Derbylad92 Posted February 11, 2017 Share Posted February 11, 2017 3 hours ago, NottsRam77 said: can i just say after today, and against leicester jacob butterfield looks twice the player playing in a 2 man midfield than one of the further forward 2 in a 3. hes the sort of player that wants to get on the ball deep, take it from the centre halves or full backs and recycle, start things going, hes no good with his back to goal with a defender up his arse, the same goes with tryig to get box to box or threading delicately weighted balls through to an onrushing forward. but in terms of getting us on the ball, as today highlighted i thought he made a real impact, hes still got a lot to prove to me but the difference between him, bradley and bryson today were like night day. only problem is he doesnt have the physical stature to give the protection that bradley nornally gives us I didnt get chance to go today as im away but against leicester he dictatored the play and totally agree! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alph Posted February 11, 2017 Share Posted February 11, 2017 Wasn't a formation issue or "Plan B" issue today. It was a 'I wonder what's for dinner tonight and if this win will put us above Norwich and I'll just stroke the ball over to him because he will sort these soft southerners' issue. Seriously, that was not Plan A, B or C. If the world was fair then Mac should be allowed to take £1,000 out their wages for every time a player is caught on his heels. Players would have had to play for free today. Only Keogh would have earned owt. It's alright fans screaming at no movement but the movement was actually there. But you can only move so much. If the player on the ball is going to dawdle and draw a map of the pitch then whatever small space won by movement will be closed. Carson, Pearce, Baird, Bryson, Camara, Bent all constantly wanted Bristol to park the bus and allow them the freedom of the pitch. And shape is important. Of course. But when the ball is right there to be won then step in and win it. Don't think that you don't need the ball and can just retreat to an impenetrable wall. No plan or formation exists where you rely on your opponent respecting you. Where you can put token effort tackles in. Where you can jump for a header and duck in mid air. Where you can be caught flat footed and lose your head start on a loose ball. Where you can receive the ball, have another touch, go left, go right, stop, look at your options, roll your foot over it and expect to have options. No formation in the world allows that. As for changing formations. You have to remember that shape and positioning is instinctive. You put a CB at RB and he drifts to where he's comfortable. So while Hughes playing the No.10 role might be great on paper you have to remember there's a good chance he could drift into CM. Or sometimes players play their position on paper too rigidly because they're thinking about it. Was always the problem with playing Ince behind the striker. Ince is class in any position. But when playing centrally he stands on his spot. As a winger he makes good decisions on when and where to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boycie Posted February 11, 2017 Share Posted February 11, 2017 51 minutes ago, David said: You text me to pic of you in the pub at 4pm More bait in the swim needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Day Posted February 11, 2017 Share Posted February 11, 2017 5 minutes ago, Boycie said: More bait in the swim needed. My mission here is complete. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamNut Posted February 12, 2017 Share Posted February 12, 2017 11 hours ago, McLovin said: 4-2-3-1 doesn't need specialists like 4-3-3 does. It's fairly interchangeable. E.g you could put Nugent or Vydra in for Camara and then put Ince out on the right. Bent looked so isolated today in 4-3-3 but once players like Ince got close to him he started to get involved. You don't even need a pure defensive mid in there too. Newcastle play 4-2-3-1 and play shelvey(a conductor) and Hayden(box to box player) as the sitting 2. I think Hughes and De Sart would work pretty in well in there the whole point is that the 2 are defensive and the 3 are attacking. doesn't really suit orthodox midfiekders like hughes, butterfield and even Bryson it worked for us when we had commons, bueno cywka in front of savage and bailey.... (until nigel managed to balls it up by dropping kuqi for luke Moore) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamNut Posted February 12, 2017 Share Posted February 12, 2017 It was a formation issue for me yesterday because the 433 became 41.......1........1..3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRBee Posted February 12, 2017 Share Posted February 12, 2017 13 hours ago, McLovin said: It gets our creative players like Hughes and Butterfield on the ball more and we look much better offensively. 