| A rare chance to see Wolves twice this season 18:46 - Jan 27 with 10392 views | Mullet |
They're truly the most intriguing side I've ever seen at this level. They seem to tick all the clichéd boxes of a side too good for the league. Massive overspending, depth of quality, a manager who like his players is operating at this level because the club can pay him to etc.
All of that aside, they play in a way that even the dive and deliver method of Bournemouth, or Prem reserve side that Newcastle used doesn't quite compare.
Due to an impromptu return to Suffolk for a funeral, it was possibly the best game under the circumstances to be forced home for. Despite the result. Compared to Bolton we were far from night and day this week, just much improved on the basic ideas and approach this week. Skuse Connolly and Gleeson together might well be a better option when possible. Let Celina, Waghorn and Garner start for the time being.
Celina started really well I thought when he was running towards me in the Churchmans he looked really up for it early on. That short corner with Waghorn deserved a goal alone. The fact he faded in and out of the game late on was testament to the system Wolves employ.
They got the goal and without seeing it, it looked so simple for them. I'm not going to suggest Bart or any of the defenders were massively culpable but as he ran in unchecked to head it, I did worry they would be gifted another 3 or 4.
What they do well, which I've not seen a 2nd tier side do at this level, is force you backwards and let you suffocate yourself. They leave the free man as a defensive one, so every simple pass means you push your own play backwards, time and time again. It was fascinating to watch. When we did try and go forward they "hunt in packs" as Snr fittingly put it. I got a bit frustrated with Spence, especially late on when he'd draw 3 or so into the corner again and again. They had a lack of cover on the far side and had he hit an early cross or two we might have made far more of a fist in that chase.
McGoldrick was better at covering in the second half, but he wasn't working in the system today. We were less loose with the four up top, but again I didn't feel like the players quite knew their roles. Being forced back, or inside meant the quality of Neves and size of N'Diaye was easy work for them. Those suggesting he doesn't care, seem mistaken to me, I just think he's hobbled these days.
They did counter with some ferocity, but some of the decisions they made helped Bart in his shot stopping and that's not to play him down at all - he was worthy of that 3 year contract today. It'll be sweet for him when he negotiates a deal at his new club in the summer for him with that behind him.
You can point to the terrible decisions, especially in the first half by the ref to book Gleeson for that, but not Bennett for leading with his elbow was baffling but what Wolves did to us with their shape, really played mind games with us. Our players did it often enough themselves too and left us relying on fleeting chances.
Players didn't want to overlap for fear of having to track back, when they did I thought Chambers and CCV covered really well. They look immensely better after a week on the training ground together under Mick.
Waghorn and Celina were probably the most convincing portion of our attack for me, I didn't feel like Garner really won much again. But he did get some joy with the odd unorthodox touch which let him wriggle free. Whether it was a case of a team as good as Wolves made us raise our game again or not, or we just had a bad day at the Macron I'm not sure. But we're going through a dry January and the winless run isn't encouraging at all.
Neither Steijn or McGreal seem convincing shouts to replace Mick for me. Not that I'd be particularly against either, they just don't seem likely Evans shouts. We need him to do something different, but I feel like we're going to see someone like Mick but more than likely not as good.
It was lovely to walk up to Portman Rd for the first time in a while and it still feel good every time. The place might just be a load of concrete and plastic but it's oddly comforting at a few minutes to 3pm to walk up the stairs and take a seat in the Churchmans. For those concerned about how shabby it is, I was more concerned by the pitch. Looks like it needs relaying this summer to me and in much more attention than anything else. Got my boy a wicked little baby grow to grow into though. Planet Blue raised a few quid from tourists like me today. It's not badly set up in there either, easy enough shopping and whatnot which makes me wonder if it helps the coffers much these days.
That quote from Bobby across the North looks a bit ironic during games that go flat like today. Not convinced that all the ST holders were there and a big if tedious Wolves cohort with their Sloop John B thing never really got the place going. Even the shouts of scum at Ruddy seemed a bit half-hearted. The bloke who screamed "Captain Fanspastic" at Chambo for passing back to Bart was possibly the biggest show of misplaced passion around me today.
