Dispelling the Naismaith to Midfield calls

[Harry]

18 hours ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

 Harry's a brave man if he wants to play 4-2-2-2 for an entire season (it worked well for LJ once (home to WBA?) for about.... 30 minutes). 

It also worked quite well when he used to have Brownhill starting on the right and Paterson on the left but both with the freedom to come inside and create a narrower 4 in midfield. 
I thought some of our best spells under LJ was when he played in this way. 
It started with a kind of 4 across the midfield but in-game would often revert to a 2-2 narrow midfield. 
During that time we did tend to have 4 centre backs though - with Wright and Hörður tending to be the full backs. So this gave a bit more defensive solidity. 
 

Sometimes it was even a lopsided 4-4-2, with Bryan playing left wing but staying wide, and Brownhill starting right wing but coming inside to make a 3 in central areas. 
 

For me, where we’ve been 2nd best this season it’s because the opposition midfield has controlled the game (Browne/Ledson PNE, Bielek/Sunjic Brum, Tufan/Seri Hull, Grimes/Patino Swans, Molumby/Yokoslu WBA, Randell Plym, Winks/Dewsbury Leics, Kamara/Ampadu Leeds, Sheaf/Sakamoto Cov, Morsy/Luongo Ips).

Whilst we got a result in some of those games, the opposition midfield dominated possession and we tended to win or draw having had inferior amounts of the ball.

We don’t have 1 individual player to dominate in there, so I think we need to get more bodies in there to make a difference. And I think that somehow means trying to get James, TGH, Knight & Naismith in the same midfield. 

[LondonBristolian]

21 hours ago, Davefevs said:

This is something similar to what I’ve been discussing with @Harry and @redcherryberry on a WhatsApp group, together with the notion of being a lop-sided set up too.

My simplistic view is to (with reason) get your better players / better combos on the pitch together.  But you’ll know best-laid plans, and certainly best-elevens can quickly go out the window, so I tend to not get too drawn into those.

I think my simplistic view is that we're currently struggling to create chances and there's got to come a point where we try either a different shape or different approach. To my mind, the benefit of a 4-1-3-2 (or a 5-3-2 come to that) is that it would be a way to start players who have done the most to earn a start (which, for me, is Vyner, Dickie, Naismith, James, TGH, Knight, Sykes and - perhaps most contentiously - Cornick). To my mind, those are the players that have most frequently shown an ability to impact games this season and, if we can find a balanced system for getting them all on the pitch, it might be a good basis to start from. 

[Merrick's Marvels]

2 hours ago, Harry said:

It also worked quite well when he used to have Brownhill starting on the right and Paterson on the left but both with the freedom to come inside and create a narrower 4 in midfield. 
I thought some of our best spells under LJ was when he played in this way. 
It started with a kind of 4 across the midfield but in-game would often revert to a 2-2 narrow midfield. 
During that time we did tend to have 4 centre backs though - with Wright and Hörður tending to be the full backs. So this gave a bit more defensive solidity. 
 

Sometimes it was even a lopsided 4-4-2, with Bryan playing left wing but staying wide, and Brownhill starting right wing but coming inside to make a 3 in central areas. 
 

For me, where we’ve been 2nd best this season it’s because the opposition midfield has controlled the game (Browne/Ledson PNE, Bielek/Sunjic Brum, Tufan/Seri Hull, Grimes/Patino Swans, Molumby/Yokoslu WBA, Randell Plym, Winks/Dewsbury Leics, Kamara/Ampadu Leeds, Sheaf/Sakamoto Cov, Morsy/Luongo Ips).

Whilst we got a result in some of those games, the opposition midfield dominated possession and we tended to win or draw having had inferior amounts of the ball.

We don’t have 1 individual player to dominate in there, so I think we need to get more bodies in there to make a difference. And I think that somehow means trying to get James, TGH, Knight & Naismith in the same midfield. 

 

Re the highlighted bit, just this season???

We've been 2nd best for seasons plural! Probably since the break up of that Johnson midfield (Pack-Smith-Brownhill-Bryan-Paterson) - how long's that, nearly 5 years?

In all that time, we've been unable to exert any sustained control over the flow of games, even at home. No wonder it's been a struggle. 

