Mr Popodopolous Posted February 3 Report Share Posted February 3 (edited) What do we think then. Edited February 3 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeh Posted February 3 Report Share Posted February 3 You need an option for nether Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted February 3 Author Report Share Posted February 3 I suppose but if it is a bit binary which is better of the 2? Done though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dredd Posted February 3 Report Share Posted February 3 At least with the three up top with Anis and Sykes (or Bell Weimann Cornick etc) there was a bit of excitement with us going forward. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted February 3 Author Report Share Posted February 3 I very much preferred the 4-3-3. Thought it suited us better and as you say more excitement. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pezo Posted February 3 Report Share Posted February 3 I prefer a flexible formation, just a single formation makes teams predictable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgy Red Posted February 3 Report Share Posted February 3 Currently it has to be 4-3-3. Unfortunately Tanner isn't good enough and it allows us to play a front 3 and therefore hopefully creat more at the top end of the pitch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mozo Posted February 3 Report Share Posted February 3 (edited) 14 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said: I very much preferred the 4-3-3. Thought it suited us better and as you say more excitement. I think some people are being revisionist with their memory of the Nige 4-3-3. We weren't creating many scoring opportunities, and there was a clamour on here for us to play two up top. Bell had a spell early this season, but it didn't last long, from which point the left side was an issue, as it is now. The right hand side looked good when Sykes was playing, not so good with Weimann, plus Tanner was really struggling. We had something like 16 shots on target in Pearson's final 5 games. Whether Nige would have got more out of the improved injury situation we will never know, but none of our squad looks outstanding right now. The players that were better under Nige (and therefore the 433), were Vyner, James and Knight. I'm not sure we can make much of a judgement based on that. [EDIT: I just realised that I argued on another thread that selecting a 5 game form period is pointless, and yet I've done it myself above to make a point. So I'm a hypocrite ] Edited February 3 by mozo 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spudski Posted February 3 Report Share Posted February 3 (edited) I don't think it's the formation that's the problem, more so, the constant use of wide offensive play, and the reliance on crosses to try and score. More infuriating, is that we aren't any good at doing it in the final third. More often than not...hopeful poor crosses easily defended. And even more infuriating, and happening, so often, losing the ball and possession when trying to beat the fullback or not even getting in a cross. Blocked, tackled or headed away. It's a piece of piss to defend against. More worryingly our coach perseveres with it...and Mehmetti, who just has no end product. Edited February 3 by spudski 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted February 3 Author Report Share Posted February 3 11 minutes ago, Pezo said: I prefer a flexible formation, just a single formation makes teams predictable. Naismith and maybe McCrorie can help for back 3 v back 4 switching, dunno who else can. By which I mean Naismith can drop between the centrebacks and say McCrorie and Pring push higher..could McCrorie have that skillset, maybe. Anyone else Idk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted February 3 Author Report Share Posted February 3 3 minutes ago, mozo said: I think some people are being revisionist with their memory of the Nige 4-3-3. We weren't creating many scoring opportunities, and there was a clamour on here for us to play two up top. Bell had a spell early this season, but it didn't last long, from which point the left side was an issue, as it is now. The right hand side looked good when Sykes was playing, not so good with Weimann, plus Tanner was really struggling. We had something like 16 shots on target in Pearson's final 5 games. Whether Nige would have got more out of the improved injury situation we will never know, but nine of our squad looks outstanding right now. The players that were better under Nige (and therefore the 433), were Vyner, James and Knight. I'm not sure we can make much of a judgement based on that. [EDIT: I just realised that I argued on another thread that selecting a 5 game form period is pointless, and yet I've done it myself above to make a point. So I'm a hypocrite ] Wasn't that when injuries were surging? Including as it did too, Leeds away, Ipswich at home flying as they were and Cardiff away..in a decent vein of form in the Autumn. 