Feels like Mick is unable to change even the most basic things now on and off the pitch we'll just do enough. The season is essentially a charade with the derby thrown in to break up the monotony. I guess we just wait and see if we are weakened any further before the window closes.
|  |
| |  |
| A rare chance to see Wolves twice this season on 19:24 - Jan 27 with 8561 views | homer_123 |
Mullers. This is the rub isn't it.
If Evans isn't prepared to change, who else could do the job as well as Mick?
That being said, something does need to change as we can't go on as is. |  |
| |
| A rare chance to see Wolves twice this season on 19:30 - Jan 27 with 8537 views | Guthrum |
| A rare chance to see Wolves twice this season on 19:24 - Jan 27 by homer_123 |
Mullers. This is the rub isn't it.
If Evans isn't prepared to change, who else could do the job as well as Mick?
That being said, something does need to change as we can't go on as is. |
I think the thing which most terrifies many fans is precisely that that we can - and might well actually do - go on like this for another ten years, or more. Rarely, if ever, seriously troubling the promotion places, little real danger of going down either. |  |
| |
| A rare chance to see Wolves twice this season on 19:37 - Jan 27 with 8488 views | Sibelius8 |
Thank you. A pertinent post. Well put.
Cheers! |  | | |
| A rare chance to see Wolves twice this season on 19:41 - Jan 27 with 8459 views | Darth_Koont |
Good report.
Wolves were phenomenal off the ball today. Which meant that once they were ahead we were relying on luck or the ability to change the point of attack and wriggle free even in tight areas. We can't do that but then again I don't think any Championship side can. In attack they were relaxed yet decisive, probably because they knew they didn't have to worry about what happens if they lose the ball.
Alongside Bournemouth's possession and intensity high up the pitch, Wolves were the best side I've seen in the past decade. |  |
| |
| A rare chance to see Wolves twice this season on 09:56 - Jan 28 with 8049 views | Mullet |
| A rare chance to see Wolves twice this season on 19:24 - Jan 27 by homer_123 |
Mullers. This is the rub isn't it.
If Evans isn't prepared to change, who else could do the job as well as Mick?
That being said, something does need to change as we can't go on as is. |
We were talking about this on the way down and we're at a point now where even trying to think of a suitable candidate that wouldn't have push back is impossible.
I also think if we see one last gamble it'd still be dwarfed in relative terms any way. We're going to lose way more than Mick this summer, we'll lose the players that helped be so successful here.
Part of me wonders if Mick's wage will be split amongst a team (hence the McGreal link) and we'll get a budget management team being heralded as something and then just hold our breath and hope. | |
| |
| A rare chance to see Wolves twice this season on 09:57 - Jan 28 with 8045 views | Mullet |
| A rare chance to see Wolves twice this season on 19:30 - Jan 27 by Guthrum |
I think the thing which most terrifies many fans is precisely that that we can - and might well actually do - go on like this for another ten years, or more. Rarely, if ever, seriously troubling the promotion places, little real danger of going down either. |
We'll go down sooner rather than later in that time frame.
It's starting to feel inevitable without the change of ownership. | |
| |
| A rare chance to see Wolves twice this season on 10:00 - Jan 28 with 8030 views | Mullet |
| A rare chance to see Wolves twice this season on 19:41 - Jan 27 by Darth_Koont |
Good report.
Wolves were phenomenal off the ball today. Which meant that once they were ahead we were relying on luck or the ability to change the point of attack and wriggle free even in tight areas. We can't do that but then again I don't think any Championship side can. In attack they were relaxed yet decisive, probably because they knew they didn't have to worry about what happens if they lose the ball.
Alongside Bournemouth's possession and intensity high up the pitch, Wolves were the best side I've seen in the past decade. |
They are miles ahead of Bournemouth, I can't think of any side coming close. Maybe that Reading "106" side? | |
| |
| A rare chance to see Wolves twice this season on 10:01 - Jan 28 with 8023 views | TractorWood |
| A rare chance to see Wolves twice this season on 09:57 - Jan 28 by Mullet |
We'll go down sooner rather than later in that time frame.
