| McKenna's insistence on playing the same formation 08:57 - Aug 18 with 1685 views | ArnieM |
Am I the only one that is becoming concerned at McKenna's insistence on playing this formation, whoever we play against?
I feel McKenna is predictable. Opponents know how we set up. Our midfield is the problem, we either get overrun or outmuscled in midfield in almost every game. But more importantly our forwards get little service, and our defence has little protection.
What is McKenna's problem with playing 3 in the middle? He doesn't try anything different, ever!
What do others feel about playing just two in midfield?
** Prepares for dogs abuse and down votes.. . |  |
| |  |
| McKenna's insistence on playing the same formation on 09:00 - Aug 18 with 1466 views | soupytwist |
It's OK, Mick Mills is on your side. I think he'd rather we played 3 in midfield at least sometimes. |  | | |
| McKenna's insistence on playing the same formation on 09:01 - Aug 18 with 1457 views | thebooks |
Not really. He’s very flexible (we played 4 or 5 different formations last year), but part of the strength is forming the predictable patterns. Different league obviously, so makes sense we try to dominate with our “way” of playing.
I only down vote racists, so yer safe. |  | | |
| McKenna's insistence on playing the same formation on 09:01 - Aug 18 with 1448 views | OsmansCleanSheet |
The formation worked perfectly well in consecutive promotion seasons. It’s more the personnel at the moment than the system. |  | | |
| McKenna's insistence on playing the same formation on 09:03 - Aug 18 with 1401 views | muccletonjoe |
It is total madness playing the same formation against every team. It reflects that we think every opposition sets up the same way .
If we had the right players I think a 3 man midfield would solve alot of our problems. Unfortunately that is not the case at the moment |  | | |
| McKenna's insistence on playing the same formation on 09:03 - Aug 18 with 1405 views | BseaBlue |
It might be 'setup' that way but its an incredibly fluid and ever changing system that we play.
The tactics are not the issue at present, it is having the personnel in the door to be able to deliver it and then the right 'game changers' to make the relevant adjustments. We have two weeks to give him the tools he needs. |  | | |
| McKenna's insistence on playing the same formation on 09:10 - Aug 18 with 1299 views | homer_123 |
On the face of it, you're correct - if you merely look at the line up. However, if you take a close look at how the 'formation' plays out during matches, it's actually a lot more flexible and there is a lot more variation there than you might first think.
Last season, for example, saw us line up as 4-2-3-1 but quite often, out of possession, we reverted to a back 5, with the wide attackers dropping to a more midfield role and creating a 5-4-1 formation.
The season before that, we saw (and last season to a point), a back three with the two CMs holding allowing Davies to overlap Broady down the left and Clarke et al support down the right.
This season, we have seen Davis take up an inverted attacking role when transitioning to attack - much much more inside.
My point being that, on paper, it looks the same formation but in actuality it isn't. It depends on the opponent, the passage of play, the transition, the zone we are playing in. It's much more nuanced and to be fair to KM it has evolved and continues to as we see with Davies being an inverted winger this season so far. [Post edited 18 Aug 9:20]
|  |
| |
| McKenna's insistence on playing the same formation on 09:12 - Aug 18 with 1245 views | mrfixit426 |
| McKenna's insistence on playing the same formation on 09:10 - Aug 18 by homer_123 |
On the face of it, you're correct - if you merely look at the line up. However, if you take a close look at how the 'formation' plays out during matches, it's actually a lot more flexible and there is a lot more variation there than you might first think.
Last season, for example, saw us line up as 4-2-3-1 but quite often, out of possession, we reverted to a back 5, with the wide attackers dropping to a more midfield role and creating a 5-4-1 formation.
The season before that, we saw (and last season to a point), a back three with the two CMs holding allowing Davies to overlap Broady down the left and Clarke et al support down the right.
This season, we have seen Davis take up an inverted attacking role when transitioning to attack - much much more inside.
My point being that, on paper, it looks the same formation but in actuality it isn't. It depends on the opponent, the passage of play, the transition, the zone we are playing in. It's much more nuanced and to be fair to KM it has evolved and continues to as we see with Davies being an inverted winger this season so far. [Post edited 18 Aug 9:20]
|
It baffles me how people still don't understand this.
At least we haven't had the obligatory "what's plan B" post nonsense yet.
Yet. |  | | |
| McKenna's insistence on playing the same formation on 09:13 - Aug 18 with 1229 views | TRUE_BLUE123 |
Great managers rarely change their system. Mckenna is flexible in his setup, constantly adapting to the opposition, simply putting 3 in midfield wont change much because his principles will be the same.
As for the midfield getting dominated. That has something to do with the fact we have a guy who is playing on his 2nd game in English football and Jack Taylor who is just not that good. Hopefully we sign a couple more there and we will be a lot stronger. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| McKenna's insistence on playing the same formation on 09:13 - Aug 18 with 1227 views | JakeITFC |
We've played a different formation to the one you are referring to in both of our opening games (admittedly with a base two in the middle), with Leif now trying to provide that central support as Szmodics is playing more as a second striker than an attacking midfielder.
