Ross McCrorie

[Robbored]

15 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

As my simplistic summary I’d go with:

to get Pring and McCrorie to revel, we’ve had to play an extra defender

My challenge is:

is it worth it?

Because it hasn’t really solved anything in the attacking third.

That’s kinda my devil’s advocate stance.  If LM is changing something, why is he changing it and for what outcome.

If it results in more goals then yeah it’s worth it.

I’m struggling understand what Manning is trying to do. The students of the game on here say it’s about going wide to get less involved in the midfield.

Ok…….but getting wide is a decent tactic but beneficial only if Conway has support in the box and most of the time he’s isolated. On occasions a midfielder will support him.

I’m finding myself getting really frustrated when City are wide but have limited crossing options and why I bang on about having a CF.

[JAWS]

3 minutes ago, Henry said:

I like his strength and his power. However I’m looking to see what he can actually do on the ball. So far, there actually haven’t been evidence of quality on the ball, with passes, crosses or goal threat.

Did you not watch him go past players v forest with some eye catching skill?

[Davefevs]

1 minute ago, Robbored said:

If it results in more goals then yeah it’s worth it.

I’m struggling understand what Manning is trying to do. The students of the game on here say it’s about going wide to get less involved in the midfield.

Ok…….but getting wide is a decent tactic but beneficial only if Conway has support in the box and most of the time he’s isolated. On occasions a midfielder will support him.

I’m finding myself getting really frustrated when City are wide but have limited crossing options and why I bang on about having a CF.

It’s not though is it?

Thats why done of us are critiquing performances and set-up.

If we were now getting better results or at least the underlying numbers were pointing to future results being better, I’d be giving a different set of thoughts.

it is still relatively early days. But that doesn’t mean we can’t continue to build our view.

[JAWS]

Our delivery into the box was poor v forest & corners. It's better with skyes & or twine if he sticks with a front 3 but why not go with 2 up top with say twine or sykes sat in behind with pring & mccrorie giving the width. Leaving a true 3 at the back. Think that's positive at least at home

[Engvall’s Splinter]

15 minutes ago, Henry said:

I like his strength and his power. However I’m looking to see what he can actually do on the ball. So far, there actually haven’t been evidence of quality on the ball, with passes, crosses or goal threat.

I’m in agreement. Absolutely he adds physical presence to our side and his first preference appears to look forward, however so far the quality hasn’t been there. Before people jump down my throat, I appreciate he’s been out for a while. Whilst I’m sure he’ll come good, let’s not get too carried away. 

[Henry]

12 minutes ago, JAWS said:

Did you not watch him go past players v forest with some eye catching skill?

I did. It was a good piece a skill. 

[JAWS]

Conway definitely needs help alongside or an adequate replacement. He does look isolated and we have no height on crosses from open play

[Davefevs]

3 minutes ago, JAWS said:

but why not go with 2 up top with say twine or sykes sat in behind with pring & mccrorie giving the width.

Yeah, why not.

 

[Robbored]

16 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

It’s not though is it?

Thats why done of us are critiquing performances and set-up.

If we were now getting better results or at least the underlying numbers were pointing to future results being better, I’d be giving a different set of thoughts.

it is still relatively early days. But that doesn’t mean we can’t continue to build our view.

Sure it’s early days for Manning but many are trying to understand what he’s looking to implement which is exactly why it get’s discussed on here.

I openly admit that I don’t understand especially not playing with a CF to play alongside Conway. Generally speaking strikers come in pairs.

 

[JAWS]

27 minutes ago, Engvall’s Splinter said:

I’m in agreement. Absolutely he adds physical presence to our side and his first preference appears to look forward, however so far the quality hasn’t been there. Before people jump down my throat, I appreciate he’s been out for a while. Whilst I’m sure he’ll come good, let’s not get too carried away. 