1 minute ago, spudski said: I don't think it's the formation that's the problem, more so, the constant use of wide offensive play, and the reliance on crosses to try and score. More infuriating, is that we aren't any good at doing it in the final third. More often than not...hopeful poor crosses easily defended. And even more infuriating, and happening, so often, losing the ball and possession when trying to beat the fullback or not even getting in a cross. Blocked, tackled or headed away. It's a piece of piss to defend against. More worryingly our coach perseveres with it...and Mehmetti, who just has no end product. I do think there is an over-reliance on crossing at times yes. Statistically it can be a less than effective route to goal across the game as a whole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IAmNick Posted February 3 Report Share Posted February 3 7 minutes ago, spudski said: I don't think it's the formation that's the problem, more so, the constant use of wide offensive play, and the reliance on crosses to try and score. More infuriating, is that we aren't any good at doing it in the final third. More often than not...hopeful poor crosses easily defended. And even more infuriating, and happening, so often, losing the ball and possession when trying to beat the fullback or not even getting in a cross. Blocked, tackled or headed away. It's a piece of piss to defend against. More worryingly our coach perseveres with it...and Mehmetti, who just has no end product. Yep, we seem to get into a decent position then just thump it blindly at top speed horizontally, often into the first man. If it does get through it's really hard to do anything with. I'd like to see us trying to pull more back to a Knight/TGH arriving later into the box personally. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spudski Posted February 3 Report Share Posted February 3 3 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said: Wasn't that when injuries were surging? Including as it did too, Leeds away, Ipswich at home flying as they were and Cardiff away..in a decent vein of form in the Autumn. I do think there is an over-reliance on crossing at times yes. Statistically it can be a less than effective route to goal across the game as a whole. It is statistically the worse way to try and score. I've bleated about it for years on here. Even worse when we are relying on players that can't beat their player or cross well. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cidercity1987 Posted February 3 Report Share Posted February 3 4-4-Conway-1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mozo Posted February 3 Report Share Posted February 3 5 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said: Wasn't that when injuries were surging? Including as it did too, Leeds away, Ipswich at home flying as they were and Cardiff away..in a decent vein of form in the Autumn. I do think there is an over-reliance on crossing at times yes. Statistically it can be a less than effective route to goal across the game as a whole. Let's say we had Nige back now, who would he play in forward areas? Conway the spearhead (on his own), Bell on the left, and probably Weimann would still be here and wide right. Knight would be at the top of the midfield with James and TGH. Now, do we think that team would have done any better in forward areas than our recent form? I really doubt it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petehinton Posted February 3 Report Share Posted February 3 Given we’ve made a ‘real coup’ in signing the lad from Belgium on loan, who is a raw out and out winger, would suggest we are reverting back to a 433 of sorts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mozo Posted February 3 Report Share Posted February 3 9 minutes ago, IAmNick said: Yep, we seem to get into a decent position then just thump it blindly at top speed horizontally, often into the first man. If it does get through it's really hard to do anything with. I'd like to see us trying to pull more back to a Knight/TGH arriving later into the box personally. Most of our goals under Nige came from wide positions, especially cut backs and low crosses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted February 3 Author Report Share Posted February 3 (edited) 6 minutes ago, mozo said: Let's say we had Nige back now, who would he play in forward areas? Conway the spearhead (on his own), Bell on the left, and probably Weimann would still be here and wide right. Knight would be at the top of the midfield with James and TGH. Now, do we think that team would have done any better in forward areas than our recent form? I really doubt it. With the injuries, Bell-Conway-Mehmeti while far from perfect could be one way to go. Quite young as a collective, young can mean energy etc. Clearly Sykes, Twine and Dire will give us further options along the front. Edited February 3 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mozo Posted February 3 Report Share Posted February 3 Just now, petehinton said: Given we’ve made a ‘real coup’ in signing the lad from Belgium on loan, who is a raw out and out winger, would suggest we are reverting back to a 433 of sorts. Who would you have either side of Conway, Pete? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted February 3 Author Report Share Posted February 3 (edited) 5 minutes ago, petehinton said: Given we’ve made a ‘real coup’ in signing the lad from Belgium on loan, who is a raw out and out winger, would suggest we are reverting back to a 433 of sorts. I hope so but at the same time, if we are recruiting for a back 3 base..it doesn't feel particularly joined up and does beg the question why make the change anyway. As in why did LM see the need to go to the back 3? Edited February 3 by Mr Popodopolous 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petehinton Posted February 3 Report Share Posted February 3 (edited) 5 minutes ago, mozo said: Who would you have either side of Conway, Pete? If that lad is a RW, then I’d assume he will go Twine on the left but probably more inverted, given he’s better more centrally than wide left. 1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said: I hope so but at the same time, if we are recruiting for a back 3 base..it doesn't feel particularly joined up and does beg the question why make the change anyway. As in why did LM see the need to go to the back 3? Hence why I found januarys window for what will impact this season, quite confused. Signed Twine as a “10” he was so desperate for, then moved to a formation that totally negates needing wingers. Not sure