The Wardrobe Watch

[RoyMac5]

5 minutes ago, brady1993 said:

Vydra playing behind Martin would actually on a very similar axis to how Bryson and Martin played. A crucial part of why the attack was so effective under Mac was that Martin would drop into midfield as Bryson surged past him causing anarchy with the opposing centre backs because they didn't whether to push up with Martin (and risk a well placed pass putting Bryson in acres of space) or back off to track Bryson (and allow Martin time and space on the ball). I think Vydra could do a similar job with Martin because Vydra appears technically good enough to play those quick 1-2s off Martin to make this work.. Also if that isn't working you could swap them positionally in a game, dropping Martin in the hole and using Vydra 'on the shoulder'.

You could also play Vydra tucked in on the left of a three with Martin up top.

Email this immediately to Mel!

[brady1993]

1 minute ago, RoyMac5 said:

Email this immediately to Mel!

I'm just hoping that if the next incumbent is actually competent he can spot things like this and you know help us build something akin to a pattern of play rather than hoof and chase.

[MackworthRamIsGod]

It's actually painful that all of these managers we have had and only McLaren (in his first season), realised that what Brady is saying is so flipping obvious.

I know the point is that Vydra could do that role which I agree with, but what about Bryson?

Since that epic season he has been asked to play deep, that would be like the England manager asking Wayne Rooney in midfield, that would be like stupid.

[brady1993]

1 minute ago, MackworthRamIsGod said:

It's actually painful that all of these managers we have had and only McLaren (in his first season), realised that what Brady is saying is so flipping obvious.

I know the point is that Vydra could do that role which I agree with, but what about Bryson?

Since that epic season he has been asked to play deep, that would be like the England manager asking Wayne Rooney in midfield, that would be like stupid.

Bryson played as a traditional midfielder is a very average player. He isn't a very good tackler, isn't good aerially, lacks a bit of tactical discipline and doesn't have a very good passing range.

Bryson played as your most attacking midfielder with defensive security? A top draw championship player. Suddenly his off the ball movement, his ability to play quick 1-2s, his finishing in the box and his energy to run around and harry the opposition all suddenly come to the fore. It plays to his strengths and not his weaknesses.

[SuperDerbySuperRams]

[RoyMac5]

Gallows humour? Why'd they need that then?!

[Alph]

Trash talk from players is nothing new

[jono]

6 hours ago, brady1993 said:

Bryson played as a traditional midfielder is a very average player. He isn't a very good tackler, isn't good aerially, lacks a bit of tactical discipline and doesn't have a very good passing range.

Bryson played as your most attacking midfielder with defensive security? A top draw championship player. Suddenly his off the ball movement, his ability to play quick 1-2s, his finishing in the box and his energy to run around and harry the opposition all suddenly come to the fore. It plays to his strengths and not his weaknesses.

Very astute observation .. I agree, BUT ....when there are 10 outfield players who all have an ideal set up who do you pick to arrange your set up for ? You can't make the perfect Sunday dinner for every member of the family.  For me a good footballer has to have a wider range of skill across the park. If your performance bell curve just has a great peak but a narrow range it limits possibilities. 

I don't want to detract from Brysons ability .. In the right place and the right game he is a top player. 

[brady1993]

8 minutes ago, jono said:

Very astute observation .. I agree, BUT ....when there are 10 outfield players who all have an ideal set up who do you pick to arrange your set up for ? You can't make the perfect Sunday dinner for every member of the family.  For me a good footballer has to have a wider range of skill across the park. If your performance bell curve just has a great peak but a narrow range it limits possibilities. 

I don't want to detract from Brysons ability .. In the right place and the right game he is a top player. 

The thing is under Mac we had the 'perfect sunday dinner' of a system. Every player had a purpose tailored to where they were strong and had their weaknesses covered. I'd much rather have a player in my starting eleven who is exceptional at a particular role than just above average in a number of roles and then have adequate backup players who can similarly just slot into that particular role. 

Unfortunately our recruitment since Mac left hasn't recruited with any particular plan or system in mind, leaving the squad in a little bit of a mess. Then Pearson decided he'd rather play a tactically flawed (not because of it being 442, because of how he set up this 442) system that suited close to zero of the playing staff he inherited without making anything like the transfer movement it would have taken for it to be effective, making his system more of a 'dog's dinner'.