I have to say I was surprised LM threw him in v West Ham and he looked very rusty & only slightly less rusty v Watford BUT v forest I saw a vast improvement & really encouraged & surprisingly good footwork for a big chap. He certainly doesn't lack confidence! 

[JAWS]

9 minutes ago, Robbored said:

Sure it’s early days for Manning but many are trying to understand what he’s looking to implement which is exactly why it get’s discussed on here.

I openly admit that I don’t understand especially not playing with a CF to play alongside Conway. Generally speaking strikers come in pairs.

 

I agree. This needs to happen. Conway on his own doesn't seem to be the best option 

[E.G.Red]

7 hours ago, JAWS said:

I agree. This needs to happen. Conway on his own doesn't seem to be the best option 

I still don't understand why Manning doesn't play Nahki with Tommy. I know it's not necessarily the way he wants the team to play but it's obvious Tommy is missing  his partner.

[Ska Junkie]

1 minute ago, E.G.Red said:

I still don't understand why Manning doesn't play Nahki with Tommy. I know it's not necessarily the way he wants the team to play but it's obvious Tommy is missing  his partner.

Taking the extra player from where? I don't necessarily disagree but 1 more up top leaves 1 less somewhere else.

On McCrorie, considering he's been out for so long and IS rusty, I really like what I see.

[RollsRoyce]

The plan in the summer was to have Pring and McCrorie as the 2 FB in a 4. I would suggest that having two strong FB like that would stop teams doubling up on Pring, and would have enabled us to be both defensively sound and offer an attacking threat. That threat would come from Pring and McCrorie, but also by allowing an extra player up front. I cannot believe the plan in the summer was to play a lone striker. Far from it. Before Scott was sold, he would have played in behind 2 forwards, TC and probably Wells. Mehmeti was ear marked to play in a central role, but has struggled so far, but has shown some signs of evolution. 

Playing 3 at the back, and wing backs, well that changes everything. More so if we get an injury or two. The squad is not set up for that. We will have huge gaps and will need to change our approach. As a one-off, maybe I can understand, but it looks more like this is the approach for the future. If so, we need a big recruitment change in the summer. These are fundamental issues and should have been sorted when we recruited the head coach. Does anyone expect the next Liverpool coach to change how they play , say to a Pep approach? Not a chance. 

[Engvall’s Splinter]

40 minutes ago, RollsRoyce said:

The plan in the summer was to have Pring and McCrorie as the 2 FB in a 4. I would suggest that having two strong FB like that would stop teams doubling up on Pring, and would have enabled us to be both defensively sound and offer an attacking threat. That threat would come from Pring and McCrorie, but also by allowing an extra player up front. I cannot believe the plan in the summer was to play a lone striker. Far from it. Before Scott was sold, he would have played in behind 2 forwards, TC and probably Wells. Mehmeti was ear marked to play in a central role, but has struggled so far, but has shown some signs of evolution. 

Playing 3 at the back, and wing backs, well that changes everything. More so if we get an injury or two. The squad is not set up for that. We will have huge gaps and will need to change our approach. As a one-off, maybe I can understand, but it looks more like this is the approach for the future. If so, we need a big recruitment change in the summer. These are fundamental issues and should have been sorted when we recruited the head coach. Does anyone expect the next Liverpool coach to change how they play , say to a Pep approach? Not a chance. 

Which for me questions Tinnion. As I understand it we’ve been recruiting players to play a certain way so that should changes occur, it isn’t a radical one. However, Manning appears chalk and cheese from Pearson other than the fact that the outcomes have pretty much been the same. 

[Cowshed]

17 hours ago, Robbored said:

Sure it’s early days for Manning but many are trying to understand what he’s looking to implement which is exactly why it get’s discussed on here.

I openly admit that I don’t understand especially not playing with a CF to play alongside Conway. Generally speaking strikers come in pairs.

 

If you look at the top of the championship, or the EPL you see? 4-3-3, 4-2-3-1 and one CF.

You will see the same themes throughout football. 

