RamNut Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 That's very subjective though. Some would argue that getting that half out of the way, conserving energy, tiring out the opposition (who should be theoretically less fit), and keeping a clean sheet, would be a decent plan and NOT a waste. In the same way a boxer has a plan to go for a knockout in the 7th for example, teams can bide their time before executing the killer strike(s), It wasn't like that. We were getting outplayed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RIMBAUD Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 One of the main differences was that derby hit the target with their chances but chesterfield did not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mostyn6 Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 It wasn't like that. We were getting outplayed. again, that's subjective. I'd say "they didn't score against us so they didn't outplay us!". As the purpose of the game is to score more than your opponent, you cannot say we were outplayed because the only part of playing that counts is goals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duncanjwitham Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 I'm amazed that Jim Smith managed to make it work for us then. The point is that we've never played that system before; now was a good time to try it. It was a 45 min experiment in a Cup game. It's really nothing to get worked up about. And systems like that don't just work perfectly from the off - players need to get used to their roles. Maybe the thing to do is try it more in training/behind closed doors friendlies to allow the players to work out their positioning. I'm fairly sure if you'd have asked people before McClaren started the 4-3-3 system with the holding midfielder if they'd like to see that they're have said something along the lines of "what? Play 4-4-2 and stop messing about". The formation under jim smith was different though. We played 2 central midfielders with a 3rd pushing right up with the strikers, rather than a sitter and 2 central like we played today. It gave us a lot more options in the final third. Plus we concentrated solely on playing it, players weren't switching between the two systems. And I'm not getting worked up about it, I just think it was a waste of time. 352 is such a radical change across the entire team that we were never going to just ease into playing it. The diamond makes much more sense, because the changes are relatively minor in a lot of positions. And we were playing a holding midfielder under Clough anyway, it was hardly a radical departure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleEatonRam Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 We were being outplayed just before Hughes scored, and that was with our usual system. Chesterfield were piling on the pressure. But that's because it's a local derby, and a Cup match, and they're the away side, and the underdogs. They were having a go just like we'd expect them to. They had one or two decent chances when we'd reverted to 4-3-3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mostyn6 Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 The formation under jim smith was different though. We played 2 central midfielders with a 3rd pushing right up with the strikers, rather than a sitter and 2 central like we played today. It gave us a lot more options in the final third. Plus we concentrated solely on playing it, players weren't switching between the two systems. And I'm not getting worked up about it, I just think it was a waste of time. 352 is such a radical change across the entire team that we were never going to just ease into playing it. The diamond makes much more sense, because the changes are relatively minor in a lot of positions. And we were playing a holding midfielder under Clough anyway, it was hardly a radical departure. It's only a waste of time if you cannot see the benefit of it. Open your mind a little and see what options it brings if mastered, and there's only one way to master the formation. Being able to play 3-5-2 also means we can play 3-5-1 if a played is sent off, it also means 3-4-1-2 or 3-4-3 are only a minor tweak with minimal fuss. The reason it didn't look good is due to a bit of positional indiscipline, Once that is ironed out, the formation will work, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duncanjwitham Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 So why only discuss what happened in the first half. Why not discuss just what happened in the last 5 mins or the 62nd minute or whatever? It's a pointless, negative, destructive discussion that is not necessary because formations don't get you through to the next round of the cup, the final score does! Really? Feels like I'm banging my head against a brick wall here... Today was clearly used to test out 2 different formations for potential future use - mcclaren even admitted it in is post match interview. The point of discussing the first half is because were are discussing whether those formations worked or not, and if they should be used in future matches. You can only discuss whether a formation actually worked by talking about the time when we're actually playing that formation! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mostyn6 Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 Really? Feels like I'm banging my head against a brick wall here... Today was clearly used to test out 2 different formations for potential future use - mcclaren even admitted it in is post match interview. The point of discussing the first half is because were are discussing whether those formations worked or not, and if they should be used in future matches. You can only discuss whether a formation actually worked by talking about the time when we're actually playing that formation! In that case, it worked. We won the game. There's no hard and fast rule about playing the same formation for the whole duration of a game, and many successful managers have tweaked during the game. So in terms of whether it worked or not, the answer is an unequivocal 'yes'. We won. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alph Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 again, that's subjective. I'd say "they didn't score against us so they didn't outplay us!". As the purpose of the game is to score more than your opponent, you cannot say we were outplayed because the only part of playing that counts is goals. Don't agree at all. Neither would McClaren I don't think. You don't want teams creating tons of easy chances no matter what the score. You're suggesting a team can't be outplayed if it's winning? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mostyn6 Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 Don't agree at all. Neither would McClaren I don't think. You don't want teams creating tons of easy chances no matter what the score. You're suggesting a team can't be outplayed if it's winning? I'm saying it's irrelevant because :- being outplayed does not matter if goals are not scored against you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RIMBAUD Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 SM didn't think much of three at the back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alph Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 I'm saying it's irrelevant because :-being outplayed does not matter if goals are not scored against you! I can read it with the smaller font too It turns out it didn't matter, but you don't want to be outplayed and let teams have chances. If the boat has holes in you can't just keep rowing. Not that today was a major problem. With better shooting they could have had 4... we could have had 5. Was a patchy game. Not bad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Gonzo Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 cup game, worth a look, probably have another look at some point, maybe even look at a different formation too, thats if the fans dont cry about it, because there are alot of folk on here that seem to have all the answers, some even have the gift of foresight. incredible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ram a lamb a ding dong Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 I liked the 5.3.2 Keogh looked shaky at best but from an attack perspective i liked it. Good link up play up top. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.