| Strategy 07:27 - Nov 26 with 2551 views | ScottCandage |
I know Mick has forgotten more football than I'll ever know, but some things about Town's positioning and formations don't make sense to me.
1) The Front 4
When McG is healthy, Mick has been using a front 4, mainly because it worked once late in a second half when we were desperate. However, having a front four just reinforces hoofball, as there are only 2 mids and 4 defenders to get them the ball. In Mick's ideal world, 1 or 2 of his wingers will be tracking back, but when that happens, now that leaves only 2 or 3 targets for the hoof, not 4, making it easier to defend the hoof. And then you have a situation where your attacking wingers are moving backward, not forward. Not ideal.
2) What is Skuse's role? And what is his partner's role?
Since we use 4 up front, that leaves 2 midfielders (we mainly play with 4 defenders). First of all, just as a simple numbers game, anyone who plays a 3 or 4 man midfield has an advantage in the midfield. That leaves us as a disadvantage in headers to the midfield, and lets opponents double team our midfielders to regain possession. It is so frustrating that Mick cedes this advantage to every other team.
But more importantly, recently Skuse has started coming forward more often. While laudable, it takes Skuse out of his best role (steely defensive midfielder) and puts him into a less familiar, less successful position (forward playmaker type of midfielder). I'm not sure I understand that. If Skuse is going to play every match, let's at least let him do what he knows best.
Just as importantly, Mick's choice of Skuse's partner must be questioned. We all saw in seasons past that if you partner Skuse with another midfielder that has defensive tendencies, the team just sits back and absorbs pressure (or tries to), rather than be a force going forward. Again, wingers have to track back, thus reducing the attack force (see above). I know injuries have played their part here, but even if we do play a 2-man midfield, I'd rather see a more attacking partner for Skuse, thus putting at least 5 in attacking roles and 5 in defensive roles. Connolly is too similar to Skuse. Funny how Kevin Bru came on a few times and seemed to work a treat, as his skills are not redundant to Skuse's. Let's not keep making the same mistakes again.
2) How many central midfielders do we need?
Speaking of central midfield, that's all we have. Not one of them is a traditional, chalk on the boots LM or RM. Therefore, forget about playing a 4-4-2. When one of our CMs go out to play a sort of LM or RM, they are not playing in their natural position, and it shows. My kingdom for a true LM or RM. This has been a failing of Mick for years. Can anyone tell me the last player we had who came in as solely an LM or an RM? Maybe Adeyemi will be, but with Mick's formations, what will it matter?
Which brings me to
4) Round pegs for square holes. I am SO tired of this. Playing Sears as a left wing. Playing McGoldrick as a right wing. Although I wouldn't choose Waghorn as a right wing, he's so damn good he makes it work. Playing any of our CMs as an LM or RM. Chambers as a RB (thank goodness that's over). This is a result of poor recruitment more than anything. Get the best player at the position you need that you can afford. If you can't do that, you fail. Retraining players to play at unnatural positions is not working, and hasn't for years. Better to train up a lesser player to be a better player at his natural position than to hope that a player can be retrained into a new position.
5) Wither strikers?
We are using 4 strikers, and usually we have 1 striker on the bench (Sears) for cover? Excuse me? The all too predictable result of this is that when Mick wants/needs to replace a striker, Sears HAS to come on and save the day. But Sears usually gets put in his left wing position, which he can't do. And if we have to/want to replace two strikers, we can't. SO if we need to come behind to get a goal, we either have to depend on Sears, or put on one of our many CMs, thus mandating a change in formation to a less attacking formation. This makes no sense to me. Why not play a more balanced formation (4-3-3 I guess, as we can't do a 4-4-2, see above) and if we need to chase a goal, THEN go to 4-2-4. If Mick's response will be, "All our 4 strikers are starters and should be so played," then sorry, Mick, you put us into that position with your recruiting. Your job is to put the TEAM in the best position to win. I know you might WANT to keep your stars happy, but if that is coming in the way of winning (and I'm starting to think it is), then you've got to change it.
6) The defense
Knudsen is better than last year (not a high bar to clear, but clear it he has). Webster is coming into his own. And that's the best I can say about the defense.
7) Thank goodness for Bart.
Nuff said.
I'll shut up now. |  | | |  |
| Strategy on 07:45 - Nov 26 with 2507 views | Benters |
7. Everytime we lose Bart is man of the match,how does that work then? |  |
| |
| Strategy on 12:22 - Nov 26 with 2416 views | dalianwasexciting |
Nail on the head!
I would love to add to it, but you say it all! |  |
| |
| Strategy on 12:55 - Nov 26 with 2387 views | shoopdelang |
Not read the rest yet but straight away on point 1. You’re saying it as if we play with a flat front 4, which we don’t. They interchange and the wide men deeper than the strikers. Also when Mcgoldrick fit he drops in.
Not sure if you completely lack football knowledge or you’re just making this first point because you’re anti McCarthy. Whichever it is, come on mate be a bit realistic. |  | | |
| Strategy on 12:57 - Nov 26 with 2382 views | shoopdelang |
Playing with 4 strikers, makes sense to play with 2 holding defensiv minded midfielders ? Lots of top European teams play like this ( not that we are one ) | | | |
| Strategy on 12:58 - Nov 26 with 2378 views | shoopdelang |
Point 4 I can agree on with you. | | | |
| Strategy on 16:41 - Nov 26 with 2278 views | madmouse1959 |
....and those opinions are only half the problems !!
If we got rid of McCarthys favourites and had recruited better footballers we would of enjoyed a better season. If we got rid of McCarthy the missing supporters might return. If Evans sold the club then ITFC just might get the attention and investment needed before we eventually drift into a relegation battle. |  |
| |
| Strategy on 18:57 - Nov 26 with 2232 views | connorscontract |
Last proper wide midfielders brought in? It depends on whether you count wingers as wide midfielders, in which case Celina and Fraser (if you count loans) with Lawrence and Jonny Williams as players who can play wide or centrally.
If you're not counting loans then Tommy Oar.
Before him Paul Anderson and Stephen Hunt. |  | | |
| Strategy on 19:01 - Nov 26 with 2223 views | noggin |
| Strategy on 12:57 - Nov 26 by shoopdelang |
Playing with 4 strikers, makes sense to play with 2 holding defensiv minded midfielders ? Lots of top European teams play like this ( not that we are one ) |
Yeah well we're leaving Europe so get over it. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Strategy on 09:02 - Nov 27 with 2103 views | shoopdelang |
| Strategy on 19:01 - Nov 26 by noggin |
Yeah well we're leaving Europe so get over it. |
English teams will still be in the champions league and UEFA Cup you d&ckhead haha | | | |
| Strategy on 09:58 - Nov 27 with 2079 views | noggin |
| Strategy on 09:02 - Nov 27 by shoopdelang |
English teams will still be in the champions league and UEFA Cup you d&ckhead haha |
I wasn't being 100% serious. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