It's starting to feel inevitable without the change of ownership. |
Agreed. Can't carry on as is and I see relegation as inevitable under our current model. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| A rare chance to see Wolves twice this season on 10:05 - Jan 28 with 8012 views | marchy |
| A rare chance to see Wolves twice this season on 09:56 - Jan 28 by Mullet |
We were talking about this on the way down and we're at a point now where even trying to think of a suitable candidate that wouldn't have push back is impossible.
I also think if we see one last gamble it'd still be dwarfed in relative terms any way. We're going to lose way more than Mick this summer, we'll lose the players that helped be so successful here.
Part of me wonders if Mick's wage will be split amongst a team (hence the McGreal link) and we'll get a budget management team being heralded as something and then just hold our breath and hope. |
“we'll lose the players that helped be so successful here.”
Who you thinking? With Bart signed up he’s presumably either staying or costing someone a bucketload, the only real remaining links back to the most successful period of 2014/5 are Chambers, Skuse and McG, but McG looks a spent force and the others are getting on in years...surely we’ve got to have an eye on a succession plan for them whether or not it’s Mick in charge? | | | |
| A rare chance to see Wolves twice this season on 10:09 - Jan 28 with 8002 views | Mullet |
| A rare chance to see Wolves twice this season on 10:05 - Jan 28 by marchy |
“we'll lose the players that helped be so successful here.”
Who you thinking? With Bart signed up he’s presumably either staying or costing someone a bucketload, the only real remaining links back to the most successful period of 2014/5 are Chambers, Skuse and McG, but McG looks a spent force and the others are getting on in years...surely we’ve got to have an eye on a succession plan for them whether or not it’s Mick in charge? |
That's exactly who I'm thinking of, and there's no way Bart's move was anything other than making the negotiations more favourable in the summer. I suspect Palace were hoping to mug him away and Evans wouldn't budge.
We need a succession plan for everything and everyone but it's nowhere to be seen. The time we got those players on frees is gone. We won't be getting players of that quality, serving us for 4-5 seasons.
At best it's the selling club model of a year or two and hoping each incremental step is an upward one. That'll never see us promoted. We'd need to fluke it underdog style. | |
| |
| A rare chance to see Wolves twice this season on 10:26 - Jan 28 with 7957 views | Bluebell |
Good report Mullers. Agree with most of that.
You have a boy? I didn't realise that. Congratulations! |  | | |
| A rare chance to see Wolves twice this season on 10:38 - Jan 28 with 7915 views | strikalite |
| A rare chance to see Wolves twice this season on 10:09 - Jan 28 by Mullet |
That's exactly who I'm thinking of, and there's no way Bart's move was anything other than making the negotiations more favourable in the summer. I suspect Palace were hoping to mug him away and Evans wouldn't budge.
We need a succession plan for everything and everyone but it's nowhere to be seen. The time we got those players on frees is gone. We won't be getting players of that quality, serving us for 4-5 seasons.
At best it's the selling club model of a year or two and hoping each incremental step is an upward one. That'll never see us promoted. We'd need to fluke it underdog style. |
Impossible to somehow fluke it Mullers over the course of a season with such quality throughout the league, for me our only hope dare I say it is relegation, seriously, a chance to rebuild and regroup... |  | | |
| A rare chance to see Wolves twice this season on 12:01 - Jan 28 with 7794 views | HarryfromBath |
Thanks Mullet for a great report.
I worried when I saw the Wolves' starting XI at 2pm yesterday. N'Diaye in midfield would be a more of a front-foot player and more physical and direct than Saiss, while moving Cavaleiro up front and dropping Bonatini would also give Wolves more mobility in the final third and pull us around or ask more questions of our defending.
I have heard fans of other clubs, notably Bristol City last month, talk about Wolves suffocating them. They felt as if they were under siege and not being able to get out of their own third, and it sounds as if Wolves got this aspect of their game up and running again yesterday. That week in Spain did them no harm.
Time and again Wolves' fans talked about how Nuno prepared his side to three extra decimal places of detail before and during games. All the comments I have read here and on their place last night and this morning confirm how this was apparent in how he re-engineered his line-up, how the pre-match rituals were enacted and how the game-plan was executed.
