McNasty Filth Posted February 4, 2023 Report Share Posted February 4, 2023 How do people feel it went? Looked 352 to me, but Im not an expert. Don't know why Pearson did it, but imo made us more regressive and invited pressure. Anybody shed some tactical light on the change. Before people jump on me for being negative, it couldn't be further from the truth, I've always been in Pearsons corner, just thought it was worth discussing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Brent Posted February 4, 2023 Report Share Posted February 4, 2023 You can read too much into tactical changes sometimes. Presumably the change was made to give us the best opportunity to hold onto the 3 points with the inevitable Preston attacks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fordy62 Posted February 4, 2023 Report Share Posted February 4, 2023 We held out, so it worked! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alessandro Posted February 4, 2023 Report Share Posted February 4, 2023 (edited) "All's well that ends well" Can see why he did it, get Kalas in. Firm things up and help with the wing backs. Was going to write this on the match day thread...but....we fell out the game completely after going 5-3-2 - it was just back to wall defending from then on pretty much. We couldn't keep the ball or build at all. Fine for 10 mins at the end, but for me another display how much better we are with a version of 433. The less we see of it the better IMO. (But I have been an anti-532 broken record since about October/November so am biased) Edited February 4, 2023 by Alessandro 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cidered abroad Posted February 4, 2023 Report Share Posted February 4, 2023 Gary Owers didnt think it was a wrong move. It worked in the end. It would have been stupid to leave too many upfield with the Thugs chasing the game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted February 4, 2023 Report Share Posted February 4, 2023 It can be useful defensively, the extra centre back/player in the back 3. With Naismith in particular it gives us that flexibility yo switch in game when appropriate- could Williams fulfil a similar role? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Posted February 4, 2023 Report Share Posted February 4, 2023 I can see why he did it but I personally didn’t like it. And, if he was gonna do it in order to soak up and defend, then he should’ve left Tanner on and not put Sykes to wing back. We had one far post cross that they nearly scored from where Sykes was asleep to the man behind him and I think Tanner would’ve been a better option if we were going ‘all out defend’. As others said, we didn’t manage anything constructive on the ball after the switch, so it was an all out defend move. However, I will say that we played superbly prior to the switch and I’m delighted that we won a ‘battle’. We usually lose games that descend into battles and it’s brilliant to come out the right side of that one. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted February 4, 2023 Report Share Posted February 4, 2023 (edited) 24 minutes ago, Alessandro said: "All's well that ends well" Can see why he did it, get Kalas in. Firm things up and help with the wing backs. Was going to write this on the match day thread...but....we fell out the game completely after going 5-3-2 - it was just back to wall defending from then on pretty much. We couldn't keep the ball or build at all. Fine for 10 mins at the end, but for me another display how much better we are with a version of 433. The less we see of it the better IMO. (But I have been an anti-532 broken record since about October/November so am biased) It got a better player aerially onto the pitch. I don’t think we were great with either system today. But we won! 1 minute ago, Harry said: I can see why he did it but I personally didn’t like it. And, if he was gonna do it in order to soak up and defend, then he should’ve left Tanner on and not put Sykes to wing back. We had one far post cross that they nearly scored from where Sykes was asleep to the man behind him and I think Tanner would’ve been a better option if we were going ‘all out defend’. As others said, we didn’t manage anything constructive on the ball after the switch, so it was an all out defend move. However, I will say that we played superbly prior to the switch and I’m delighted that we won a ‘battle’. We usually lose games that descend into battles and it’s brilliant to come out the right side of that one. My thoughts too Harr. Tanner remarkably solid again today. Edited February 4, 2023 by Davefevs 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petehinton Posted February 4, 2023 Report Share Posted February 4, 2023 Thought Kalas did really well. Will be a huge plus seeing him back. I think it was almost set up with an eye on Weimann having 10 mins to run himself to the ground. Enjoyed him & Cornick up top together, the latter looks like he will slot in perfectly. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firstdivision Posted February 4, 2023 Report Share Posted February 4, 2023 1 minute ago, Davefevs said: It got a better player aerially onto the pitch. I don’t think we were great with either system today. But we won! My thoughts too Harr. 2 minutes ago, Davefevs said: It got a better player aerially onto the pitch. I don’t think we were great with either system today. But we won! My thoughts too Harr. I totally agree, Dave. Great to win but it was a horrible scuffle of a match illuminated only by our superb second goal. Preston are quite a tough side to play against. Very grateful they gave us a goal and that we have Alex Scott. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.