Minority Report v Sunthorpe United

I had decided not to write on minority report today on the grounds that the match was just like watching paint dry. I have been tempted out of my underground lair in order to put right some of the mis-reporting in other threads.

When I saw the team listed before the game and noted no Sam Winnall and just one natural forward in the starting eleven, I naturally thought 4-5-1. The first surprise was that we kicked off in a 4-4-2 formation with Chapman and Toney as the front two and Scowen on the right side of midfield. Now it might be just me, but if it looks like 4-5-1, feels like 4-5-1 and smells like 4-5-1, then it should be 4-5-1. Chapman and Scowen were both uncomfortable in their new roles and I spent the first half willing Heckingbottom to change to 4-5-1 with Hammill and Chapman wide and the whole team pushed further forward. When the change came on 35 minutes, it was not a change in formation (well perhaps a slight change because it looked to me like 4-4-1-1), it was simply a positional change with Scowen and Chapman exchanging positions.

With our centre midfield pairing failing to dominate the game again because of the opposition work rate, much of the ball forward to Toney was delivered by Mawson and Roberts. It was an inaccurate, unsubtle 45 yard airborne assault that was particularly unsuited to Toney’s strengths. He did his best, but frankly, he never stood a chance and was dominated by the S****horpe defence. He was not on his own though at any point, as several posters have suggested. He was just unable to do much with such poor quality service.

There are so many posters on this forum for whom even a whiff of 4-5-1 is anathema. There is little logic to their loathing. The formation played by the team must be led by getting the best from the available players, and not by an automatic choice of 4-4-2 on every occasion. After all, the team that achieved promotion to the Premier League played 5-3-2 and Dave Bassett’s team that almost repeated the feat 3 years later mainly played 4-5-1. I just do not understand the logic that means the team has to play 4-4-2, even when there is just one forward in the first 11.

Perhaps it was more obvious that we were playing 4-4-2 when Tuton replaced Chapman, but were we actually any more effective? Or did S****horpe simply run out of energy having played a pressing game for the first hour. They tried to do what Southend did, but they failed to score in the first 20 minutes, which they dominated. After that they both simply tried to hold on. Our biggest problem though is that the number of injuries and call ups have destroyed our balance. Our workers (Watkins and Isgrove) are missing and without their firefighting, the centre of midfield just does not have the legs to get forward quickly enough in support of the front two. In my view, we should do better at Port Vale where the home team will have to be more committed to attack and space should open up on the counter.

 

I think that whatever the formation was, it didn't work. According to reports on here and elsewhere our performance at Fleetwood was not particularly inspiring. So more of a worry is that we're now off three fairly flat performances and face a tough game on Monday. Whilst we haven't reverted to the early season form, we have falllen off the standard of December to January.

I think that when Sam Winnall is out we miss more than his goalscoring. He has a bit of passion and commitment that transmits itself to the team. I do wonder whether yesterday we would have done better to push Josh Brownhill up front to help out young Ivan. He would have been more combative than Chapman, up against two big lummockses at the back, and he has a good shot on him. The best thing for us would be if Monday's game had to be postponed, but I don't see any monsoons forecast.

 

I don't think it was the formation so much as missing key players. With Isgrove on one wing and Watkins and Winnall up front, I think we would have beaten them. It wouldn't have made much difference in the first half, Scun.thorpe worked really hard and passed the ball well, but had little cutting. However, in the second half when Scun.thorpe tired and we got on top I think with the above players in the team we would have had the guile to get the goal.

It's difficult for any team at this level when they're missing 4 attacking players who would have definitely played some part in the game if they were available.

 

When do we expect Winnall and Watkins to return?

 

I agree with Jay, when you have a significant section of our first team out then we have to make do. The bench itself proved we had no game changers or experience on there. I believe we have been short in attack all season. Right now however results are more important than performances. I always believe this is where the grinding really starts and the style takes a back seat. Interestingly S****horpe and Southend both play a pressing, physical game and both took points of us recently.

 

This^^^^
I think Becky thought it was a bit much asking a young lad with hardly any first team experience to lead a makeshift team on his own.
It wasn't a good game we know that but under the circumstances it was never gonna be.
Some posters seem to disregard the opposition and think we should be able to impose our play choose whatever team we play.

Seems credit from some is very harshly hard earned

 

She was right

 

My thoughts exactly.