If Mick does leave this summer, I would suggest that this be our way forward in terms of managerial recruitment. Football is increasingly being played at a more highly-calibrated level of detail and while we could never afford a Nuno or players of his calibre, this may be the broad area to go looking in terms of a way of thinking. |  |
| |
| A rare chance to see Wolves twice this season on 12:56 - Jan 28 with 7650 views | olimar |
| A rare chance to see Wolves twice this season on 10:09 - Jan 28 by Mullet |
That's exactly who I'm thinking of, and there's no way Bart's move was anything other than making the negotiations more favourable in the summer. I suspect Palace were hoping to mug him away and Evans wouldn't budge.
We need a succession plan for everything and everyone but it's nowhere to be seen. The time we got those players on frees is gone. We won't be getting players of that quality, serving us for 4-5 seasons.
At best it's the selling club model of a year or two and hoping each incremental step is an upward one. That'll never see us promoted. We'd need to fluke it underdog style. |
Whilst theres no downside of Bart signing a new contract, I did think that it probably wont make any difference to whether he stays or not. It was interesting to hear MM say in pre-match that he had talked to Bart about it (paraphrasing)- "Hes happy here and I said to him, sign it and get the security. If a big PL club come in for you, they are going to pay the money anyway, it wont stop them".
It was basically exactly what I had presumed and was surprised that MM was so open about that. But its true, with 18 months or 3.5 years, that might put a little bit extra on the cost, perhaps £1m or so, but it wont frighten them off. And the contract itself will be minor in compared to what they will pay him. | | | |
| A rare chance to see Wolves twice this season on 13:18 - Jan 28 with 7604 views | olimar |
| A rare chance to see Wolves twice this season on 12:01 - Jan 28 by HarryfromBath |
Thanks Mullet for a great report.
I worried when I saw the Wolves' starting XI at 2pm yesterday. N'Diaye in midfield would be a more of a front-foot player and more physical and direct than Saiss, while moving Cavaleiro up front and dropping Bonatini would also give Wolves more mobility in the final third and pull us around or ask more questions of our defending.
I have heard fans of other clubs, notably Bristol City last month, talk about Wolves suffocating them. They felt as if they were under siege and not being able to get out of their own third, and it sounds as if Wolves got this aspect of their game up and running again yesterday. That week in Spain did them no harm.
Time and again Wolves' fans talked about how Nuno prepared his side to three extra decimal places of detail before and during games. All the comments I have read here and on their place last night and this morning confirm how this was apparent in how he re-engineered his line-up, how the pre-match rituals were enacted and how the game-plan was executed.
If Mick does leave this summer, I would suggest that this be our way forward in terms of managerial recruitment. Football is increasingly being played at a more highly-calibrated level of detail and while we could never afford a Nuno or players of his calibre, this may be the broad area to go looking in terms of a way of thinking. |
I thought we looked a bit disorganised, particularly in the 2nd half, where players didnt seem completely clear on their roles.
We seemed to start with a 4-3-3-1, but the two wide players (McG) in particular, were so withdrawn for much of it, that it was more like 4-4-1-1 with a withdrawn forward.
A little way into the 2nd half, Waghorn appeared to be playing almost alongside Garner, as if we had switched to a 4-4-2. But then it got confusing when McG started drifting into the middle looking for possession, whilst Spence appeared to be playing particularly high up the pitch. As if we were asking our fullbacks to give us width (which seemed to make sense for Spence, since he was the only player that could offer us a chance of winning headers), then McG and Celina could move in field to support Waghorn/Garner.
But Garner looked continually isolated and had almost no impact, whilst McG was still tracking back, which seemed odd when he was covering back almost in the right back role. Meanwhile, Spence was coming back and, on at least one occasion, covering centrally instead. Then McG would drift infield, but Celina didnt really seem to do the same and was less involved in the wide position (a shame when he had looked good earlier in the game).
Then we brought on Sears and Ward and it felt like a very orthodox 4-4-2 for a bit.
I found it confusing to understand what our shape was, either in possession or out of it. It seemed lopsided too, with McG seemingly following a different role to Celina. Of course, ultimately, McG is totally unsuited to that role which may go a long way to explaining why it was hard to understand what he was doing.
