|
Title: Formation Post by: Flashheart on Friday, March 29, 2013, 18:07:48 I'm struggling to see how it can be considered negative when we are getting so many shots and so many sitters.
Were we getting more shots in under PDC? Title: Re: Formation Post by: Fred Elliot on Friday, March 29, 2013, 18:11:18 I'm struggling to see how it can be considered negative when we are getting so many shots and so many sitters. Were we getting more shots in under PDC? It's because Williams is shit I thought we ascertained that fact ;) Title: Re: Formation Post by: Bogus Dave on Friday, March 29, 2013, 18:12:23 To be fair, though we did create chances first half, most came when he switched to a straight 442.
And to be even fairer, I didn't see it as a 451 first half myself. More of a 4-1-3-1-1, with parrett floating around of his own free will Title: Re: Formation Post by: Abrahammer on Friday, March 29, 2013, 18:13:55 The formation isn't responsible for strikers not taking chances.
Although in saying that we looked miles better when we switched to 2 up top, Ferry on the right wing is so wrong. Title: Re: Formation Post by: Arriba on Friday, March 29, 2013, 18:14:20 Forwards aint good enough often enough. Forget anything else it's that simple.
Title: Re: Formation Post by: kerry red on Friday, March 29, 2013, 18:14:35 There's nothing wrong with the formation at all.
The football is better than that under PdC, I think. You really can't legislate for terminally poor finishing Would have liked to have seen Andy Johnson out there today Title: Re: Formation Post by: Gnasher on Friday, March 29, 2013, 18:17:35 It's because Williams is shit I thought we ascertained that fact ;) Williams is brilliant at creating chances but shit at finishing them off. That's why we need a second striker to support him. I was actually disappointed when he went off as his pace was causing Oldham problems. Sorry, this formation just doesn't work at home. Title: Re: Formation Post by: Flashheart on Friday, March 29, 2013, 18:18:35 Would have liked to have seen Andy Johnson out there today or Paul Benson? Title: Re: Formation Post by: BruceChatwin on Friday, March 29, 2013, 18:19:51 Fuck knows what was going on with the first half formation. Not sure if it was even a 4-5-1 but whatever it was it seemed to have neither the possession benefits of the 4-5-1 or the attacking benefits of a 4-4-2.
We battered them second half when we changed to the 4-4-2, although I do think that was in part helped by the circumstances, with the momentum we gained after the overhead kick and Oldham sitting back. Whatever formation we play, Ferry should NEVER be playing on the wing. Title: Re: Formation Post by: ronnie21 on Friday, March 29, 2013, 18:24:36 It's because Williams is shit Fred, Williams missed three gilt edged chances in an hour, he was replaced by Collins who promptly missed five!! We definitely needed a new striker in, if only to give these guys a rest.I thought we ascertained that fact ;) Title: Re: Formation Post by: Batch on Friday, March 29, 2013, 18:24:49 It isn't negative. In many ways we control games better and pass the ball better. It just doesn't present us with as many chances as 4-4-2 seems to.
Title: Re: Formation Post by: Paolo69 on Friday, March 29, 2013, 18:30:38 I'd love to have Andy Johnson out there too but I expect QPR would say the same. The bloke is made a glass at the moment so we were always going to be lucky.
The problem wasn't the formation but the finishing. Rooney will be quite rightly will be happy with his goal but I'm sure will be the first to admit he was as culpable as anyone. Title: Re: Formation Post by: Fred Elliot on Friday, March 29, 2013, 18:31:24 Fred, Williams missed three gilt edged chances in an hour, he was replaced by Collins who promptly missed five!! We definitely needed a new striker in, if only to give these guys a rest. Agreed Ronnie I think I made my feelings quit clear when PDC shipped Benson out Title: Re: Formation Post by: Paolo69 on Friday, March 29, 2013, 18:32:36 We're more than capable of winning at Donny and taking this league but to state the flaming obvious, need to improve our finishing.
Title: Re: Formation Post by: Batch on Friday, March 29, 2013, 18:34:07 The problem wasn't the formation but the finishing. Rooney will be quite rightly will be happy with his goal but I'm sure will be the first to admit he was as culpable as anyone. Indeed he did, in the BBC Wilts interview after the match. Title: Re: Formation Post by: Flashheart on Friday, March 29, 2013, 18:37:45 I think what I should have asked is.... Is KMAC doing a good job?
Title: Re: Formation Post by: Batch on Friday, March 29, 2013, 18:41:41 Yes he is doing alright.
