| Ch ch ch changes 07:58 - Nov 10 with 787 views | muccletonjoe |
I thought Gary O'Neil would be far more adaptable than he has actually turned out to be. Apart from a few tweaks here and there , I really haven't seen a great deal of utilising the squad.
I would be inclined to emphasise our strongest area , which is most certainly midfield at this moment in time. Either a 3 man or 4 man with a sweeper system. Basically we have continued with a system adopted over the past 4 years, which has seen us promoted to the premier league, but is unlikely to keep us there even with an improved skill set.
Nothing ever changed the last time we were in Premier league. Alot of fans I have spoken to , will be incredibly disappointed if the same thing happens a second time. |  | | |  |
| Ch ch ch changes on 08:21 - Nov 10 | WolfieAtTheBack |
The only immediate tactical change is do not play it out from the back, the players and goalie cannot do it, I am not sure why modern coaches insist on doing it when they do not have the players to pull it off.
IF we stay up and get new players next season that can P.O.F.T.B then by all means give it a try, not now though please, not now. |  | | |
| Ch ch ch changes on 08:45 - Nov 10 | Blue_Uprising |
I have a bit of a thought eating away at me about football analysis/analytics that maybe a few of the more knowledgeable posters about statistics could answer.
A lot of coaching ideas these days seem to come from analysing what statistically works. Gathered from a very large sample set of games (presumably across leagues). To what degree is there a fallacy about applying this data set to what to me seems a much smaller subject
Ie. 1 team , in 1 league, across only 38 games, and max 25 players (but realistically mostly using about 18 players)
It seems that things that apply in the law of large numbers can’t be depended on in these circumstances? |  | | |
| Ch ch ch changes on 09:49 - Nov 10 | Guthrum |
A lot of people talk about areas of the pitch in isolation (go three at the back, or put extra bodies in midfield). However, there are a finite number of players in the team. Every extra man deployed at the back or in the centre of the pitch is one fewer elsewhere. Who do we drop, Emersonn,Enciso, Clarke, Maeda, Fatawu? We need a full-strength attack, too, given how hard it is to score.
Tactically, the No.10 would seem the most expendable - but that is our best player and main goal threat. Sticking Enciso out into one of the wide positions would remove him from his most productive area.
Not using a proper Centre Forward leaves no-one to press defenders and the goalie, giving opponents more freedom to play out from the back, a more secure base to mop up clearances and launch attacks. There is noboby to hold up the ball, or cause trouble in the box. |  |
| |
| Ch ch ch changes on 10:04 - Nov 10 | FrimleyBlue |
| Ch ch ch changes on 09:49 - Nov 10 by Guthrum |
A lot of people talk about areas of the pitch in isolation (go three at the back, or put extra bodies in midfield). However, there are a finite number of players in the team. Every extra man deployed at the back or in the centre of the pitch is one fewer elsewhere. Who do we drop, Emersonn,Enciso, Clarke, Maeda, Fatawu? We need a full-strength attack, too, given how hard it is to score.
Tactically, the No.10 would seem the most expendable - but that is our best player and main goal threat. Sticking Enciso out into one of the wide positions would remove him from his most productive area.
Not using a proper Centre Forward leaves no-one to press defenders and the goalie, giving opponents more freedom to play out from the back, a more secure base to mop up clearances and launch attacks. There is noboby to hold up the ball, or cause trouble in the box. |
I cant say with confidence that our flank players work that well
So for me and it kinda answers your point about the 10. But go with the 3 4 2 1
Keeps julio central. Also gives him a partner plus the holding forward
Width can be obtained by the wingbacks plus with cbs youve got cover
Seems a bit of a no brainer tbh. |  |
| |
| Ch ch ch changes on 10:22 - Nov 10 | Guthrum |
| Ch ch ch changes on 10:04 - Nov 10 by FrimleyBlue |
I cant say with confidence that our flank players work that well
So for me and it kinda answers your point about the 10. But go with the 3 4 2 1
Keeps julio central. Also gives him a partner plus the holding forward
Width can be obtained by the wingbacks plus with cbs youve got cover
Seems a bit of a no brainer tbh. |
But that draws the FBs even further forward, leaving space for fast-breaking opponents to cross from.
As for the flank players not working, Maeda and Fatawu have distinctly troubled defences, judging by the penalty shouts we've had on that side. | |
| |
| Ch ch ch changes on 10:35 - Nov 10 | Whos_blue |
| Ch ch ch changes on 09:49 - Nov 10 by Guthrum |
A lot of people talk about areas of the pitch in isolation (go three at the back, or put extra bodies in midfield). However, there are a finite number of players in the team. Every extra man deployed at the back or in the centre of the pitch is one fewer elsewhere. Who do we drop, Emersonn,Enciso, Clarke, Maeda, Fatawu? We need a full-strength attack, too, given how hard it is to score.
Tactically, the No.10 would seem the most expendable - but that is our best player and main goal threat. Sticking Enciso out into one of the wide positions would remove him from his most productive area.
Not using a proper Centre Forward leaves no-one to press defenders and the goalie, giving opponents more freedom to play out from the back, a more secure base to mop up clearances and launch attacks. There is noboby to hold up the ball, or cause trouble in the box. |
Nice one Guthers.
