433 is gone get over it!

[rynny]

Just now, toddy said:

Another one who likes to be economical with the truth!

Inconsistent, the performances against what MK dons at Home, Fulham away, QPR away were dire especially QPR and the icing on the cake was Hull at home in the play offs. Inconsistent? - shocking more like.

But as I said earlier nothing new..................

So what about the performances against Hull at home in the league and away on the play offs, Bolton at home, Brighton away, Brentford away, Bristol City away? As @G STAR RAM said inconsistent. You know as in a few good performances and a few bad performances.

[brady1993]

2 hours ago, toddy said:

No you need to understand Occams Razor..............

The principle that in explaining a thing no more assumptions should be made than are necessary.

I think it's you who has a flawed understanding Occam's Razor, only one of our 5 previous managers (assuming Pearson is leaving) had us in relegation form and that is Pearson. 

You might have a point about players if the results were a bit worse, say we were sitting in midtable but that's not the case is it? Not to mention there are several easy examples of bad management you can point to from Pearson.

The simplest explanation is Pearson has completely and utterly mismanaged the start to the season.

[brady1993]

2 hours ago, NottsRam77 said:

I don't know lol 

call it gut instinct or divine intervention lol

joking aside imo for what it's worth, having seen 3 seasons of the 433 I just think that it relys on too many factors to be working correctly to succeed for us.

if the ball isn't sticking, the midfield aren't getting close enough or beyond the front man, the full backs arnt giving us enough width, we don't have a fit strong holding midfielder who can put the boot in but also play a bit.

dont get me wrong the football with 433 at times has been as good as Iv ever seen it in my 25 odd years of supporting this lot 

i realise u can dissect any formation in the same way I just feel that 442 gives u the option to have an off day, or a couple not doing their job as u can have 2 banks of four and a pair of forwards that can grab u something even on the worst of days 

I realise that's all in Layman's terms but u know what I mean

I think you can easily same pick apart the tactical shortcomings of a 442 in a similar manner. It also has one glaring flaw that a 433 doesn't have which is that you're pretty much conceding control of the football against a similar quality team who play more midfielders. I think part of that plays into almost no top teams play a 442 anymore.

[toddy]

2 hours ago, brady1993 said:

The principle that in explaining a thing no more assumptions should be made than are necessary.

I think it's you who has a flawed understanding Occam's Razor, only one of our 5 previous managers (assuming Pearson is leaving) had us in relegation form and that is Pearson. 

You might have a point about players if the results were a bit worse, say we were sitting in midtable but that's not the case is it? Not to mention there are several easy examples of bad management you can point to from Pearson.

The simplest explanation is Pearson has completely and utterly mismanaged the start to the season.

I said the performances that were are the common  denominator  from Clement through to Wassall and onto Pearson.

Some on here keep saying we can only play to 4-3-3  [Mac days], but that was 2 years ago we weren't successful at it [if promotion is your aim]. We have to move on, but at the moment its the players that are the issue, what is not being done on the field is the problem, changed our manager and we still have the same problem.

Example Readings goal, what it CP's fault?

No it wasn't, the players yet again forget all the basics of defending set play.

I can almost guarantee if Pearson was still in charge for the Reading game, this forum would be blaming him for their goal.

The players are the issue here whilst on the field, I keep having to repeat myself ....but they have to take responsibility once they cross that white line.

[brady1993]

5 minutes ago, toddy said:

I said the performances that were are the common  denominator  from Clement through to Wassall and onto Pearson.

 

Performances were better under both Clement and Wassall though, hence why we were in the hunt for promotion and not wallowing the relegation zone. You'd have a point about performances if they weren't so drastically worse and in a large part caused by terrible tactics.

6 minutes ago, toddy said:

Some on here keep saying we can only play to 4-3-3  [Mac days], but that was 2 years ago we weren't successful at it [if promotion is your aim]. We have to move on, but at the moment its the players that are the issue, what is not being done on the field is the problem, changed our manager and we still have the same problem.

Mac came damn close to getting us up and would have done if injuries hadn't completely derailed his second season. Plus your being somewhat contradictory by saying we need to move away from 433 because it wasn't good enough but now it's the players who aren't ?!?! I don't believe Mac's 433 (which went beyond simple tactical shape) is the only system the squad is performing well with (Clement's system was quite different in philosophy but still had the squad playing to a decent standard) but you have to use a system that is both tactically sound and suited to the playing staff, Pearson's 442 was neither.

15 minutes ago, toddy said:

Example Readings goal, what it CP's fault?

No it wasn't, the players yet again forget all the basics of defending set play.

I can almost guarantee if Pearson was still in charge for the Reading game, this forum would be blaming him for their goal.

The players are the issue here whilst on the field, I keep having to repeat myself ....but they have to take responsibility once they cross that white line.

Your right that the defending of the corner at Reading probably can't be blamed on Powell (although there should have a player on the far post but whether this was down to the Powell or not is hard to say). 

And I wouldn't have blamed Pearson for that sort of thing either but we probably wouldn't have been in a winning position to defend. What I can blame him for is setting us up in a flawed tactical system with zero pattern of play to open up an opposition and create genuine goalscoring chances. Even under Clement were we were somewhat negative we'd usually create at least one genuine chance a game.

Even if I accept your fallacious hypothesis that the players are at fault and were last year, surely you have to ask questions of the manager who couldn't spot the problems in the summer and waited until the last week of the transfer window to do some rather limited movement. 

Whichever way you look at it Pearson has been appalling and getting rid of this tactical dinosaur is for the betterment of the club.

[NottsRam77]

8 hours ago, brady1993 said:

I think you can easily same pick apart the tactical shortcomings of a 442 in a similar manner. It also has one glaring flaw that a 433 doesn't have which is that you're pretty much conceding control of the football against a similar quality team who play more midfielders. I think part of that plays into almost no top teams play a 442 anymore.

U can pick apart any formation.

and yes I agree a 433 gives u that extra man in midfield, 

i just like the fact that a 442 allows u to set up with 2 banks of 4 and a front two that can nick u something when the chips are down and it's just not running your way, I'm not saying it's correct it's from the era of football I was brought up on tis all.

i think 1 up top is the in vogue of recent times as teams these days are so obsessed with not losing that they'd rather try and be tight and harder to beat than open and expansive.

obviously there are some that hit that beautiful happy medium, we kinda do that if u think about it we are neither prolific or tight at the back lol ? 

[Old Spalding Ram]

433 is gone get over it..................oh no it ain't.