

It's about fluidity these days. 

Sorry, I love the game and I type as fast as I think haha

I'm not saying we can't become a 4-3-3 team, I just think the transition would be a 2-3 season transition on top of the summer coming up.

I strongly agree about fluidity though, something we're lacking in a lot.

[firstdivision]

On 19/12/2022 at 00:33, Davefevs said:

I wouldn’t have recruited Wilson because I would’ve been going for a back four!

Ideally I’d have been looking at (without hindsight) something like this:

GK - Bentley

RB - Tanner (plus a different RB recruited)

CB - Kalas

CB - Atkinson (plus another CB recruited as Kalas has had injuries)

LB - Pring

CM - James

CM - Rinomhota 

CM - Williams (perm the 3 CMs with Scott, Massengo)

AM - Weimann

CF - Martin

CF - Semenyo

I wouldn’t have recruited Sykes, nor offered Klose a new deal.  I’d have recruited another CB and then made my mind up about Vyner.  I think it was a call on who we signed first - Rinomhota or Naismith, we couldn’t get both.  We got Naismith and that dictated other things like Wilson.

So a bit of a 4312, or at times one true DM in a 4132.

I agree. The Sykes recruitment was a puzzle when we had enough cover there and not much cash. Surely we had other priorities. I’m not sure he’s that good either. 
I wouldn’t have renewed Andy King’s contract and probably not Klose’s. Is Klose’s new contract one or two years, Dave? I seem to remember there is an option for an extra year.  I hope not (unless the club has it, not the player). 

[johnbytheriver]

6 hours ago, firstdivision said:

I agree. The Sykes recruitment was a puzzle when we had enough cover there and not much cash. Surely we had other priorities. I’m not sure he’s that good either. 
I wouldn’t have renewed Andy King’s contract and probably not Klose’s. Is Klose’s new contract one or two years, Dave? I seem to remember there is an option for an extra year.  I hope not (unless the club has it, not the player). 

What! Not renew Andy King's contract? He's our 1st choice centre half!

Edited December 20, 2022 by johnbytheriver
omitted a letter

[1960maaan]

6 hours ago, firstdivision said:

I agree. The Sykes recruitment was a puzzle when we had enough cover there and not much cash. Surely we had other priorities. I’m not sure he’s that good either. 
I wouldn’t have renewed Andy King’s contract and probably not Klose’s. Is Klose’s new contract one or two years, Dave? I seem to remember there is an option for an extra year.  I hope not (unless the club has it, not the player). 

I remember being pulled up for saying Sykes could possibly be our RWB. Which as he hadn't played there before was fair enough. But I couldn't see where else he could fit in. Then we add Wilson, having already signed Tanner previously.  
Then his competition in MF would be Scott, James, King, Williams, Massengo, Bakinson even Benarous . As Sykes could be seen as a 10, that would put him against Scott, Benarous again and Weimann. 
Although it worked out ok when Wilson got injured, and Sykes was very good to start with, the signing makes little sense.

As for Klose, it looks like he's here until the Summer , with an option for another year. 

[Davefevs]

10 hours ago, firstdivision said:

I agree. The Sykes recruitment was a puzzle when we had enough cover there and not much cash. Surely we had other priorities. I’m not sure he’s that good either. 
I wouldn’t have renewed Andy King’s contract and probably not Klose’s. Is Klose’s new contract one or two years, Dave? I seem to remember there is an option for an extra year.  I hope not (unless the club has it, not the player). 

He has a one year option…I can only assume it’s “his option to exercise” should he hit the requisite number of appearances.  Which he isn’t gonna hit, is he.  Chris Martin’s trigger last season appears to have been 35 appearances.  If his latest deal has the same, he isn’t gonna hit it either.