Centre Backs

[ashton_fan]

We have various options, we could make use of JD at left back an move Pring to CB, we could move Sykes to RB and use Tanner as CB, or we could just bring in Andy King and leave the rest where they are. It shouldn't be too long before Naismith is back although I'm not sure how good he'd be at CB in a back four, if he was playing in front of the makeshift back four though that would help. At least we've got quite a few points on the board now so shouldn't have to worry about getting dragged down into the relegation scrap especially with Reading expecting a points deduction as well. We'll just have to make the best of it and get someone else in for the summer window (at least one or two if as I suspect Kalas is gone). It shows how valuable Zak has been for us this season with his good form and availability.

[Red-Robbo]

3 hours ago, Silvio Dante said:

 

I’m not sure what work Nige can do, other than employ Eileen Drewery.

 

Far too lightweight and tends to drift off. Good with crosses though.

Seriously though, it'll be a testing few games without preferred options - and I'm as concerned by the lack of genuine defensive midfielders as I am about centre backs. 

[Spike]

3 hours ago, Percy Pig said:

Part of me thinks we need to revert back to 352 for a little bit. 3 fullbacks in a back 4 with only James to offer any protection in midfield feels like a recipe for disaster 

 

Max

Tanner Vyner Pring

Wilson/Weimann James King Dasilva

Scott

Wells Bell/Cornick

 

 

Trouble is, we won't be able to counter Hudds or Blackpool if they sit back, so perhaps scope to change the shape in the midfield from two sitters and one advanced to one sitting (James) and two further forward (Scott and Mehmeti).

 

 

See this makes no sense to me at all looking at that line up, we would be leaving out Mehmeti and Sykes who are arguably the two most consistent players at running at the opposition and causing problems. Removing our two most dynamic players coming forward would really kill our attack and I think it's fair to say 3-5-2 doesn't work for us and essentially rules out Sykes, Mehmeti and Bell who all play best in positions that are not in that system. 

I think our issues in defence should not change the good work we've done in changing to a system that a lot of our better players thrive in. 

At this point the back 4 is going to struggle but both Tanner and Pring have played in the CB role and putting them there in a flat back 4 may even open up more potential if they take to it well. DaSilva isn't as good as Pring but he can do a job as a left back, he's not as good going forward but in the last few matches Pring has not looked as sharp going forward but looked very good at his defending so it would make sense for Pring to go into the middle with Vyner and DaSilva to replace Pring at left back. 

Another thing we've not seen yet in the 4-3-3 is Conway, as good as Bell has been since he came in Conway is much more direct in possession and I think it'd be a shame if we reverted back before he was given a chance in his system as could thrive in that central role, he seems much more self assured and confident in his performances than Bell does. 

I'd hate to see us go back to 3-5-2 now, I think that was what held us back for so long, having players who didn't fit the system but at the time also not having the players to change it, let's not go backwards because of injuries, it's much better to stick with the system and in the summer being in the necessary players to strengthen on what we have. 

[Davefevs]

6 minutes ago, Spike said:

See this makes no sense to me at all looking at that line up, we would be leaving out Mehmeti and Sykes who are arguably the two most consistent players at running at the opposition and causing problems. Removing our two most dynamic players coming forward would really kill our attack and I think it's fair to say 3-5-2 doesn't work for us and essentially rules out Sykes, Mehmeti and Bell who all play best in positions that are not in that system. 

I think our issues in defence should not change the good work we've done in changing to a system that a lot of our better players thrive in. 

At this point the back 4 is going to struggle but both Tanner and Pring have played in the CB role and putting them there in a flat back 4 may even open up more potential if they take to it well. DaSilva isn't as good as Pring but he can do a job as a left back, he's not as good going forward but in the last few matches Pring has not looked as sharp going forward but looked very good at his defending so it would make sense for Pring to go into the middle with Vyner and DaSilva to replace Pring at left back. 

Another thing we've not seen yet in the 4-3-3 is Conway, as good as Bell has been since he came in Conway is much more direct in possession and I think it'd be a shame if we reverted back before he was given a chance in his system as could thrive in that central role, he seems much more self assured and confident in his performances than Bell does. 

