What have I missed?

Med mi shoulders shek.

 

I'm not really looking for an argument, and that is basically the reason I have not posted after the game on Saturday. Unfortunately though, I saw things very differently to almost everyone else's comments. Leaving the game, I was very disappointed. You see, I saw only disunited set of individuals get lucky, score first and then abandon any attempt at playing football. I shall quite understand it if you chose not to read on.





The almost complete absence of quality was the thing that really upset me. It was lower league fare. The players won because they worked hard and tackled, but by far the best player on show was Abdoun the Forest winger, although he was also as mad as a box of frogs. He took both our full backs to the cleaners, but he was especially severe upon Hunt, who I thought was much worse than Scott Wiseman ever was. But then again, I am sure that you already know about my feelings with regard to the victimisation of Scott Wiseman. Nevertheless, the fans appear happy now that Scott has gone. In fact they are so happy that they never even consider that the new guy might be even worse.

Next, I thought that our 4-2-3-1 system had failed to work. Instead, COG was isolated for large parts of the game, had to fend off two formidable defenders in order to try and win unwinable balls hit randomly towards him, and was finally reduced to glancing on headers, even though he had no strike partner capable of latching on to them. Mellis has come in for most criticism in these pages, but I think that he did his best on this occasion and was not required to get back quite so quickly, which suits his game better. To my eyes, JOB seemed not to be working as hard as is usual and was not able to provide the link between defense and attack as a result. I wondered whether he was over last weeks illness. In spite of his goal, and his other near thing, for me, Jennings does not do the fetching and carrying very well, and he rarely beats his man to the outside in the manner of an Abdoun. The result would have surely been different had Forest scored first, as they should have done from Abdoun's cross and Mackie's header.

I have a lot of time for Dawson, much more than many on here, but there is no point to all his hard work unless he passes the ball accurately once he has won it. I thought Woods just looked badly out of place. We just could not keep the ball when we won it back. The result was a steady increase in pressure. Everyone will remind me that we still won, and for all Abdoun's trickery, he finished on the losing side. Others will think it wrong that I criticise when the team has won. I understand those viewpoints, but unless we read the game better, we do not learn something from each performance, something that I am keen personally to do. I would love to watch the games just with my heart, but my head has a habit of interrupting unless a performance is outstanding, in order to point out the inadequacies.

I feel that we must persevere with a five man midfield. It does not suggest lots of goals but it might just keep us in games longer. We probably need to pick roughly the same formation, with two defensive mid-field runners protecting the back four, but they must not be drawn out of position as easily as they were on Saturday, and having won the ball, they must keep it better. I have only seen Frimpong once, but judging from that, either he or JOB should partner Dawson. I would really like to see Jennings as the attacking central mid-field player, as much for what he offers as a threat on goal as for what he lacks as a winger. The position of winger is the one where we are lacking, and the performances of the really good wingers at Oakwell this season points to a real deficiency in this area. This position is important because it is required to cover for our own full back as well as attack the opposition full back. It is the position that a ball winner will look to for someone in space after winning the ball. With the striker being potentially isolated in the system, the winger is the player who he looks to when he wins the ball played up to him. Wingers are the players most often to be found in space. Wingers need to be quick so that attacks can be constructed more quickly. They must have good endurance to cope with their heavy workload. They also need to be good crossers and secure passers of the ball. This is where the system falls down because we have no-one with all of these qualities. On top of that, COG tends to leave the centre of the field to monopolise space that would be better utilised by the type of winger that could provide the quality crosses to a striker who had not wandered out wide.

So there it is. Without better players out wide, we will struggle to operate this system effectively. That is not to say that every possible system you can mention does not fall down at some point because of the lack of quality in a key position. That is why we languish at the foot of the division after all.

 

I'm up in 5 hours for work, so I'll try and give your post the response it deserves tomorrow, mate.

Safe to say though, I disagree with most of it.

