Is Mr Nigel Clough tactically good enough at this level and should he go?

[AndyB]

I thought Ward played as a striker?

[Alph]

Said in another thread,

I'm happy with how we're playing. Better than scrapping 1-0 wins and hearing 'we'll take scrappy wins every week'

Yeah, until your strikers are up against the best defenders in Europe or a proper tough organised team and then you get battered every week.

You might have to work very hard to get 1-1 draw at Burnley playing like this. You could much more easily defend and counter for your lives and win 2-0. But the way we are playing we are on a steep learning curve. One that we can really work on to become a good footballing side that can open teams up in the future.

Remember last season after beating Watford 1-0 there was a few people moaning (Bris was one) and there was lots of abuse and questioning of support. Well this is what a few of us wanted

It's sounds bad to say we want nice passing and a 1-0 defeat at Huddersfield. But there's a bigger picture here.

I'm a happy fan for once. We might even finish lower than 12th and I'd be happy like this. Bad players will show up. Good players will come to the surface and shine (Hughes, Bryson). That's building.

[LeedsCityRam]

Said in another thread,

I'm happy with how we're playing. Better than scrapping 1-0 wins and hearing 'we'll take scrappy wins every week'

Yeah, until your strikers are up against the best defenders in Europe or a proper tough organised team and then you get battered every week.

You might have to work very hard to get 1-1 draw at Burnley playing like this. You could much more easily defend and counter for your lives and win 2-0. But the way we are playing we are on a steep learning curve. One that we can really work on to become a good footballing side that can open teams up in the future.

Remember last season after beating Watford 1-0 there was a few people moaning (Bris was one) and there was lots of abuse and questioning of support. Well this is what a few of us wanted

It's sounds bad to say we want nice passing and a 1-0 defeat at Huddersfield. But there's a bigger picture here.

I'm a happy fan for once. We might even finish lower than 12th and I'd be happy like this. Bad players will show up. Good players will come to the surface and shine (Hughes, Bryson). That's building.

I like the sentiment. I like the idea that we're building & slowly improving the club. I also don't want a return to grim "results football" however amusing it may to laugh at a flukey snatched 1-0 win. And I do greatly admire clubs like Swansea who play the right way whatever the context.

But to the subject of the thread - Clough's supposed "tactical nous" - it concerns me that he honestly believes 3 centre midfielders & a sub-standard striker constitiutes a decent Championship midfield. And granted, slinging on strikers en masse in the last 10 mins does not automatically yield last minute equaliers/winners but taking off Sammon for Robinson was just plain strange.

Players are going to struggle to be patient with the passing style if we struggle to create as much as one opening at Huddersfield (due to what I believe was an unbalanced side). They will start thinking "whats the point" & hoofing it up to Sammon. Style of football isn't enough, intent is also required & a lot of that does lay with the manager.

[sage]

We dominated the game when we played 3 CM. That's why he swapped Robinson for Sammon.

[LeedsCityRam]

Im pretty sure we stuck quite rigidly to 4-4-2 the whole game but Hughes swapped with Bryson to go from LM to CM - from there Hughes was able to dictate play a lot more, hence the period of domination as we could actually keep the ball.

[Ramarena]

We dominated the game when we played 3 CM. That's why he swapped Robinson for Sammon.

Glad to see the 3 CM's dominating the game created lots of goals and scoring opportunities.

[sage]

Im pretty sure we stuck quite rigidly to 4-4-2 the whole game but Hughes swapped with Bryson to go from LM to CM - from there Hughes was able to dictate play a lot more, hence the period of domination as we could actually keep the ball.

No, at half time we went 451 with Ward moving to left wing and bryson pushing on in midfield.

[ChaddesdenRam]

All that needs changing and im sure clough can see from the game is.

Will Hughes in the centre

Coutts/jacobs in for doyle. (if coutts hasn't got flu)

Ward on the wing.

our second half formation was miles better. 4-5-... however by sacrificing 2 up front will we still be able to score?

[sage]

Glad to see the 3 CM's dominating the game created lots of goals and scoring opportunities.

Did you go?

[LeedsCityRam]

No, at half time we went 451 with Ward moving to left wing and bryson pushing on in midfield.

That would make sense as Ward was very left sided second half - although I don't recall Bryson pushing on particularly & I'm pretty sure he was covering in for the LM area at times after the break.

Still doesnt really answer why Sammon was taken off for Robinson though - Bryson or Hendrick would have been the natural choice to go (Hughes was looking the more influential of the 3). Particularly if for the last 15 mins, you have Jacobs a natural winger on the right & Ward, a wide striker on the left putting in crosses - an obvious target for which would have been Sammon.

[sage]

That would make sense as Ward was very left sided second half - although I don't recall Bryson pushing on particularly & I'm pretty sure he was covering in for the LM area at times after the break.

Still doesnt really answer why Sammon was taken off for Robinson though - Bryson or Hendrick would have been the natural choice to go (Hughes was looking the more influential of the 3). Particularly if for the last 15 mins, you have Jacobs a natural winger on the right & Ward, a wide striker on the left putting in crosses - an obvious target for which would have been Sammon.