4-3-3 works well when we have Thorne,Martin and a creative runner from midfield which we currently haven't got. Yes we went on a great run with this formation but that wasn't down to the formation itself, it was down to individuals getting us out of trouble like Ince . In the summer we can rectify this but the time being I feel 4-2-3-1 is the way to go. Midfield and forward line of this: De Sart Hughes/Butterfield Camara Ince Anya Bent Your inclusion of Camara shows you don't get it , at all ! And Hughes does his best stuff further forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shuff264 Posted February 12, 2017 Share Posted February 12, 2017 For the majority of the season, Johnson has been playing above himself in the defensive mid position. He isnt a natural there and he was never going to be able to keep it up all season. Without a quality defensive midfielder we have to pack it out with a second man if we want to let the wingers attack freely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sexydadbod Posted February 12, 2017 Author Share Posted February 12, 2017 6 hours ago, DRBee said: Your inclusion of Camara shows you don't get it , at all ! And Hughes does his best stuff further forward. Was only an example no need to get your knickers in a twist. It's easily adaptable and can fit players into different positions. De Sart Butterfield Ince Hughes Anya Bent or De Sart Hughes Ince Nugent Anya Bent Easily interchangeable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaguarRam Posted February 12, 2017 Share Posted February 12, 2017 8 minutes ago, McLovin said: Was only an example no need to get your knickers in a twist. It's easily adaptable and can fit players into different positions. De Sart Butterfield Ince Hughes Anya Bent or De Sart Hughes Ince Nugent Anya Bent Easily interchangeable I reckon we should play with 11 players myself ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sexydadbod Posted February 15, 2017 Author Share Posted February 15, 2017 Last night once again showed that 4-3-3 with the current group of players will NOT work. If we persist with it I fear we may end up like we did at the end of 14/15. I've concluded that this team is probably our most balanced at the moment: Carson Baird Keogh Shackell Lowe De Sart Johnson Ince Hughes Anya Bent I am not really a fan of playing Hughes at number 10 because he doesn't score or assist a lot but playing him there may resolve Bent's lack of link up play problem and Bent can actually just focus of doing what he does best, scoring. I am also not Johnson's biggest fan but we look incredibly lightweight without him in midfield. I'm a fan of De Sart but I fear he is another Mascarell and not physically imposing enough to play the loan cdm role. Playing these 2 as the CDMs will allow them to cover for each other's weaknesses. Johnson's lack of ability with the ball and he can focus being a bruiser again and De Sart's lack of physicality. Shackell and Lowe are also better defensively respectively than Pearce and Olsson in my opinion. The team I posted above will give us a solid foundation to build upon and then next season we can look to build 4-3-3 again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sexydadbod Posted February 15, 2017 Author Share Posted February 15, 2017 On 11/02/2017 at 17:55, JW37 said: Carson Baird Keogh Pearce Olsson De Sart Johnson Ince Hughes Anya Bent Would be pretty similar to my choice. Shackell and Lowe in for Pearce and Olsson would be my only changes but that's a flip of a coin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex W Posted February 15, 2017 Share Posted February 15, 2017 6 minutes ago, McLovin said: Would be pretty similar to my choice. Shackell and Lowe in for Pearce and Olsson would be my only changes but that's a flip of a coin As someone who has been very critical of Olsson I don't think he deserves dropping based on last night, he did well, though I do prefer Lowe as a LB if he's fit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JW37 Posted February 15, 2017 Share Posted February 15, 2017 1 hour ago, McLovin said: Would be pretty similar to my choice. Shackell and Lowe in for Pearce and Olsson would be my only changes but that's a flip of a coin Pearce and Olsson had been pretty solid and Olsson seems to be more influential going forward but I can see why Shackell and Lowe could come in Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparkle Posted February 15, 2017 Share Posted February 15, 2017 Thorne - injured johnson - plays injured it appears hughes - plays injured it appears bryson - plays injured it appears russell - looks injured but plays anya - seems to get injured a lot which all highlights our struggles through that midfield. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sexydadbod Posted February 22, 2017 Author Share Posted February 22, 2017 McClaren seems too stubborn at times. De Sart and Johnson have clear weaknesses, why not put them next to each other to cover each other's weaknesses by putting them as the 2 cdms? We need to try something different ahead of next season. Hughes and Butterfield best attributes are going forward and creating, logic would say put them in the number 10 and give them less defensive responsibilities. Bent never has and never will be a hold up striker or link man so Butterfield or Hughes can provide the creative element to cover for Bents lack of link up play. We aren't going anywhere with 4-3-3 at this moment of time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r_wilcockson Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 