It was with no great enthusiasm that I arrived at Oakwell last night. Williams was still out and in addition we were also without Winnall up front and Cranie at the back. In addition, I knew from team news on the car radio that the 4-3-3 system was still in place. I knew that we were in for a difficult night. Brown is possibly the worst right back that I have ever seen. With the pre-match announcement that Dudgeon had pulled out and that Holgate would deputised, I could see no way that we could even get a point. The fact that we did was almost entirely down to Turnbull. Brown is not only the worst right back I have seen, he is the worst left back as well. Holgate did not disgrace himself by any means, but his total inexperience playing full back (he usually plays centre back) was evident on occasions. But what playing Brown and Holgate at full back meant was there was no outlet there for us and the general plan of playing the ball forward through defence and midfield had to be abandoned in favour of the long punt from the keeper. I have been asking for some variety over the last few weeks, but I have also been asking for a strong forward who can compete in the air. Currently, the long punt means giving away possession. On the bright side, I thought that the game plan suited Ramage down to the ground. He was able to do the things that come naturally to him and was one of the few who came out of the game with any credit. The role of Trotta was something of a mystery. When they lined up at the start, it looked like he had been asked to play at the tip of the diamond, but that was the only time he did so. He just floated around to no great effect, looking lost and giving the ball away. Does he only speak Italian and does not understand instructions delivered in English in a broad Lancashire accent. I don’t know, but his performance was in the same class as Brown’s. Whether it was Danny’s intention or not, our formation was mostly 4-3-3. Cole looked such a good player when he arrived from Manchester City. He was quick and he was direct. He was also raw and he made lots of mistakes, but there was obviously talent. Without Williams, there is less space for him and he just looks ordinary. And there is the main point that last night illustrated, Williams is the catalyst who allows the important players in the team the room to play and we miss him terribly. Without him driving at the opposition through the centre of midfield there is no-one creating the space for Cole, Hourihane and Berry to play in. With space, they can all use their undoubted creativity. Without his work rate, the lack of work rate in others e.g. Hourihane is even more starkly obvious. It is absolutely no coincidence that both Hourihane’s and Berry’s creative influence have diminished in Williams’ absence. Nevertheless, I fail to understand why, in the absence of Williams, Danny Wilson has elected to play fewer player in midfield rather than more. We staggered to half time yesterday still leading. You would have had to have been blind not to note that the lead was down to good luck. In the half time conversation I was calling for the replacement of Trotta with Abbott, and though I thought it highly unlikely, a possible 5th player in the midfield area in the hope that we could simply hold on. At the end of the game, our midfield were so tired, they hardly had the strength to walk off the field. Many will argue, that situation is caused by lack of conditioning, which is partly true. But that being so, why ask them to cover the ground in front of the back 4, where the battle was fiercest with just 3 rather than 4 or even 5. Finally a question. Danny must have a reason for using 4-3-3 which is currently escaping me. He is not generally regarded as a stubborn man. I give him credit for a better football knowledge and understanding than I possess. So my question is, why is Danny persevering with this system in the absence of Williams in the face of poor performances and results?
We're on the same wavelength RR. I simply can't answer the question you pose. Our weak midfield being the problem is glaring but DW seems to believe we can compensate by having 3 strikers on the pitch, none of whom are comfortable providing any width. I believe there are the players in the squad to change it, albeit in a makeshift fashion, but what we are doing at the moment is similarly makeshift, and certainly isn't working.
Is the intention to forego the passing game in favour of a more direct style of play? Instead of attempting to find a replacement for Williams who is key to linking up the midfield and the strikers, just do without anyone in that role and play it over the top? It seems that he want the 3 strikers to link up and create for themselves and the 3 midfielders to sit in front of the defence and defend. If that is the case we just don't have the personnel for it. We'd have been better off keeping Perkins, Dawson and Etuhu who would have been much more suited to it.
I know that we were more direct last night, but I think that was because neither full back would have been able to play a proper part in the passing game. Up until last night we played a passing game even though we were playing 4-3-3. The 3 in midfield are not suited to the holding role as you say, and if we go more direct we need a forward capable of winning the ball in the air. My question arises because I am absolutely sure that thought will have been put into the question, and that in spite of poor results and performances, the management team expect the system to bare fruit when it settles down, otherwise the obvious choice is to use Abbot to cover Williams and move Hourihane to the point of the diamond.