If we drop to a midfield three I think you risk going the other way and leaving one man isolated as two of those midfielders would have to shuttle forward to stop the central striker being isolated. |  | | |
| McKenna's insistence on playing the same formation on 09:14 - Aug 18 with 1218 views | TRUE_BLUE123 |
| McKenna's insistence on playing the same formation on 09:12 - Aug 18 by mrfixit426 |
It baffles me how people still don't understand this.
At least we haven't had the obligatory "what's plan B" post nonsense yet.
Yet. |
JUst WHacK TwO uP FronT | |
| |
| McKenna's insistence on playing the same formation on 09:17 - Aug 18 with 1184 views | Metal_Hacker |
It's a lot more fluid than what meets the eye dependent on where the ball is and who has it
As an example many a time Leif was in a 10 position when we were attaching and the ball was hitting the by line for a cross or another time he was tucking inside to make numbers up in midfield
When we're defending from a goal kick for instance , for the most we're playing with 3 across the front looking to close down as per Sammie with our goal and the "full backs" with one perhaps rucked inside a little narrower with the other alongside spread across the back with Greaves and O'Shea
As for playing a dedicated 3 in the middle I honestly thing it'll block the passage of play we look for and it'd be too congested and clunky |  |
| |
| McKenna's insistence on playing the same formation (n/t) on 09:17 - Aug 18 with 1181 views | ReusersTown |
[Post edited 18 Aug 9:24]
|  | | |
| McKenna's insistence on playing the same formation on 09:20 - Aug 18 with 1140 views | bsw72 |
I'm not sure that it is the same system or formation consistently, same personel but the system/approach changes.
Yesterday's game was a good example, the starting setup had Szmodics making breaks from the deep lying role, into spaces created by Philogene and Clark drifting inside. This is what created the goal.
After the changes by McKenna, Chaplin sat a little deeper in the middle, and the wide men (Szmodics and Ogbene) were expected to then get in the space behind the full backs, as the Southampton defense had to adjust slightly to pick up Chaplin.
The tactical approach these days is far more complex than the positions assumed in the starting line-ups and frequently is flexed during a game.
We know that midfield is the problem, we have never replaced the role that Luongo filled. The hope was that Taylor would grow into that role, but he seems to struggle with it, hence the play for Hackney.
Persoinally I don't think the solution is as easy as just dropping a 3rd man into the midfield, as that would drive more wholesale changes, it's finding the last couple of players which fit the system, as the system already allows for flexibility and change. [Post edited 18 Aug 9:21]
|  | | |
| McKenna's insistence on playing the same formation on 09:27 - Aug 18 with 1038 views | ArnieM |
Many thanks fir your feedback guys, I really do appreciate this.
So, given that McKenna's formation is fluid and interchangeable during games, and that we dont yet have the players in to make this system work optimally (did we have those players last season?), who would the best MF pairing be to make this happen, ( is thst likely to be Cajuste and Matisuwa or do we still need to bring in another midfielder?
Fwiw I really dont see Taylor as anywhere near a regular first teamer, as hes just not stringbenough in my view. | |
| |
| The system changes during games on 09:27 - Aug 18 with 1016 views | Dyland |
Keep up!
On a related note, we have a new midfield and it really shows. We are looking for at least one more quality central midfielder, presumably. Taylor, for all his brief flashes of quality, is not a CM preferred starter. |  |
| |
| McKenna's insistence on playing the same formation on 09:32 - Aug 18 with 962 views | TRUE_BLUE123 |
| McKenna's insistence on playing the same formation on 09:27 - Aug 18 by ArnieM |
Many thanks fir your feedback guys, I really do appreciate this.
So, given that McKenna's formation is fluid and interchangeable during games, and that we dont yet have the players in to make this system work optimally (did we have those players last season?), who would the best MF pairing be to make this happen, ( is thst likely to be Cajuste and Matisuwa or do we still need to bring in another midfielder?
Fwiw I really dont see Taylor as anywhere near a regular first teamer, as hes just not stringbenough in my view. |
Last year we were miles off the midfield level. Had almost 0 athleticism.
This year I think Azor and Cajuste should be a really good duo at the level. Cajuste should be a lot more dominant physically then he was last year but he needs to get his offensive numbers up. But he should be a great line breaker and able to skip past players really at will.
I personally would be signing 2 more. A deep lying playmaker type, McConnell on loan was linked. Someone like him. I would then like a true Box to Box midfielder. The Phillip Billing link (which is not going to happen) but someone like that would be the dream. Physical specimen, can dominate in all areas of the pitch, can add 5-10 goals a season. | |
| |
| McKenna's insistence on playing the same formation on 09:36 - Aug 18 with 908 views | Guthrum |
| McKenna's insistence on playing the same formation on 09:10 - Aug 18 by homer_123 |
On the face of it, you're correct - if you merely look at the line up. However, if you take a close look at how the 'formation' plays out during matches, it's actually a lot more flexible and there is a lot more variation there than you might first think.