[jono]

4 minutes ago, brady1993 said:

The thing is under Mac we had the 'perfect sunday dinner' of a system. Every player had a purpose tailored to where they were strong and had their weaknesses covered. I'd much rather have a player in my starting eleven who is exceptional at a particular role than just above average in a number of roles and then have adequate backup players who can similarly just slot into that particular role. 

Unfortunately our recruitment since Mac left hasn't recruited with any particular plan or system in mind, leaving the squad in a little bit of a mess. Then Pearson decided he'd rather play a tactically flawed (not because of it being 442, because of how he set up this 442) system that suited close to zero of the playing staff he inherited without making anything like the transfer movement it would have taken for it to be effective, making his system more of a 'dog's dinner'.

I don't think it was a perfect recipe .. The lynch pin was the CDM role Eustace Thorne Mascarell .. They were the ones that held it together at any one time to a greater or lesser extent. Bryson was a beneficiary of players behind him giving him freedom. I don't think that makes a perfect Sunday dinner or Bryson into a ballon D'Or player 

[jono]

Don't get me wrong .. It was a good team and all in all a season or more of watching good adventurous, entertaining football but it was frail and vulnerable to minor variations of player mix and opposition savvy 

[brady1993]

13 minutes ago, jono said:

I don't think it was a perfect recipe .. The lynch pin was the CDM role Eustace Thorne Mascarell .. They were the ones that held it together at any one time to a greater or lesser extent. Bryson was a beneficiary of players behind him giving him freedom. I don't think that makes a perfect Sunday dinner or Bryson into a ballon D'Or player 

What I meant by that was each player in Mac's team was designated a role that suited their strengths and weaknesses, so the team was more than a sum of it's individual parts. Take Eustace for instance - His legs had pretty much gone, didn't have the greatest range of passing, didn't possess any great shooting ability or creative flair but he anticipated the game well, was a good tackler, was good at organising the midfield into shape, was relatively composed on the ball and very disciplined defensively. Put the 13/14 - 14/15 Eustace in a 2 man midfield and he would have looked crap, put him in attacking positions and he would have looked crap but sit him just in front of the defense as part of a three and he looks good, providing freedom (both offensively and defensively) to the rest of the team. 

Eustace benefitted as much from Bryson as Bryson did from Eustace.

[brady1993]

10 minutes ago, jono said:

Don't get me wrong .. It was a good team and all in all a season or more of watching good adventurous, entertaining football but it was frail and vulnerable to minor variations of player mix and opposition savvy 

I think the frailty was more down to suboptimal recruitment in providing cover for the first eleven. With regards to opposition savvy, I can only really think of middlesbrough (who were one of the top sides in the division) and maybe Wigan (under Rosler) actually stifling us and they had to really jump through tactical hoops to just about achieve that.

[jono]

45 minutes ago, brady1993 said:

What I meant by that was each player in Mac's team was designated a role that suited their strengths and weaknesses, so the team was more than a sum of it's individual parts. Take Eustace for instance - His legs had pretty much gone, didn't have the greatest range of passing, didn't possess any great shooting ability or creative flair but he anticipated the game well, was a good tackler, was good at organising the midfield into shape, was relatively composed on the ball and very disciplined defensively. Put the 13/14 - 14/15 Eustace in a 2 man midfield and he would have looked crap, put him in attacking positions and he would have looked crap but sit him just in front of the defense as part of a three and he looks good, providing freedom (both offensively and defensively) to the rest of the team. 

Eustace benefitted as much from Bryson as Bryson did from Eustace.

I get your point about a particular team structure but from my perspective it seems too rigid .. What your saying is not just square pegs and square holes ( which I agree with ) but as with the Martin role, the Eustance role, the Bryson role .. You box yourself in .. It isn't square pegs any more .. It's square pegs with a little lug on that fit in a specifically designed hole. If that player isnt available or recruited then you end up exposed. .. Oh dear .. What happened when George got injured and Eustace wasn't available .. What I mean is if your system is so dependant on a particular "way" rather than plain good footballers you end up as the guy who wants a particular make and model of car,but  you want a specific mileage, trim, colour, engine service history, distance from your home and it must be an auto box .. Suddenly you have no choice 

[Tombo]

3 hours ago, Alpha said:

Trash talk from players is nothing new

It's definitely something new when you're so good at it that your target is still talking about it years later and writes about it in his autobiography. That's a whole different level of WUMmery. A player like Joey Barton who's been called every name under the sun in his time in football, but he still recalls the one comment Chrissy made. Someone's upset?