how Sykes fits back in when he’s back, too. Unless we go 4231 when Sykes is back, to fit wingers in and Twine as the 10. But that leaves Conway so isolated, which has been an issue all season. And if we are hell bent on signing a 9 in the summer, and desperate for Conway to stay, need to have a formation that means 2 up top. I’ve no idea how you try and do all those things as the new “this is our style” going forward. Good thing I’m not the pro license coach being paid about £600k to try figure it out! Edited February 3 by petehinton 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted February 3 Author Report Share Posted February 3 (edited) So Sykes is suddenly out? One of our more productive players is suddenly benched. Competition is good no doubt but.. (Sure he is injured atm but when all fit). Edited February 3 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mozo Posted February 3 Report Share Posted February 3 1 minute ago, petehinton said: If that lad is a RW, then I’d assume he will go Twine on the left but probably more inverted, given he’s better more centrally than wide left. But what would you personally go for? Genuine question, and I'm sure I don't have a better idea than you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mozo Posted February 3 Report Share Posted February 3 2 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said: So Sykes is suddenly out? One of our more productive players is suddenly benched. Competition is good no doubt but.. He's injured still isn't he. If Manning was considering a 433 in recent weeks, Sykes wasn't an option for him Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted February 3 Report Share Posted February 3 27 minutes ago, mozo said: I think some people are being revisionist with their memory of the Nige 4-3-3. We weren't creating many scoring opportunities, and there was a clamour on here for us to play two up top. Bell had a spell early this season, but it didn't last long, from which point the left side was an issue, as it is now. The right hand side looked good when Sykes was playing, not so good with Weimann, plus Tanner was really struggling. We had something like 16 shots on target in Pearson's final 5 games. Whether Nige would have got more out of the improved injury situation we will never know, but none of our squad looks outstanding right now. The players that were better under Nige (and therefore the 433), were Vyner, James and Knight. I'm not sure we can make much of a judgement based on that. [EDIT: I just realised that I argued on another thread that selecting a 5 game form period is pointless, and yet I've done it myself above to make a point. So I'm a hypocrite ] I agree….i didn’t like the way Nige played the “front three”, posted many times about it. But I always countered it with trying to understand what the cause and effect of changing it. There are some (and I don’t blame them) for thinking that just putting blobs on a whiteboard pitch is all it takes to win a match. However, the numbers clearly show we were creating more chances then than we are now. Not huge differences, but still gone back a bit. My expectations of Nige (had he not been sacked) with the returning injured players was to consolidate top half and be in the mix. So to be 14th and worsening (at this point) is bloody disappointing. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted February 3 Author Report Share Posted February 3 (edited) Just checked but fwiw. The only sides to play a back 3/5 this weekend at Championship level.. Us, Millwall, Plymouth, Preston, Rotherham The only side to play a possible 4-4-2 and that's only if you deem Szmoidics to be a striker, was Blackburn. Edited February 3 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petehinton Posted February 3 Report Share Posted February 3 1 minute ago, mozo said: But what would you personally go for? Genuine question, and I'm sure I don't have a better idea than you. Sykes on the right, no hesitation, probably Bell on the left atm. I wouldn’t be at all shocked to see Sykes shifted to the left to facilitate the new lad on the right, though. They’ll want him to play as much as possible. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IAmNick Posted February 3 Report Share Posted February 3 10 minutes ago, mozo said: Most of our goals under Nige came from wide positions, especially cut backs and low crosses. I don't doubt that, but I think the nature of the crosses was different - if we were winning the ball back high up the pitch, or at least playing reasonably directly (all the chipped balls down the wings remember...) and putting in a cross that's a different kettle of fish to a rather clever/considered/ponderous/boring (delete depending on your perspective) gradual working of a ball wide into a crossing position. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted February 3 Author Report Share Posted February 3 1 minute ago, mozo said: He's injured still isn't he. If Manning was considering a 433 in recent weeks, Sykes wasn't an option for him Twine is too..both are back at a similar time I thought. Or hopefully will be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted February 3 Report Share Posted February 3 5 minutes ago, petehinton said: Unless we go 4231 when Sykes is back, to fit wingers in and Twine as the 10. But that leaves Conway so isolated, which has been an issue all season. And if we are hell bent on signing a 9 in the summer, and desperate for Conway to stay, need to have a formation that means 2 up top. I think that is why I’m trying to stay calm. I really hope the current set-up is temporary….or….becomes effective with a couple of different players. I’m not holding my breath because I’m not seeing the foundation of it. But I’ll wait. 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.