 

[Robbored]

2 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

If you look at the top of the championship, or the EPL you see? 4-3-3, 4-2-3-1 and one CF.

You will see the same themes throughout football. 

 

I have a stone age view Cowshed - when City get out wide and look to cross very often Conway is surrounded by defenders with sometimes a midfielder supporting him. Obviously that limits crossing options.

If City had a  CF to occupy and bully defenders that would create space for others but we don’t. Personally I find  it hugely frustrating as do many others around me in the Lansdown.

I don’t concern myself with how other teams set up  across the Championship but I know that against Leeds on Friday Bamford will be their CF assuming he’s available of course.

You’re a student of the game Cowshed - explain what you think Manning is trying to implement?

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, Engvall’s Splinter said:

Which for me questions Tinnion. As I understand it we’ve been recruiting players to play a certain way so that should changes occur, it isn’t a radical one. However, Manning appears chalk and cheese from Pearson other than the fact that the outcomes have pretty much been the same. 

I’d suggest squad building going forward might be more important than on the grass coaching.

I still don’t see the profile of players we are after changing….it shouldn’t need to.  But can we get players that improve us?  I see very few players in our squad that can’t adapt / aren’t capable of playing the way LM plays, so I do think the “he hasn’t got the right players” is a bit lame.

TGH is a good example….signed whilst Nige was here, made permanent under LM.  We have been recruiting to a profile for 2 years now.

Who are these players that can’t?

The question is whether they are good enough to mount a play-off challenge and to me that’s agnostic of the style played.

 

[JP Hampton]

10 hours ago, E.G.Red said:

I still don't understand why Manning doesn't play Nahki with Tommy. I know it's not necessarily the way he wants the team to play but it's obvious Tommy is missing  his partner.

Totally agree, there’s been no improvement in goals scored whilst Tommy’s been on his own. Seems strange( albeit that modern managers don’t really go for two up front apparently) that’s there’s been no change in formation up front despite the fact that our goal scoring record is really poor. 
 

 He’s not even tried changing who starts and who comes on, as the second half sub. Maybe (as said before) bringing Wells on first and Tommy second, might add something and/or at least make that tactic less predictable. 
 
Continuing to have Tommy on his own and the resulting scarcity of goals won’t be doing anything for his confidence. 
 

As the great Ian Gay always says “if you keep doing what you’ve always done you’re always going to get what you’ve always got”.

Edited January 29 by JP Hampton

[JP Hampton]

1 hour ago, Cowshed said:

If you look at the top of the championship, or the EPL you see? 4-3-3, 4-2-3-1 and one CF.

You will see the same themes throughout football. 

 

But it’s not working for us. 

[hinsleburg]

If we are sticking with this formation for me our tactic for me has to be to hit the channels as quickly as we can and win the 2nd ball. In theory McCrorie and Pring will be aerially dominant over most full backs, seems a real waste to not to this and utilise numbers further forward. Means whoever plays in front of Pring/McCrorie (Twine and Sykes when fit?) can attack the 2nd ball and get it to Conway/Wells much quicker and in dangerous areas. 

It is a great escape route and way to get us up the pitch especially away from home, we won't do it as it's too direct for Manning's style but hopefully we can use it as a way to mix up our play and keep opposition teams guessing. For me, it's also quite exciting when we can get the ball forward quickly and efficiently, people bemoan 'route 1 football' but when done properly with a purpose it gets people off seats and can lead to goals without compromising defensively.

Kind of went off on a tangent, I guess the point I was trying to make was I've been impressed with Ross and already adds a different dynamic to our game. Could see him thriving in a back 4!

[Davefevs]

44 minutes ago, hinsleburg said:

If we are sticking with this formation for me our tactic for me has to be to hit the channels as quickly as we can and win the 2nd ball. In theory McCrorie and Pring will be aerially dominant over most full backs, seems a real waste to not to this and utilise numbers further forward. Means whoever plays in front of Pring/McCrorie (Twine and Sykes when fit?) can attack the 2nd ball and get it to Conway/Wells much quicker and in dangerous areas. 