I'd hate to see us go back to 3-5-2 now, I think that was what held us back for so long, having players who didn't fit the system but at the time also not having the players to change it, let's not go backwards because of injuries, it's much better to stick with the system and in the summer being in the necessary players to strengthen on what we have. 

I think we can happily go:

O’Leary

Tanner Vyner Pring Dasilva

on Tuesday.  We lose Pring’s dynamism, but we might find we keep the ball a little better with Dasilva.

What you do with the 6 in front of them is anyone’s guess, but I can’t see Nige doing anything other than James and Scott as the two.  Away from home I see no issues with it either.

So that leaves the “forward four”.

Wells knock might make that interesting.  Cornick to start over Bell if so.

But Sykes and Mehmeti start wide, unless you play Sykes as 10.  It was the position he was being coached for during one-season, presumably as Weimann’s “understudy”.  Doing that would mean you could play Weimann there.

So, essentially no need to go mad this Tuesday.  Bench becomes weaker, hey-ho.

[Shuffle]

16 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Pearson also said this week that Conway is still a way off and ahead of Naismith…which makes me think both will be held until after the international break.

As for Tuesday night’s team, it’s one game, in a mini run of 4 games before the break.  Nige will pick a team, and get on with it.  I’m sure Pring will partner Vyner, big question is whether it’ll be in a two or a three.  I would have no issue if Andy King played in between them either.  I might be the exception on here regarding that!  But I’m not too fussed who plays really.  It’s a case of mucking in over the next group of games.

If people haven’t realised yet that Nige isn’t gonna bloat in the squad, and that backfill will be with youngsters, then they haven’t been listening.

Would it really be the biggest disaster if our back four on Tuesday was:

Tanner / Vyner / Pring / Dasilva

 

Think I’d be tempted to go with 3 at the back for Huddersfield if honest & if that’s Tanner/Vyner/Pring or King then so be it.  The squad is running with 21 players including Omar which now includes 4 senior players now unavailable, so leaves us light in numbers.  

Clearly the club felt they needed another CB as let’s face it Nige has said it practically all year and the move for the Palace lad shows that indeed they wanted one. If he had signed would anyone on here complain that we were bloating the squad unnecessarily & think we both know the answer to that.  Naismith was playing CM at the time & Kalas had yet to kick a ball in anger after a lengthy spell out.  The comments about depth were raised when window closed by numerous people and highlighted as a risk with the squad to shallow.

We are where we are & not aimed at you as I’d call you to tell you directly if it was but there are people on the forum who jump on you if you have an opinion that doesn’t fit the narrative of Nige knows best.  Nobody would disagree with that after the turn around in points and performance but the club are not above questioning. I appreciate that the CBs wouldn’t even be a talking point if injuries hadn’t happened & the club decided the risk was worth taking, rather than turn to plan b after Palace lad fell through.  

Fortunately, the risk to date has been worth it due to points accumulated but it could be a bumpy ride for the next 4 games. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[David Brent]

33 minutes ago, marmite said:

I have this thought about Vyner getting injured Tuesday. 

Keep it to yourself please 

[ExiledAjax]

12 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Cornick to start over Bell if so.

I don't think a Cornick start is a bad thing. Bloke needs some minutes and although I don't think he's as dangerous as Wells he's definitely a handful. Also potentially a better physical presence against Huddersfield. Bell, Cornick and Sykes as a front three should be competent. Not terribly dangerous, but competent.

I think I'd rest Mehmeti and look to bring him on either for Weimann centrally or left for Bell in the below.

O'Leary

Tanner Vyner Pring Dasilva

Scott James

Weimann

Sykes Cornick Bell

It's XI adult men forming some sort of team. God knows what result that gets, but they'd play.

Edited March 5, 2023 by ExiledAjax

[Davefevs]

5 minutes ago, Shuffle said:

Think I’d be tempted to go with 3 at the back for Huddersfield if honest & if that’s Tanner/Vyner/Pring or King then so be it.  The squad is running with 21 players including Omar which now includes 4 senior players now unavailable, so leaves us light in numbers.  

