Our formation..

Had a look at the starting formations in the Premiership at the weekend and only one team (Liverpool) played 2 strikers. Even Liverpool have been playing 1 striker until recently and the return of Sturridge.

Most teams play a variation of 451, but the main difference between what we are doing and what they are doing is how the 5 in midfield are lined up.

We use two wingers and the other three are very much set up to defend with Pearson sat in front of the back 4 and Scowen/Hourihane nice and tight in front of him.

Most teams have 2 central midfielders and use the spare player (Pearson in our case) in the hole behind the striker.

People are crying out for more attacking/entertaining football and a lot of people think two strikers is the answer. I really think that moving somebody into the "number 10" role will make a huge difference. Winnall will have more support, there is a genuine link between the midfield and the strikers and the opposition will lose a player out of their midfield that has to drop onto the number 10.

Obviously it does leave us more open to counter attacks, but you would think that the players we have we are able to dominate the ball and create enough chances to compensate for the odd counter attack goal that Pearson may have otherwise stopped.

Pearson/Hourihane as the two in midfield with Scowen behind Winnall.

 

Hourihane would have to be in the number 10 role until Williams comes back. He can't play in a Central midfield duo.

 

Hourihane has been playing in the number 10 role, particularly at home.

 

I thought we were playing the goose formation, 1 up front

 

One up front works fantastically well when you have top nternational players operating it who can make the necessary movement to make it successful. Not so much when tried at division 3 level with players of (comparatively) limited ability.

 

I wouldn't say Hourihane has been number 10. Pearson has been in front of th back 4 and Hourihane/Scowen have been trying to get forward when possible, but not finding those pockets behind Winnall - more breaking forward from deep.

I'm talking about a player who specifically occupies the space behind Winnall like Silva does for City, Coutinho does for Liverpool. Ryan Williams, Hourihane, Scowen, Crowley all have the ability to do that for us.

Bristol City did it last year in this division with Freeman in behind their striker.

 

So, you are the new manager of Barnsley FC. Do you a) Pick a formation and find the players to fit it or b) Assess the which are the best players and find a formation that fits as many of them as possible.

The answer is of course b), bearing in mind also that whatever formation you chose must be balanced and must be competitive for possession of the football. That is not to say that your team building is finished, or that ,when the opportunity arises, you will not look to add players who you think can play the game the way that you ultimately want or look to sell on players that do not fit into your over-riding strategy.

The problem with many posters is that they are judging the manager as if he had already been in the job for three years, and all his recruitment and team development is at an end. I personally am guilty of judging young players against the criteria that I would use for 25 year olds. We are all judging the team against the criteria that we would use to measure the finished article. What is needed is PATIENCE.

The problem, as I see it at the moment, is that I would not be able to construct a team from the players the manager has at his disposal, no matter what system I were to suggest. There are obvious problems with the 4-5-1 system that are mainly to do with having inadequate wide players and a centre forward who is not suited to the system. There is no doubt that we are not great to watch. However, with 4-4-2 our midfield would be swamped and the front two starved of the ball. With 4-3-2-1 and the diamond we have no width. The key, as always is finding better players, but that just does not happen over-night if your buying power is limited and you are not allowed to spend more than you are earning on wages because of SCMP. If anyone can think of a better way of bringing better players to the club whilst complying with these restrictions, then I am sure the club would be interested. For me, polishing raw talent and growing our own are still the best options. But once again I would say that this solution will not lead to an over-night change of fortunes. It is a building process of 3 years.

Of course, we could simply change our manager again.... And reset the 3 year clock back to day 1. It makes perfect sense to many.... But I am not one.

 

It does beg the question as to why we are unable to build a decent, balanced squad when other clubs with far less revenue are able to.

 

It's a question that the massive dee dars have been asking for decades and many, many clubs bigger than them over the seasons.

It's why football's a great game.

 

It's a question that the massive dee dars have been asking for decades and many, many clubs bigger than them over the seasons.

It's why football's a great game.

 

Not read the whole thread but I would say that our previous policy of 1 year deals and overhaul of the squad every 12 months never allowed it.

Longer contracts now enable a more stable squad that then allows 2 or 3 changes in the next window (hopefully) to add to what we have.

Steady ongoing changes and tweaks would eventually get that balance. But as it quite rightly gets pointed out patience (that many off us don't have) demands instant success now.

But that doesn't also stop us from attempting to go at it hammer and tongs now and again rather than some of the snail pace attempts at getting it forward.

I would say if a couple of gaps aren't filled in January the grumbles will get louder. If come beginning of next season and we are still as unbalanced. Well. We know where that will lead.....

 

I agree with everything you have said and besides the fact the changing manager is absolutely pointless at this stage, I also happen to believe we have the right guy in charge and he will get us back in the Championship stronger than ever if he is given the time to build the squad he wants.

My post was aimed more at the short term. We have one of, if not the most technically gifted group of players in the league. This shines through in most games when we are able to impose ourselves on the opposition and dominate the ball, but at the moment that dominance is not turning into chances and 3 points.

