Minority Report v Wycombe Wanderers

Readers of Minority Report will know by now that I dislike 3-4-3. It has nothing to do with how many games we win or lose. It has everything to do with how I like to see my team play. I do not want Minority Report to become boring, so I have decided to give 3-4-3 a rest for a while.


Today, we play a team with a smaller budget than we have. That does not often happen, and I wondered how they would try to compensate for their inability to match the quality in other teams. It is something that I thought we did poorly when we played Bournemouth. My guess is that Wycombe will be defensive and be hard to break down. I expect them to try to defend deep, and try to score on the break or from a set piece. It is an entirely different problem to the one posed by Bournemouth, who had superior players almost all over the pitch, and who had the quality to punish our errors. I am curious to see how we cope when the boot is on the other foot. How we will attack without exposing ourselves on the counter. How we will win when the opposition does to us, what we should have done to Bournemouth. How we will entertain when the opposition is interested only in a result.


Well, I did not expect much entertainment, but we got even less than I expected. We brought Aapo Halme in for Helik at centre back, but Halme looked shaky and unsure of himself right from the first whistle. Akinfenwa may no-longer be able to move, but if you let him get under long high balls knocked forward from deep, he knows how to place his substantial frame in order to make a nuisance of himself, and he certainly did that. The central defenders were also destabilised because Walton was punching at every cross, and most of the time, he was not connecting very well. Nevertheless, we finally put a decent move together. Brittain crossed well from the right, finding Styles in space on the left. Styles did not need to beat the final, defender. He simply switched the ball inside, and beat the keeper low to his far corner.


Surely, the Reds would gain confidence from their lead. Surely they would push on. But no! The front 3 dropped too deep. Everyone was in our half, so when we won back possession, there was no alternative but to hit the ball long, and use the time to advance the back line further forward. It is lower league football, and it makes me sad to watch it.


At half time, as usual, my mate rang me. He does not see the games as I do. He is player focused, and I am system focused. He wanted to know why Thomas was playing. He does not rate Thomas, and he never has done. He went through a long list of Thomas’ failings that will be familiar to most on the BBS. As I said to him, VI works with Thomas every day. He knows what Thomas can do, and what he cannot do, better than all of us. If he has picked Thomas, he has picked him to do a specific job. I have often called for the need for more pace up front. Thomas and Chaplin are our two quickest. They should be there to pose a threat to the Wycombe defensive line. To push them back with the threat of their pace. They are not in the team to win the ball in the air, or to provide width. Width is provided by Brittain and Styles, and because of Wycombe’s shape, they were not called upon to defend much at all in that first half. They must be there push Wycombe back, and thereby creating space in the hole for Woodrow. That was fine in theory, but in practice, that is not what happened, and my argument was shot. They were simply wasted.


The second half began poorly. Walton made a good reaction save from a flick header at the near post, and Halme, who looked like an accident waiting to happen all game, conceded a penalty that Wycombe scored easily. Thomas finally got into the Wycombe area with the ball at his feet, was tripped, and Woodrow scored the winner. That happened in the 61st minute, and the final half hour passed with nothing at all happening. Barnsley finished the game playing football of the poorest quality, and I wondered how I was going the get through Minority Report without mentioning 3-4-3. Well, I almost managed it.

 

I was quite anxious about tonight’s game as games like this have so often ended in ignominious defeat. But we won, and that’s about all one can say about it. For whatever reason, we appear to have decided to miss out midfield for the most part, to the extent that a player of genuine quality, in Matty James, is looking pretty ordinary.

 

Very little technical analysis in there RR and I applaud you for that.

It was a poor game between what looked to be two poor sides, not helped by a fussy and easily led referee.

Wycombe used every trick they possibly could to get a foothold in the game, be it by their physicality, directness, spoiling tactics, or by their mastery of dark arts (i’d call it downright shithousery), with no crowd you can hear them, screaming after every tackle but simultaneously being dirty sods themselves - yet we ended up with as many yellow cards, and one of their’s was to the keeper for not going to his line for the penalty!