Clearly the club felt they needed another CB as let’s face it Nige has said it practically all year and the move for the Palace lad shows that indeed they wanted one. If he had signed would anyone on here complain that we were bloating the squad unnecessarily & think we both know the answer to that.  Naismith was playing CM at the time & Kalas had yet to kick a ball in anger after a lengthy spell out.  The comments about depth were raised when window closed by numerous people and highlighted as a risk with the squad to shallow.

We are where we are & not aimed at you as I’d call you to tell you directly if it was but there are people on the forum who jump on you if you have an opinion that doesn’t fit the narrative of Nige knows best.  Nobody would disagree with that after the turn around in points and performance but the club are not above questioning. I appreciate that the CBs wouldn’t even be a talking point if injuries hadn’t happened & the club decided the risk was worth taking, rather than turn to plan b after Palace lad fell through.  

Fortunately, the risk to date has been worth it due to points accumulated but it could be a bumpy ride for the next 4 games. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You have my number!

My thoughts on O’Brien - I don’t think he would’ve bloated us.  I would’ve seen it as getting him in early to 1) integrate with the squad and 2) help inform the needs for the summer.  I don’t think Vyner, Atkinson, a returning Kalas and O’Brien is in any way extravagant.  It might be to the posters who obsess with “best eleven”, but as you know I’m a big advocate of “squad game” anyway.

I can only assume the loan fee was excessive in terms of what we wanted to pay for a player who might become a free transfer in July (or low compo if they offer him another deal).

And your point re Plan B is relevant too.  Again, I can only assume we feel this is one we move on quickly in the summer, so no point / unable to get someone in quickly in January.

It does show that we are not in a position to spend willy-nilly, even with the Semenyo money.

 

[mozo]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

 

Tanner / Vyner / Pring / Dasilva

 

That's the mostly likely and most sensible solution. It probably leaves us vulnerable, with Pring not having long to rewire his brain re positioning, but it'll have to do. 

Weimann in the Scott position, with Scott deeper makes sense on paper, but worries me in practice. I'd actually like to see us try Taylor-Clarke beavering away alongside James, to help break down attacks before they reach the backline. Then Scott can drop deeper when needed or go free on the counter.

Why not give another youngster a go when the season is pestering out?

[Davefevs]

3 minutes ago, Percy Pig said:

Couple of things.

352 didn't hold us back at all. The stats show that's an absolute fallacy. We were much more of an attacking threat at the start of the season than we have been during our run with 4-3-3. That's demonstrated quite clearly using the xG stats in the other thread.

I'm not advocating a permanent change to 352. But with one fit centre half and one fit defensive midfielder 433 seems to leave us ridiculously exposed to the type of football we are about to face against Warnock and McCarthey. 

I did alter the thought process mid post and admittedly forgot Sykes.

 

Revised line up to face two low block teams. 

 

O'leary

Tanner Vyner Pring (key here is the two full backs playing central should bring the ball out at their feet as the opposition are unlikely to be pressing and even if they do it will be a single line press with two banks of "block" behind them. Plenty of space.)

Sykes James Dasilva

(Simple enough, but relies on Dasilva being willing to run overlaps, which he often doesn't.)

Anis and Scott 

(As you say, running with the ball is vital, especially against a low block. Getting them central if we find ourselves camped outside their box will be more beneficial than whipping crosses in to nobody.)

Cornick/bell and Wells 

Movement is the key to create spaces for the double 10 behind. 

 

 

Holdenball - flying eights!

[Redrascal2]

2 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Pearson also said this week that Conway is still a way off and ahead of Naismith…which makes me think both will be held until after the international break.

As for Tuesday night’s team, it’s one game, in a mini run of 4 games before the break.  Nige will pick a team, and get on with it.  I’m sure Pring will partner Vyner, big question is whether it’ll be in a two or a three.  I would have no issue if Andy King played in between them either.  I might be the exception on here regarding that!  But I’m not too fussed who plays really.  It’s a case of mucking in over the next group of games.

If people haven’t realised yet that Nige isn’t gonna bloat in the squad, and that backfill will be with youngsters, then they haven’t been listening.

Would it really be the biggest disaster if our back four on Tuesday was:

Tanner / Vyner / Pring / Dasilva

 

As long as the Huddersfield forward line are horizontally challenged then no.

