| McKenna's insistence on playing the same formation 08:57 - Aug 18 with 1686 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 10:07 - Aug 18 with 162 views | ArnieM |
| McKenna's insistence on playing the same formation on 09:47 - Aug 18 by 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. |
Ah, okay. Thanks for that feedback. | |
| |
| McKenna's insistence on playing the same formation on 10:20 - Aug 18 with 122 views | itfcsuth |
Formation/system was the foundation of our previous success - Leif flying forward, left side rolling inside - if you snapshotted the formation it would often look like a 3-4-2-1 going forward and then a traditional 4-4-2 against the ball.
I can't see any logic to why we would change, is it not more a case at the moment of the personnel getting used to the system, and secondly finding the flow of form? |  | | |
| McKenna's insistence on playing the same formation on 11:08 - Aug 18 with 82 views | darkhorse28 |
| McKenna's insistence on playing the same formation on 09:01 - Aug 18 by 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. |
We really didn’t.
I’ve never seen a McKenna team without the double pivot.
We played 3 at the back and two inverted number tens instead of 3 behind a single striker.
Two formations…, and it is VERY predictable.
We play 3 at the back in a long losing run, and when KM first arrived too, to build a stringer platform etc
But 95% of games it’s one formation. What I find odd, isn’t the formation, it can clearly work very well, it’s not bringing in Lakers to make it work…, one CDM to play 50 games for two positions is very odd, because Taylor and even Jens are number 8’s really.
And then Clarke…, loves chalk on his boots, clearly doesn’t like to be inverted…, so we play him for that role instead.., why do we sign players so that McKenna can coach them in to different roles.
It makes no sense.
Buy an inverted wide player - I think mckennna is massively guilty of over thinking and over coaching.
We looked SO much better with wide players getting wide and crossing in the first 15 minutes yesterday, that’s the first time I’ve seen McKenna do that.
Leif is inverted now, so Jack can get wider, and obviously he’s best overlapping in wide areas, so we lost that threat, because Leifs right foot is barely for standing on, so if there’s one player doesn’t want to be on the inside, it’s Leif.
We are predictable - but then we were in 23/24 too and that was fine.
It’s not the formation, we just don’t have the players to play it.., maybe they will change before the end of the window.
A 3 with Jack Taylor and Humphries/Jens would suits Taylor and Jens much better; give them cover and allow them forward.
Why doesn’t KM try it.
Back to back promotions I’m guessing, he’s v bias to what has worked.
Suspect he’s wrong…, Sam and Mass made that system work.., gave us a platform and didn’t want or need to get forward.
We don’t have that.., and unless we bring in the players to make it work.., we will continue to struggle…, we aren’t capable of getting our best players in to games because we don’t win enough ball.., and that’s going to be a theme.
We are poor at getting the ball back and keeping hold of it.., and that’s against any team.
New CDM could fix it.., the new lad looks very good, so there’s hope. |  | | |
| McKenna's insistence on playing the same formation on 11:14 - Aug 18 with 73 views | BlacknGoldnBlue |
| McKenna's insistence on playing the same formation on 11:08 - Aug 18 by darkhorse28 |
We really didn’t.
I’ve never seen a McKenna team without the double pivot.
We played 3 at the back and two inverted number tens instead of 3 behind a single striker.
Two formations…, and it is VERY predictable.
We play 3 at the back in a long losing run, and when KM first arrived too, to build a stringer platform etc
But 95% of games it’s one formation. What I find odd, isn’t the formation, it can clearly work very well, it’s not bringing in Lakers to make it work…, one CDM to play 50 games for two positions is very odd, because Taylor and even Jens are number 8’s really.
And then Clarke…, loves chalk on his boots, clearly doesn’t like to be inverted…, so we play him for that role instead.., why do we sign players so that McKenna can coach them in to different roles.
It makes no sense.
Buy an inverted wide player - I think mckennna is massively guilty of over thinking and over coaching.
We looked SO much better with wide players getting wide and crossing in the first 15 minutes yesterday, that’s the first time I’ve seen McKenna do that.
Leif is inverted now, so Jack can get wider, and obviously he’s best overlapping in wide areas, so we lost that threat, because Leifs right foot is barely for standing on, so if there’s one player doesn’t want to be on the inside, it’s Leif.
We are predictable - but then we were in 23/24 too and that was fine.
It’s not the formation, we just don’t have the players to play it.., maybe they will change before the end of the window.
A 3 with Jack Taylor and Humphries/Jens would suits Taylor and Jens much better; give them cover and allow them forward.
Why doesn’t KM try it.
Back to back promotions I’m guessing, he’s v bias to what has worked.
Suspect he’s wrong…, Sam and Mass made that system work.., gave us a platform and didn’t want or need to get forward.
We don’t have that.., and unless we bring in the players to make it work.., we will continue to struggle…, we aren’t capable of getting our best players in to games because we don’t win enough ball.., and that’s going to be a theme.
We are poor at getting the ball back and keeping hold of it.., and that’s against any team.
New CDM could fix it.., the new lad looks very good, so there’s hope. |
When you have better players that are settled then the double pivot works fine, and it secured as back to back promotions.
I think the issue last year was the quality of midfielders was just bigger, stronger, faster and more technical and we couldn't cope.
I thought we looked better in Prem when we have 3 across the back but thats not the way KM ultimately wants to play.
When (not if) we go back up I think we'll field different types of midfielders. |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
