Most of us have played at some level, OK not professionally but on a like for like level. When I played we always had a dominant centre back who organised the defensive lines, marking etc and a dominant forward who you could always look for if you needed to get shut quick. It might be simplistic but it certainly helped. The point was, we played for each other, if we saw a chance we would shoot and law of averages said we picked up a fair amount of points. BFC somehow manage to not defend properly don’t shoot half enough and Chuck points away with gay abandon! OK alcohol may have been taken but you get my drift!
For me the simplest and effective teams I saw were Wilson promotion season, Dave Bassets and Vals. The same simple but very different plan from each other, generally the same starting 11 week in week out. The biggest thing they all had was a high quality player in Redders, Higgy and Mowatt.
I know I'm going to get slated for this, but Mowatt isn't in the same league as Redfearn or Hignett. Mowatt was an important player under Val because he was a decent mouthpiece on and off the field, but the ball largely bypassed him and when he did get it he either knocked it aimlessly into space (which was the plan) or took a wild shot. He is a good player, but I personally didn't see him as a high quality player, especially under Val. Just my opinion though, I know it's not a popular one!
I think about this often. Obviously the system is important, but it is often individual (schoolboy) errors that cost us. A lapse in concentration, a fluffed chance, an unforced error in defence. Not marking from corners. Really basic stuff. So when people say the players don't know what they're doing, they're being sent out like lambs to the slaughter, there may be something in the first observation, but as you say football is a simple game and there is no excusing really basic errors, having no potency (with three strikers!) in front of goal and especially playing with no heart. Too often the blame is handed to the guy on the sidelines. We know elements of this group of players has it within them to succeed - they need to dig deep, accept blame and start doing the basics again.
Mowatt was an important player for us and I wouldn't downplay that, but I agree Hignett was in a different league in terms of individual talent and his ability to change a game. One of the best technically gifted players on the ball I have ever seen in the flesh. And Redders? Well, I can't put into words his impact and the heart he showed in a red shirt. What we need now is another experienced, decent midfielder with something about him, like Mowatt
I think Schopp overcomplicated things massively, and Poya is in danger of doing the same. It seems the formation changes when we lose the ball results in two forwards dropping back into midfield, wing backs forming a flat back 5 and sometimes Helik needs to recover after moving to midfield, and Kitching moves from a full back with license to get forward to a centre back position. We may as well line up 442, with Styles and Britain in front of Williams and Kitching. Not sure what we have to lose now.
The 1981/2 team falls into the same bracket. Brilliant centre back partnership, fantastic midfield, great strikers and a wonderful winger. What a team, it picked itself.
If I could like this twice, I would. Seem to remember a half decent midfield player in that team: didn’t he wear the number four shirt? Banger and Ray McHale weren’t bad either.
Just on a tangent, the thread title reminds me of a Rugby League vs Rugby union exchange, where somebody had said that League was a simple game played by simple people. Aussie RL international Laurie Daley replied with "Rugby league is a simple game, played by simple people. Rugby union is a complex game, played by w*****s"
Don't recall parker being underrated, he was a big signing at the time. I do remember McHale being regarded as crap by quite a few though. I thought Ray McHale was terrific, but I love that type of midfielder.