[Red_Alligator]

 Squad rotation Nige, squad rotation man!!

Oh, wait a second........

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Hindsight etc but still wonder whether Blackett on a free- finances permitting- could have been ideal. In fact I possibly mentioned it a while ago.

28, decent age- ✔

Experienced but not too old- ✔

Strong Championship experience- ✔

Left footed- ✔

Indeed perhaps moreso than Klose he could have been a medium term option given age etc. Versatile too, given the ability to play LB, think he's played in a back 4 and 3 alike.

Edited March 5, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[Bris Red]

6 hours ago, westonred said:

Without bringing in a CB in the last transfer window i was suprised we let Klose go. He only had another 6 months on his contract left which we paid up so it would have made sense as we were paying him to keep him around 

Yeah not keeping Klose was a bit of an odd one, even if it was just for emergency cover.

[LondonBristolian]

5 hours ago, ashton_fan said:

We have various options, we could make use of JD at left back an move Pring to CB, we could move Sykes to RB and use Tanner as CB, or we could just bring in Andy King and leave the rest where they are. It shouldn't be too long before Naismith is back although I'm not sure how good he'd be at CB in a back four, if he was playing in front of the makeshift back four though that would help. At least we've got quite a few points on the board now so shouldn't have to worry about getting dragged down into the relegation scrap especially with Reading expecting a points deduction as well. We'll just have to make the best of it and get someone else in for the summer window (at least one or two if as I suspect Kalas is gone). It shows how valuable Zak has been for us this season with his good form and availability.

I think - if Naismith is not back for the next couple of games - Pring at LCB and Dasilva back at LB is the most viable option. I’m not confident on King in a 2 man defence and Tanner would mean switching Vyner to a position he is not used to playing, plus I way prefer Sykes forward than at RB. I suppose Wilson is an option at RB too but still leaves the problem of moving Vyner. 

Edited March 5, 2023 by LondonBristolian

[Red Skin]

10 hours ago, marmite said:

I have this thought about Vyner getting injured Tuesday. 

You may have a point.  This is getting serious now.   I don't think we should play Vyner or any other players capable of playing CB.   Seems drastic, but the only option now if not to play any CBs at all, so we can ensure we always have CBs available.   

[RedEyez]

On 05/03/2023 at 09:50, Rocking Red Cyril said:

No that's some spelling mistake 

Eileen Brewery - Sol Bamba 

No correct letters other than B for surname. Shit that's dreadfully poor English. They need to go to a course to sort that out. How can anyone communicate with spelling like that. I feel sorry for them.they need help or maybe therapy 

 

I think you need therapy.

[Cityboy1954]

On 05/03/2023 at 12:53, ExiledAjax said:

I don't think a Cornick start is a bad thing. Bloke needs some minutes and although I don't think he's as dangerous as Wells he's definitely a handful. Also potentially a better physical presence against Huddersfield. Bell, Cornick and Sykes as a front three should be competent. Not terribly dangerous, but competent.

I think I'd rest Mehmeti and look to bring him on either for Weimann centrally or left for Bell in the below.

O'Leary

Tanner Vyner Pring Dasilva

Scott James

Weimann

Sykes Cornick Bell

It's XI adult men forming some sort of team. God knows what result that gets, but they'd play.

Except that weinmann is in poor form and not sure I see cornick as a nine doesn't hold the ball up we all got different opinions though I suppose.

[ExiledAjax]

16 minutes ago, Cityboy1954 said:

Except that weinmann is in poor form and not sure I see cornick as a nine doesn't hold the ball up we all got different opinions though I suppose.

With the squad we have I don't think anyone could pick an XI that everyone was happy with and everyone saw as strong.

The front 3 or 4 have been weak in recent games and I think it's worth trying something a bit experimental. We're safe in mid-table so try a few things out. Start Cornick, give Weimann some minutes - maybe they'll surprise us.

[Winterstoke toad]

Is there any youth centre backs that look promising at the club at the moment ? . 

[mozo]

44 minutes ago, Percy Pig said:

Several. They're just all injured

Percy, you always bang on about how great Nige is but it's pretty selfish of him not to get his boots on and cover the CB position.

