Tweet
Which of these two set ups/strategies would you think produced most goals:
1. McClaren
A team made up of Premier League players Wells or Hemed as strikers, Eze in the free role just behind the striker and Freeman and Wzsolek as traditional wingers. Cameron and Luongo as midfielders whenever they are available. Focus on a settled side whatever team we face. Dependency on experienced players, limited use of youth and a common 4-4-1-1 system.
2. Holloway
Constant changing the team. First Mackie and Washington as strikers, later a mix of Smith, Washington, Sylla, Eze , Oteh and Smyth. Wingbacks to feed the strikers for most of the season – many alternatives tried, with Bidwell, Robinson, Manning, BOS, Smyth, Eze, Washington, Wszolek and Cousin. Constant change of team to match strength and weakness of the opposition and to reflect players form. Very frequent use of young players, particularly during last half of the season. Fairly settled midfield with Luongo, Freeman and Scowen. A less common 3-5-2 system for most of the season, changed to 4-4-2 for last few matches.
I bet that most fans would say a settled team is better than constant changes, Premier League players with proven goal scoring record in the Championship is better than the likes of Washington and Mackie, a traditional system with both fullbacks and wingers is better than wingbacks and experienced proven players, including Cameron with several seasons in the Premier League and 50+ international matches is better than inexperienced youth.
Despite the fact most fans would go for McClaren set-up if they had to make a choice, Holloway’s set up produced more goals on average. If we score at the same rate for the last 17 league matches as the 29 we have played so far, we will end at 55 goals this season vs 58 last season.
Defensively McClaren's settled four back line is more solid than Holloway’s constant changing three back line. But isn’t it strange that we produced more goals under Holloway than under McClaren despite the fact Holloway didn’t have Wells, Hemed and Cameron to choose from but had to rely on Washington, Mackie and Smith plus the youngsters?
1. McClaren
A team made up of Premier League players Wells or Hemed as strikers, Eze in the free role just behind the striker and Freeman and Wzsolek as traditional wingers. Cameron and Luongo as midfielders whenever they are available. Focus on a settled side whatever team we face. Dependency on experienced players, limited use of youth and a common 4-4-1-1 system.
2. Holloway
Constant changing the team. First Mackie and Washington as strikers, later a mix of Smith, Washington, Sylla, Eze , Oteh and Smyth. Wingbacks to feed the strikers for most of the season – many alternatives tried, with Bidwell, Robinson, Manning, BOS, Smyth, Eze, Washington, Wszolek and Cousin. Constant change of team to match strength and weakness of the opposition and to reflect players form. Very frequent use of young players, particularly during last half of the season. Fairly settled midfield with Luongo, Freeman and Scowen. A less common 3-5-2 system for most of the season, changed to 4-4-2 for last few matches.
I bet that most fans would say a settled team is better than constant changes, Premier League players with proven goal scoring record in the Championship is better than the likes of Washington and Mackie, a traditional system with both fullbacks and wingers is better than wingbacks and experienced proven players, including Cameron with several seasons in the Premier League and 50+ international matches is better than inexperienced youth.
Despite the fact most fans would go for McClaren set-up if they had to make a choice, Holloway’s set up produced more goals on average. If we score at the same rate for the last 17 league matches as the 29 we have played so far, we will end at 55 goals this season vs 58 last season.
Defensively McClaren's settled four back line is more solid than Holloway’s constant changing three back line. But isn’t it strange that we produced more goals under Holloway than under McClaren despite the fact Holloway didn’t have Wells, Hemed and Cameron to choose from but had to rely on Washington, Mackie and Smith plus the youngsters?
Comment