Someone who gets it. |  |
| "Look, I don't wanna be the same as everybody else. That's why I'm a Mod, see?" |
| |
| Ch ch ch changes on 10:49 - Nov 10 | bsw72 |
| Ch ch ch changes on 10:04 - Nov 10 by FrimleyBlue |
I cant say with confidence that our flank players work that well
So for me and it kinda answers your point about the 10. But go with the 3 4 2 1
Keeps julio central. Also gives him a partner plus the holding forward
Width can be obtained by the wingbacks plus with cbs youve got cover
Seems a bit of a no brainer tbh. |
Take away our wide attacking threat and you will invite more pressure on our defence by allowing the opposition full backs / wide attackers more space and potentially outnumbering our flanks, worse case it pulls our central players out wide, so creating space for deep lying, attacking runs from midfield.
Fundamentally there is nothing majorly wrong with how we are setup today, we just need to stop making stupid mistakes. |  | | |
| Ch ch ch changes on 10:55 - Nov 10 | Bluemike31 |
Regarding the formation, GON has openly said he will adjust it to suit the opposition and situation, up to and including last week it had worked pretty well, getting us to mid table and seeing us play Hull off the pitch and securing a good point against Forest who went on to batter Man City. Now having been beaten by Bournemouth GON may well be looking at other options because for me the time is now right, there has been no reason to do it so far for the reasons just given. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Ch ch ch changes on 11:50 - Nov 10 | soupytwist |
| Ch ch ch changes on 10:49 - Nov 10 by bsw72 |
Take away our wide attacking threat and you will invite more pressure on our defence by allowing the opposition full backs / wide attackers more space and potentially outnumbering our flanks, worse case it pulls our central players out wide, so creating space for deep lying, attacking runs from midfield.
Fundamentally there is nothing majorly wrong with how we are setup today, we just need to stop making stupid mistakes. |
Do we have a wide attacking threat now? On Sunday, on the right both players in the ostensibly wide attacking role just cut inside 99.9% of the time. The only players who consistently attack from wide areas are the full backs, and they'd still be doing that in a different formation. |  | | |
| Ch ch ch changes on 12:29 - Nov 10 | FrimleyBlue |
| Ch ch ch changes on 10:49 - Nov 10 by bsw72 |
Take away our wide attacking threat and you will invite more pressure on our defence by allowing the opposition full backs / wide attackers more space and potentially outnumbering our flanks, worse case it pulls our central players out wide, so creating space for deep lying, attacking runs from midfield.
Fundamentally there is nothing majorly wrong with how we are setup today, we just need to stop making stupid mistakes. |
Most of our wide attacking threat comes from our fullbacks though rather than the wingers as they tuck in with the ball.
If we went 3 4 2 1 we'd still have the creativity in the middle, uptop and our wingbacks can get forwards to give width, lose the ball and we have more cover in the gaps than we do when we lose the ball now. see it as more 5.4.1 off the ball 3.2.4.1 on it. | |
| |
| Ch ch ch changes on 12:31 - Nov 10 | ericclacton |
O'Neil will take us back down i'm as sure of that as the day is long.
 |  | | |
| Ch ch ch changes on 12:31 - Nov 10 | ElderGrizzly |
| Ch ch ch changes on 09:49 - Nov 10 by Guthrum |
A lot of people talk about areas of the pitch in isolation (go three at the back, or put extra bodies in midfield). However, there are a finite number of players in the team. Every extra man deployed at the back or in the centre of the pitch is one fewer elsewhere. Who do we drop, Emersonn,Enciso, Clarke, Maeda, Fatawu? We need a full-strength attack, too, given how hard it is to score.
Tactically, the No.10 would seem the most expendable - but that is our best player and main goal threat. Sticking Enciso out into one of the wide positions would remove him from his most productive area.
Not using a proper Centre Forward leaves no-one to press defenders and the goalie, giving opponents more freedom to play out from the back, a more secure base to mop up clearances and launch attacks. There is noboby to hold up the ball, or cause trouble in the box. |
Although scoring is not a problem right now. We are the 5th highest scorers, same as Arsenal.
Clearly the balance is wrong somewhere though. |  | | |
| Ch ch ch changes on 12:44 - Nov 10 | Guthrum |
| Ch ch ch changes on 12:31 - Nov 10 by ElderGrizzly |
Although scoring is not a problem right now. We are the 5th highest scorers, same as Arsenal.
Clearly the balance is wrong somewhere though. |
As things stand, yes. However, if we were to remove elements of that attacking setup (and depending which ones), how far would it damage those figures going forward?
Plus, of course, a number of our goals have come more from dogged persistence later in games than sheer free-scoring ability. | |
| |
| Ch ch ch changes on 12:46 - Nov 10 | ElderGrizzly |
| Ch ch ch changes on 12:44 - Nov 10 by Guthrum |
As things stand, yes. However, if we were to remove elements of that attacking setup (and depending which ones), how far would it damage those figures going forward?
Plus, of course, a number of our goals have come more from dogged persistence later in games than sheer free-scoring ability. |
Agree, that's the problem O'Neil has.
He knows we can't afford to keep shipping over 2 goals a game, but how much does that stifle being able to score. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