I do think keeping Di Canio without the shit that went down would have given us a better chance of promotion though. Just because continuity is usually better than change when a team is doing well. That said, there is no guarantee we'd be better off under PDC with the off field crap and the injuries. Title: Re: Formation Post by: Berniman on Friday, March 29, 2013, 18:42:56 The formation isn't necessarily wrong though the players are playing in the wrong positions to make it work. To make a 351/433 work you need 2 attacking pacy wingers. Ferry and Roberts aren't that.
To turn a 351 into a 433 quickly you need pace. We would have been better playing Collins up front on his own with Williams on the wing, then that might be a viable 433 because the lone man up front would get supported by pace. IMO Williams is better than Rooney, despite what happened today. Williams didn't have a chance on his own up front with no pacy support. I felt sorry for Williams today being brought off when we went to 2 up front, especially when our muppet fans cheered when his number came up. Title: Re: Formation Post by: The Grim Reaper on Friday, March 29, 2013, 18:47:33 On another day we could have won 5-0 and no one would have giving a fuck what the formation was or who played where.
Title: Re: Formation Post by: Flashheart on Friday, March 29, 2013, 18:48:51 I felt sorry for Williams today being brought off when we went to 2 up front, especially when our muppet fans cheered when his number came up. **Shudder** Title: Re: Formation Post by: sonicyouth on Friday, March 29, 2013, 18:49:51 A lot of these narrow games probably would have been settled with a goal from Ritchie. That's my theory until someone proves me wrong!
Title: Re: Formation Post by: Paolo69 on Friday, March 29, 2013, 18:53:13 A lot of these narrow games probably would have been settled with a goal from Ritchie. That's my theory until someone proves me wrong! You're right Sonic. No guarantee Richie would have scored mind. Title: Re: Formation Post by: blinkpip on Friday, March 29, 2013, 18:55:36 I miss us not using two wingers either side, never seem to get many decent crosses from wide areas. With Collins and Rooney, they are better with their heads, than their feet.
Title: Re: Formation Post by: Honkytonk on Friday, March 29, 2013, 20:22:22 A lot of these narrow games probably would have been settled with a goal from Ritchie. That's my theory until someone proves me wrong! This, this, over 9,000 times this. Title: Re: Formation Post by: DV on Friday, March 29, 2013, 20:53:34 I'm struggling to see how it can be considered negative when we are getting so many shots and so many sitters. Were we getting more shots in under PDC? We were scoring more goals under PDC and winning more matches. Why Williams and Collins have both seemingly gone off the boil since he left, I couldn't tell you... Title: Re: Formation Post by: Costanza on Friday, March 29, 2013, 21:03:47 The form of Williams and Collins has been sporadic all season long.
Title: Re: Re: Formation Post by: Frigby Daser on Friday, March 29, 2013, 22:13:30 We just had Ritchie's goals to gloss over that before. If you are a scout trying to identify our main threat now, what would you say? I'm not really sure.
Title: Re: Re: Formation Post by: jonny72 on Friday, March 29, 2013, 22:15:57 If you are a scout trying to identify our main threat now, what would you say? To the fans behind the goals? Title: Re: Re: Formation Post by: BruceChatwin on Friday, March 29, 2013, 23:11:24 We just had Ritchie's goals to gloss over that before. If you are a scout trying to identify our main threat now, what would you say? I'm not really sure. Teamwork? Title: Re: Formation Post by: joteddyred on Saturday, March 30, 2013, 00:29:39 We were scoring more goals under PDC and winning more matches. I'd say it's more to do with Ritchie leaving than Di Canio. We miss him dreadfully in terms of assists and goals.Why Williams and Collins have both seemingly gone off the boil since he left, I couldn't tell you... Title: Re: Formation Post by: Iffy's Onion Bhaji on Saturday, March 30, 2013, 10:07:25 It's interesting to see Roberts deployed on the left by KMAC as I thought he looked at his best here when he was playing on the right when we didn't have a manager. I'd like to see him there again personally.
I don't like the formation personally but I accept that every manager prefers different formations etc and this is obviously one KMAC believes in. Also we saw yesterday that he is willing to change it in order to pose more of a threat up top. It's just a shame he doesn't change it sooner. Interestingly the formation might actually work for us in a 2 legged semi play off game. Not sure it would at Wembley mind. Title: Re: Formation Post by: Arriba on Saturday, March 30, 2013, 13:15:44 How is the formation gonna make the strikers take their chances? The formation is not the problem,the personel is.
