On way home | QPR 2 Brentford 2

[nasser95]

Why do people think Smith should start out of curiosity? Like, I get it when Sylla was on the bench, but Smith has 4 goals in 423 minutes off the bench since joining us and two assists. In the 1237 minutes he's started since joining, he's scored 5 goals... Off the bench, he's involved in goals at a rate of a goal involvement every 70.5 mins. When he starts, he's got a goal involvement every 247.4 mins (a goal almost every 3 games). He averages less than half an hour a game off the bench and he creates so much more in that period of time that it'd be wasting him to play him against fit defenders from the get go. Meanwhile you have Sylla who's got 6 goals in 513 sub minutes for the club but has 8 goals and 1 assist in the remaining time he starts for us (1613 mins) aka a goal involvement every 179 minutes or a goal involvement every other game he starts.

The less said about Washington's scoring record, the better, but what we see is that we have two players there who are good coming off the bench but only one of them is actually a true starter at this level. Play with one striker, it's allowed, and bring on the other one if we haven't scored yet. You don't need to play one off another from the get go, you need to not waste chances and if it doesn't work, then you change strategies and bring on the big guy Smith. Clearly when he's on the pitch, we play more long passes up and more often than not, that works only when he's off the bench.

Just for proof of that, since I do love my numbers: When Smith plays off the bench, he's won 52 out of 99 aerial duels (52.5% success) in 353 minutes this season off the bench. When he starts, he's won only 21 out of 51 aerial duels (41.1% success) in 226 minutes. His record is worse in the second half than it is in the first and we lose our contingency plan because he tires out. He wins more headers per minute played off the bench, so why should we hinder his main purpose when we could just start sylla alone and play freeman right behind him, Let Luongo and Scowen win the ball and carry it forward to those two and the wingers. 4231 all the way for me looking something like this.

Smithies
Furlong Baptiste Robinson Bidwell (At least until Onuoha is back)
Luongo Scowen
Wszolek Freeman Lua Lua (maybe this formation might even get more out of Yeni)
Sylla

Off the bench later on we bring on Smith for a new outlet which basically cuts the running needed by our midfield so they don't tire out and bring someone like cousins on to keep the pressure and urgency up in the final few minutes.

[brightonr]

Why do people think Smith should start out of curiosity? Like, I get it when Sylla was on the bench, but Smith has 4 goals in 423 minutes off the bench since joining us and two assists. In the 1237 minutes he's started since joining, he's scored 5 goals... Off the bench, he's involved in goals at a rate of a goal involvement every 70.5 mins. When he starts, he's got a goal involvement every 247.4 mins (a goal almost every 3 games). He averages less than half an hour a game off the bench and he creates so much more in that period of time that it'd be wasting him to play him against fit defenders from the get go. Meanwhile you have Sylla who's got 6 goals in 513 sub minutes for the club but has 8 goals and 1 assist in the remaining time he starts for us (1613 mins) aka a goal involvement every 179 minutes or a goal involvement every other game he starts.

The less said about Washington's scoring record, the better, but what we see is that we have two players there who are good coming off the bench but only one of them is actually a true starter at this level. Play with one striker, it's allowed, and bring on the other one if we haven't scored yet. You don't need to play one off another from the get go, you need to not waste chances and if it doesn't work, then you change strategies and bring on the big guy Smith. Clearly when he's on the pitch, we play more long passes up and more often than not, that works only when he's off the bench.

Just for proof of that, since I do love my numbers: When Smith plays off the bench, he's won 52 out of 99 aerial duels (52.5% success) in 353 minutes this season off the bench. When he starts, he's won only 21 out of 51 aerial duels (41.1% success) in 226 minutes. His record is worse in the second half than it is in the first and we lose our contingency plan because he tires out. He wins more headers per minute played off the bench, so why should we hinder his main purpose when we could just start sylla alone and play freeman right behind him, Let Luongo and Scowen win the ball and carry it forward to those two and the wingers. 4231 all the way for me looking something like this.

Smithies
Furlong Baptiste Robinson Bidwell (At least until Onuoha is back)
Luongo Scowen
Wszolek Freeman Lua Lua (maybe this formation might even get more out of Yeni)
Sylla

Off the bench later on we bring on Smith for a new outlet which basically cuts the running needed by our midfield so they don't tire out and bring someone like cousins on to keep the pressure and urgency up in the final few minutes.

You talk an awful lot of sense there Nasser.

Only thing I could disagree with is the very last thing you say. Be intersting to see all the stats on Cousins, because my eyes tell me he's absolutely woeful.