 

Thoughts v Leicester City

I thought that I would tag my thoughts on the Leicester game onto my thoughts on the Forest game. I hope that you don't mind.

My first thought is that Leicester were very, very good. They have pace, they pass accurately and their movement was simply too much for us. By the time that Cranie left the field, Steele had already saved twice at the feet of Vardy and Knockaert had hit the bar. Whilst Cranie's departure was undoubtedly a blow, I did not think that it affected the result. I can remember when posters were saying that Mvoto was just what we needed, a big so and so to win the ball in the air. Pace and ability on the ground have never been his strength, but unfortunately this is just what Leicester offered. Ramage is also strong in the same areas as Mvoto and weak where Mvoto is weak, but to place all the blame for the defeat on the shoulders of the four centre backs that played in the game would be a mistake. The manager could and should have planned better for the threat offered by Leicester.

The biggest reason for the defeat was the formation. We were never going to compete with the talented Leicester midfield with a 4-4-0-1 formation. It was as if Wilson knew the team was going to lose, which it would have done whatever the formation, and decided once and for all to prove to the fans that McCourt should not start games. McCourt was poor in that position the last time he played there, and he was worse this time. The rest of the midfield looked as though they had not been introduced. Dawson kept chasing the ball instead of maintaining his place in front of the two centre backs. Woods did not read Dawson and retained his position instead of moving over to cover for Dawson. The situation would not have been a total loss if the back four had pushed forward to close the gap, but quite rightly, they were nervous of their pace and the gap behind them that would have been created. As a result, there was always a space between the back four and midfield that Leicester were only too happy to fill. Woods just does not look a central midfield player to me. He seems lost in the role and ill at ease with his deficiencies.

Things were no better at right back, where Hunt was overlapping constantly. He also went chasing the ball on his own, leaving space behind him that was rapidly filled by a Leicester midfield player, forcing the centre backs to cover for him. The resultant gap in the centre was quickly filled by the Leicester midfield whilst their supposed markers trailed in behind them. In my view, if the manager had set the team up the keep its shape better, to not go chasing lost causes and to defend the space in front of the back four, Leicester would not have been such comprehensive victors. Nevertheless, they would have won.

Jennings does not escape criticism from me I'm afraid. Opposition managers do not have to spend long watching his videos to know that his stock in trade is to cut inside and hope to get off a shot with his right foot. The Championship soon learns how to stop a player replicating the moves that are his stock in trade, and without it he is just one more ineffective wide player. Kennedy is criticised constantly on here for his reluctance to hit the ball forward quickly. The next time he refuses to do so, just take a look at the positions of the players ahead of him. You will find no movement and Jennings short and O'Grady 10 metres beyond him, neither player attempting to find space and both attracting not only their markers, but also the opposition midfield who have been told to crowd those two players as soon as Kennedy receives the ball. We are predictable, and consequently, easy for the better teams to stop.

The reason that I have listed my thoughts here is that many of the faults were obvious during the Forest victory, but they were brushed under the carpet in the euphoria of the victory. It is important to learn from both victories and defeats.

 

Re: Thoughts v Leicester City

Trying to get away from your writing style to read what you actually say I agree with most of it. I try not to over praise in victory or over criticise in defeat. against Forest we rode our luck battled hard and won against Leicester we lost to a much better team but seemed tactically naive.

It's a little unfair on O'Grady and Jennings to set they provide little movement. Their initial movement is usually good and Kennedy doesn't have the ability or faith in his to make the early pass. Where we lack is follow up movement to support the initial player. The rest seem learn footed and just stand and watch.

No idea why Paddy was selected in that role as you say it's alien to his game with either Cywka or RNL better suited and with the pace to do it.

 

Re: Thoughts v Leicester City

By the time I'd found the 'time' to respond to you, Red Rain, I felt the moment had gone so didn't bother with a response to your Forest review. And I'm not arsed about responding to your Leicester one, either. Because I agree with most of it.