Clearly there are some areas to work on after yesterday. The disappointments being the lack of intensity in our play which compared very unfavourably with the passion commitment and desire shown from Christmas last year. Tactically we were naive both offensively and defensively. Bypassing the inadequate central midfielders and pumping long hopeful balls to O'Grady who battled manfully but unsuccessfully against two central defenders who had seen that one dimensional tactic before was never going to work. Defensively we are still unable to defend corners with any degree of conviction. Poor decisions from the management team playing a formation that we never looked comfortable with leading to us being overrun in midfield. Players paying out of position looking exactly that. Weaknesses in the squad highlighted all too strongly. Dagnall, bless him, tries hard but lacks the pace and quality to trouble defenders at championship level. Three league goals from open play in 18 months tells the story all too clearly. We desperately need quality to replace him and support O'Grady or a time machine to take 5 years off Scotland's age. Dawson and Perkins ineffective whilst paying together in a midfield four can be accommodated into a five which would seem to be our best system or replaced by a more robust and skilful duo of Ethtu and Digby (when fit). Positives being that we won't play teams as strong as Wigan most weeks and we have time to fine tune the team both in terms of personnel and formation. Flitcroft is inexperienced and lessons like the one Wigan gave us will make him a stronger, better more flexible manager. We have quality players who will allow us to compete at this level. O'Grady, Cranie, Etuthu, Steele, Mellis. Played in the correct formation with the addition of at least one forward there is no real reason to think we will struggle. The air of positivity flying round the ground yesterday was refreshing and I don't expect it to disappear for a while yet. The club seems to be moving in the right direction and actually listening to the concerns of fans and reacting positively to them. One match against one of the divisions stronger teams tells us nothing. The pointers to a brighter future are there. Onwards and upwards.
the key to all of that, are five words you used: played in the correct formation i'm totally bemused where the 4-4-2 format has come from. all our best football last season was played in a 3-5-2. our squad was built around it. we only found ourselves forced back into 4-4-2 last season, due to injuries/suspensions. plain for all to see, that we don't have the balance or personnel for it
Yes and trying to reinvent Gouldborne as a midfielder seemed like it had been made up five minutes before kick off with him being as surprised as us. We need the fluidity of 3-5-2 it seems clear which allows Mellis to be an influence on the game and we need Etuthu or Digby fit as soon as possible.
Why? take your time, use lots of words, please explain why, not 'End of' like you read it from a stone like Moses.
On paper Wigan will beat us 9 times out 10 but I don't think the set up of the team helped...we were far too negative and just seemed happy to nullify their threat and look for the counter attack which is never good to see when playing at home. Dawson and Perkins didn't have their best games, they're both definitely capable of much better. Dawson in particular got caught in possession a few times and Perkins didn't seem to play with his usual energy although the same could be said for a lot of them. We needed Mellis to be further up the pitch to cause them any problems but he always seemed to be deep in his own half when the possibility of a counter attack came about, although he did look good on the ball when he had it, he was just too deep to cause any real problems. Like others have said I'm not convinced 4-4-2 gets the best out of our players and the positions they are comfortable in, yes you've got to mix it up otherwise you become too predictable but it's better to have a predictable way forward than no way forward which is what is seems like with 4-4-2. Kicking balls long to O'Grady at every opportunity has got to stop as well, that might work against a few sides but it became pretty futile yesterday. I don't think any knee jerk reactions are required though, the final scoreline was a disappointing one but I think we gave up after the sending off...yes it's disappointing to see but I couldn't see us getting back into after that. After seeing the video of Jennings tackle I reckon he was unlucky to be sent off - 50/50 and both players were attacking the ball with both feet off the ground. The reaction of the Wigan players probably got him sent off. Not a great debut for him, fell over the ball with more or less his first touch and a few minutes later he was in the bath. I'm sure he'll be a lot better in a few months. At the time when Jennings came on though I thought we were crying out for Cywka - I know he doesn't get too involved defensively but when he whacks a shock from 25 yard they are normally on target and the keeper doesn't usually hold on to them so he does cause problems even if his all-round play is a bit suspect. Anyway, we move on, I don't think Flicker should experiment too much against Scunny, just give the first eleven another opportunity to get more game time with each other. We won at Blackpool last season quite comfortably and we have a decent record there so we shouldn't be fearing that one. Blackpool have nowhere near the quality of Wigan aside from the massively overrated manager's son and will probably be a bottom half side this season.
In my opinion 3-5-2 yesterday would have resulted in 5-3-2 with the midfield overrun (more than it was 4-4-2) and the strikers completely isolated. We came up against a unit that most managers would have found it hard to get a result, Etuthu is a vital part of our midfield the sooner he's back the better.