He took Sammon off to keep the more successful 4-5-1 formation. Sammon is a couple of weeks behind the others in match fitness and struggles to play 90 minutes especially when on his own up front. If he had taken Bryson or Hendrick off, he would have lost control of midfield again as they had gone 4-5-1 too.

[LeedsCityRam]

He took Sammon off to keep the more successful 4-5-1 formation. Sammon is a couple of weeks behind the others in match fitness and struggles to play 90 minutes especially when on his own up front. If he had taken Bryson or Hendrick off, he would have lost control of midfield again as they had gone 4-5-1 too.

Of course there is logic in that but after 80 mins of literally creating nothing (albeit with increased possession in the second half) it was maybe a time for desperate measures & risking being outnumbered in midfield. Hughes being in the centre seemed to improve us possession-wise which meant we might not have necessarily lost the momentum in any case.

Re Sammon - had he replaced him & Bryson/Hendrick with Robinson & Tyson, it would have also given us decent potential for counter-attack had they started to dominate - which bearing in mind how we struggled to break down a well organised side in front of us, may perversely have been the most successful way to open them up

[sage]

Of course there is logic in that but after 80 mins of literally creating nothing (albeit with increased possession in the second half) it was maybe a time for desperate measures & risking being outnumbered in midfield. Hughes being in the centre seemed to improve us possession-wise which meant we might not have necessarily lost the momentum in any case.

Re Sammon - had he replaced him & Bryson/Hendrick with Robinson & Tyson, it would have also given us decent potential for counter-attack had they started to dominate - which bearing in mind how we struggled to break down a well organised side in front of us, may perversely have been the most successful way to open them up

I didn't say i agreed with it, just explaining it. I think was right initially, but when we started to lose momentum, i would have put Tyson on with ten to go.

[Alph]

One thing though. Nigel bought Tyson. He bought Tyson as a goalscorer even though Tyson has gone many years looking like a winger and not a striker. Now Nigel would send Buxton on instead of Tyson to score goals. Infact he seems to have lost a little faith in Tyson. A lot of people could of told him Tyson isn't a goalscorer. All seems a waste to me. Why be on the bench and why sign him if we don't use him in situations like yesterday?

But anyway. I'm happy with the approach. Need to stick with it. Work on it. Take defeats on the chin. Keep going.

We won't get any lucky points. We'll have to earn everything we get. That's what patient possession football is about.

[LeedsCityRam]

I didn't say i agreed with it, just explaining it. I think was right initially, but when we started to lose momentum, i would have put Tyson on with ten to go.

No worries

Obviously its easy us all sitting by our keyboards throwing out tactical theories in hindsight - I just hope Clough has learnt something from the Conor Doyle experiment & gives Hughes the prominent role in CM that his talent deserves. Annoyingly the conservatism late on in games is probably unlikely to change.

[Alph]

Am I the only fan that likes 451 more than 442?

I remember last season loads of people were chanting "442, 442, 442". I was thinking if only the problem was as simple as needing another striker on the pitch!! It'd of just meant that two players would of been isolated instead of idle Priskin.

451 can be very attacking if Hughes and Bryson can get nearer Sammon.

[sage]

No worries

Obviously its easy us all sitting by our keyboards throwing out tactical theories in hindsight - I just hope Clough has learnt something from the Conor Doyle experiment & gives Hughes the prominent role in CM that his talent deserves. Annoyingly the conservatism late on in games is probably unlikely to change.

Our best performance was against Watford with Hughes in LM though. If he plays in CM we have to play 451.

[LeedsCityRam]

Our best performance was against Watford with Hughes in LM though. If he plays in CM we have to play 451.

Do you mean because Hughes is too lightweight to play CM in 442?

You may well be right at the moment although I would say ability to keep the ball is the key requisite in midfield rather than being able to put your foot in (so to speak) - it becomes hard for the knuckleheads to dominate a midfield if the ball is going round them in triangles.

And like Alpha says, 451 need not be negative/sterile but it requires a great deal more penetration from midfield (Bryson you would think) & better service from the wings/fullbacks than we saw yesterday.

Personally I would prefer the 4231 we played couple of years ago - Hendrick & Bryson doing the donkey work for Hughes in an advanced role & some mobility/quality in & around him (any 2 from Jacobs, Tyson & Ward) with Sammon up top

[ChaddesdenRam]

I think it was a 4-3-3. did you see ward and Jacobs getting back I didn't. Also I agree with sage if Hughes plays CM, gotta be a 3 in the centre with 1 pushing up to help the fish.

Finally I think Hughes won't last Charlton and Burnley so in the game Hughes doesn't start I would play to big strikers up top in Sammon and Robinson, with Ward Bryson Hendrick Coutts across the middle.

[Gary Teale]

I dont know why people dont think Hughes cant play central, he was exellent against Scunny in there and there are plenty of slight central midfielders in modern football.