[Kevin Mcleod]

I wish just a tiny fraction of the bile aimed at 'Mr playing with ten men gump' was deflected to Cousins.
Find it so strange that one gets it non stop and the other (whos worse imo) gets none.
Maybe its cos Gump is so good looking and hench (no homo) and people are just jelly and feel insecure

[Stanley]

Be intersting to see all the stats on Cousins, because my eyes tell me he's absolutely woeful.

I wish just a tiny fraction of the bile aimed at 'Mr playing with ten men gump' was deflected to Cousins.

Impossible to judge Cousins fairly if he's not played in his correct position i.e. CM. No way in a million years is he a RB. Kakay OTOH is but was ignored because, yet again, our esteemed manager elects to wedge square pegs into round holes.

[hal9thou]

But I agree that 442 with a proper winger is surely the way to go with the players we have. It'll be a cold day in hell before our esteemed manager ever realises this though.

Yup, been banging on for ages about this. Non diamond 4-4-2 (wide MFs as wingers to feed Smith and Sylla, proper full backs to help keep a decent back line) - blindingly obvious given our squad. Of course we need a plan B, but I'm convinced Ollie isn't sure of his plan A. Everything says seems to me to be masking a lot of confusion.

Note to Naz: Smith will get goals with a) service wide from the danger area and b) someone to feed off him. This system works better with proper wingers, which means proper full backs. Like I said to you a very long time ago, you cut your cloth to accommodate your strengths and nullify weaknesses. What you don't do is impose a set up regardless (or in Ollies case different set ups according to the time of day). Oh and Hall has to be in that back line (given fitness).

[nasser95]

Yup, been banging on for ages about this. Non diamond 4-4-2 (wide MFs as wingers to feed Smith and Sylla, proper full backs to help keep a decent back line) - blindingly obvious given our squad. Of course we need a plan B, but I'm convinced Ollie isn't sure of his plan A. Everything says seems to me to be masking a lot of confusion.

Note to Naz: Smith will get goals with a) service wide from the danger area and b) someone to feed off him. This system works better with proper wingers, which means proper full backs. Like I said to you a very long time ago, you cut your cloth to accommodate your strengths and nullify weaknesses. What you don't do is impose a set up regardless (or in Ollies case different set ups according to the time of day). Oh and Hall has to be in that back line (given fitness).

Smith forces us to play a certain way. Sylla is the better offensive header most of the time and offers more to the game. Smith is the guy who will win it in set pieces and late on when the defence has dropped deeper. Smith is good for one half of football, statistically proven by the fact that he's only scored one goal in the second half in games he's started for us (A total of 16 second half appearances as a starter) by comparison to 4 goals in the first half of the 16 games he started. Add on the fact that he scores mostly as a sub anyway, there's very clear evidence that we're wasting a starting spot by putting him in from the get go. I'd much rather we try and get control of the midfield and tire them out by playing 2 wingers and 3 in the middle, than putting Smith in from the get go.

As for Ollie's set up, I'd hope I didn't disagree with you on that, we very clearly haven't purchased wing backs and playing a formation to accommodate non existent wing backs is the dumbest thing he's done here. I'm a big fan of the 352 but we need the right players and we don't have them.

[Tarbie]

Smith forces us to play a certain way. Sylla is the better offensive header most of the time and offers more to the game. Smith is the guy who will win it in set pieces and late on when the defence has dropped deeper. Smith is good for one half of football, statistically proven by the fact that he's only scored one goal in the second half in games he's started for us (A total of 16 second half appearances as a starter) by comparison to 4 goals in the first half of the 16 games he started. Add on the fact that he scores mostly as a sub anyway, there's very clear evidence that we're wasting a starting spot by putting him in from the get go. I'd much rather we try and get control of the midfield and tire them out by playing 2 wingers and 3 in the middle, than putting Smith in from the get go.

As for Ollie's set up, I'd hope I didn't disagree with you on that, we very clearly haven't purchased wing backs and playing a formation to accommodate non existent wing backs is the dumbest thing he's done here. I'm a big fan of the 352 but we need the right players and we don't have them.

Bloody hell Nas........I agree with almost all of that.

Personally not a fan of 3-5-2. Needs specialist players in my opinion. In our league I think most players are better suited to 4 at the back. But the rest of what you wrote I think is spot on.

[Pinkie]

Yup, been banging on for ages about this. Non diamond 4-4-2 (wide MFs as wingers to feed Smith and Sylla, proper full backs to help keep a decent back line) - blindingly obvious given our squad. Of course we need a plan B, but I'm convinced Ollie isn't sure of his plan A. Everything says seems to me to be masking a lot of confusion.

