we have no full backs so lets not bother playing any. bree will be a superstar in time but it might be time to rest him now back 3 of ramage, crainie and nyatange midfield of hourihane and bailey central with williams in the marcelle/bullock role cole and winnall up front as for width................. god knows! we dont have full backs or wing backs, treacey and jennings could play in attacking roles but neither are capable defenders along the lines of eaden/thompson/barnard etc or are actually fit..... in fact i think you need to be primararily a defender to play the wing back role..... so there lies the flaw in the plan and maybe why we havent tried that formation
AAAAAARGHHH Andy, you surprise me with this comment. It is plain to see that Bree has no pace whatsoever. He'll never beat a man!!
He's put some good crosses over. David Beckham never beat a man. Irrelevant anyway. Doubt we'll switch to 3-5-2.
I'd like to see 3-5-2. It'd suit Bree who started out as a midfielder & would give him more chances to get balls in the box. It'd definitely suit Dudgeon who's used to playing as a LWB from his Hull days. The only problem is if anything happens to Bree there's not a like for like replacement in the RWB spot. With Dudgeon you could replace him with RNL if he's injured
You do realise that the difference between 3-5-2 and 4-1-2-1-2 (The Diamond) are practically negligible. If Digby had played a fraction deeper last night, we would have been using 3-5-2 instead of the Diamond. We have used the wing back system profitably on just two occasions. The connection between the two was that we had outstanding talent at wingback on both occasions. Eaden and Thompson were the first and Stones and Golbourne were the second. The workload on that position is horrendous. Bree may well make a fine player in time, but just now he could not cope with that workload. On the left flank, Dudgeon has been struggling with the defensive side of his game. Another difference is in the vital position of target man. Wilkinson does not get the credit he should for his part in providing balance to the promotion team. On the contrary, O'Grady did get praise for his part in the team that avoided relegation. The target man is essential to the system because it is not always possible to play forward through midfield, especially if the opposition marks both wing backs tightly. There are times when posters play the formations game like it is some sort of lottery, the more tickets you buy, the better chance of eventual success. That is not the way that you select a formation that is suitable for a group of players. The chosen formation will maximise a group's strengths whilst recognising and countering its weaknesses. The first and most important job is to recognise the group's strengths. Keith Hill did this brilliantly when he recognised what many of his predecessors had not. That the team should be built around the talent of Jacob Butterfield. However, Butterfield's weakness was when his team did not have the ball, and he covered for this by building a five man midfield around him. So, who is the outstanding talent in the current group. Who can we build the team around. Who dictates what formation we should use. And one final question, who will still be here in January. When you have struggled with the answers to those questions for long enough, you will know why Wilson is having so many problems building a team. Too many square pegs with only round holes available.
I agree with all of that except the bit on Dudgeon. Dudgeon knows that position a lot better than he does been an orthodox left back in a back 4. With Bree we'll never know until we try it but with Berry just inside him & Cranie as the RCB I think he'd be ok.
I know that my stuff it often very long and boring so I will be succinct. It is virtually the same system as we failed with yesterday. Until we find a target man, we will continue to fail with one system after another. The target man is the key to finding a system that will work. Everything else is moving the chairs around on the Titanic.
The difference being that with a 3-5-2, or a 4-4-2 you have width. With a diamond, you have a squeezed pitch. Width - Something we lacked all night last night. When the going gets tough, you need space. Space so that players who are failing under pressure can find the pass they are failing to find in a narrow pitch. You only get space with width.
Why not! Can't do any worse. Beresford, Broddle and I think Mark Robinson weren't full backs so RNL might slot in ok. I'm sure there's more who've dropped back from wing to defence but I've been to pub for Arsenal game and can't recall any.
