|
|
Post by Gregory Stevens on Sept 30, 2019 17:16:41 GMT
We are doing well. As soon as we lose a few games the tactical experts will be out, talking of high-pressing, more width, kicking the ball forwards etc.
There’s a distinct lack of tactical geniuses now we’ve won a few games. A lot of these games are quite close, so you could hardly say we are perfect.
I’d like to hear at THIS point all the tactical changes you would make now. Issue is, if you only pipe up when we lose, it may appear you’re just taking issue with the benefit of hindsight. For example, if we were a ball playing team, and we lose a couple, it’s very predictable to just say “we need to tighten up”
Similarly, if we play 3 or 5 at the back; and lose, it’s dead easy to just say “we should have played 442”
Of course, if you’re publicly giving tactical suggestions to a professional manager, the you have a strong position on how the games should be played.
If you’re, a tactical guru and this is exactly how it should be done, say so, then if we start losing playing as we are, then at least you can’t just switch to another viewpoint.
So, is GC playing it right or is it al wrong.
Ideas please
|
|
|
|
Post by laughinggas on Sept 30, 2019 18:22:57 GMT
Interesting question.
One think to look at is that the 3 centre half's complement each other, so if there is a mistake there is cover.
Makes it hard to change to a back four, highlighted by Sat showed we would have struggled to switch to a back four with no right back available.
One change possible is a stitch to 3 4 3, maybe with one of the front 3 playing in the hole.
To go to a flat back four we are reliant on Kilgour stepping up, or the worry of Millwall Tone lack of pace.
So no real answer from me.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2019 19:19:55 GMT
Took the manager far too long to realise that Ogogo can't play as a 1 man midfield.
I saw it, everybody around me on match days saw it, it was mentioned on here several times.
So not claiming to be wise after the fact, it seems that everybody except a professional manager could see the problem?
|
|
|
|
Post by Gregory Stevens on Sept 30, 2019 20:55:04 GMT
I agree with above that the 3 at the back is the triumph of GC. It’s a great trio.
Main strength for GC I feel is recruitment. He has built a team to play direct football. However, we are heavily reliant on JCH and if he goes, we are in the s**t I believe. So many points from his goals.
I’m starting to think that playing this way might be the way we get out of this league. The only time in living (well; almost) memory we did it, we were playing this style.
Tactically I don’t really know. As far as I can see; you build the team based on the style. You just have to be good doing what you do.
|
|
|
|
Post by mangogas15 on Sept 30, 2019 21:27:49 GMT
The formation is sometimes forced by your personnel, with our team this is the case. Lockyer was good enough to play with Craig, but this season with him gone, you wouldn't drop Craig or leave him exposed by a lack of pace.
Solution, play 3 at the back. Craig is a real reader of danger and is clearly helping the other 2 and giving them confidence.
We played 4 in midfield at home to Wycombe with NO width. Solution, 2 wide full backs and one hell of a good crosser in Hare. Leahy doesn't get the credit he deserves and I have stuck up for him from day one. He's not perfect but he's a League One player. Trust your full backs to be fit enough to play wing back.
Then the mid 3 is better with Upson and Ogogo with Sercombe given licence to go forward, sorry Ollie. When we haven't got the ball we have 8 behind it, when we have it, the wing backs join the attack and we become 3-3-4.
Instead of the 1 upfront which became an obsession for a few years in all the leagues, its kind of dying out in preference to 2 or 3 forwards ala LFC and Man C.
We play always with 2 upfront which means we can press, but also always occupy their back four. Notice no one else really plays 3 at the back.
Sometimes with a back four you have 4 v 1 which is a waste. Lose a defender and put the extra man either in midfield or upfront. Flooding the midfield causes frustration. Pace frightens defenders, we have this in our formation.
I wouldn't over complicate it with 3-4-3, we can go to a back four if say Craig or Davies got injured, but would need to protect the middle more, Upson playing like a 3rd centee back in front.
In a nut shell, why would you change anything if it works, but also, if you lose, don't change it knee jerk, the other team is allowed to try and win..
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2019 22:16:29 GMT
Surely were all just amateur punters giving our opinions?
Teams get relegated and promoted with any number of formations,personally i think good players playing as a team get you near the top of a league after 46 games.
Its great we have made a good start but that's all it is right now.
I like a back four and wide players further up the pitch but the team seem comfortable with the 3-5-2 system and we have had a good run of results using it.
Funny thing i thought in the 1st half rotherham exploited our formation to their benefit by constantly playing balls behind leahy and dragging kilgour out wide where he looked uncomfortable and made some mistakes.
Just opinions of course,hope the op is ok with such a thing?