Not a night for entertainment. For most folk.

I liked it to be honest. Dire but gritty. We beat them at their own game. They dictated that - maybe a worry, we should have asserted ourselves more arguably - but we played them at their own game and our better quality won the match.

Shape made no odds really tonight as the ball invariably bypassed midfield. But I have suggested two up top and an extra man in midfield to slightly alter the shape after past games, as you know.

I don’t think we will see Barnsley perform in that manner again. Horses for courses - maybe we’d have been better doing that v Bournemouth, but hopefully the win lifts confidence going into a number of winnable games leading up to new year - bizarrely we probably start favourites (given we have Preston at home) in all except the Swansea game.

If we win three of the next five, or win two draw two maybe, we’d be at or past thirty points before the half way point of the season. Unheralded and a nice change.

 

Touch of humour!! Nice.
Also good to see that, at last, you've chosen to not mention the philosophy/objective behind MR and why you write it.
Agree with your summary btw.
Intrigued as to why you don't watch our away games Red Rain. It's part of my post match routine to read your analysis and your away game post match analysis is sorely missed.

 

But for now I’ll simply be grateful for the fact that we look like we will not be battling against relegation again, and that January might bring a genuine goalscorer into the club.

 

Not much technique to exam on either side tonight in all honesty.

 

This MR is probably the best I've ever read. Not condescending at all, humorous and self deprecating. I also found out that Red Rain has a friend! Well done RR. Thanks.

 

You don’t like 3-4-3,so what formation/team would you play? Honest question can we have a honest answer?I’m interested to know what you would do? Personally I’d play or try to play with a 4-3-3 if it was up to me to pick team/formation

 

Just on one point, do Thomas and Chaplin actually have more pace than other players or is it just that they're shorter so they take a greater number of shorter strides which gives the appearance of moving fast? I don't actually know the answer to that but I can't really say I've ever stood or sat in awe at the blistering pace from either of them and can't off the top of my head remember any specific moments where they've left a defender for dead

 

No , they are not quick, but they are the quickest we have, and since we do not have a target man either, we are stuck.

 

That's what I meant though are they actually the quickest we have or do they just appear the quickest we have?

 

That's what I meant though are they actually the quickest we have or do they just appear the quickest we have?

 

I know my place. I comment upon the decisions of those who know the game far better than I do. Since my decisions would never be put to a test, my formation would just be academic in any case.

However, looking back, my comments about the teams fielded by Struber have been the most complementary. Struber played 4-diamond-2 or 4-3-1-2 last season. Those formations give us more players in the middle of the field, and in my opinion, more control because of that. However, he also played a very aggressive press, and he has lost Jacob Brown from that press, so there would have had to have been a change this season. He adopted 3 at the back and 5 in front of them, and that would have been the compromise, I think. Not so very different to your 4-3-3 that becomes 4-5-1 in its defensive form. Frankly, I dislike 3-4-3 and have since we experimented with it some years ago. Anything else is preferable.

 

Who do you think are quicker?

 

I don't know that's why I asked. I just don't remember either of them really showing much pace

 

It’s funny how people see things differently,to me after we restarted under Struber(back end of last season) it looked to me as we played a back 3 of Jordan Williams,Andersen and Solbauer and not a back 4 with Styles and the young German lad at wing back.

 

RR I like reading your opinion but...on this occasion I feel you have not captured the bigger picture and importance of the 3 points (others have touched on this). I also thought it was a poor game of football but I am probably happier with that 3 points than any other this season (obviously 3pts Saturday will override that thought). I believe last season we would have lost that type of game 9 out of 10 times and grinding out results is a sign of a decent team. I think with a few key additions in January, top half of the table should be easily achievable and I would be one of those fans happy with that. Talking about opinions, I believe Mowett will move on and I don't think it will be too detrimental to the team and I think he has earned the right to earn bigger money!