Plan B needed or not?

[Half fan]

To paraphrase Sir Isaac Newton, every action causes a reaction.

I still recall watching us beat Wolves 5 nil in 2014. Schteve called it a perfect performance.

But when opponents worked out how to stop us, we lost badly and this forum was full of suggested Plan Bs. They never materialised under Schteve.

Today's performance will cause the same 'stop the Rams' planning by other managers.

So do we think Frank's players and tactics are so good, that like Manchester City, we cannot be stopped, making Plan B unnecessary?

Or is Frank so good (and the players good enough) that we will have a number of ways of playing such that opponents will not know how to set up against us?

This will be what makes the season interesting - promotion could depend on the answer!

[RoyMac5]

4 minutes ago, Half fan said:

To paraphrase Sir Isaac Newton, every action causes a reaction.

I still recall watching us beat Wolves 5 nil in 2014. Schteve called it a perfect performance.

But when opponents worked out how to stop us, we lost badly ...

My memory isn't what it should be, what games did we lose badly?

[Sexydadbod]

Lamp’s strikes me as an intelligent guy so strikes me as the guy who will have different ideas and tactics. 

Every great side needs to have a plan A, B and C to adapt if needed to.

[DCFC1388]

Didnt Morris' Chelsea youth teams use 3 or 4 different formations. We have the squad to change formations, 352 4231 41212 4132 541 - all possible

[eddie]

I can't recall when Rowett had a Plan 'A'.

How times change.

[Rammeister]

Not sure you need a ‘Plan B’ if you have got pace throughout the team and players who are unpredictable.

When Schteve was at Derby we had guile with Hughes but no pace.

With Rowett last season I’m not sure we had either guile, pace or unpredictablity.

Frank has clearly identified what is needed to make us successful. I also believe that Frank having been a world class elite pro footballer and operating for many years in that environment -and then having surrounded himself with people used to operating at the top level probably means that is personal ‘bar’ is set higher than some managers as to what he is prepared to accept. I think this also bodes well.

Time will tell.

 

[Doodle]

20 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

My memory isn't what it should be, what games did we lose badly?

We never lost badly, we just didn’t win so easily. Macs main problem was sticking rigidly to 4/3/3. Prime example being QPR at Wembley. Once they had the sending off we should have gone 3 at the back and put Bamford on. 4 against Zamora made them complacent as it was too easy. That’s when they left it to each other and we all know the rest. No system is perfect on every occasion. Plan b or c is needed sometimes. Frank will know this and adapt as required 

[cannable]

Plan B is only a valid option if you’re a reactive team (which is why the criticism annoyed me so much under McClaren). We aren’t looking to be a reactive team.

[Rev]

We need a plan B, cries every team's fans every time they fall to an unexpected defeat, or are held to a frustrating draw.

Load of nonsense, Plan B can only ever be do Plan A better.

Think about it logically, for a plan B to work it would have to be pretty much the opposite of Plan A. Let's say you're a pretty passing side, who keep possession, but the opposition bring everyone back behind the ball in an effort to frustrate you.

Every training session you've done has been around keeping possession, movement and one or two touch passing, you've employed the players who can see that system work, but you've called up plan B, which is lump it long into the channels or the box, compete for knock-downs and build from there.

Time constraints mean you haven't trained in this way, and even if training time was unlimited, why would you train in a system completely alien to the way you wish to play?

Then you have the personnel issue, you've selected/recruited players to play one way, but have at most 3 subs to change to a different style of football, unless you have a super talented squad who can adapt, which at our level simply isn't feasible.

Of course you can make changes in formation and the players you select to counter the opposition if need be, but I'd suggest these are tweaks to Plan A, not a Plan B.

As a final thought, I'd suggest teams rarely found a way to stop us under Steve McClaren, he just lost the players, through injury to make his system work. He should have changed up Plan A to keep us on an even keel, but he was either unwilling to or didn't have the players to play another way.

[Sexydadbod]

4 minutes ago, cannable said:

Plan B is only a valid option if you’re a reactive team (which is why the criticism annoyed me so much under McClaren). We aren’t looking to be a reactive team.

Real Madrid(the European champions the last three years) have a plan A, B and C. They certainly aren’t a reactive team! I’d say that if they regard different plans as necessary then every other team should take note otherwise the team can end up to be predictable.