Moving a player into the number 10 position with their primary job to find pockets of space and cause their defence problems would instantly change the "entertainment factor" that the fans seem to crave. The results over 6 months may not be any better than they are now, but it would be a lot more fun in the meantime!

As the squad develops over the next couple of transfer windows I'm sure the formation and style will fall into place accordingly with LJ's grand plan, but for now I want to watch my team go out and attack teams in this division almost with an arrogance that most teams can't deal with our ability and intensity. At the moment it feels more like a game of chess, whereby we subject teams to a slow and painful death.

 

I'm thinking more along the lines of I can't work out where the revenue is going right now in respect of wages. If we are right on the limit re SCMP then a club like Rochdale must really pay their players a pittance to stay within the rules. We can't be paying our young players much. Nyatanga probably on a decent wedge, rest of them have mostly come from lower leagues and our academy.

 

Keith Hill's a good manager...

 

That doesn't explain where our revenue is going. I could have said Burton, or Gillingham, or Walsall or any number of teams in this division. We've basically got a youth team, who you'd expect not to be on big wages but we seem to be struggling to comply with the rules.

 

This is the reason we play this way too, it is the fashion to do so. It makes football a very tedious sport when you have not got 200 million pounds worth of players to make the system work.
Its a **** way to play and bores the pants off me. I have stopped watching any football on tv because I dont enjoy it and I am getting that way watching Barnsley.
Just because everyone else plays that way , its doesnt make it any better.

 

All who have good managers coping within their budgets....

 

Personally, I think that people are wrong about the cause of this tendency to overplay along the line of the back four. I do not think that it is a policy, though retaining possession clearly is. I think that it is an simply an effect caused by the lack of space and the lack of movement ahead of the passer. The last time I produced a "Minority Report", I pointed out the importance of the wide midfield players in the system that we are playing. They are the players most likely to find space and are, in consequence, the first receiver once our team wins the ball back. Much depends upon how effective they are at retaining possession, because the team is not able to move into its attacking formation if the players are not confident that those two players will be able to retain possession. It is, for me, a matter of confidence. If you were Scowen or Hourihane, Why would you move forward to support Winnall if you lack the confidence that the wide players will be able to retain possession. If you get forward too early, and the first receiver loses possession in his own half, it means that you leave a huge gap in defensive midfield for the opposition to exploit.

As you point out, the alternative is to hit the ball forward earlier to Winnall, rather than build in a more structured way through the wide players. We already know that Winnall is not the traditional leader of the line, but the problem is deepened if there is too much of a gap between Winnall and the nearest central midfield player. Simply put, if the pass up to him is too long, it means that there is going to be a big gap between him and the nearest midfield player. There is no chance that Winnall can hold the ball long enough for support to arrive, and once again, the ball is lost.

For me, it was no co-incidence that Swindon was the game that we have scored most goals in. They also made plenty of chances in that game. They did so because they enjoyed most of the possession and a territorial advantage, but they committed more midfield players further forward in search of goals, especially after they went behind. Our midfield was able to play deeper, play mainly without the ball, and explode quickly into the space vacated by Swindon in their search for an equaliser. In spite of their current position, Swindon looked a good side to me. Their 4-1 defeat showed how easy it is to get the balance wrong in midfield between defence and attack. Only a confident team manager, and a confident team would make that mistake. Lesser teams play their midfield players deeper and defend first. As a result, we find it more difficult to find space, more difficult to find a pass and more difficult to play attractive and entertaining football against the more limited teams.

Some people will say that this is what is wrong with the game. It is better understood by the coaches, who now organise their teams to be harder to beat, especially if they are restricted in their ability. In my opinion, though, it is the same as it always has been. If you can afford better players, they will still be able to defeat the systems that are devised by managers of teams of players with more limited ability. In the end, it comes down to winning the individual battles against your immediate opponent and we need more players who are capable of doing this. Our managers talks and talks about getting the team into positions where they out-man the opposition briefly so they are able to pass the ball around them. This does undoubtedly happen, but in the end, nothing creates space better than a player who can beat his marker. If you analyse the past players who have excited you, they have won their individual battles. The ability to play entertaining and attacking football is limited more by how many good players you have than it is by the formation the manager choses to play. As I said in my previous post, the formation is simply the way that the manager tries to make the best of his good players, and cover his players of more limited ability. In spite of what everyone says about the team, I am not convinced, for a variety of reasons, that we have more of the former than the later just yet. I am, however, confident that we are going in the right direction. It just takes time to find, polish and develop players to be the better players that we would all love to see, especially when you do not have the money to go out and simply buy them.

 

Brizzle played two up top.

 

We pay nothing in transfer fee's, which helps greatly I suppose? Even in your squad you paid for Winnall (£300k?) and Scowen (£150k?) before wages. That amount is probably 4 senior players on 2 year contracts for us (based on £1000 per week). Selling Scott Hogan for 800k and Matt Done for 500k alone would cover our wage budget - then its just about getting the right players and getting them to play for you - which Hill isn't bad at doing to be honest.