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,255 
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Oct 1, 2019 10:21:07 GMT
We are doing well. As soon as we lose a few games the tactical experts will be out, talking of high-pressing, more width, kicking the ball forwards etc. There’s a distinct lack of tactical geniuses now we’ve won a few games. A lot of these games are quite close, so you could hardly say we are perfect. I’d like to hear at THIS point all the tactical changes you would make now. Issue is, if you only pipe up when we lose, it may appear you’re just taking issue with the benefit of hindsight. For example, if we were a ball playing team, and we lose a couple, it’s very predictable to just say “we need to tighten up” Similarly, if we play 3 or 5 at the back; and lose, it’s dead easy to just say “we should have played 442” Of course, if you’re publicly giving tactical suggestions to a professional manager, the you have a strong position on how the games should be played. If you’re, a tactical guru and this is exactly how it should be done, say so, then if we start losing playing as we are, then at least you can’t just switch to another viewpoint. So, is GC playing it right or is it al wrong. Ideas please I have missed 2 of our home game but I have friends whose opinions I trust and none of them are close to saying we are a good side. Whilst many are not forum members I think you will find that many still don’t think it’s great but that we are becoming harder to beat. This is football my friend and you will hear this at every club in the country. |
|
|
|
Post by mangogas15 on Oct 1, 2019 18:57:10 GMT
Surely were all just amateur punters giving our opinions? Teams get relegated and promoted with any number of formations,personally i think good players playing as a team get you near the top of a league after 46 games. Its great we have made a good start but that's all it is right now. I like a back four and wide players further up the pitch but the team seem comfortable with the 3-5-2 system and we have had a good run of results using it. Funny thing i thought in the 1st half rotherham exploited our formation to their benefit by constantly playing balls behind leahy and dragging kilgour out wide where he looked uncomfortable and made some mistakes. Just opinions of course,hope the op is ok with such a thing? It is just a good start, but also it gives us less stress looking over our shoulder. There's some poor teams this season |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2019 21:03:50 GMT
The system is working well, players are getting used to it and apart from coming across a team in this division that can switch the ball from flank to flank quickly we shouldn’t be in any trouble.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2019 21:16:08 GMT
I have no real opinion because I’ve barely seen us this season but from the outside it seems we’re pissing with the cock we’ve got. I thought it was pretty obvious back end of last season that 5-3-2 was the formation going forward with the squad we had/have. The summer signings only added to that.
|
|
|
|
Post by chelt_gas on Oct 2, 2019 6:52:31 GMT
I have no real opinion because I’ve barely seen us this season but from the outside it seems we’re pissing with the cock we’ve got. I thought it was pretty obvious back end of last season that 5-3-2 was the formation going forward with the squad we had/have. The summer signings only added to that. I’ve not seen us in 5 years, bar the friendly at Melksham 2 years ago. But we’re only as strong as our weakest part which seems to be our increasing reliance on JCH. We knew what happened when Ellington was replaced with Nicholls last season so if/when JCH goes we need an effective replacement immediately. 5-3-2 definitely suits the squad but we seem a few injuries to key personnel when we’d struggle regardless of formation. |
|
dido
Predictions League
Peter Aitken
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,883
|
Post by dido on Oct 2, 2019 7:31:43 GMT
You sure it's only 5 years?
Ellington?
|
|
|
|
Post by stevek192 on Oct 2, 2019 15:27:54 GMT
Very good post but I think it is very much a case of the central three defenders is a huge success and down entirely to GC with Mayanase also getting the chance to become a regular squad player and could be a cracking replacement. Rodman as wing back is very much recent and work in progress. Leahy had his best game by a mile on Saturday so perhaps he could continue to improve. Midfield three of Ogogo, Sercombe and Upson came about by accident but I have said for ages that Ollie Clarke is a useful stand by to have but not a League 1 quality central midfielder. Only time will tell if GC is strong enough to not bring "his" skipper back. Personally I would still like to see the options increased a little in January with a winger and another central midfielder mainly because I don't think GC has a great deal of faith in Bennett.
It is very difficult to be critical of what GC has achieved.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gregory Stevens on Oct 3, 2019 18:40:13 GMT
Very good post but I think it is very much a case of the central three defenders is a huge success and down entirely to GC with Mayanase also getting the chance to become a regular squad player and could be a cracking replacement. Rodman as wing back is very much recent and work in progress. Leahy had his best game by a mile on Saturday so perhaps he could continue to improve. Midfield three of Ogogo, Sercombe and Upson came about by accident but I have said for ages that Ollie Clarke is a useful stand by to have but not a League 1 quality central midfielder. Only time will tell if GC is strong enough to not bring "his" skipper back. Personally I would still like to see the options increased a little in January with a winger and another central midfielder mainly because I don't think GC has a great deal of faith in Bennett. It is very difficult to be critical of what GC has achieved. You say that Steve, but I suspect Ollie Clarke was pleasuring your missus, given your view. Just kidding pal. I think to be fair he isn’t getting any better. He won’t play higher. |
|