[BCFCAL]

A three at the back of Tanner, Vyner and Pring does not fill me with any confidence whatsoever; young, lightweight and inexperienced at this level. I think I'd stick to a 4 at the back, with maybe Pring joining Vyner and DaSilva coming in at left back, Don't think after seeing the u21s lineup that any of them will be coming in, unless Knight-Lebel is fit.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but we have a very small squad, pair that with a decent cup run and injuries are always going to play a part at some point. Would've been nice to still have the option of Klose and Towler, but I don't think anyone could've predicted Towler's rise in form, and at the time probably wasn't going to get a look in. I'd say get a couple of youngsters in and around the squad, we're pretty rooted in mid table.

[Cityboy1954]

4 hours ago, ExiledAjax said:

With the squad we have I don't think anyone could pick an XI that everyone was happy with and everyone saw as strong.

The front 3 or 4 have been weak in recent games and I think it's worth trying something a bit experimental. We're safe in mid-table so try a few things out. Start Cornick, give Weimann some minutes - maybe they'll surprise us.

Hopefully il give cornick some time but ball comes straight back bit lightweight shame about the injuries jay worries me at left back as pring has made that place his own the four at the back has definately tightened us up  seems like we always lose our vital players  

[ExiledAjax]

2 minutes ago, Cityboy1954 said:

Hopefully il give cornick some time but ball comes straight back bit lightweight shame about the injuries jay worries me at left back as pring has made that place his own the four at the back has definately tightened us up  seems like we always lose our vital players  

Cornick I think needs time, and minutes. He's only played 181 minutes for us so far - across 6 games and with a variety of players around him. He needs time to settle. Pearson said these comments shortly after we signed him:

"We can improve him too. He's a player who comes in as a twenty-seven-year-old, is in his prime and we can make him stronger."

"We signed him as a player we know is versatile but the simple answer to your question is, I think he will offer a very interesting threat for us down the middle. Just because of his aerial prowess, his ability to run and he's got good pace too."

Those comments tell you where he thinks Cornick might play, but also that the coaches recognise that he has weaknesses - as you say physical strength/lightweight - and they want to work on that. Fans tend to expect a lot from strikers signed in January, but they very rarely score more than 4 goals between signing and the end of the season, and many get only 1 or 2. That doesn't mean they are write-offs, they just need to gel.

On the four at the back...we made the switch in the Birmingham game. Since then we've conceded 8 goals in 8 games (1.0 per game), with 2 clean sheets. Those 8 goals are from 2.875 shots on target and 1.22 xG per game allowed. In the prior ten games, where we played 352, we had again 2 clean sheets, conceded 11 goals (1.1 per game) from 3.4 shots on target and an xG of 1.2 per game. So really any "tightening" up is pretty marginal if you compare the last 8 games of 433 to the prior ten of 352.

The main "tightening up" is compared to the first 16 games - in those we also played 3 at the back - and conceded at a rate of 1.5 goals per game, from nearly 4 shots on target, and xG against of 1.45 per game. So yes we've got progressively better at defending through the season, but that was happening with a 3 for a while before the switch to a flat 4. It wasn't the switch to 4 at the back that tightened us up, it was something else.

[ExiledAjax]

19 minutes ago, Percy Pig said:

I think it coincided with changing the make up of the back 3 from Naismith Central as a sweeper taking risks and our WCB's playing as full backs in possession. 

But we also lost quite a bit of our attacking threat when we reverted to a more traditional back three.

I still think that tactical style was working and if you were to discount from the statistics the shots we conceded after an "unforced error" it could demonstrate how close we were to being a very good, attacking side. 

Water under the bridge now but I will die on the hill that 352 was not the problem. 

Yeh, it's a bit crude to use the stats like I did - because that 352 we played in our first game was not exactly the same as the one we played in game 20. Likewise the "433" we've deployed recently is not the same as that which we used in early January.

I think the point still stands though, we improved defensively whilst playing 3 at the back. It wasn't magically solved by a switch to 4 at the back.

[ExiledAjax]

1 minute ago, Percy Pig said:

Yep, absolutely spot on. 

