Plan B needed or not?

[Sexydadbod]

1 minute ago, Alpha said:

Spot on.

Game. Set. Match

What was he meant to do? Keep Robert Huth and Peter Crouch under the stairs incase Rosler's Wigan (who got relegated because they didn't focus on their other 44 games) come to stop us passing.

If a team sits 10 men behind the ball and are organised and concentrated then they'll be difficult to break down no matter how many plans you have. 

Teams lose games. 

Plan B doesn’t have to mean hoof ball though, it could be within the game itself changing tactics into a counter attacking team or if the opposition team has one exceptional player amongst a bunch of average ones, man marking him. Many teams did this against us in 14/15 by man-marking Martin because they knew that he was the key person in the system.

[Sparkle]

Well I think things will go a bit like panama and Columbia against England- they will try to snap some of our players in two - we are going to need referees to like us ! 

[Alph]

But if our strength is possession then by giving them the ball we now have a match up of 2 teams playing to their weakness? 

You just can't carry that many players and work on that many situations thoroughly while keeping everyone happy and playing on instinct to cover every angle.

You will lose games. It will happen. Have a thorough plan A. Play on instinct and play to your strengths.

[Sexydadbod]

Just now, Alpha said:

But if our strength is possession then by giving them the ball we now have a match up of 2 teams playing to their weakness? 

You just can't carry that many players and work on that many situations thoroughly while keeping everyone happy and playing on instinct to cover every angle.

You will lose games. It will happen. Have a thorough plan A. Play on instinct and play to your strengths.

It’s not a long term solution though, it’s for games where Plan A clearly isn’t working, I.e there are no spaces because the opposition are parking the bus like against QPR(sorry to bring it up but as an example) . Richard Dunne was in his element in that game because they played a defensive line close to each other, which meant that his lack of pace wasn’t exploited as opposed to if QPR were required to play a higher line if they had more possession.

It’s generally easier for a front foot team to turn into a counter attacking side than a counter attacking side to turn into a front foot side. Counter attacking will mean that there will be more spaces to exploit.

[Sparkle]

3 minutes ago, McLovin said:

It’s not a long term solution though, it’s for games where Plan A clearly isn’t working, I.e there are no spaces because the opposition are parking the bus like against QPR(sorry to bring it up but as an example) . Richard Dunne was in his element in that game because they played a defensive line close to each other, which meant that his lack of pace wasn’t exploited as opposed to if QPR were required to play a higher line if they had more possession.

It’s generally easier for a front foot team to turn into a counter attacking side than a counter attacking side to turn into a front foot side. Counter attacking will mean that there will be more spaces to exploit.

In a way our plan B may well be that piece of high quality that turns a game and maybe the quality that seems to be there with mount and Wilson may show the way 

[Alph]

5 minutes ago, McLovin said:

It’s not a long term solution though, it’s for games where Plan A clearly isn’t working, I.e there are no spaces because the opposition are parking the bus like against QPR(sorry to bring it up but as an example) . Richard Dunne was in his element in that game because they played a defensive line close to each other, which meant that his lack of pace wasn’t exploited as opposed to if QPR were required to play a higher line if they had more possession.

It’s generally easier for a front foot team to turn into a counter attacking side than a counter attacking side to turn into a front foot side. Counter attacking will mean that there will be more spaces to exploit.

With better finishing we'd have beaten QPR. The tactics gave us control of the game and we had chances. More chances than them. In fact it was only 3 errors in quick succession that got the ball to Zamora. You can't plan for errors

[Sexydadbod]

I get what you’re all saying but way I see it, there’s no harm in having a plan B or C because you never know when it might come in handy. It doesn’t have to be at the expense of Plan A which can be thoroughly worked on too, plan B is mainly as a contingency.

From listening to Lampard’s interviews, it does sound that they’re working on different tactics in training anyway and the need for players to be adaptable in game, which could be in handy if players need to shift positions let’s say if there is a red card.

[Alph]

16 minutes ago, McLovin said:

Plan B doesn’t have to mean hoof ball though, it could be within the game itself changing tactics into a counter attacking team or if the opposition team has one exceptional player amongst a bunch of average ones, man marking him. Many teams did this against us in 14/15 by man-marking Martin because they knew that he was the key person in the system.

And many teams lost. Didn't we finish with 77pts and score 85 goals in 46 games. 

Like @brady1993 said. We'd want to spin off Martin but if it wasn't on then we'd use our full backs and you'd see a big gap between the 2 most forward center mids as they went to support their respective wing. 

It went wrong when we had all our CDM's and strikers wiped out. 

Teams lose games.

[Sexydadbod]

1 minute ago, Alpha said:

With better finishing we'd have beaten QPR. The tactics gave us control of the game and we had chances. More chances than them. In fact it was only 3 errors in quick succession that got the ball to Zamora. You can't plan for errors

But as said before, after the red card did we really need 4 defenders to mark Zamora, having the back 4 could have led to complacency which led to the errors? We could have changed to a back 3 to put another attacker on the pitch. 

