433 is gone get over it!

[Day]

Just now, brady1993 said:

You have to admit freeing Butterfield and Hughes up in midfield to really affect the game is likely to have had an effect on the result. 

I just think it's a little silly not to take into consideration other factors tonight, we won which is all great I'm loving it but at the same time it didn't sound like the free flowing football we were used to. 

It's also early days, 1 game. All this I told you so is far to premature as we could go on a run of 8 defeats now. 

I don't want to dampen spirits tho, been waiting for this for a long time.

[Ewe Ram]

6 minutes ago, David said:

I just think it's a little silly not to take into consideration other factors tonight, we won which is all great I'm loving it but at the same time it didn't sound like the free flowing football we were used to. 

It's also early days, 1 game. All this I told you so is far to premature as we could go on a run of 8 defeats now. 

I don't want to dampen spirits tho, been waiting for this for a long time.

But I think it's less likely now David, admit it. 

[brady1993]

6 minutes ago, David said:

I just think it's a little silly not to take into consideration other factors tonight, we won which is all great I'm loving it but at the same time it didn't sound like the free flowing football we were used to. 

It's also early days, 1 game. All this I told you so is far to premature as we could go on a run of 8 defeats now. 

I don't want to dampen spirits tho, been waiting for this for a long time.

Yeah, you're probably right.

My views are perhaps coloured by it was my belief tactics were holding us back. But even the tactical issues under Pearson went beyond formation. I just really hope we are going back to how we played under Mac.

However I will say it did sound we were actually in control of the game, which we really haven't been doing. 

[Boycie]

@David

[Brammie Steve]

Given recent cataclysmic events, is Chris Martin being recalled yet?

[Zurich Ram]

On 24/09/2016 at 18:29, tomsdubs said:

Changing to 433 will fix absolutely nothing, sick of muppets mentioning it. Clueless.

 

[DEL]

On 24 September 2016 at 18:29, tomsdubs said:

Changing to 433 will fix absolutely nothing, sick of muppets mentioning it. Clueless.

Lol. 

[tomsdubs]

Hindsight is great, Cardiff are terrible so I wouldn't get ahead of yourself. We'll see how it goes, hardly normal circumstances to judge was it?

If you're happy that the players seem to not try because we change the formation then you need to have a rethink. It's great we won but it raises more questions than it answers.

[tomsdubs]

4 minutes ago, Derby_EnglandLoyal said:

Lol. 

See reply.

[needles]

7 minutes ago, tomsdubs said:

Hindsight is great, Cardiff are terrible so I wouldn't get ahead of yourself. We'll see how it goes, hardly normal circumstances to judge was it?

If you're happy that the players seem to not try because we change the formation then you need to have a rethink. It's great we won but it raises more questions than it answers.

Ipswich and Blackburn can't muster an XI between them that I'd be concerned about on paper. What changed?

[Bris Vegas]

8 minutes ago, tomsdubs said:

Hindsight is great, Cardiff are terrible so I wouldn't get ahead of yourself. We'll see how it goes, hardly normal circumstances to judge was it?

If you're happy that the players seem to not try because we change the formation then you need to have a rethink. It's great we won but it raises more questions than it answers.

This not trying thing is a load of rubbish. We scored three goals and conceded nine in the opening nine matches under Nigel Pearson playing 442. Defensively we were never that bad...

So does that mean we were trying in defence, but not trying in attack? Surely if the players weren't trying we would have lost three or four nil every match.

It doesn't take a genius to work out that our squad is mainly built to play to a 433 system, and thus playing said system we suddenly see an improvement from a number of players.

The midfield, despite lacking a natural holding midfielder, will always look more balanced with three in there and our wide players look more dangerous playing as inside forwards pushed 10 yards further forward.

It's not hindsight. A number of us having been saying this since before the season began. 

Nigel Pearson was clueless.

 

[tomsdubs]

7 minutes ago, Bris Vegas said:

This not trying thing is a load of rubbish. We scored three goals and conceded nine in the opening nine matches under Nigel Pearson playing 442. Defensively we were never that bad...

So does that mean we were trying in defence, but not trying in attack? Surely if the players weren't trying we would have lost three or four nil every match.

It doesn't take a genius to work out that our squad is mainly built to play to a 433 system, and thus playing said system we suddenly see an improvement from a number of players.

The midfield, despite lacking a natural holding midfielder, will always look more balanced with three in there and our wide players look more dangerous playing as inside forwards pushed 10 yards further forward.

It's not hindsight. A number of us having been saying this since before the season began. 

Nigel Pearson was clueless.

 

How is our squad built to play 433 exactly? I think that is a total misnomer. I think our squad can only play an attacking high line game which is a different thing. When we don't occupy teams going forwards we've shown we are weak mentally consistently and get broken down eventually. Why can't we pass quickly in a 442? It's still eleven players on a pitch.

But if Pearson is clueless and it doesn't take a genius email your CV over to DCFC. I'm not getting carried away tonight. Not really happy that it takes a crisis to get a ******* win out of this squad to be honest.