Last season, for example, saw us line up as 4-2-3-1 but quite often, out of possession, we reverted to a back 5, with the wide attackers dropping to a more midfield role and creating a 5-4-1 formation.
The season before that, we saw (and last season to a point), a back three with the two CMs holding allowing Davies to overlap Broady down the left and Clarke et al support down the right.
This season, we have seen Davis take up an inverted attacking role when transitioning to attack - much much more inside.
My point being that, on paper, it looks the same formation but in actuality it isn't. It depends on the opponent, the passage of play, the transition, the zone we are playing in. It's much more nuanced and to be fair to KM it has evolved and continues to as we see with Davies being an inverted winger this season so far. [Post edited 18 Aug 9:20]
|
People get too hung up on "formations" and table football number arrays when it has always been the case that players will have different areas of the pitch they operate in (e.g. forwards helping out with defence), working together in units depending upon circumstances and maybe swapping sides of the pitch.
That is particularly so in the modern game. We have an atacking "pack" of up to six players when going forward, several of whom are not there in the "formation". |  |
| |
| McKenna's insistence on playing the same formation on 09:38 - Aug 18 with 883 views | thebooks |
| McKenna's insistence on playing the same formation on 09:27 - Aug 18 by ArnieM |
Many thanks fir your feedback guys, I really do appreciate this.
So, given that McKenna's formation is fluid and interchangeable during games, and that we dont yet have the players in to make this system work optimally (did we have those players last season?), who would the best MF pairing be to make this happen, ( is thst likely to be Cajuste and Matisuwa or do we still need to bring in another midfielder?
Fwiw I really dont see Taylor as anywhere near a regular first teamer, as hes just not stringbenough in my view. |
Once Matu gets up to pace, Cajuste and Matu seems more than good enough to me.
Taylor’s better higher up facing forwards, but he was OK yesterday. Thought Humphreys looked capable too, so enough backup.
We have the cash for a midfielder and it’s obviously vital to the whole system, so maybe another one. | | | |
| McKenna's insistence on playing the same formation on 09:41 - Aug 18 with 847 views | Guthrum |
| McKenna's insistence on playing the same formation on 09:27 - Aug 18 by ArnieM |
Many thanks fir your feedback guys, I really do appreciate this.
So, given that McKenna's formation is fluid and interchangeable during games, and that we dont yet have the players in to make this system work optimally (did we have those players last season?), who would the best MF pairing be to make this happen, ( is thst likely to be Cajuste and Matisuwa or do we still need to bring in another midfielder?
Fwiw I really dont see Taylor as anywhere near a regular first teamer, as hes just not stringbenough in my view. |
I can see Humphreys contributing a lot to the midfield this season, probably as a regular sub. He has the ability to get forward and can contribute the odd goal, too.
Taylor is just not quite there. Flashes of brilliance, has a good shot sometimes. But doesn't quite satisfy. | |
| |
| McKenna's insistence on playing the same formation on 09:42 - Aug 18 with 836 views | RonFearonsHair |
It looked to me like we were playing three in midfield during certain phases of play with Graves pushing forward and O’Shea moving central to cover. |  | | |
| McKenna's insistence on playing the same formation on 09:46 - Aug 18 with 783 views | NthQldITFC |
Nope. We're in a strong position to bolster our squad, tune it up to KMc's specification and absolutely dominate the league playing the way we want to play and forcing virtually all of our opponents to adapt to us.
That's our strength. |  |
| |
| McKenna's insistence on playing the same formation on 09:47 - Aug 18 with 770 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
The reason you get downarrows is you make statements like your subject title/opening sentence as if they're true, when they're not. If you framed it more like "it seems to me" you'd probably get more leeway. |  |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| McKenna's insistence on playing the same formation on 09:48 - Aug 18 with 754 views | cressi |
I agree at times away from home I think a 3 in the middle is required most of the time in the championship we can get away with it. The other thing if we had 3 quality midfielders would make the decision easier to implement. | | | |
| McKenna's insistence on playing the same formation on 09:51 - Aug 18 with 731 views | TRUE_BLUE123 |
| McKenna's insistence on playing the same formation on 09:41 - Aug 18 by Guthrum |
I can see Humphreys contributing a lot to the midfield this season, probably as a regular sub. He has the ability to get forward and can contribute the odd goal, too.
Taylor is just not quite there. Flashes of brilliance, has a good shot sometimes. But doesn't quite satisfy. |
I don't really see it with Humphreys.
When we sign another he is 5th choice and he counts for a squad place. Id rather keep Barbrook around and see what we can get for Humphreys, he wont ever be a regular starter here. | |
| |
| McKenna's insistence on playing the same formation on 09:57 - Aug 18 with 672 views | urbanpenguin |
| McKenna's insistence on playing the same formation on 09:12 - Aug 18 by mrfixit426 |
It baffles me how people still don't understand this.
At least we haven't had the obligatory "what's plan B" post nonsense yet.
Yet. |
4-4-2 - hit it up to the big man for the knock on. |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