Let’s say we face a situation like that again in the future , instead of making it comfortable for them by allowing sitting back and get in their defensive shape, a plan b could be to concede possession to force them to come out a bit and exploit them quickly on the counter attack. 

[Sexydadbod]

5 minutes ago, Alpha said:

And many teams lost. Didn't we finish with 77pts and score 85 goals in 46 games. 

Like @brady1993 said. We'd want to spin off Martin but if it wasn't on then we'd use our full backs and you'd see a big gap between the 2 most forward center mids as they went to support their respective wing. 

It went wrong when we had all our CDM's and strikers wiped out. 

Teams lose games.

Isn’t that a plan B though? We still got results despite Martin getting man marked because we had good players but against teams who don’t have that luxury and only have one or two standout players, it would be effective. For example against Brentford, if you stop Woods and Watkins, then you near enough prevent their whole way of playing from functioning 

[SK47]

Plan B for me is individual brilliance. When tactics can't find a break through that's down to the players/subs to grab the game by the scruff of the neck and pull something out the bag they wouldn't normally try when following plan A. We now have those players imo.

 

(Edit) A new striker wouldn't go a miss. We would probably need to see a couple outgoings too in that department first though.

[Alph]

Just now, McLovin said:

Isn’t that a plan B though? We still got results despite Martin getting man marked because we had good players but against teams who don’t have that luxury and only have one or two standout players, it would be effective. For example against Brentford, if you stop Woods and Watkins, then you near enough prevent their whole way of playing from functioning 

I suppose it is.

I just remember one game when all the "Plan B" cliche really kicked off.

We lost to Leeds away at Elland Road. I think it was the game where Adryan did that ridiculous play act when Russell kicked a blade of grass at him.

People went nuts online. "No plan B!!", "Insanity is doing the same thing..." and "Stop Martin and we haven't got a clue".

When in truth we'd figured out early on in the game that Leeds were putting a man on Mascarell and were playing very narrow to stop any route down the middle. 

All game long Russell and Forsyth were 2v2 on one flank and Cyrus and Icantremember were 2v2 on the other. All game they had only 1 man to beat each. 4 players against 4 of theirs. And they all 4 were terrible. Cyrus dawdling, Fozzy having a yard of space to cross and hitting it 10ft over the bar. Russell running into his man or out of play. 

All the cry for no plan b and talk of us not knowing how to attack without Martin while completely ignoring that tactically we'd isolated the wings to get 1v1's and the wide players had wasted so many chances.

Stuck in my mind that game because it was the most obvious visual proof that we had ways to adapt. I mean really obvious because Leeds were soooo narrow and we were stretched wide. 

But it was 433 that got slated. 433 and sideways passing. 

I guess the difference here is you'd call that a Plan B?

If so then I agree with you. It's just I call it an adaption to a plan A. Style stays the same, system stays the same but the movement was totally different.  

Certainly Lampard will have to prepare his system to work around teams that a deep and narrow or high and wide. That mark zonal or go man for man. That dedicate a striker to sit on our DM or that force us wide or down the middle. Or like what used to happen to Clement where they'd let Warnock, Shackell and Johnson have time on the ball but press others. 

Whatever you call it I do agree that it has to be a system that can adapt. 

Don't suppose it matters what you call it. 

So long as it's not the factually incorrect "pointless sideways passing" and that quote that's wrongly credited to Einstein and isn't relevant at all to football. Some people love rewriting history and would argue that the sky is just part of the matrix.

[brady1993]

1 hour ago, McLovin said:

 

 

Not necessarily, if the plan B is worked enough in training then it wouldn’t be seen as a weakness. I’d suggest it’s a hell of a lot easier to adapt in game to a counter attacking side anyway so it wouldn’t need as much training if you are a side that’s used to being front foot as it means there would be more gaps to exploit. Lampard referred to this in one of his interviews that he wants his players to be able to play in different positions and to adapt to different formations if the game means that they are required too. 

But the more time you spend training on a plan B is less time refining and honing your plan A. That's not to mention in the thick of the season time is limited to work on alternate tactical approaches. 

I disagree because switching to play a true counter attacking style requires a very different mind set and often very different types of players to excel. It's also diametrically opposed to how we are looking like setting up.

I think your right in that you need to have variation but I don't think it needs to be anywhere near as drastic. For example a reasonable plan B is bringing on Jerome and looking to work the ball wide for crossing. That doesn't require fundamentally changing how you set but is distinct enough to perhaps give you an edge.

A good plan B should be one that is easier to transition not something that fundamentally changed how you play the game. 

[brady1993]

43 minutes ago, McLovin said:

I get what you’re all saying but way I see it, there’s no harm in having a plan B or C because you never know when it might come in handy. It doesn’t have to be at the expense of Plan A which can be thoroughly worked on too, plan B is mainly as a contingency.