I feel for him, hes suffering in this attempt to throw everyone in the team together. I actually feel that the player that needs to drop out is Garner, get McG central and see if he can do damage and get Waghorn into the lone forward role that he looks better made for. Perhaps this has been held up waiting for Ward to get fit, but I suspect if MM ever does look to resolve this, it will be McG who is the fall guy.
Hes either going to end up playing out of position, sitting on the bench or sold. But the underlying issue for me is that it is his contract position that is influencing all of this. If McG currently had 2.5 years left on his contract, MM would probably be doing everything he can to keep his talisman happy and get the best performances from him. As it is, hes further down the line because he is unlikely to be here, either in the summer or next week, so there is more interest in keeping those happy who will be here next year and are of more value.
Putting McG to one side, I do wonder if a new manager came in right now, with no sense of loyalty to the situation, they might take a view that Garner is a player they need to drop. | | | |
| A rare chance to see Wolves twice this season on 13:44 - Jan 28 with 7548 views | christiand |
| A rare chance to see Wolves twice this season on 10:09 - Jan 28 by Mullet |
That's exactly who I'm thinking of, and there's no way Bart's move was anything other than making the negotiations more favourable in the summer. I suspect Palace were hoping to mug him away and Evans wouldn't budge.
We need a succession plan for everything and everyone but it's nowhere to be seen. The time we got those players on frees is gone. We won't be getting players of that quality, serving us for 4-5 seasons.
At best it's the selling club model of a year or two and hoping each incremental step is an upward one. That'll never see us promoted. We'd need to fluke it underdog style. |
Agree totally Mullet. I just can't see us 'fluking' a season of promotion based on the current level of investment given by Evans. If anything we'll just end up sliding further down the Championship table, towards inevitable relegation if that doesn't change. | |
| |
| A rare chance to see Wolves twice this season on 13:58 - Jan 28 with 7506 views | olimar |
| A rare chance to see Wolves twice this season on 13:44 - Jan 28 by christiand |
Agree totally Mullet. I just can't see us 'fluking' a season of promotion based on the current level of investment given by Evans. If anything we'll just end up sliding further down the Championship table, towards inevitable relegation if that doesn't change. |
Whilst in no way is this a "be careful what you wish for" and I certainly think its time for change, but we are also one Paul Jewell-esque appointment away from relegation imho.
We are likely to be asking a new manager to rebuild the core of the team in his mould. Thats a great opportunity, but with limited funds it could be a hard task and any false moves, any lack of confidence within the new squad, could quite easily turn into a difficult experience. If we put ourselves in the same position as Jewell put us in, the firefighter we bring in to save us will have a far harder job than even MM did. | | | |
| A rare chance to see Wolves twice this season on 14:13 - Jan 28 with 7481 views | HarryfromBath |
| A rare chance to see Wolves twice this season on 13:18 - Jan 28 by olimar |
I thought we looked a bit disorganised, particularly in the 2nd half, where players didnt seem completely clear on their roles.
We seemed to start with a 4-3-3-1, but the two wide players (McG) in particular, were so withdrawn for much of it, that it was more like 4-4-1-1 with a withdrawn forward.
A little way into the 2nd half, Waghorn appeared to be playing almost alongside Garner, as if we had switched to a 4-4-2. But then it got confusing when McG started drifting into the middle looking for possession, whilst Spence appeared to be playing particularly high up the pitch. As if we were asking our fullbacks to give us width (which seemed to make sense for Spence, since he was the only player that could offer us a chance of winning headers), then McG and Celina could move in field to support Waghorn/Garner.
But Garner looked continually isolated and had almost no impact, whilst McG was still tracking back, which seemed odd when he was covering back almost in the right back role. Meanwhile, Spence was coming back and, on at least one occasion, covering centrally instead. Then McG would drift infield, but Celina didnt really seem to do the same and was less involved in the wide position (a shame when he had looked good earlier in the game).
Then we brought on Sears and Ward and it felt like a very orthodox 4-4-2 for a bit.
I found it confusing to understand what our shape was, either in possession or out of it. It seemed lopsided too, with McG seemingly following a different role to Celina. Of course, ultimately, McG is totally unsuited to that role which may go a long way to explaining why it was hard to understand what he was doing.
