Jump to content

Play our game vs play the opposition


Recommended Posts

Do we think the Derby fans would support changes to the team to suit the opposition if it meant dropping a player doing well? 

Looking at people's preferred lineups the midfield and St vary dramatically from person to person. Could we see a high energy team to play sides who play like Bristol and sheff utd last year and a different team where there is more likely to be a physical contest? I think in shinnie and huddlestone we have very different defensive options or the ability to play both. With someone like Holmes we also have an extra creative outlet to put in the middle but at the cost of physicality. 

Could it influence the offensive tactics also? Huddlestone picking out Martin with longer passes to hold up vs a high energy short passing build up involving Holmes and marriott. 

Plenty of options.... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 14
  • Created
  • Last Reply

You should always base your game around the way you play, in the main. There are core positions vital to the way you play that I wouldn’t be changing out just to suit the opposition- GK, CB, CDM, ST. However, naturally you Always make slight alterations, not necessarily in personnel, but in terms of tactics to counter the opposition you are playing and individuals they may have that are dangerous. That’s all fairly normal and any manager worth his salt would take into account opposition in that way. For example, if the opposition has a high quality winger, you may tell your full back to sit back a little. Or if they like possession, press higher on them etc etc.

In terms of actual personnel changes, aside from the “key” positions I’ve mentioned, I think other positions are always up for rotation regardless of suiting the opposition at hand by players competing for the roles. This rotation could occur because of poor  form, or tiredness potentially, particularly in wide players. This means that I myself would accept changes in those roles to “play the opposition”. I wouldn’t however drop an in form player under any circumstances other than tiredness however, so would be annoyed to see someone who scored a hattrick the previous week dropped to suit an opposition team. Otherwise however, I would be up for rotation to get the best team out to beat the opposition, even if on paper it isn’t our “best team” overall. This could involve playing Forsyth over Malone if the opposition have a greater aerial threat, for example, or playing some more possession based centre kids if the opposition are likely to sit back, etc etc.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When Cocu was rumored a lot of commentators said that he adjusts how a team lines up for specific oppositions so I can see plenty of rotation.  A good or bad tactic/team selection only seems like it in hindsight... 

 

 

Although we can all agree Franks at Wembley was horrendous...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 23/07/2019 at 15:08, ramsbottom said:

When Cocu was rumored a lot of commentators said that he adjusts how a team lines up for specific oppositions so I can see plenty of rotation.  A good or bad tactic/team selection only seems like it in hindsight... 

 

 

Although we can all agree Franks at Wembley was horrendous...

Was it, though? Football is fine margins. I said during the match that the longer it was 0-0, the higher the chance we had of winning. If we'd gone in at half time all square I bet you we'd have won that match. Impossible to say, obviously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the most part try to the things you do well as much as you can.

If an opponent has a notable strength try to nullify it, but spending the whole time stopping the other team is quite negative.

it's a balance to try to get right, I'm pretty sure every team in every match tries to play the way their game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 24/07/2019 at 17:37, Penelope Pendrex said:

Was it, though? Football is fine margins. I said during the match that the longer it was 0-0, the higher the chance we had of winning. If we'd gone in at half time all square I bet you we'd have won that match. Impossible to say, obviously.

Well yes considering we lost 0-3 & 4-0 in the league, we managed to keep the score down at wembley, so maybe Lampard got it right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, europia said:

Well yes considering we lost 0-3 & 4-0 in the league, we managed to keep the score down at wembley, so maybe Lampard got it right.

You make a point, but losing by less goals at Wembley is the same result as losing by 4. Frank gave Villa a lot of respect and I can understand that, but as with Leeds when we went more offensive both Villa and Leeds struggled.

The reason I don't get paid millions is that I dont know when and where you change and get it right most of the time, but I have a feeling Uncle Phil does, in Cocu I trust  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 24/07/2019 at 16:37, Penelope Pendrex said:

Was it, though? Football is fine margins. I said during the match that the longer it was 0-0, the higher the chance we had of winning. If we'd gone in at half time all square I bet you we'd have won that match. Impossible to say, obviously.

And if our keeper hadn’t made an horrendous mistake the game may have still been 1-0 and we could have taken it as we were very close at the end when it was 2-0 ( the manager knew the fitness of our players and we will never know that )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never understand it when people say if 'player x had started we would have won'.

For one player to start means another one to be dropped and that changes the whole dynamic of the game.

Going into the play off final I think most would have agreed that Grealish and Abraham were their danger men, neither player had a sniff because of the way we set up.

Were Marriott or Waghorn fit enough for us to go on the offensive for 90 minutes? Only them and Lampard know that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, G STAR RAM said:

I never understand it when people say if 'player x had started we would have won'.

For one player to start means another one to be dropped and that changes the whole dynamic of the game.

 

Thats exactly the point. We sat back and created very little in the first half. We didn't stop villa. They went 2-0 up without being great thmselves. But after the subs came on, the dynamic of the game changed. we took the game to them and totally dominated.  Waghorn really had the bit between his teeth and marriott only need a split second to score. Unfortunately we ran out of time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, RamNut said:

Thats exactly the point. We sat back and created very little in the first half. We didn't stop villa. They went 2-0 up without being great thmselves. But after the subs came on, the dynamic of the game changed. we took the game to them and totally dominated.  Waghorn really had the bit between his teeth and marriott only need a split second to score. Unfortunately we ran out of time. 

But Villa were happy to sit back after taking the lead.

If we had started the game by taking it to them there would have been more space for Grealish and Abraham to hurt us.

Trying to predict how a game would have gone by applying the last 20 minutes to the whole 90 minutes is a futile exercise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Always play to your own strengths and let the opposition worry not visa versa

Strange how this thread as gone straight back to the play off final as an assessment.FL totally blew away any chance we had of promotion in his selection that day by picking 2 defensive midfielders and no recognised centre forward because he was worried about Villas threat

The rest his history and we will never know how the game would of panned out if the side that finished the game started 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

But Villa were happy to sit back after taking the lead.

If we had started the game by taking it to them there would have been more space for Grealish and Abraham to hurt us.

Trying to predict how a game would have gone by applying the last 20 minutes to the whole 90 minutes is a futile exercise.

We were too timid. Too worried about those league defeats. But we were also on the crest of a wave after Leeds away. If ever there was a time to go out there all guns blazing this was it. 

P.s. I don't think villa sat back through choice. We forced them back. We were by the far better side when we ramped it up. 

Still its all history now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...