From listening to Lampard’s interviews, it does sound that they’re working on different tactics in training anyway and the need for players to be adaptable in game, which could be in handy if players need to shift positions let’s say if there is a red card.

The harm is by potentially spending time on a radically different plan, it's time your not spending on getting better and refining your own plan. 

Perhaps by spending the time on plan A players can get to grips with more nuances and start picking up what they can do within plan A that can help counter such opposition. 

[brady1993]

42 minutes ago, McLovin said:

But as said before, after the red card did we really need 4 defenders to mark Zamora, having the back 4 could have led to complacency which led to the errors? We could have changed to a back 3 to put another attacker on the pitch. 

Let’s say we face a situation like that again in the future , instead of making it comfortable for them by allowing sitting back and get in their defensive shape, a plan b could be to concede possession to force them to come out a bit and exploit them quickly on the counter attack. 

We possibly didn't need all 4 defenders on but it's easy to look back in hindsight. McClaren was likely thinking that whilst we were on top and creating chances he thought best not disrupt that.

The problem with your second point is what if they don't play ball ? What if they just punt it back ? To be honest though tactically this issue is often dealt with by trying to commit players against defenders. It's why you'll saying passing around at the back and it's why you'll see Keogh drive into midfield. It's all to draw them out of that low block.

[Sexydadbod]

10 minutes ago, brady1993 said:

But the more time you spend training on a plan B is less time refining and honing your plan A. That's not to mention in the thick of the season time is limited to work on alternate tactical approaches. 

I disagree because switching to play a true counter attacking style requires a very different mind set and often very different types of players to excel. It's also diametrically opposed to how we are looking like setting up.

I think your right in that you need to have variation but I don't think it needs to be anywhere near as drastic. For example a reasonable plan B is bringing on Jerome and looking to work the ball wide for crossing. That doesn't require fundamentally changing how you set but is distinct enough to perhaps give you an edge.

A good plan B should be one that is easier to transition not something that fundamentally changed how you play the game. 

I agree with you point on Jerome firstly as that is an example of a plan B and secondly, the lack of the time in the season to improve a system.

I’m of the opposite view and would rather have a team be comfortable in a variety of different tactics rather than very good with one particular plan as should that plan come unstook, it would result in the team not knowing what to do , I cited the Man City v Liverpool games in the champions league because Man City didn’t know what to do when Liverpool restricted their “plan A” due to their failure to have a contingency for such a situation. I’d still focus mainly on improving the “plan A” but would also be prepared on ensuring that they are comfortable with playing in a different way, if for example we come across a side who are much better in possession than ourselves.

As for the counter attacking point, we spent much of last season playing counter attacking football under Rowett so it wouldn’t be such a transition for the players if the situation in a game means we may need to adapt. 

Even under McClaren we were prepared to counter attack a lot, in that 5-0 win against Forest, we only had 40% odd possession because McClaren realised that Forest weren’t entirely comfortable with the having possession so conceded possession to force them into mistakes due to the pressing from the our wide players and the midfielders.

[Sexydadbod]

17 minutes ago, brady1993 said:

The harm is by potentially spending time on a radically different plan, it's time your not spending on getting better and refining your own plan. 

Perhaps by spending the time on plan A players can get to grips with more nuances and start picking up what they can do within plan A that can help counter such opposition. 

But what would we do if we came across a team who had more energy and were superior to us in possession but particularly had a vulnerablility on the counter attack? Would it not be helpful to have a plan B in such a situation, for example to concede possession and to aim to break quickly on the counter rather than going blow to blow with them?

[Bris Vegas]

We did have different options under Mac.

Dawkins played certain games when there was more emphasis in keeping the ball in the final third.

The rotation of Hendrick, Bryson and Hughes often to suit who we were playing, needing more physicality, guile or legs.

The switch to 4-2-4 when chasing a goal.

People just came out with this ridiculous plan B notion everytime we lost. In the Championship, you lose games... It’s natural.

If plan A works to a sufficient degree, then you don’t need a plan B.

And what do people expect? Throw a tall CB upfront and go longball for the last 10 mins - is that a plan B?

If you want a team capable of playing possession football, counterattacking football and hoofball to the 6ft 5inch giants on a week-by-week basis then you need a squad of 60 players with different coaches for each - NFL style.

[Carl Sagan]

I see a lot of sense in having more than one way of setting up so opponents are unsure how to set up against us, and to be able to change things mid game if what we're doing isn't working. The example's been mentioned of the Playoff Final where we might have taken off a defender for a striker. 

While it looked tonight as if we were pretty fluid, I'd say we were 4-3-3 but we also have the personnel to take off a defender and bring on another striker and use 3-5-2 as a base. 

It surely makes sense to train and be comfortable with in both formations with tweaks of personnel. 

[curb]

There are always going to be defeats along the way, no matter how many plans you have. 

Just relax and enjoy the season and worry about going up/not going up at the end.