I feel for him, hes suffering in this attempt to throw everyone in the team together. I actually feel that the player that needs to drop out is Garner, get McG central and see if he can do damage and get Waghorn into the lone forward role that he looks better made for. Perhaps this has been held up waiting for Ward to get fit, but I suspect if MM ever does look to resolve this, it will be McG who is the fall guy.
Hes either going to end up playing out of position, sitting on the bench or sold. But the underlying issue for me is that it is his contract position that is influencing all of this. If McG currently had 2.5 years left on his contract, MM would probably be doing everything he can to keep his talisman happy and get the best performances from him. As it is, hes further down the line because he is unlikely to be here, either in the summer or next week, so there is more interest in keeping those happy who will be here next year and are of more value.
Putting McG to one side, I do wonder if a new manager came in right now, with no sense of loyalty to the situation, they might take a view that Garner is a player they need to drop. |
It's not balanced, is it? Shoehorning in a second striker when you are playing one up front can make things lopsided but shoehorning in three will inevitably cause confusion unless you have drilled them very precisely on the training ground.
I would love Mick to explain how the attacking model was supposed to operate yesterday. We started with three strikers on the pitch, whereas Wolves started with none, but Bart ended up man-of-the-match in their fans' eyes with the number of clear-cut chances they carved out. | |
| |
| Get Phil to ask him in the next press conference on 14:30 - Jan 28 with 7432 views | Dyland |
| A rare chance to see Wolves twice this season on 14:13 - Jan 28 by HarryfromBath |
It's not balanced, is it? Shoehorning in a second striker when you are playing one up front can make things lopsided but shoehorning in three will inevitably cause confusion unless you have drilled them very precisely on the training ground.
I would love Mick to explain how the attacking model was supposed to operate yesterday. We started with three strikers on the pitch, whereas Wolves started with none, but Bart ended up man-of-the-match in their fans' eyes with the number of clear-cut chances they carved out. |
I can see that going well :) |  |
| |
| Get Phil to ask him in the next press conference on 14:39 - Jan 28 with 7415 views | PhilTWTD |
| Get Phil to ask him in the next press conference on 14:30 - Jan 28 by Dyland |
I can see that going well :) |
To be fair, I think Mick effectively answered the latter part of that in his press conference yesterday. Gaining the lead allowed Wolves to sit back and play "parasite football", making the most of our mistakes and then catching us on the break. We struggled to break them down, despite the number of attacking players on the field, although Ward made an impact when he came on.
Although Bart made a number of good saves, there were some chances there that they really should have taken whatever form the keeper was in.
This post has been edited by an administrator |  | | |
| Get Phil to ask him in the next press conference on 14:47 - Jan 28 with 7392 views | olimar |
| Get Phil to ask him in the next press conference on 14:39 - Jan 28 by PhilTWTD |
To be fair, I think Mick effectively answered the latter part of that in his press conference yesterday. Gaining the lead allowed Wolves to sit back and play "parasite football", making the most of our mistakes and then catching us on the break. We struggled to break them down, despite the number of attacking players on the field, although Ward made an impact when he came on.
Although Bart made a number of good saves, there were some chances there that they really should have taken whatever form the keeper was in.
This post has been edited by an administrator |
But thats a question in itself- what was the shape/system to attempt to break down the "parasite football". Given who we were playing, there was probably a more than even chance we would need to adapt a system to try and contend with that.
Its not a criticism of our inability to break them down, far better sides than us have had the same problems, but the approach to try and break them down seemed a bit disjointed- it was hard to understand what our plan was, regardless of whether it was working or not. I think that ties in to the subs in the 83rd minute- whether we needed new players or not, whether all our forwards were on the pitch or not, it was the first clear change to the approach. | | | |
| A rare chance to see Wolves twice this season on 16:21 - Jan 28 with 7251 views | Mullet |
| A rare chance to see Wolves twice this season on 12:01 - Jan 28 by HarryfromBath |
Thanks Mullet for a great report.
I worried when I saw the Wolves' starting XI at 2pm yesterday. N'Diaye in midfield would be a more of a front-foot player and more physical and direct than Saiss, while moving Cavaleiro up front and dropping Bonatini would also give Wolves more mobility in the final third and pull us around or ask more questions of our defending.