Title: Re: Formation Post by: Batch on Saturday, March 30, 2013, 13:20:53 How is the formation gonna make the strikers take their chances? The formation is not the problem,the personel is. Depends if you argree we make more chances with 4-4-2 or not. The more chances we make the better! Title: Re: Formation Post by: horlock07 on Saturday, March 30, 2013, 14:02:46 In light of yesterday should we not be playing something like 2-3-5 as with 5 strikers on the pitch we may actually take a chance.
Title: Re: Formation Post by: No Longer Posh Red on Saturday, March 30, 2013, 14:18:55 We created enough chances to win the game with both formations.
After all, Williams is getting stick for his missed chances & they all happened when we were playing 4-5-1. The thing that was noticeable when playing that way, was the lack of midfield payers making runs into the box, which surely you need when playing that formation. The other concern was that we (particularly towards the end of the first half) decided to pump balls forward for Williams in the air, where the two CH's for Oldham just won virtually everything in the air. With the extra bodies (and quality) in midfield, surely we should look to try & pass our way around the big old lumps at the back. Title: Re: Formation Post by: Bukkake Regiment on Saturday, March 30, 2013, 21:06:39 I think what I should have asked is.... Is KMAC doing a good job? Hmm, ask me at the end of the season. Not convinced.Title: Re: Formation Post by: Bukkake Regiment on Saturday, March 30, 2013, 21:07:46 Not a fan of the 451, we're much better when we play 442.
Title: Re: Re: Formation Post by: herthab on Sunday, March 31, 2013, 08:44:35 442, 451, 433, does it really make a huge difference? We are creating chances with all these formations. The problem is we're not converting enough of them. All this bollocks about 451 is rubbish anyway. It's a fluid formation that quickly changes to 433 when we've got possession. As for KMac, his record so far is pretty decent. So what if he isn't as demonstrative as PdC? I go to watch the football, not the dugout. He comes across as calm, considered and composed. Not a bad combination imo.
Title: Re: Formation Post by: Peter Venkman on Sunday, March 31, 2013, 08:51:55 442, 451, 433, does it really make a huge difference? We are creating chances with all these formations. The problem is we're not converting enough of them. All this bollocks about 451 is rubbish anyway. It's a fluid formation that quickly changes to 433 when we've got possession. As for KMac, his record so far is pretty decent. So what if he isn't as demonstrative as PdC? I go to watch the football, not the dugout. He comes across as calm, considered and composed. Not a bad combination imo. Absolutely spot on.Title: Re: Re: Formation Post by: SleafordRobin on Sunday, March 31, 2013, 09:11:21 442, 451, 433, does it really make a huge difference? We are creating chances with all these formations. The problem is we're not converting enough of them. All this bollocks about 451 is rubbish anyway. It's a fluid formation that quickly changes to 433 when we've got possession. As for KMac, his record so far is pretty decent. So what if he isn't as demonstrative as PdC? I go to watch the football, not the dugout. He comes across as calm, considered and composed. Not a bad combination imo. Spot on! We created 20 odd attempts on goal on Friday, and we're playing some good football. I left the ground feeling frustrated, not because of the way we played, but because of our missed chances (again). Title: Re: Formation Post by: Batch on Sunday, March 31, 2013, 09:20:04 442, 451, 433, does it really make a huge difference? We are creating chances with all these formations. The problem is we're not converting enough of them. All this bollocks about 451 is rubbish anyway. It's a fluid formation that quickly changes to 433 when we've got possession. As for KMac, his record so far is pretty decent. So what if he isn't as demonstrative as PdC? I go to watch the football, not the dugout. He comes across as calm, considered and composed. Not a bad combination imo. As I said before, it depends if you agree we create more chances with 4-4-2 or not. By simple laws of average creating more chances = more goals. Even if we currently have 1 in 20 strikers! Kmac - nothing bad to say about him really, other than not working our Ferry is playing too much out of position.. Title: Re: Formation Post by: Reg Smeeton on Sunday, March 31, 2013, 09:30:59 I think what I should have asked is.... Is KMAC doing a good job? MacDonald needs to be judged on next season, if he is here. The proviso being added because of DoB's contention that there'll be new owners. Title: Re: Formation Post by: Flashheart on Sunday, March 31, 2013, 10:03:53 Eat my stats...
