Playing wing backs today

I must have been at a different match because we lined up 3-5-2, pretty much up until Jennings came on for TK. Wiseman and Goldie were hogging the halfway line for the first hour, falling back when we lost possession.

 

Amazing how views differ.

To me a clear back 4 all afternoon of Wiseman, M'Voto, Cranie, and Kennedy. With Mellis and Golbourne clearly pushed well in to midfield.

Years of playing Football Manager have taught me that.

 

In hindsight I think you are right - 4-5-1 - with daggers missing out - they outclassed us in midfield. I really like Daggers, you can't fault his effort but you do need more at this level. Let's hope we get someone with graft and guile in, and sharpish.

 

If you actually attended the match you would`ve noticed Mellis was playing as a right mid

 

You must have been.

When the replay is uploaded to Player, have a watch.

442 all game.

 

I'm okay with my reading of a game mate, thanks actually.

 

442 which fails. 352 and probably different story

 

As I wasn't there I can only go off what the commentary team said and they said it was 352 to start with and changed to 442 after about 20 minutes.

 

4-4-2 from the start.
For the first time since Flicker took over, it's the only time really questioned his tactics and line up. No natural wide midfield player on the pitch. It looked totally unbalanced from the 1st minute. Mellis wasted out wide.

 

It was 4-4-2 from kick off. Clear as a bell. Definitely no wing backs.

Second half Mellis was moved from wide right in to the middle and Dawson went on to the right.

Jennings came on, Golbourne was moved from left midfield to left back.

Jenning sent off, went to 4-4-1, Dagnall to right midfield, Mellis to the left, Dawson and Perkins in the middle.

10 minutes later, 3-4-2, back three of Wiseman - Cranie- M'Voto. midfield Mellis/O'Brien-Perkins-Dawson-Golbourne. Up front Dagnall/Scotland - O'Grady.

Last 10 minutes - no formation at all, we were just chasing shadows.

If at any point this afternoon you saw us play 3-5-2 you were seeing things. Don't mean to be rude or owt, but it's not a matter of opinion, we just didn't play that formation.

 

How on earth people saw a 3-5-2 I'll never know. It was clear as day we were 4-4-2. For one, M'Voto was playing next to Wiseman while Cranie was to his left.

3-5-2 does not work against teams that play 3 up front. That's as basic as it gets. 4 at the back was the right decision, the mistake was playing Mellis wide. We should have played 4-1-2-1-2 so we could dominate the midfield and play Mellis behind the strikers.

 

I thought it was basically 4-4-2. Probably down to the fact that Wigan played Maloney and particularly Beausejour so high that they effectively had three up front, with Holt. Few managers are going to line up with three at the back faced with that.

 

Nowt we could have done then, eh?

That's a shame. I'd have liked to have seen us at least make Scott Carson move once.

 

Where's Hemmsy when you need him? I'll go with whatever he says on the matter.

 

I had no actual input into the way we lined up today. But they do always say that the best way to counter 3-5-2 is to play three up front. Suspect Flicker thought about the quaility of Beausejour and Maloney and got worried.

 

I never insinuated that you had any input, so I'm lost as to why you posted that comment. But then, all 35 of your posts have been of a defensive nature.

I'm maybe a tad biased, a tad unrealistic, but I do always expect us at home especially to at least test the opposition keeper.

So aye, twas a bit of a **** day at the office this aft.

But I expected a defeat so we move onto Blackpool. Scunny game is a chance to blood a few kids or play the fringe players, in my unimportant opinion.