Too many strikers?

[toddy]

8 hours ago, steve brummie said:

I'm not all that impressed with Radio Derby's commentators but when I heard them saying in the last few minutes " Hughes is going off" and "We're changing to 442" I thought it was a valiant attempt to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Why change a formula for the end of a match when we are one goal to the good?

Any experienced Rams fan knows that is a sure fire way to drop two points at least.

And we,of course, did!

It would help if we had any strikers who did what they are paid to do.

Or am I missing summat as usual?

Yes, players going to sleep at a set piece.

[Bridgford Ram]

33 minutes ago, archied said:

On the point above I would really look at setting us up 4/2/3 /1 , seems a lot of teams do this ,, with injuries I would look at

.                                                         Carson

.           Christie.   Keough.                                Shackell. Lowe

.                         Thorne.                           Hanson/ Johnson?

                        Hughes.            Ince.             Anya

.                                                Vydra

 

for me better balanced  side with steel at the back , creativity and pace , then when you look at the bench we could put out as cover or to change things up mid game ,,,, for me it's the way forward ,if we learn to play that shape in training then it's far easier to drop a defensive midfielder in with a partner beside him than to put someone in to do the vital Thorne role when it's not their position 

I like that side, I'd have Hanson next to Thorne given the choice (and Hughes and Ince would swap).  The beauty of that line up is that it easily becomes 4-3-3 if needed (Hughes drops back to make a triangle with Thorne and Hanson).

It also means that we have 3 academy products which I believe is 'the Derby way'.

It does highlight the issues with our recent recruitment in that our strongest side doesn't include Johnson, Butterfield, Camara and Blackman.

[brady1993]

2 hours ago, archied said:

Maybe it not just bad luck ,, could it be that the way we play puts so much pressure on our defensive midfielder that they are physically under far more stress than the rest and are having to jump into far more 50/ 50 balls ,, may be way off but it's a thought ,, maybe even with the holding midfielder in front of back four we still need to be working on keeping better shape and still have a bit more steel in there ,,, is our defensive mid ( Thorne ) having to win the midfield battle single handedly whilst the other two are virtually forwards?

That's a fair question but I don't think it's the case. For a start I'd strongly argue against the other two midfielders being 'virtually forwards', you only have to watch how many times Hughes wins the ball and all the defensive harrying Bryson does to cast aspersions on that. In Mac's system most of the donkey work, all the chasing, harrying and pressing was done by the 2 more advanced central midfielders in tandem with the inside forwards. This was a big part of why we were very good under Mac because this effectivley kept teams penned into their own half and under pressure. The job of the defensive midfielder in this system is to marshall the space just in front of the two cb's cutting of the passing lanes into the opposing strike force and orchestrating the midfield pressing (Ever notice how vocal Thorne and Eustace were in defence?). The DM only steps in to make a tackle or interception if the ball manages to squirt through the 'first blockade', most of the time good anticipation from your DM allows them to just nick the ball cleanly from the opposing player and recycle possession. 

I think the problems with injuries came about because Thorne has incredible bad luck combined with picking up niggles as he returned to fitness, Eustace was always somewhat injury prone combined with his advancing age and from what I recall Mascarell just had one bad injury (someone correct me if I'm wrong).

2 hours ago, archied said:

On the point above I would really look at setting us up 4/2/3 /1 , seems a lot of teams do this ,, with injuries I would look at

.                                                         Carson

.           Christie.   Keough.                                Shackell. Lowe

.                         Thorne.                           Hanson/ Johnson?

                        Hughes.            Ince.             Anya

.                                                Vydra

 

for me better balanced  side with steel at the back , creativity and pace , then when you look at the bench we could put out as cover or to change things up mid game ,,,, for me it's the way forward ,if we learn to play that shape in training then it's far easier to drop a defensive midfielder in with a partner beside him than to put someone in to do the vital Thorne role when it's not their position 

I wouldn't mind setting up as 4231, I really like it as a formation, particularly if we are playing superior opposition (more important if we get promotion) and particularly because we don't have the right-type of striker for a 433. However I really dislike the look of the team you named. 

The layout of the midfield for a 4231 is usually 

DM     PM

IF     AM    IF

DM - The defensive midfielder -  Think Khedira/Fernandinho/Xhaka. Will sit in place in midfield and rarely foray forward but has to be comfortable on the ball (arguably more so than the DM of a 3) to keep possession ticking over - With your team this would probably have to be Johnson/Hanson. The problem I have with those two are I don't think Hanson is good enough to be starting and Johnson isn't good enough on the ball (with a shocking pass completion of 69.5%). The best player for this role is still Thorne.

PM - Playmaker - Think Kroos/Cazorla/Gundogan. Has defensive responsibilities and has to get back into shape without the ball but is primarily responsible for dictating the tempo of the game, carrying the ball up the pitch and setting plays off. This would be Thorne in your team and too be honest, he'd be pretty darn good at it. The other good option to play there is Hughes.

AM - Attacking Midfielder - Think Ozil/De Bruyne/Silva - Your primary attacking threat on the pitch who the majority of the play is going to be funneled through. It's paramount he gets heavily involved the game because he is usually going the be the player making the final pass in a move. This is where you've put Ince and quite simply Ince's decision making is too poor to play here combined with the fact he frequently goes hiding in games. The best player in the squad to play here is clearly Hughes who plays in this position for England U21's but Butterfield is more than capable and this is where he played for Powell at Huddersfield.