Williams has been pissing for 4 games. We've won 1, drawn 1 & lost 2. I don't believe the 'system' last night was the problem. The problem was how thin our squad is. However, in this league if you take out the first choice left back, the captain, top scorer & your main midfielder & young 'star' have off days then your team will struggle. Fact. Add in a centre half who's been slagged off as a right back has had to play left back and a young centre half had to play right back means you're on to a hiding. I still don't think any system I've seen mentioned on here would've had the impact folk are claiming. We're saying we don't want players out of position but we do want a new system that means different players have to play out of position. I thought yesterday we defended pretty well once it got near our box, something we've not done in a while, and all in all with all context included it turned out to be a very good point. Now, we need to get our players fit, suspensions back in the side and we'll be absolutely fine.
I agree with your observations and those of several others. It is apparent that we are weak at covering the full backs, particularly on the left as Hourihane is more of an attacking midfielder than Berry thus exposing Dudgeon and Brown in last nights case. The big change came for me when Abbott joined the play late on and starting winning the ball in the middle. I appreciate that the game had fizzled out at that point but I think we need to apply a second defensive midfielder. It's probably totally wrong to make a comparison to top level premier league teams but the most fluent ones seem to adopt a 4-2-3-1 formation and looking at the personnel we have available I think this would really suit us. I also know that a formation is fluid but playing both of Bailey and Abbott in front of our back 4 would provide additional cover across the defence, including the full backs and would allow an advanced 3 of Hourihane, Berry and Cole/Williams to dictate play with Winnall (Trotta) up front. Obviously names can flex but this feels more to our strengths than the current style. I also think we don't play a different formation because Danny has been let down by a couple of players who have shown a lack of desire and fitness who should have been shoe ins for this league. It's all about opinions I guess Still optimistic we will see more bad than good and that last night particularly was due to defensive changes above everything else. UTR
I know that we beat Colchester, but the seeds of the problems that we are now seeing were there, and if you read my post match comments you will see that I highlighted them. Football is a simple game that relies upon outnumbering your opponents for short periods in important areas of the pitch. The problem for me with 4-3-3 is that we are outnumbered for short periods in midfield when the opposition attacks. If you cannot pressure the ball and cut down on space by at least evening those numbers the first thing that happens is that you get discrete areas where a two on one allows the opposition to pass and move leaving out defensive midfielder unable to get close enough to tackle and increasing the amount of fruitless running he has to do. The second thing that happens is that the opposition midfield has more time in which to pick and place a pass with exactly the right weight to arrive at the intended receiver in a better place for him to control or run onto without breaking stride, and therefore to create a goal scoring opportunity. There is also the point that we have three players standing in the opposition half of the field unemployed until the defenders can win the ball back. Of course, they are occupying 3 or 4 of the opposition defenders, but I would prefer them to be as busy when we do not have the ball as they are when we do. I take your point that players have to play out of position whatever system we play at the minute and I also understand that we had a very makeshift defence, and that we will be much better when Williams returns. However, I tend to agree with the poster in a different thread who argued that it is better to have a midfield player replacing a midfield player rather than either not replace Williams at all, or replace him with a forward and elect to change a diamond to 4-3-3. I have made the point in other threads that I believe the team is poorly balanced, and I hope that Danny will take advantage of the potentially 5 returning loanees in January to seek to rebalance the team, not that I would not like to keep a few of them. Hourihane is keen to attack and less keen to defend. Surely that must mean he is an ideal candidate for the tip of the diamond, with Abbot, Bailey and Berry in the deeper roles. Surely this is a better system than 4-3-3.
Throughout the upper reaches of football, teams now use just one forward with a very fluid midfield that is responsible for getting forward in support of the forward when in possession and getting back in support of the defence when out of possession. There are variations in the systems, but the basic requirement is that every player is as involved in the game, both in attack and in defence, as much and as often as possible. On Saturday, I looked at our forwards when we were out of possession to find a line of three in the opposition half of the field. It is anathema in the modern game that any player should be unemployed at any moment of a match and if a team has three players unemployed when the opposition has the ball, then sure as eggs, it will struggle to get it back. All of this is simply restating the blindingly obvious. Danny Wilson and his team know all this, because they know far more about the game and its tactics than I do. And yet, they chose to play 3 forwards. WHY?
Agree with all that, except the pissing bit. And just to add one bit myself, it's also about getting to January somewhere up and around the top half, within a couple of wins off the playoffs (at worst). Then Danny can further shape his squad. Rome wasn't built in a day. Barnsley FC won't be rebuilt in one window.