Plenty of factors at play that tightened us up.

Mentality change- less gung ho going forward.

Matty James playing well after early season injuries 

Max in goal meaning we conceded less "shots" from set pieces

Weimann injury probably makes us more "structured". Lot of energy in his game but defensive positioning and tracking runners when we get countered is far from a strength of his.

Semenyo return to form in both formations causes the opposition to be 10 yards deeper from the get go.

Lot of factors at play, formation the least important part for me.

Similar to what I said on my recent "attacking quality" thread. There are so many factors that affect how a team performs in attack, defence, and transition. I find the stats useful to debunk/back-up broad statements such as "we've tightened up since switching to 4 at the back" or "we can't score since we sold Semenyo" etc. however they can't tell you why a change might have happened. 

IMO systems/formations are important - but you have to have the right players for those systems. When players and formations align you get good effective football. Any offset or disconnect and you see weaknesses exposed. This is not a particularly groundbreaking opinion of course.

[Spike]

On 05/03/2023 at 13:46, Percy Pig said:

Couple of things.

352 didn't hold us back at all. The stats show that's an absolute fallacy. We were much more of an attacking threat at the start of the season than we have been during our run with 4-3-3. That's demonstrated quite clearly using the xG stats in the other thread.

I'm not advocating a permanent change to 352. But with one fit centre half and one fit defensive midfielder 433 seems to leave us ridiculously exposed to the type of football we are about to face against Warnock and McCarthey. 

I did alter the thought process mid post and admittedly forgot Sykes.

 

Revised line up to face two low block teams. 

 

O'leary

Tanner Vyner Pring (key here is the two full backs playing central should bring the ball out at their feet as the opposition are unlikely to be pressing and even if they do it will be a single line press with two banks of "block" behind them. Plenty of space.)

Sykes James Dasilva

(Simple enough, but relies on Dasilva being willing to run overlaps, which he often doesn't.)

Anis and Scott 

(As you say, running with the ball is vital, especially against a low block. Getting them central if we find ourselves camped outside their box will be more beneficial than whipping crosses in to nobody.)

Cornick/bell and Wells 

Movement is the key to create spaces for the double 10 behind. 

 

 

I mean I'll still argue that it would hold us back now being as Mehmeti doesn't work in the 3-5-2 unless used in the CAM role where we already have Scott and Weimann competing for those positions, it also moves Sykes back unless he's also in that same role. Sykes and Mehmeti are our two most adventurous players when attacking so the 3-5-2 forces Sykes and Mehmeti to fight for a place where Scott is best.  In a 4-3-3 we could have Mehmeti on the left, Sykes on the right and Wells up front which IMO is clearly the most forward-thinking three with creative abilities. When we have a 3 at the back Vyner is awful on the right side, he is too easily pulled out of position and it took him far too long to adapt to it and even when he did he made mistakes that cost us goals. 

[Bourne End Red]

3 hours ago, Percy Pig said:

Yep, agree again. 

I think the one major lesson we have learned this season (well we should have as the evidence is almost irrefutable)... Kal Naismith is absolutely vital to us in possession and we are significantly worse both on the eye and statistically, when he's not playing. 

Easily the first name on the team sheet for me.

[mozo]

3 hours ago, Percy Pig said:

Yep, agree again. 

I think the one major lesson we have learned this season (well we should have as the evidence is almost irrefutable)... Kal Naismith is absolutely vital to us in possession and we are significantly worse both on the eye and statistically, when he's not playing. 

We did very well possession wise today. Maybe Pring did a good Kal impression!

[Taz]

8 hours ago, mozo said:

We did very well possession wise today. Maybe Pring did a good Kal impression!

Pring played really well last night, seemed to be popping up when and where he needed to, and got forward and caused a few problems as well.

Mention to James also, who I thought was integral to the side last night. Breaking up play, protecting the defenders, and playing the simple balls effectively. He was unfortunate with injuries when he first came, think he was also playing through injuries as well, but recently you can see exactly why Pearson bought him in, and exactly how and where he wants him to play. If you're expecting him to do the fancy stuff, get forward and score spectacular goals then you'll be disappointed, because that isn't the game he is playing.