[brady1993]

2 hours ago, jono said:

I get your point about a particular team structure but from my perspective it seems too rigid .. What your saying is not just square pegs and square holes ( which I agree with ) but as with the Martin role, the Eustance role, the Bryson role .. You box yourself in .. It isn't square pegs any more .. It's square pegs with a little lug on that fit in a specifically designed hole. If that player isnt available or recruited then you end up exposed. .. Oh dear .. What happened when George got injured and Eustace wasn't available .. What I mean is if your system is so dependant on a particular "way" rather than plain good footballers you end up as the guy who wants a particular make and model of car,but  you want a specific mileage, trim, colour, engine service history, distance from your home and it must be an auto box .. Suddenly you have no choice 

I see your point and you do need some flexibility to adjust. However they should be variations on a the same general theme. To me you have a system (not exclusively a formation) and a philosophy you should build around, then you solely recruit players that fit into that. Otherwise your squad ends up unfocused and you have loads of parts that don't fit right together. I don't feel the player roles set out under Mac were ultra specified as you appear to make out. Hendrick brought something a little different to Bryson but played a similar, the wide forwards under mac all brought various qualities but they all could fit in. The problems occurred under mac due to bad luck with injuries and a failure to cover key areas. 

[RodleyRam]

1 hour ago, brady1993 said:

I see your point and you do need some flexibility to adjust. However they should be variations on a the same general theme. To me you have a system (not exclusively a formation) and a philosophy you should build around, then you solely recruit players that fit into that. Otherwise your squad ends up unfocused and you have loads of parts that don't fit right together. I don't feel the player roles set out under Mac were ultra specified as you appear to make out. Hendrick brought something a little different to Bryson but played a similar, the wide forwards under mac all brought various qualities but they all could fit in. The problems occurred under mac due to bad luck with injuries and a failure to cover key areas. 

^ This ^ and most of the other stuff you've said in this thread. Completely agree. The damange done by the Plan B chat has really taken it's toll. To the point where we don't even have a Plan A anymore. Under Mac we adapted our style and occasionally formation to suit circumstances. Mostly this was effective. Occasionally, it didn't pan out but we were highly unfortunate not to get promoted during his tenure.

Since that point successive manager's have sought to significantly change the style and tempo (Clement) and formation and passing ethos (Pearson) of what was a highly successful way of playing. I've read a lot of people say that we got found out. I dont buy this in the slightest. You can say that teams knew how we were going to play but that did not mean they necessarily knew how to stop it. Had Clement adopted the style of high pressing, attacking football we had the season before, he'd be most likely in charge at a Premier League team right now. As it is by completely changing the tempo of our game and sitting off teams, we were made to look like we couldn't break down teams.

We didn't get promoted under Mac but for me that did not warrant a complete departure from the way we played. It needed a bit more leadership at key points and adequate cover for key postions. Those tweaks would have seen us challenging for the top 2, no doubt in my opinion. As it is we couldn't be much further away and have absolutely no Plan A.

[unclej]

11 hours ago, RodleyRam said:

 

We didn't get promoted under Mac but for me that did not warrant a complete departure from the way we played. It needed a bit more leadership at key points and adequate cover for key postions. Those tweaks would have seen us challenging for the top 2, no doubt in my opinion. As it is we couldn't be much further away and have absolutely no Plan A.

Teams, and refs, had worked us out. 

[brady1993]

12 hours ago, RodleyRam said:

Had Clement adopted the style of high pressing, attacking football we had the season before, he'd be most likely in charge at a Premier League team right now. As it is by completely changing the tempo of our game and sitting off teams, we were made to look like we couldn't break down teams.

Whilst I largely agree with your sentiments in your post, I do think Clement's style could have worked if it wasn't down to a couple issues. Namely Johnson and Shackell, we were never going to be able to play that kind of system with those two in the side as they were too poor on the ball and often all the patient passing would end up being for nothing. I have a sneaky feeling that if it wasn't for Bryson and Hughes getting injured in the first game that Clement would have been quite a bit more successful at Derby. 

[brady1993]

20 minutes ago, unclej said:

Teams, and refs, had worked us out. 

They'd worked us out that much we only managed to climb to 2nd under Mac before we were completely destabilised by picking up long term injuries to the 1st and 2nd choice Defensive midfielders, 1st and 2nd choice strikers and first choice centre back.