 

Did they? Weird. We always had two up front. Shipperley and Dyer/Shipperley and Sheron/Shipperley and Hristov/Shipperley and Hignett/Shipperley and Van Der Laan even. Or Dyer and Hristov/Dyer and Sheron etc etc etc.

The best reds sides I've seen always had two up front. Even in the Davey cup run, you'd have Nardiello/Ferenczi with Odejayi. Under Keith (the good spell) it was Davies/Vaz and Gray. Under Flicker (great escape) it was Dagnall and Harewood/Scotland. 96-97 it was Hendrie and Wilko. Prem season it was Ward and Fjortoft/Hendrie/Hristov.

Can't recall a great reds side that played one up top. Can remember a lot of **** ones though. So I can totally understand Hecky wanting to keep two up front. What I didn't understand was him playing a winger there rather than Tuton. He's about 25 isn't he? He's not a young lad. I'd have played him. Or, played five in midfield on this rare occasion with one of the midfielders asked to get up close to Toney. Possibly Brownhill. But we were down to the bare bones pretty much, we got a clean sheet and have another point on the board. Sam'll be back Monday.


I don't expect us to win every week and I don't ignore the talent of the opposition and capabilities of the opposing manager. We're in an incredible position right now and whilst I accept folk will analyze games to death, it just feels weird doing so at the moment. I bored myself silly analyzing what was going wrong when we were losing every week. And I think I nailed most of the issues. Most of us did. It was clear where or what the problems were. But I don't see much of an issue right now, other than the obvious - we've been missing lots of our better players recently, the team is forever having to be adjusted. Fingers crossed once Wembley is done and dusted we've a settled side for the run in.

 

The stats though don't suggest that , only Wigan , Gills and Peterborough have scored more.

 

My original reason for posting was that several posters were under the impression that we had played just one up front. As I said, the game as a whole had very little in it that was worthy of comment and because of that, I had not originally intended to make any comment on it.

Nevertheless, Hecky had chosen 11 starters from very limited options. That 11 had two natural wingers, 3 natural central midfield players and just one natural forward. That 11 players naturally fell into a 4-3-3/4-5-1 system. And yet he picked two players out of their natural positions in order to shoe horn them into 4-4-2. Those posters who thought that we played 4-5-1 were making that assumption from the players that were picked, but that assumption was wrong. I am curious to know why Hecky chose to play that 11 in an alien formation.

I made excuses for the way that we played against Southend. The long, high ball is clearly not the way forward, and it is not the basis for our improvement since December, but we were chasing the game. However, against Scunny, we played the ball long and high from the off. It was a consequence of the pressure on our central midfield players. It meant that their only ball was backwards, and once the pressure was transferred to the central defenders, their only option was to hit it long. I do not want to over-analyse. I am simply reporting what happened. The Scunny pressing game dominated the way that we wanted to play and that was not helped by our lack of width on the right side of midfield. When things go wrong, I simply try to find a reason. It is the way that I personally take something from a game that was otherwise very dull.

I do not have a favoured system of play. I believe that the players drive the system. Looking back to the way that the 5-3-2 system that took us to the Premier League came about from a bad start in Viv Andersons only season, it originated from the discovery that a very average midfield player was a superb right wing back. The seeds for the transformation of Keith Hill's struggling team by David Flitcroft was the emergence of another very promising right wing back. These were both player led formation changes and are the roots of my beliefs that the system is driven by the players, rather than the other way around.

 

I disagree that we played long ball from the off.
S****horpe old man'd, bullied,harassed and physically shoved our midfield off the ball first half, which gave the excuse for the long ball but hamill was still playing on the wing.
I agree second half was long ball strategy as he fetched hammill inside to aid Toney. Imo

 

I didnt mean short of goals, i meant short of quality cover. We have had Wilkinson, Smith, Fletcher, Toney x2, as out and out forwards. All on loan and i think we were light when Wilkinson & Smith were with us and now we have a better option in Fletcher & Toney. To be fair as far as our own first team strikers, we only have Winnall and Watkins.

 

I think it's a case of underestimating how much certain players in our side need the selfless players around them to perform to their best.

I'm talking about Watkins & Isgrove. I think most of us under rate them a bit & often judge players solely on ability & not on other qualities they bring to the side like their pressing, runs that stretch teams & drag players out of position, getting back in & giving the team a shape when out of possession etc.

 

I agree.

 

Which is why I loved O'Connell, Sheridan, Dagnall etc. And Winnall and Watkins now. Grafters.

Marry it with talent and you won't go far wrong.