I have heard fans of other clubs, notably Bristol City last month, talk about Wolves suffocating them. They felt as if they were under siege and not being able to get out of their own third, and it sounds as if Wolves got this aspect of their game up and running again yesterday. That week in Spain did them no harm.
Time and again Wolves' fans talked about how Nuno prepared his side to three extra decimal places of detail before and during games. All the comments I have read here and on their place last night and this morning confirm how this was apparent in how he re-engineered his line-up, how the pre-match rituals were enacted and how the game-plan was executed.
If Mick does leave this summer, I would suggest that this be our way forward in terms of managerial recruitment. Football is increasingly being played at a more highly-calibrated level of detail and while we could never afford a Nuno or players of his calibre, this may be the broad area to go looking in terms of a way of thinking. |
I think there's a second column supporting the organisation and that's the mindset/belief of Boly, Neves, and the rest of the foreign legion they've shipped in. They know if they lose the ball it doesn't matter, the man behind sweeps up or they get another chance very quickly to make right any wrong. Coady has the freedom to play as a sweeper that combines a sort of Skuse/Webster skill set without any real need to do the grunt work. The only slim benefit of that is if we can be in the running for Batth when they go up.
There is no worried snatching at the ball or the man that you see in teams like us. There is no sense that they need the ball or the impetus at any point, because it will come.
Some of the chances they made in both games should have been buried. There was an arrogance about their finishing, that meant they were happy to miss or be denied by a save because they knew being one up meant the game was won. Any equaliser would be snuffed out quickly if necessary.
We can't afford to carry that sort of luxury in our thinking and play. You can see it all over the faces and movement of our players. We're much better when we do what Wolves do in terms of giving teams the ball and letting them make a mistake with it. That's why I can't abide all this nonsense about the like of Reading and "tippy-tappy" pseudo-Barca b0llocks. | |
| |
| A rare chance to see Wolves twice this season on 16:29 - Jan 28 with 7233 views | Mullet |
| A rare chance to see Wolves twice this season on 13:18 - Jan 28 by olimar |
I thought we looked a bit disorganised, particularly in the 2nd half, where players didnt seem completely clear on their roles.
We seemed to start with a 4-3-3-1, but the two wide players (McG) in particular, were so withdrawn for much of it, that it was more like 4-4-1-1 with a withdrawn forward.
A little way into the 2nd half, Waghorn appeared to be playing almost alongside Garner, as if we had switched to a 4-4-2. But then it got confusing when McG started drifting into the middle looking for possession, whilst Spence appeared to be playing particularly high up the pitch. As if we were asking our fullbacks to give us width (which seemed to make sense for Spence, since he was the only player that could offer us a chance of winning headers), then McG and Celina could move in field to support Waghorn/Garner.
But Garner looked continually isolated and had almost no impact, whilst McG was still tracking back, which seemed odd when he was covering back almost in the right back role. Meanwhile, Spence was coming back and, on at least one occasion, covering centrally instead. Then McG would drift infield, but Celina didnt really seem to do the same and was less involved in the wide position (a shame when he had looked good earlier in the game).
Then we brought on Sears and Ward and it felt like a very orthodox 4-4-2 for a bit.
I found it confusing to understand what our shape was, either in possession or out of it. It seemed lopsided too, with McG seemingly following a different role to Celina. Of course, ultimately, McG is totally unsuited to that role which may go a long way to explaining why it was hard to understand what he was doing.
I feel for him, hes suffering in this attempt to throw everyone in the team together. I actually feel that the player that needs to drop out is Garner, get McG central and see if he can do damage and get Waghorn into the lone forward role that he looks better made for. Perhaps this has been held up waiting for Ward to get fit, but I suspect if MM ever does look to resolve this, it will be McG who is the fall guy.
Hes either going to end up playing out of position, sitting on the bench or sold. But the underlying issue for me is that it is his contract position that is influencing all of this. If McG currently had 2.5 years left on his contract, MM would probably be doing everything he can to keep his talisman happy and get the best performances from him. As it is, hes further down the line because he is unlikely to be here, either in the summer or next week, so there is more interest in keeping those happy who will be here next year and are of more value.