[Andicis]

9 minutes ago, McLovin said:

Real Madrid(the European champions the last three years) have a plan A, B and C. They certainly aren’t a reactive team! I’d say that if they regard different plans as necessary then every other team should take note otherwise the team can end up to be predictable.

They also have a giant squad of world class players who can play in different ways. We're a championship side. We don't have that luxury.

[brady1993]

14 minutes ago, cannable said:

Plan B is only a valid option if you’re a reactive team (which is why the criticism annoyed me so much under McClaren). We aren’t looking to be a reactive team.

What makes it even sillier is that he did have a plan B. It's just people overlook it because wasn't a distinct formation change. Plan A was to play through the centre and off Martin, plan B was to stretch the games out wide to the full backs. He made more than a few references to games being a "full back games". Hell it's almost certainly why he went and bought Christie and probably why he sought players who could act as deep lying playmakers.

[Sexydadbod]

4 minutes ago, Andicis said:

They also have a giant squad of world class players who can play in different ways. We're a championship side. We don't have that luxury.

Fair point but it’s relative though isn’t it, the teams who play in the championship aren’t as good as the teams they faced. It is absolutely necessary to have a plan B in my opinion, what happens if we come across a situation(let’s say in the play offs for arguments sake) like Man City did against Liverpool in the champions league last season where ‘plan A’ wasn’t working and they then didn’t know what to do because Liverpool were experts in restricting Man City’s strengths?

 

 

[Rev]

2 minutes ago, Andicis said:

They also have a giant squad of world class players who can play in different ways. We're a championship side. We don't have that luxury.

They merely swap one world class but underperforming player for another.

I wouldn't say they change the way they play though, just hope the changes improve their performance.

Not Plan B, just doing Plan A better.

[Andicis]

Just now, McLovin said:

Fair point but it’s relative though isn’t it, the teams who play in the championship aren’t as good as the teams they faced. It is absolutely necessary to have a plan B in my opinion, what happens if we come across a situation(let’s say in the play offs for arguments sake) like Man City did against Liverpool in the champions league last season where ‘plan A’ wasn’t working and they didn’t know what to do?   

 

 

But again, you cite two more world class teams. Tell me a team in the Championship with a valid approach to two strategies, not teams with shed loads of world class talent at their disposal. 

[Alph]

No team has a plan b

Or if they do then plan a isn't very good. You should be able to adapt within a game without wheeling out the tactics board

[Bald Eagle's Barmy Army]

45 minutes ago, eddie said:

I can't recall when Rowett had a Plan 'A'.

How times change.

The only plan Rowett had was to give Bryson to one of our competitors, make them stronger and ultimately watch him get promoted with them. Whilst we were struggling for any energy and sometimes personnel in midfield. 

The guy didn’t and doesn’t have a clue. 

[eddie]

16 minutes ago, McLovin said:

Real Madrid(the European champions the last three years) have a plan A, B and C. They certainly aren’t a reactive team! I’d say that if they regard different plans as necessary then every other team should take note otherwise the team can end up to be predictable.

Real Madrid's philosophy over the last 50, probably 60 years, amounts to "If you score 3, we'll score 4".

[Sexydadbod]

Just now, reveldevil said:

They merely swap one world class but underperforming player for another.

I wouldn't say they change the way they play though, just hope the changes improve their performance.

Not Plan B, just doing Plan A better.

Disagree mate, they change their tactics depending who they play against, which is why they have been dominating European football for years because opponents can’t predict how they will line up. I’m not suggesting us to go that far and change our tactics game by game , but to simply have a plan B or C. 

What happens if we play against a high pressing team but we are continue insist on playing the ball out from the back? Rosler’s Wigan team at Pride Park showed that Plan A and variants of Plan A can be stopped.

[eddie]

2 minutes ago, CHCDerby said:

The only plan Rowett had was to give Bryson to one of our competitors, make them stronger and ultimately watch him get promoted with them. Whilst we were struggling for any energy and sometimes personnel in midfield. 

The guy didn’t and doesn’t have a clue. 

That remains to be seen. I agree with you from a footballing perspective as a spectacle, but now The Hoofmeister is in charge at the Theatre Of Hoofs, he may actually enjoy relative success with his brand of anti-football.