[Bris Vegas]

Just now, tomsdubs said:

How is our squad built to play 433 exactly? I think that is a total misnomer. I think our squad can only play an attacking high line game which is a different thing. When we don't occupy teams going forwards we've shown we are weak mentally consistently and get broken down eventually. Why can't we pass quickly in a 442? It's still eleven players on a pitch.

But if Pearson is clueless and it doesn't take a genius email your CV over to DCFC. I'm not getting carried away tonight. Not really happy that it takes a crisis to get a ******* win out of this squad to be honest.

Because our players and their attributes excel in a 433, and not in a 442. Our midfield, which many felt was our strongest area of the sqaud, suddenly became our weakest as a result of going to 442.

It's really not that difficult to work out. We have inside forwards not wingers, our fullbacks are given more space to operate in a 433 and more protection when pushing forward due to having a three-man midfield.

Why can't we pass quickly in a 442? Perhaps player positioning has something to do with that. Without a forward dropping deep, there is nobody between the lines ready to receive the ball.

So it has to go sideways, backwards and then a hopeful punt. 

 

[May Contain Nuts]

The whole 'not trying' accusations do grate.

Part of the problem with Pearson's set-up was that it came across as neither this or that, there was little in the way of a cohesive plan of action, or at least one was never explained to us by Pearson in any of his interviews.

If you are tasked with a job but the instructions are not clear, yet don't seem made to fit around your skills, then what happens is you get caught in two/three (or more!) minds trying to figure out what the right way of doing things is.

Indecision and going against your instincts  often then leads to you either doing the wrong thing, or doing nothing . Do the wrong thing and you're branded rubbish. Do nothing and you're branded as lazy, uninterested, etc. You just don't know what to do for the best anymore! This leads to you feeling demotivated, and taking no less risks. This leads to the football we have been watching this season.

It's a situation that is generally stopped from becoming a major problem by virtue of flexible management.

[May Contain Nuts]

Damn you grammar. Neither/nor.

I was caught in two minds, for some reason thinking that the N on Neither cancelled out the N on Nor. I picked the wrong one, and now I'm going to have people thinking I'm uneducated.

 

[tomsdubs]

10 hours ago, Bris Vegas said:

Because our players and their attributes excel in a 433, and not in a 442. Our midfield, which many felt was our strongest area of the sqaud, suddenly became our weakest as a result of going to 442.

It's really not that difficult to work out. We have inside forwards not wingers, our fullbacks are given more space to operate in a 433 and more protection when pushing forward due to having a three-man midfield.

Why can't we pass quickly in a 442? Perhaps player positioning has something to do with that. Without a forward dropping deep, there is nobody between the lines ready to receive the ball.

So it has to go sideways, backwards and then a hopeful punt. 

 

I understand where you're coming from but can't agree really. Pretty much all of this squad have played well in 442 formations at other clubs. The back four has been totally consistent either way. What club plays with out and out wingers these days? I haven't seen more than a handful of out and out wingers over the last few years and they are usually considered a luxury. You talk about a three man midfield, in our 442 the supposed wingers always tucked in anyway. If anything we were more compact. Why having one more striker would make midfielders less inclined to play a forward ball is a mystery to me.

I'll wait until Reading to say whether all our problems have been solved, Cardiff probably trained all week expecting 442 from us. Still it's not good though is it? We want promotion and while other teams just get on with it we need a crisis meeting and players to all whinge that they can only play one way. Anyone would think we asked them to play total football Dutch style, no we just asked them to play the most common formation in history. The reasons why we aren't in the Prem now are staring us in the face, celebrating the fact we've gone back to 433 with all the baggage here is naive. Anya and Vydra have been our best players this season under the 442 and that tells you something.

[Thierry Ennui]

4-4-2 didn't work for two main reasons:

Firstly our midfielders, usually Hughes and Bryson, were forced to keep a defensive mindset at all times due to the lack of a holder. This meant they couldn't combine as this would leave huge gaps behind. This forced our play either long/direct or out wide. Hughes was released from much (not all) of his defensive responsibility last night and it instantly paid off.

Secondly, we don't have the strikers. To play two up front you need one player who will come short and who can hold the ball, and one who can get in behind. Wilson, Vydra, Bent and Weimann are all in the second category, and any combination of them is awful for 4-4-2. We could not get the ball to stick up front at all and our only threat was from wide. This meant lots of crosses to a host of strikers who prefer through balls. Strikers which may have worked in the partnership include Ulloa and Fulham's Chris Martin. Realistically, though, we needed someone taller and stronger in the air than Martin to play Pearson's tactics and he was a square peg. Contrary to popular belief, Martin was not - and never has been - a target man for a direct style of play.

[duncanjwitham]

9 minutes ago, tomsdubs said:

Anya and Vydra have been our best players this season under the 442 and that tells you something.

Have they? From what I've seen, Vydra's been largely anonymous in open play, and has missed some decent chances. Anya runs around a lot, but his final ball has been mostly awful.  Not saying they've been any worse than anyone else or anything, but if their performances are being held up as proof a 442 is better, than we've sunk a hell of a long way down IMO.

[Day]

So then, 4-3-3.

[dcfcfan1]

4 minutes ago, David said:

So then, 4-3-3.

4 pts from 2 away games isnt bad