Team Result Shots (On target + off target) Crawley 3-0 8 (5+3) MK 1-0 10 (4+6) Orient 0-1 5 (3+2) Muff 4-0 14 (7+7) Colchester 0-1 7 (2+5) Coventry 2-2 10 (7+3) Scunthorpe 1-1 6 (1+5) Sheff U 0-0 11 (3+8) Yeovil 4-1 18 (7+11) Brentford 0-1 10 (2+8) Doncaster 1-1 9 (4+5) Tranmere 5-0 17 (13+4) Portsmouth 5-0 15 (9+6) Carlisle 4-0 19 (8+11) Shrews 2-0 12 (5+7 ) Hartlepool 1-1 14 (6+8) Preston 1-1 (no stats) Bury 0-1 8 (3+5) Walsall 2-2 8 (4+4 ) NOtts Co 0-0 11 (6+5) Oldham 1-1 20 (5+15) Against Oldham we created more chances than any other home league game of the season. The 'not even chances' theory is just not washing. I'd go as far as to sat that we may even create fewer chances with a 4-4-2. Title: Re: Formation Post by: Bogus Dave on Sunday, March 31, 2013, 10:15:51 I think you're ignoring the fact that we created more chances after we switched to 4-4-2
Title: Re: Formation Post by: Flashheart on Sunday, March 31, 2013, 10:19:28 I didn't think of that until after I had posted.
Still though. It's had to blame the result on formation when we create that many chances. We should be putting them away. Title: Re: Formation Post by: OOH! SHAUN TAYLOR on Sunday, March 31, 2013, 10:20:20 As some one once said (Gladstone maybe), there are lies, damned lies and statistics. I know what I saw with my own eyes, namely, we looked a different team (that is to say better) when we went to 4-4-2.
Title: Re: Formation Post by: Bogus Dave on Sunday, March 31, 2013, 10:21:20 Yeah, we still made enough good chances 4-5-1 to be out of sight. Roberts' open goal, williams missed a couple
Title: Re: Formation Post by: Costanza on Sunday, March 31, 2013, 10:21:54 Ah 4-4-2, so frightfully British. Don't panic guys, we'll score again.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T72TopWbXJg Title: Re: Re: Re: Formation Post by: Batch on Sunday, March 31, 2013, 10:49:45 Yeah, we still made enough good chances 4-5-1 to be out of sight. Roberts' open goal, williams missed a couple indeed we did. We looked threatening for the first 20 mins. And the entire 90 at Coventry playing 4 5 1. It's not a disaster, if that's the impression some are picking up.But for our last 2 home games we looked better with 4 4 2. But we only switch after 60 minutes. Title: Re: Formation Post by: DV on Sunday, March 31, 2013, 11:39:01 I'm not a fan of 451, never have been and think strike partnerships are always more effective than a lone man upfront.
Say what you like about Billy Paynter but he wouldnt have been that much use to us upfront on his own - however, stick him in a partnership with a Simon Cox or a Charlie Austin and you get more out of Paynter and his partnership. Having said that, despite playing 451 and playing Ferry out of position we are creating chance - which counts for next to nothing really. How many chances did Oldham create? they still scored the same amount as us. If we played 6-4-0 created two chances and scored them both we would have won. So I dont think the formation is the main issue but id argue a strike partnership is more effective and you'd have more people in the box to hopefully finish off those chances (or miss them....) Title: Re: Formation Post by: No Longer Posh Red on Sunday, March 31, 2013, 15:05:51 The flip side of creating more chances when we went to 4-4-2, is that it was just after that that Oldham created (and finished) one of their few chances.
It was interesting to watch MOTD last night, and take note of the formations for the teams on those games. Most of them played with the 4-5-1 (or 4-3-3 when you have the ball). For what it's worth, I think that Williams would be better suited to be one of the wide players in a 4-5-1, rather than the focal point of the attack. He is better running in behind, which doesn't give the midfield as much time to join in with the attack. Title: Re: Formation Post by: FreddySTFC! on Sunday, March 31, 2013, 15:37:01 The flip side of creating more chances when we went to 4-4-2, is that it was just after that that Oldham created (and finished) one of their few chances. It was interesting to watch MOTD last night, and take note of the formations for the teams on those games. Most of them played with the 4-5-1 (or 4-3-3 when you have the ball). For what it's worth, I think that Williams would be better suited to be one of the wide players in a 4-5-1, rather than the focal point of the attack. He is better running in behind, which doesn't give the midfield as much time to join in with the attack. Your last point is spot on. Willo doesn't win enough in the air or hold the ball well enough to be considered the lone front man. We also lose the best aspect of his game playing him that far up top which is getting him playing on the shoulder of the centre half, turning and basically using his pace to commit the CB to a challenge. Willo and Roberts playing either side of Collins or Rooney with Nav, Parrett & Ferry as a 3 man centre mid would be my starting side tomorrow. Along with Wes & the usual back four of course!!!! :D |