Sorry but I think Danny got it wrong again today.

Readers should not interpret what follows as an argument in favour of getting rid of Danny Wilson. It is not, although I do think that he got it wrong again today.

We all know what Mark Robins is about. We saw it for long enough during his spell in charge at Oakwell to have predicted 5 in midfield. We all knew that his team would work hard, both with the ball, and without it. We knew that he would compensate for a lack of quality with teamwork and effort. None of it was a surprise. So why did Danny go for 4-3-3 again, in spite of the faults in the system that were obvious in the Colchester game (I did not attend Chesterfield so I will not comment on that performance). Those who say that our midfield is neither strong enough nor nasty enough or hard-working enough are right, but today, they were two men down and there is no way that set of players were going to be able to compete with five, and Danny should have known that.

At the back, the flat back four were caught over and over by the Scunny midfield running past our square back line, who do not have the pace to recover once beaten. None of our three men in midfield went with those runners, justifiably in my opinion, and consequently the green acres behind our back line were open to all comers. It is common knowledge that a back four that is lacking in pace must play deeper so the keeper and the dead ball line can be recruited as extra defenders. And yet, we chose not to… why? Well with just 3 players in midfield, dropping deeper creates more space in front of the defence and gives the three more to do, especially against a five. Meanwhile, if I take my eyes away from the ball to look towards the front three, I find them standing in a line in idle contemplation whilst their overworked colleagues do their best to stem the tide. The whole team has to work together, both on and off the ball in order to earn a victory. In the second half, Danny’s only concession to the overworked midfield was to add both full backs to the midfield line, or did Mark Robins concede this area in order to consolidate his defensive line, I am really not sure.

The first half performance, Trotta’s finish aside, was as poor as anything I can recall. Building attacks slowly from the back allowed Scunny all the time they needed to get their 9 defenders organised, in position and denying us any room ahead of the passer. Because there was no room, the ball went across the field, from defender to defender, until someone was forced by sheer boredom into risking a long forward pass, at which point, the ball was lost 9 times out of ten. Of course Williams would improve us. He is a workaholic with pace whose pace on the ball and movement off it create the space for others. But unless things change, Williams and the four other loanees will be gone in January and Wilson will have to build a team from scratch again with 5 other players. Not a prospect I am particularly looking forward to and I hope Williams can be persuaded to join us on a permanent basis, even if it means losing the other four.

I have banged on about our lack of variety in the past, but I do not intend to let that stop me from doing the same again. We do not have a forward at the club (unless you include JYM as a forward after his 10 minute stint this afternoon) who can consistently win the ball in the air. I am not suggesting that we boot the ball long at every opportunity, God forbid. But I do think that it would be nice to have an alternative if the passing strategy is not working. Trotta is not the man to gives us that variety and whether he is good at other aspects of the game, or not, I think that Danny has made a mistake in recruiting him because he feels duty bound to play him.

Those who have read my stuff before will be well aware of my lack of regard for Ramage’s passing ability, or for Cranie being played out of position at full back. I will not repeat those criticisms as I see no point in kicking someone when he is down.

 

Sounds like last weekend, in terms of the square passes in defence, being closed down quickly before launching it up field. It's the sign of a team without ideas. But a win on Tuesday and spirits will be lifted once more. It's all about getting to January and allowing Danny to continue the rebuild. He was unlikely to build an amazing side in one transfer window, and, so late in that window.

Patience.

 

Me too. He always writes an essay, just do a few sentences ffs

 

Fair points all. Limited with options to play a 442 I feel

Cranie is pap at centre half and pap at full back. He might be able to pass but he can't tackle or compete

 

Excellent post agree with almost all of it.

 

Thanks

 

Williams is the only player we have capable of linking the midfield with the forward line. It was even clearer in the absence of Winnall today. The front 3 were far too static and with Bailey dropping so deep and Scunny swamping the midfield, the only way to get it forward was just to lump it up.

If we're going to attempt to pass it through the middle we actually need some players in the middle. Instead we had three players stood up top doing very little.

 

Missing him a lot

 

Have to agree with this. It's difficult to criticise the players too much today as the big problem was the system. That 433 formation does not work, it hasn't when we played it before and it didn't today. Isolated midfield, good players not able to get on the ball on areas where they can be effective as outnumbered. Can't remember who we played it against earlier in the season at home but exactly the same thing happened. Hopefully this will consign it to the dustbin and we'll get back to the 442 shape that was performing well. Problem is, how to set it up if Williams isn't fit.

 

Agreed

 

I suspected the 4-3-3 system was designed to accommodate all of Winnall, Cole and Trotta, more because he has signed two loan strikers plus he has another that is scoring, than any conviction that 4-3-3 would actually work. At least, that is what I thought at the start. But then Winnall departed and Danny replaced him with Hemmings. That change had me scratching my head, because it was already obvious that 4-3-3 was not working.

We are going to have to disagree about Cranie I'm afraid. It is true that Cranie is not the sort of combative centre back that Ramage is, and if you believe that that sort of player is what we need, then Ramage or even JYM is your man. However, Cranie offers much more in terms of reading the game and in terms of passing the ball. If Danny does want to continue building from the back, and he has little option given our current lack of a forward who is able to win the ball in the air, then he needs a better passer in the centre of defence. However, I do not see a better right back in our ranks at the moment, a problem that we have had since Brown failed there.

 

It is true, my stuff is not intended for those with short attention spans. Sorry

Sadly, I cannot get my points over to people unless I explain them. Nevertheless, I cannot understand why someone would take the trouble to scroll down to count the number of paragraphs without reading what was written.

After the last home game, I posted a piece titled "Minority Opinion", because I thought that it was. I did not like the 4-3-3 system that we employed in that game even though we won 3-2. You could say that I chucked a grenade in and logged off, except that I took the time to reply when a post merited it. By merited it, I mean the post consisted of an opinion and reasons for that opinion. I can discuss reasons, indeed I enjoy doing so, but I cannot discuss an unsubstantiated opinion. This week, I still did not like the 4-3-3 system and because we lost, more people agree. Consequently, I do not think that your grenade comment applies.

Thanks

 

Gay

 

You love it