In both 3-5-2 and the diamond, the width is provided by the full backs hence my point that the diamond and 3-5-2 are virtually the same system. It is just that the third centre back plays further forward in the diamond than he does in 3-5-2. The job of the 3rd centre back is to cover the space left vacant by the advancing full back, who is providing the width further up the field. Both full backs cannot advance beyond the line of the midfield at the same time, otherwise there is a gap at both sides of the field in the full back position, which can be exploited when the opposition counter attacks. This is why were forced out of the 3-5-2 system when we played in the Premier League when the opposition were far quicker on the break. Another way to exploit the weakness at full back on the counter attack is to split your forwards into the full back positions and two of the centre backs have to follow them. Then when the opposition break quickly, the gap in the defensive line is straight down the middle. The final weakness in the 3-5-2 system happens when teams play 4-5-1 which becomes 4-3-3 when they attack. This means that you have three centre backs marking just 1 forward whilst an imbalance in the other direction occurs in a different part of the field (midfield), and the team playing 4-3-3 has the option of marking the wing backs in order to stop the opposition from building attacks using their wing backs. The problem with the team in the 4-4-2 formation was that we were weak down the centre of the field and the opposition centre midfield were allowed an unchecked run at the centre of our defence. There was no advantage to the team from the width that that system provides higher up the pitch because our wingers were so ineffective. They do not stretch the opposition defence because they do not have the pace to beat the opposition full backs to the outside. The team started against Bradford City in a 4-4-2 formation and Danny reacted to going 1-0 down by changing to a diamond. It was that system that enabled us to win that game. Conversely, Danny did not react quickly enough to the way the game was going against Notts County. If he had gone to 4-4-2 earlier in that game, we would probably have won it. What I have personally learned from these two examples is that it is important that you give the opposition different problems to solve throughout the game, and that the team has to be flexible enough to change the way it plays during the 90 minutes. Because we do not have a target man, the team is very limited in the ways it can play. It is playing the ball through midfield at the moment, not because the manager has a belief that this is the way to play the game, or because we are particularly talented in midfield. He is doing so because if we hit the ball long, we lose it. Without a target man we have no alternative or variety. When we are limited in our strategy, it is easy for our opponents to work us out, and work out a way to defeat our limited options. This is why I believe strongly that we will not solve our basic strategy problems until we acquire a target man. If we could also keep Cole, then we would have the ideal world. There is no system that is a magic bullet. Systems simply take advantage of individual strengths and cover individual weaknesses. Systems seek to provide an imbalance of numbers or of skill in a particular area of the pitch that can be taken advantage of. The decision on which system you use must always be based upon an analysis of those strengths and weaknesses. A system will always be a trade off, an attempt to cover weaknesses in one area whilst exploiting strengths in another. I hope that this over long missive has illustrated to you that both the diamond and standard 4-4-2 have limitations given the players the manager has at his disposal. Neither can be successful 100% of the time given those limitations.
A target man is needed but I think a central midfielder who breaks play up is just as crucial. In a 442 we need someone of that ilk in the middle and I don't think we have a single player in the squad capable of doing it. Loads of decent footballers but no water carrier.
If we have a target man, by definition, our midfield shape is different. Part of our problem is that in order to start an attack, play must be built from the back. This mean that the midfield has to be on the move in order to find space. It is essentially a much more wearing game to play and it becomes too predictable, just like any system when it is relied upon to the exclusion of all else. The Diamond system that we have been utilising has required Williams to push forward carrying the ball. This is fine provided we retain the ball, but when we lose it, Williams is out of position defensively meaning the other midfield players must work harder in order to cover him. A target man means that the team can maintain its structure much better and is therefore better placed when the opposition counter attacks. I also think that part of the motivation for playing Nyatanga at full back is because we do not have a target man. Just to state the obvious for one moment, height is an important factor at corners and free kicks around the box. We need at least three six foot plus players in those areas in order to win the balls in the air. Neither Winnall nor Cole are going to win headers consistently in that situation, because nor only are they not tall enough, they are also physically weak in aerial challenges. Nyatanga is our third tall player at dead ball kicks around the box and must remain so until we find a forward who can take on that role in those situations. I appreciate your point about the ball winner in midfield, but I think Bailey can do that job, and I would at least like to give him the opportunity with a proper structure around him.