Putting McG to one side, I do wonder if a new manager came in right now, with no sense of loyalty to the situation, they might take a view that Garner is a player they need to drop. |
I wanted McG off at half time in place of Ward to give us that rigidity that was for me the antidote to Wolves' incredibly fluid play.
I do think Garner was isolated but also your previous reservations about him are coming to the fore here.
What Wolves do is force players to become isolated, they severe partners all over the park and work teams into corners picking off the likes of Spence for example so that he couldn't go forward and be sure of the cover despite the excellent CCV/Chambers. It was a risk that played on our minds time and again.
It also meant as they did this they cut a swathe through the rest of the side and pushed our spare attackers into spaces they shouldn't have been occupying. There was a great moment where Celina thought he'd got the beating of the 3 players hemming him in. He cuts inside and looks up only to have N'Diaye waiting for him.
That lends itself to teams either playing riskier cross-field passes to get a break out from their strikers or retreating ten yards with possession if they're quick enough to yield territory.
I think it's really hard to see where McG fits into many sides without remapping him as a sort of CAM a la Tomlin. I'm not sure he has enough threat from deep to be effective in a side that relies on taking their chances as much as we do. It's really hard to speculate on what a new manager would do, but I'd suggest Garner being dropped is unlikely, especially now we've sold Moore. Pretty much every team at this level and every manager relies on someone who can do the physical stuff - I think we're more likely to see Garner and Waghorn in a traditional striking partnership than Garner dropped. | |
| |
| Get Phil to ask him in the next press conference on 16:53 - Jan 28 with 7194 views | Steve_M |
| Get Phil to ask him in the next press conference on 14:47 - Jan 28 by olimar |
But thats a question in itself- what was the shape/system to attempt to break down the "parasite football". Given who we were playing, there was probably a more than even chance we would need to adapt a system to try and contend with that.
Its not a criticism of our inability to break them down, far better sides than us have had the same problems, but the approach to try and break them down seemed a bit disjointed- it was hard to understand what our plan was, regardless of whether it was working or not. I think that ties in to the subs in the 83rd minute- whether we needed new players or not, whether all our forwards were on the pitch or not, it was the first clear change to the approach. |
Yes, after a fairly decent first half, where we created a few opportunities, we lost our way in the second. I'm amongst the least critical of MM but the failure to change it between 60 and 80 minutes was bizarre. That the fresh energy of Ward and, to a lesser extent, Sears gave us something different suggests a change should have been earlier. Yes, Wolves might well have made it 2-0 on the break but then they should have done that anyway.
Garner, Waghorn and McGoldrick just does not work, it's collectively too slow there's not enough energy. Two of them were pretty ineffective int he second half and Waghorn ended up so deep looking for the ball that he wasn't a threat.
Some of our failings from yesterday were down to Wolves being excellent, there was an economy of effort about them in that they knew what was important to go for and when ti sit. When they did break they did so with real quality. The only failing I can really see is that they lack a proper striker. |  |
| |
| Get Phil to ask him in the next press conference on 17:00 - Jan 28 with 7173 views | SomethingBlue |
| Get Phil to ask him in the next press conference on 16:53 - Jan 28 by Steve_M |
Yes, after a fairly decent first half, where we created a few opportunities, we lost our way in the second. I'm amongst the least critical of MM but the failure to change it between 60 and 80 minutes was bizarre. That the fresh energy of Ward and, to a lesser extent, Sears gave us something different suggests a change should have been earlier. Yes, Wolves might well have made it 2-0 on the break but then they should have done that anyway.
Garner, Waghorn and McGoldrick just does not work, it's collectively too slow there's not enough energy. Two of them were pretty ineffective int he second half and Waghorn ended up so deep looking for the ball that he wasn't a threat.
Some of our failings from yesterday were down to Wolves being excellent, there was an economy of effort about them in that they knew what was important to go for and when ti sit. When they did break they did so with real quality. The only failing I can really see is that they lack a proper striker. |
On a small tangent, I think we lack a proper striker too. I'm just not really having Garner and would be disappointed if he was our main centre-forward next season. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
