Someone should explain this 442 to me

He's one of them blokes that will never change his opinion.He didn't like Hourihane and loved Bree, both at Villa but Bree never plays whilst Hourihane does.

Personally I prefer the 352 formation with 2 wing backs.

 

I'm not sure Thiam is suited to play a lone striker role but he looks quality to me and we need to find a place for him in the starting line up.

 

He doesn't have to be the tallest if we don't bang idle high balls up to him.

He showed yesterday and at Millwall that hes clever, will go out wide to pick up the ball and is more comfortable with the ball than Bradshaw.

 

Yes - you are right.
Bradshaw IMO is a decent player.
However - he isn't suited to balls being lumped up field to him - and Barnsley continue to do this only to see the ball coming back at them.
A player like Fletcher has a better chance of controlling those long balls and holding onto it until the cavalry charge from midfield arrives.

Barnsley are stuck between a rock and a hard place regarding formations.
They haven't a striker capable of carrying out the lone striker role properly in a 451 formation - but midfielders at the club are better suited to the 451 formation.

 

I agree. The problem certainly is that we're struggling to find a formation that suits the players we have. I don't feel 451 is as negative as many make out, so long as we play to the strikers strengths. I feel we need to gamble more when breaking out from our box. Put balls down the channels, a bit like we were doing in the 2nd half yesterday from what Thiam and Barnes were profiting from. Playing high balls directly at Bradshaw is madness.

 

Interesting that many people assume that an ideal lone striker has to be tall.

If a striker is isolated then it doesn't matter how tall he is, because he's going to be flicking on or knocking down for no one.

The 1 up top system has to be more supportive of the striker, not picking him out from distance and hoping he'll take down high balls and hold on until the cavalry arrives.

The balls knocked up to Bradshaw yesterday just invited the centre half to come and clear him out.

It was better when Thiam came on because they had double the marking to do, and we looked more likely to score.

We have to be more compact if playing the lone striker. Make him the highest point, but not use it as an excuse to lump stuff in his general direction, which is what was happening too much at 2-1 yesterday.

 

After we scored the second it was pretty much attack v defence for the rest of the first half.

It was inevitable they’d score if we kept to 451 and I feared they’d overrun us. In fact I texted my boro st holding step father to tell him exactly that at half time. We never had a sniff.

Second half started the same, wave after wave. It was essentially 441 as Potts was a passenger at that point, no fault of his own but he couldn’t be effective with or without the ball after the knock.

They were walking through us, we stayed in good shape and you can see how well coached they are defensively but we needed to retain the ball better.

The change had to be made as Potts couldn’t continue. He chose to change the shape at the same time. They scored.

If you see things as black and white as ‘we went 442, they scored so that cost us two points’ you’ve no place analysing a game of tiddlywinks never mind professional football.

We were camped on our 18 yard line. We were very fortunate to be in front at half time. Changing the shape gave us an outlet and made us much more effective with the ball. We’ve created numerous chances which led to shots on target saved by Randolph and hitting the post - and in all of those chances they could have done better. We also stopped them coming at us in waves.

Yes they scored. A through ball from an England International finished by a £14million striker. Only chance he had really, smashed it. Yes near post but I’m not blaming Davo, it was a proper hit.

How many more chances did they have after that with us playing 442? A few - but we had more. We had more control of the game in that shape.

I don’t think the squad is massively suited to 442. The 451 generally is the way to go. Yesterday in that shape we were being overran by a very good side. It was changed, the flow of the game changed, we got a point and on another day could have won it.

If the West Yorkshire dweller or anyone else reckons we were bound to win staying 451, then that’s your opinion but I just don’t see what you were watching.

We were struggling hugely. And to you in particular hemsy, had he stayed 451 you’d have been on here slating Hecky for not changing it when it was so obvious we were struggling.

The arrogance displayed by you weekly is incredible in assuming that you know more than all the rest of us, more than the head coach who is qualified and has worked for years in professional football. The refusal to accept that anyone else’s opinion holds any merit.

You used to add value to this forum, posting good info on youth games, decent opinions, with the occasional antagonistic post on the likes of Luke Steele and Bobby Hassell. Now though you only look to antagonise and have taken as usual the most popular person to senselessly attack, this time it’s not a player but the head coach.

Give it a ******* rest and get either a woman (or man), a job or another hobby.

Or at least stop being such an idiot.

 

We are all why dont you explain yourself

 

Look at post above, even myself and a few others have said we played better when we went 442.

 

But that's why it's important that you give an opinion fitztyke because you like a few others on here see most of the games. We saw what happened when we went different ways. We were on the the way buck up smiling from the Den when he made the sub of Thiam for Bradshaw. It wasn't that way when we went 442, no surprise to anyone with a brain in my opinion.

 

Same ball that Bree also failed to cope with when he was here? Suggests a general coaching issue for me and not one just for Pearson.

 

You seem to think that we should be winning every game, and if we don't win a game it's due to Hecky failing, and can't possibly be for any other reason.

Calling our squad a "talented group" in the context of this league is taking the ****. They're raw and unproven players playing against experienced squads put together for tens of millions of pounds. I've no doubt that with time to gel and Hecky's guidance they will turn out to be a talented group, but they are still very very raw and you can't ignore that.

The club doesn't owe you, if you hate Hecky that much just stop going. We have had an amazing couple of seasons of overachievement and you're still somehow angry. Your voice is that of someone who expects everything but contributes nothing.

 

Yeah true all depends on the quality of the service at the end of the day. Look at Bradshaw v Millwall

 

True and the ball certainly sticks with him when he plays with his back to goal

 

That may well be the case. Either way if it's the player or the coaching I hope we sharpen up on it.

 

More gibberish. Have another go.

 

McCarthy has coped fine with it and looked good all season.

Maybe it’s just that Pearson isn’t that great at full back - and James Bree was a bit overhyped?

With a first team coach pairing of Hecky and Clapham I’m not sure the coaching of full backs is likely to be that weak.

 

I'm with you on this. 352 played the right way has very little negatives for me...

 

He's totally incapable of changing his option because of how he is.

The best thing all around is him no longer posting on here

 

I wasn't suggesting that it was a full back only issue. Stopping that ball being played is also part of it. The same balls have put both Yiadom and McCarthy in trouble but their pace seems to get them out of it.