It is a great escape route and way to get us up the pitch especially away from home, we won't do it as it's too direct for Manning's style but hopefully we can use it as a way to mix up our play and keep opposition teams guessing. For me, it's also quite exciting when we can get the ball forward quickly and efficiently, people bemoan 'route 1 football' but when done properly with a purpose it gets people off seats and can lead to goals without compromising defensively.

Kind of went off on a tangent, I guess the point I was trying to make was I've been impressed with Ross and already adds a different dynamic to our game. Could see him thriving in a back 4!

For me, formation doesn’t dictate style of play.  What we are seeing is that under the set-up used over the past few games (I’ll call it a back 3 with WBs, LM might not!) that we are driven to playing down the sides in “settled build-up” and finding it difficult to create once we try to go inside.

I think what you are describing is your view of what style pleases you, and that appears to be a bit more pragmatic, helterskelter football.  I’m probably more aligned to you, I prefer that more too.  What others are enjoying is a more passing style.  FWIW I enjoyed Friday night’s performance, but I want to see that exploit a Championship opponent.  Then I might start to have belief.

Under both Nige and LM this season, we’ve been sound defensively, but struggled for goals, so style and whichever one each of us prefers isn’t really having any real tangible difference.  The cynic in me says that the hierarchy thought the answer to our goal struggles (and therefore results) was a new head-coach, more coaching on the grass and soundbites like front foot football.

[Red white and red]

On 27/01/2024 at 21:04, archie andrews said:

The new mark little?...... 

very good…

in league 1. 

[hinsleburg]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

For me, formation doesn’t dictate style of play.  What we are seeing is that under the set-up used over the past few games (I’ll call it a back 3 with WBs, LM might not!) that we are driven to playing down the sides in “settled build-up” and finding it difficult to create once we try to go inside.

I think what you are describing is your view of what style pleases you, and that appears to be a bit more pragmatic, helterskelter football.  I’m probably more aligned to you, I prefer that more too.  What others are enjoying is a more passing style.  FWIW I enjoyed Friday night’s performance, but I want to see that exploit a Championship opponent.  Then I might start to have belief.

Under both Nige and LM this season, we’ve been sound defensively, but struggled for goals, so style and whichever one each of us prefers isn’t really having any real tangible difference.  The cynic in me says that the hierarchy thought the answer to our goal struggles (and therefore results) was a new head-coach, more coaching on the grass and soundbites like front foot football.

I think my concern is, this passing style right now isn't leading to loads of chances and opportunities. That's not to say it won't with slightly different personnel and time but not sure it's what we need right now.

I guess the other argument is 'if not now then when'. I've been critical of the Twine signing without an option, we aren't going up or down and there's a strong chance we won't sign him end of season so see it as a waste. However, it would then be hypocritical of me to not allow the chance for this new style and approach to develop and embed. We look good in between both boxes but how do we convert that to goals? The answer is probably time coaching, patience and a slight personnel tweak so there isn't a better time for two of those things. I think personally, we've seen enough to give it a chance and get behind it.

It's a really tough one, I think what I want to see would lead to more goals the next 6 months, would it lead to more over the next 12, arguably not!

[JP Hampton]

I’m no statistician but having a quick look back through the last 10 games including Cup games, we’ve played a mix of 4-3-2-1 or 4-2-3-1 for seven of those games and the remaining three were 4-4-2. 
 

We won all of the 4-4-2 matches, played in December. For the remaining matches we won one, drew four and lost one. 
 

I know there will be other factors needed to be taken into consideration but the 2 up front were Conway and Knight. 
 

Not sure how this stacks up over the season as a whole, but thought it was interesting anyway. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Define 4-4-2?

Not sure I'd call Knight up with or behind Conway a 4-4-2 tbh if that's what you mean.

