Tweet
The difference between this game and that goal is Dunne was never in an advanced position to help against sw. Very rarely was anyone in an advanced position to help and the balls going forward weren't in the right position for Armstrong to be of any use.
The reason we went long this game is because sw pressed us better than any other team did at loftus road in a long time. We couldn't play out of it despite having our three strongest creative players there to play out too.
The press was so effective it allowed them to pushed us further, create more mistakes and left the players needing to play it long to Armstrong who was isolated as our style of play meant all the other players had come back to try to create openings to play out from the back. And the long balls to SA id guess have a less than 0.1 chance creation rate so far this season.
I'm not saying two upfront was the right way to go, but it would have been a good backup plan to switch to. It needed a plan b we don't have that would allow a more direct style of get the ball up and play around there with it to create space in their third instead of our own half. We didn't have gameplan in our back pocket to skip the press this game.
To play the way MC wants, we needed more engine to create space and pull sw into wrong positions. I don't know if Chris Willock and Anderson have that engine tbh and I'm not sure how to fix it. It might have been better game to play Dixon-Bonner instead of Anderson/Willock to give Chair/Other more support from a rotating two of whomever could be free from Field and DB and wingback to play triangles and open them up.
The reason we went long this game is because sw pressed us better than any other team did at loftus road in a long time. We couldn't play out of it despite having our three strongest creative players there to play out too.
The press was so effective it allowed them to pushed us further, create more mistakes and left the players needing to play it long to Armstrong who was isolated as our style of play meant all the other players had come back to try to create openings to play out from the back. And the long balls to SA id guess have a less than 0.1 chance creation rate so far this season.
I'm not saying two upfront was the right way to go, but it would have been a good backup plan to switch to. It needed a plan b we don't have that would allow a more direct style of get the ball up and play around there with it to create space in their third instead of our own half. We didn't have gameplan in our back pocket to skip the press this game.
To play the way MC wants, we needed more engine to create space and pull sw into wrong positions. I don't know if Chris Willock and Anderson have that engine tbh and I'm not sure how to fix it. It might have been better game to play Dixon-Bonner instead of Anderson/Willock to give Chair/Other more support from a rotating two of whomever could be free from Field and DB and wingback to play triangles and open them up.
Comment