I've repeated myself numerous times since yesterday when people have complained at playing 4 at the back but I'll explain again but in more detail. Wigan played 4-3-3 as follows: Boyce---Barnett---Perch----Craniey ----------------Watson---------------- ---------McArthur----McCarthy------- Maloney---------Holt------Beausejour Unlike a defensive 4-5-1 formation they kept the wingers high up the pitch the entire game, even when they didn't have the ball. Beausejour was the most noticeable out wide on the left directly up against Wiseman. He has pace to burn and when he got a run on Wiseman managed to beat him for pace. Wiseman is the only player in our squad that could match his pace and for the most part did very well against him, nullifying that threat. If you want to change to 3-5-2, Wiseman has to push up in to the position where a winger would play and leave Beausejour. Beausejour isn't going to track him because a 3-5-2 means you've only got one player on each wing and Craniey should be able to deal with his attacking threat. The same goes for Golbourne and Maloney. This would leave Maloney, Holt and Beausejour directly up against Kennedy, M'Voto and Cranie. While M'Voto may be able to deal with Holt, Kennedy and Cranie have no chance of matching the pace of Maloney and Beausejour. We'd be incredibly susceptible to the counter attack. We needed Wiseman and right back. Unfortunately, a flat 4-4-2 didn't work either because we didn't attack their full backs enough. Their wingers were not tracking back so that should have been where we got the most joy. Mellis always looked to come inside and while Golbourne had some joy against Boyce in the first half, he's not a natural winger so couldn't make the most of it. We went long too often and to counter that, Watson dropped even deeper to make it a back 5 which meant O'Grady and particularly Dagnall were crowded out and McArthur and McCarthy could handle Dawson and Perkins. The spine of their team was far too strong for us. What I'd have liked to see was us to play a 4-4-2 diamond with Mellis as the attacking point. As it was, Wiseman was managing to handle Beausejour and had Golbourne played at LB I think he'd have handled Maloney. It would have meant that Watson wouldn't have been able to dictate the play as easily since he would be directly up against Mellis rather than having the time and space to pick passes. We could have lined up against them like this: Boyce---Barnett---Perch----Craniey ----------O'Grady---Dagnall--------- ----------------Watson---------------- ----------------Mellis----------------- ---------McArthur----McCarthy------- -----Perkins--Kennedy--Dawson----- Maloney---------Holt------Beausejour Golbourne--M'Voto-Cranie--Wiseman The extra man in midfield would have helped counter their dominance but also provide support for the isolated front two. We don't have the wingers to attack their full backs, so concentrate on trying to dominate the middle of the park. That's why I don't think 3-5-2 works against 4-3-3, particularly when the opposition are a better side. It's also why we saw Kennedy step up into midfield on several occasions towards the back end of last season. I'd like to see Digby or Etuhu play as the defensive point when fit. I like 3-5-2 but only against teams that play 2 up front.
There is some merit to some of that. Tactics against side that play with fluidity and movements should mirror or nullify to an extent. Switching to Mellis at the front of a diamond is something that you would hope the manager would have considered. Starting with 4-4-2 with the central midfielders at our disposal yesterday was never going to work and the limitations of playing Goulbourne out of position against quality opposition were always going to be exposed. Given their strength in midfield playing O'Grady as a lone striker with Mellis in the Butterfield role allowing an extra midfielder to be selected would have been more viable than the flat back 4. The main thing was the lack of verve, pace and pressing when the match turned against us in the Firestone 10 minutes of the first half and first ten of the second.
Only problem is we gave Wigan far too much respect. Scared to attack, scared to pass and Dawson was shocking.
And as we sit here alone looking for a reason to go on, it's so clear that all we have now are our thoughts of yesterday Laaa, la, la, laaa, la, la, laaa, la, la, la, la, la ,la
Without a doubt it was the midfield that let us down yesterday. Despite us conceding 4, I think the defence did very well against some talented players. We just need to learn how to defend set pieces.
Yes apart from the last goal which had m'voto was a little culpable for the defence did ok (corners aside) they just rampaged through the non existent midfield leaving little protection. Glad you got the Strawberry Switchblade reference Jay I was thinking of the 'looking for a reason to go on' bit.
I do get that, but isn't the point of a 3-5-2 that it can become 5-3-2 easily, you just need wingbacks that can defend (which we have). You are still left with 3 in CM and both your wing backs don't have to rush forward at the same time, do they? Also with 3 in CM you can either have 1 sitting and 2 doing whatever or even 2 in front of the back 3 and a really defensive setup. Either has got to be better than surrendering the midfield completely. If you effectively play 5 at the back with a CM sitting in front, their one man up front isn't going to get as much joy as with just finding the gap between a central pairing. Still its all opinions, thanks for taking the time to explain your thoughts
Yes, 3-5-2 can become 5-3-2 easily providing we don't get hit on the break. But anyway, we don't need 5 at the back when they're playing a loan striker. Their full backs would push up since we'd have no wingers and we'd be outnumbered 4 to 3 in midfield because we'd have two free centre halves who aren't marking anyone. The defence wasn't the problem yesterday and 4 at the back worked well. The problem, as everyone pointed out, was the midfield but you don't need to start messing with the defence to improve our midfield. There's numerous other formations with 4 at the back that would have been much more effective than a flat 4-4-2 imo but moving to 3-5-2 would have been a backward step.
Irrespective of the formation, the defence / midfield needed to be 10 yards further up the pitch. Wigan had far too much space in which to operate.
Seemed to be little or no communication between defence and midfield with central midfield completely overrun.