I am literally praying - praying - that, by this time next year, we have Knight and a completely new midfield. 2 or 3 new players in there would transform us at a stroke - blokes who can run and pass, not do one or the other - or neither. 

  

Edited November 16, 2023 by Merrick's Marvels

[Davefevs]

2 hours ago, Harry said:

It also worked quite well when he used to have Brownhill starting on the right and Paterson on the left but both with the freedom to come inside and create a narrower 4 in midfield. 
I thought some of our best spells under LJ was when he played in this way. 
It started with a kind of 4 across the midfield but in-game would often revert to a 2-2 narrow midfield. 
During that time we did tend to have 4 centre backs though - with Wright and Hörður tending to be the full backs. So this gave a bit more defensive solidity. 
 

Sometimes it was even a lopsided 4-4-2, with Bryan playing left wing but staying wide, and Brownhill starting right wing but coming inside to make a 3 in central areas. 
 

For me, where we’ve been 2nd best this season it’s because the opposition midfield has controlled the game (Browne/Ledson PNE, Bielek/Sunjic Brum, Tufan/Seri Hull, Grimes/Patino Swans, Molumby/Yokoslu WBA, Randell Plym, Winks/Dewsbury Leics, Kamara/Ampadu Leeds, Sheaf/Sakamoto Cov, Morsy/Luongo Ips).

Whilst we got a result in some of those games, the opposition midfield dominated possession and we tended to win or draw having had inferior amounts of the ball.

We don’t have 1 individual player to dominate in there, so I think we need to get more bodies in there to make a difference. And I think that somehow means trying to get James, TGH, Knight & Naismith in the same midfield. 

1 hour ago, LondonBristolian said:

I think my simplistic view is that we're currently struggling to create chances and there's got to come a point where we try either a different shape or different approach. To my mind, the benefit of a 4-1-3-2 (or a 5-3-2 come to that) is that it would be a way to start players who have done the most to earn a start (which, for me, is Vyner, Dickie, Naismith, James, TGH, Knight, Sykes and - perhaps most contentiously - Cornick). To my mind, those are the players that have most frequently shown an ability to impact games this season and, if we can find a balanced system for getting them all on the pitch, it might be a good basis to start from. 

I’ll try to give my basic thoughts to you both in one post!!

If I look at our squad, our defence is solid playing four in a traditional setup, albeit Pring more attacking than Tanner.  McCrorie might balance that in time.  Big Rob Atkinson on his way back too.  Do not much to worry about there.

Then I want to take midfield and attack as a comparison.

I think a midfield “squad” of James, Naismith, Knight, Williams and TGH, plus versatile Weimann and Sykes means I’d want to get more midfielders on the pitch than attackers.  Currently it is 3 and 3.

I think it leaves big gaps, with and without the ball.  Crude pic…apologies…and it’s not as simple as this in a fluid game.  Without the ball, we are hard to break down centrally, unless undone my superior opposition / quality.

I think trying to fit 3 forwards, whether that includes Sykes and / or a Weimann, and spreading them out across an advanced front-line is not making best use of our resources…and it leaves gaps between our units.  I see triangles of gaps, not triangles of cohesive team-play.

I want to change that balance in favour of getting our better players on the pitch…but what I really mean by that is that I want them to play closer together, to work in mini-teams.  I don’t think we can create the mini-games that Manning talks about with our players so far away from each other.

 

 

[Simon bristol]

On 15/11/2023 at 11:33, cidercity1987 said:

Sadly for Naismith he isn't one of our best two centre defenders. Dickie and Vyner as a Partnership have looked absolutely rock solid going back all the way through the season and it would be mad to break that up.

Someone will correct me if I am wrong but

Vyner and Dickie 3 goals conceded in 5 games together

Naismith and Dickie 7 goals conceded in 4 games together

Vyner and Naismith 3 goals conceded in 4 games together

Maybe not enough games to know for sure and distorted by the freak Stoke game but Naismith was implicated in a few of those goals

 

I havent anaylised the results, but fundamentally from watching naismith, im not upset if hes not playing at centre back, and i would also prefer dickie and vyner if they are both fit. Im of the opinion that if manning wants us to play a fast possession game then get tgh signed up and move naismith, and one or 2 others on to free up the salaries.