IF - Inside Forward - Muller/Sterling/Iwobi - Tucked in wide players who provide penetration to the attack with skill and movement, important they carry a goal threat but also need to be able to get involved in moving the ball around in possession.  It would be quite frankly criminal to stick Hughes out on the right particularly with how influential he can be played through the middle. Anya is ok on the left but I worry he doesn't carry enough attacking threat as he has never had a really productive season (in terms of goals and assists). I'll probably catch some flak for this but our two most productive wide players are still Russell and Ince. Personally I'd start Russell on the right, Ince on the left (because I think this is where they both play their best) but I'd give them license to switch. Too be honest though I wouldn't be opposed to going and buying a new inside forward for the left because I don't rate Weiman, Camara and Blackman and think Anya should only be a squad player. 

So to me you end up with something like:

Thorne  Hughes/New Player

Russell   Butterfield/Hughes    Ince

 

[brady1993]

3 hours ago, toddy said:

Yes, players going to sleep at a set piece.

Whilst you do have a point, and I'm not saying the goal should/could have been prevented anyway, it did sound like we were losing control of the game after Hughes went off and we really could have done with another midfielder on the bench to replace him with.

[toddy]

6 minutes ago, brady1993 said:

Whilst you do have a point, and I'm not saying the goal should/could have been prevented anyway, it did sound like we were losing control of the game after Hughes went off and we really could have done with another midfielder on the bench to replace him with.

Please no more excuses for the players, the Reading goal came from a corner - it was basic marking at set pieces. Nothing to do with anybody else other than the players.

I do feel sorry for Chris Powell, he has taken over the Pearson role and unfortunately again it does not matter what his instructions were at the start and at HT regarding who picks up who at set pieces, the players fail again, if in doubt look at their expressions as the Reading goals in.

[brady1993]

6 minutes ago, toddy said:

Please no more excuses for the players, the Reading goal came from a corner - it was basic marking at set pieces. Nothing to do with anybody else other than the players.

I do feel sorry for Chris Powell, he has taken over the Pearson role and unfortunately again it does not matter what his instructions were at the start and at HT regarding who picks up who at set pieces, the players fail again, if in doubt look at their expressions as the Reading goals in.

Did you actually read what I'd written?

I wasn't excusing the corner. I was merely pointing out that with Hughes on the pitch we had control over the game and without Hughes we didn't. 

[toddy]

1 minute ago, brady1993 said:

Did you actually read what I'd written?

I wasn't excusing the corner. I was merely pointing out that with Hughes on the pitch we had control over the game and without Hughes we didn't. 

Yes, I know but that had a bearing on us conceding the Reading goal. Substitutions always happen, the basics is what is wrong at the moment with the players and this is what I am trying to highlight.

It really makes no difference to who is in charge of the team, if all instructions go out of the window when the players walk on the pitch.

 

[brady1993]

26 minutes ago, toddy said:

Yes, I know but that had a bearing on us conceding the Reading goal. Substitutions always happen, the basics is what is wrong at the moment with the players and this is what I am trying to highlight.

It really makes no difference to who is in charge of the team, if all instructions go out of the window when the players walk on the pitch.

 

That's a fair enough viewpoint. I feel that is a symptom of the bigger problem as we've discussed before and won't bore you again with here .

[Anag Ram]

We do seem very keen to use all three subs in every game we play.

This is bound to have an impact on the team dynamic.

Is it also, I wonder, indicative of a lack of fitness?

[toddy]

12 minutes ago, Anag Ram said:

We do seem very keen to use all three subs in every game we play.

This is bound to have an impact on the team dynamic.

Is it also, I wonder, indicative of a lack of fitness?

Only if you want to play 4-3-3.

[Dimmu]

On 4.10.2016 at 14:20, TroyDyer said:

So basically reinventing the Wheal?

Is that whale with wheeles?

 

[Dimmu]

And sorry, wrong "foot"ball.

[Rammed79]

I think we should release Bent from his contract sell Ince and Blackman maybe Russell as well send Wilson back and recall Martin. Also loan Camara to some French team for some game time.

[Rample]

12 hours ago, Ram79 said:

I think we should release Bent from his contract sell Ince and Blackman maybe Russell as well send Wilson back and recall Martin. Also loan Camara to some French team for some game time.

Bent won't get an extension, but unless the move abroad that was rumoured last year materialises there's no point getting rid. Unless he'll take mutual cancellation why pay him off when it would cost the same to keep him. No point loaning him to any rival side as none would cover wages.

Sell Ince for a few million or try and bring him back one of the best attackers in this division? Too early to give up for me, I think I'm form he's a game changer.

Blackman and Russell I agree can move on. Neither are more than versatile forwards that should never be more than bench players given out aims. 

If Wilson can't make any greater impact by January the loan is no use to either party so terminate it.

Martin is unlikely to come back, but if Fulham just want to give up and return him without wanting the loan fee back I'd do it. I like Vydra but having both gives a genuine plan b.

Camara needs to be allowed cameos so we can assess him, he could be an asset. He's one I would loan out to a club in this division.

 

[Brammie Steve]

Too many strikers?

You mean we've got any?

[RoyMac5]

Looks like one less already...

[irobinson]

Can we change the thread to to many **** strikers