Tweet
What is it that drives this strategy game after game, where the movement from the goalie and back line is slow, predictable, and totally unproductive. For a squad that supposedly has all this offensive firepower, the defense plays keep away from not just the opposition but also its own offense. For a team with one of the worst goals against records in the Championship, this clearly doesn't work to limit the damage on one end, while limiting chances to score on the other. This one's on MW and the coaching staff to correct. If not, fear we are heading back to mid-table mediocrity because we dared to ignore the obvious in lieu of tactical stubbornness.
-
-
MW is to stubborn to change the system he must know the current one does not work. -
We had this last season then bounced back, I’m not so sure we’re bouncing back after a naff performance as quick this season though. Tonight was abysmal got what we deservedOriginally posted by Macca View Post
too many players under performing too oftenComment
-
The 5 at the back system drives me f**cking insane. For some clubs it works, sure, it isn't working for us. We lose a player in midfield with 5 at the back, get us back to 4 have full backs and proper wingers and some overlapping down the flanks where we could do some damage. We have the players to do well which is why we are where we are, but the system clearly doesn't work for them. I'd love nothing more than MW to stick with it and prove me wrong, but I fear he will be too stubborn to make an appropriate change.Comment
-
Your right he is to stubborn his way no matter what even if it doesn't work.Originally posted by chaz0303 View PostComment
-
Who do u play as the midfield 4? One of chair or willock will miss out. Dykes and who up top?Originally posted by chaz0303 View Post
Dunne and dewijs at the back? Wallace at left back. Both our right backs are poor. All of a sudden it doesn't look fantastic does it?Comment
-
We have a lot of creative offensive players but little to no defensive midfield. Both Willock and Dickies look like they need a rest so I'm okay with the idea of a back four, three solid midfielders, and three on attack (one striker, one Chair, one other).Comment
-
I'd go 442 with dieng, kaka, barbet, dickie, mccallum (maybe drop for Wallace when fit). Albert and willock out wide with stef jo (drop for field when fit) and Amos in cdm. Chair in no 10 role and dykes up top. We need greater strength in depth, even with the current set up, we only need one injury at centre back to have no central defence back up, unless we deem it acceptable to play ball or kakay out of position.Comment
-
We definitely need more natural wingers with pace in the sideComment
-
When we trail or are tied in the second half of games we are expected to win, why do we continue the “lazy, hazy” pace? It’s nuts. Where is the urgency, the awareness of the situation, the drive?
How can that not be obvious to players and coaches alike?
I’m okay not winning. I’m not okay not competing to the end.
Comment
-
The thing with formations is they're not rigid and set in stone. I agree with making 4-4-2 our starting point and default set-up but no reason that can't be changed during games depending on how things are panning out or what the opposition are up to.Originally posted by chaz0303 View PostComment
-
Even Holloway persisted with wing backs until he eventually conceded and went 442.
Its the modern way with five at the back.
Can anyone name a manager in the top two divisions who plays 442......?Comment
-
I think its more that we are missing a strong sitting midfielder. It just seems that all the team want to attack with no real thought about defence which is a coaching issue.Comment
-
Burnley. Southampton, Everton, brighton all play 442Originally posted by SheepRanger View PostComment
-
How ever u setup u need the right personnel. We have players that don't seem to be good enoughComment
Comment