On 15/02/2017 at 09:34, McLovin said: Last night once again showed that 4-3-3 with the current group of players will NOT work. If we persist with it I fear we may end up like we did at the end of 14/15. I've concluded that this team is probably our most balanced at the moment: Carson Baird Keogh Shackell Lowe De Sart Johnson Ince Hughes Anya Bent I am not really a fan of playing Hughes at number 10 because he doesn't score or assist a lot but playing him there may resolve Bent's lack of link up play problem and Bent can actually just focus of doing what he does best, scoring. I am also not Johnson's biggest fan but we look incredibly lightweight without him in midfield. I'm a fan of De Sart but I fear he is another Mascarell and not physically imposing enough to play the loan cdm role. Playing these 2 as the CDMs will allow them to cover for each other's weaknesses. Johnson's lack of ability with the ball and he can focus being a bruiser again and De Sart's lack of physicality. Shackell and Lowe are also better defensively respectively than Pearce and Olsson in my opinion. The team I posted above will give us a solid foundation to build upon and then next season we can look to build 4-3-3 again. After seeing Hughes the past few games, I honestly think he needs a little break. I'd therefore go with the above, but bring Nugent in for Hughes, then possibly Vydra once Nuge starts to tire, to give him another chance in his preferred role. I'd also be interested to see Butterfield in the quarter back role with someone else alongside him, as this was essentially his role when impressing with Huddersfield. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBG83 Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 a) Did we need four at the back last night? b) Was only one striker required last night? c) Did we need a defensive midfielder last night? Burton away at Derby were always going to play for a draw. This persistence with the same formation will be McClaren's downfall. Lowe rarely went past Anya on the overlap. Butterfield goes sideways too much. Hughes drifts to the right hand side a lot. So does Bent. Bent drops back ridiculously deep for throw ins leaving nobody up front. De Sart, given a bit of space, was going to play long passes all night. Even when it wasn't required. It was frustrating to watch that last night. It might not be pretty but we could have gone direct last night after the break. Put Nugent/Camara the other side of Bent. But no, that's not what the fans want. We've got to win win style. Yawn. Crap tactics again. I like McClaren but he really does like to shoehorn players into a formation that doesn't suit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Van der MoodHoover Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 Just now, Super Johnny Russell said: a) Did we need four at the back last night? b) Was only one striker required last night? c) Did we need a defensive midfielder last night? Burton away at Derby were always going to play for a draw. This persistence with the same formation will be McClaren's downfall. Lowe rarely went past Anya on the overlap. Butterfield goes sideways too much. Hughes drifts to the right hand side a lot. So does Bent. Bent drops back ridiculously deep for throw ins leaving nobody up front. De Sart, given a bit of space, was going to play long passes all night. Even when it wasn't required. It was frustrating to watch that last night. It might not be pretty but we could have gone direct last night after the break. Put Nugent/Camara the other side of Bent. But no, that's not what the fans want. We've got to win win style. Yawn. Crap tactics again. I like McClaren but he really does like to shoehorn players into a formation that doesn't suit. Agree with your analysis. I do think that players need the intelligence to play what's in front of them. So to your points a-c a) whilst we'll probably always start with a notional back 4, what's to stop one of the fbs providing width further forward? Mac did it before with fozzie and wisdom so he isn't anti the principle. b) with additional width coming from fullbacks, then the wider front players can tuck in to supplement the sole striker. This used to happen often with Martin and Russell. Instead Ince stays out wide and Christie runs into him. c) no we didn't need a cdm to break up play but having a fulcrum for setting attacks off through a range of passing seems sensible. Unfortunately it didn't seem to work out well but there are numerous posts suggesting that de sarts execution was a bit off rather than the plan being wrong. Elsewhere it's suggested mac was trying to issue instructions but they weren't being carried out so I'm not yet convinced whether it's poor planning by mclaren or lack of intelligence by the team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sexydadbod Posted February 25, 2017 Author Share Posted February 25, 2017 Looks like it's getting to the point where I may need to create a banner saying to change the formation. 4-3-3 doesn't work with the current group! Maybe next season when Thorne is back and Martin in the pivot but not now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.