Note to Naz: Smith will get goals with a) service wide from the danger area and b) someone to feed off him. This system works better with proper wingers, which means proper full backs. Like I said to you a very long time ago, you cut your cloth to accommodate your strengths and nullify weaknesses. What you don't do is impose a set up regardless (or in Ollies case different set ups according to the time of day). Oh and Hall has to be in that back line (given fitness).

Blindingly obvious yet if ollie played a basic 4-4-2 youd start giving it the tactically clueless lol, you gotto larf you really have! we`ve got defenders out atm, but our strikers no matter what system arent banging loads of goals in or our midfield! we have been playing ok with the system we`ve been using, just not scoring enough and letting the odd stupid goal in through lack of concentration! Would certainly look at wheeler and the other winger to adding them in and pav to getting them more involved, but dont think a 442 would make a big difference to how we are in my opinion, as we`re not sticking the ball away enough with any chances anyway.

[hal9thou]

if ollie played a basic 4-4-2 youd start giving it the tactically clueless

What makes you think that?

We have the players for a workable 4-4-2, because a) it eliminates the Mackie / Washington nonsense that your idol has perpetuated despite all available evidence suggesting that this wasn't the answer

b) it plays to Smith's strengths

c) it allows for better defensive cover because it eliminates wing backs.

My problem with wing backs dates way pre Ollie. You need exceptional atheletes as well as footballers for w/b, and we dont have em.

[FurtiveFox]

Blindingly obvious yet if ollie played a basic 4-4-2 youd start giving it the tactically clueless lol, you gotto larf you really have! we`ve got defenders out atm, but our strikers no matter what system arent banging loads of goals in or our midfield! we have been playing ok with the system we`ve been using, just not scoring enough and letting the odd stupid goal in through lack of concentration! Would certainly look at wheeler and the other winger to adding them in and pav to getting them more involved, but dont think a 442 would make a big difference to how we are in my opinion, as we`re not sticking the ball away enough with any chances anyway.

Seems tactically clueless to play a system with wing backs when we don't have any, sign a load of wingers when we play a system that doesn't use wingers then moan we have no money to spend when we have spent what money we have mainly on wingers etc! As for our doing ok think Ollie has shown over the last year he just isn't good enough at this level.

[Rangers77]

Blindingly obvious yet if ollie played a basic 4-4-2 youd start giving it the tactically clueless lol, you gotto larf you really have! we`ve got defenders out atm, but our strikers no matter what system arent banging loads of goals in or our midfield! we have been playing ok with the system we`ve been using, just not scoring enough and letting the odd stupid goal in through lack of concentration! Would certainly look at wheeler and the other winger to adding them in and pav to getting them more involved, but dont think a 442 would make a big difference to how we are in my opinion, as we`re not sticking the ball away enough with any chances anyway.

If you haven't any wing backs, don't play wing backs. It really is that simple.

[Shepherds Mush]

If you haven't any wing backs, don't play wing backs. It really is that simple.

Eh? I thought if you dont have any wing-backs you play a box to box midfielder there ?

[Pinkie]

If you haven't any wing backs, don't play wing backs. It really is that simple.

Have you ever thought hes been doing this to protect our defence abit more with defenders out injured, yet making us more solid in midfield! personally think with wingers in likes of shodipo they dont help back hence putting more pressure on our full backs and defence! to me thats ollies reasoning, hoping being more solid in midfield, giving us more possesion!

[Stanley]

Have you ever thought hes been doing this to protect our defence abit more with defenders out injured,

But he's been playing wing-backs long before the CBs got injured.

think with wingers in likes of shodipo they dont help back

They wouldn't need to track back as much with FBs behind them. Wingers are predominantly attacking players.

hoping being more solid in midfield

Midfield is not the problem. We're already solid there. The problem is lack of width to supply the strikers, due to his lack of employing proper wingers (which he has loads of but are being wasted in the reserves).

All of these counter-arguments have been repeated ad nauseum on here, with zero return of any rational argument. Clueless as to why you still don't see it, when I'm sure the vast majority of posters here do. It's become like Groundhog Day repeating the same old ground.

[Pinkie]

But he's been playing wing-backs long before the CBs got injured.



They wouldn't need to track back as much with FBs behind them. Wingers are predominantly attacking players.



Midfield is not the problem. We're already solid there. The problem is lack of width to supply the strikers, due to his lack of employing proper wingers (which he has loads of but are being wasted in the reserves).

All of these counter-arguments have been repeated ad nauseum on here, with zero return of any rational argument. Clueless as to why you still don't see it, when I'm sure the vast majority of posters on here do. It's become like Groundhog Day going over the same old ground too.

Yes and if we was to goto a flat back 4 we`d most likely get overrun in midfield by the opposition with there 5 in midfield! hence losing our domination of midfield, with less threat attacking posession wise!