[Sir Geoff]

4 hours ago, hinsleburg said:

If we are sticking with this formation for me our tactic for me has to be to hit the channels as quickly as we can and win the 2nd ball. In theory McCrorie and Pring will be aerially dominant over most full backs, seems a real waste to not to this and utilise numbers further forward. Means whoever plays in front of Pring/McCrorie (Twine and Sykes when fit?) can attack the 2nd ball and get it to Conway/Wells much quicker and in dangerous areas. 

It is a great escape route and way to get us up the pitch especially away from home, we won't do it as it's too direct for Manning's style but hopefully we can use it as a way to mix up our play and keep opposition teams guessing. For me, it's also quite exciting when we can get the ball forward quickly and efficiently, people bemoan 'route 1 football' but when done properly with a purpose it gets people off seats and can lead to goals without compromising defensively.

Kind of went off on a tangent, I guess the point I was trying to make was I've been impressed with Ross and already adds a different dynamic to our game. Could see him thriving in a back 4!

So, similar to the way we were playing in the early part of the season.

[Davefevs]

5 minutes ago, JP Hampton said:

I’m no statistician but having a quick look back through the last 10 games including Cup games, we’ve played a mix of 4-3-2-1 or 4-2-3-1 for seven of those games and the remaining three were 4-4-2. 
 

We won all of the 4-4-2 matches, played in December. For the remaining matches we won one, drew four and lost one. 
 

I know there will be other factors needed to be taken into consideration but the 2 up front were Conway and Knight. 
 

Not sure how this stacks up over the season as a whole, but thought it was interesting anyway. 

1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Define 4-4-2?

Not sure I'd call Knight up with or behind Conway a 4-4-2 tbh if that's what you mean.

Under Manning it seem to be harder and harder to think about formations in our normal way.

I’d definitely say the last few games have been based on a back three and WBs (McCrorie / Bell and Pring on the sides of Tanner, Dickie and Vyner), but in other games although I saw it as a back four, it’s lopsided nature makes our traditional view difficult.

Southampton (a) was a back three imho, Huddersfield (a) also.

But I’m starting to refresh my thinking (hard as it is to do so) to really looking at shape in build up, shape in defence.

The 442 with Knight and Conway was definitely a w/o the ball shape, but Knight was too fluid when we had the ball to call it 442.

Nightmare, eh?

[Sir Geoff]

6 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Define 4-4-2?

Not sure I'd call Knight up with or behind Conway a 4-4-2 tbh if that's what you mean.

Off on a slight tangent from the thread but I'm getting a bit frustrated that LM hasn't tried something a bit different. E.g Cornick up top with Conway in the Knight role and Knight back in his best position in midfield.

[Mr Popodopolous]

9 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Under Manning it seem to be harder and harder to think about formations in our normal way.

I’d definitely say the last few games have been based on a back three and WBs (McCrorie / Bell and Pring on the sides of Tanner, Dickie and Vyner), but in other games although I saw it as a back four, it’s lopsided nature makes our traditional view difficult.

Southampton (a) was a back three imho, Huddersfield (a) also.

But I’m starting to refresh my thinking (hard as it is to do so) to really looking at shape in build up, shape in defence.

The 442 with Knight and Conway was definitely a w/o the ball shape, but Knight was too fluid when we had the ball to call it 442.

Nightmare, eh?

My initial thinking was fluid yes but if anything a bit of a 4-4-1-1 as Knight can support and join but is a midfielder by trade..that being the case that in some ways can morph into a 4-2-3-1/4-5-1 etc.

That being the games with Knight behind Conway. Now yes harder to place!

A fully fit and in-form Naismith would add another dimension, not just the passing but ability to drop into a back 3 with the centre backs splitting and full backs (McCrorie and Pring) pushing high in some phases, some kind of 4-1-4-1 perhaps in others if he sits between the defence and midfield.

Edited January 29 by Mr Popodopolous