- This topic has 21 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
5 users thanked author for this post.
Worth a go IMO. This “we clearly have no wide men of any note” is the reason. Bunn (seldom fit) and Wilson (disappeared) look like our best option out wide but that looks unlikely to happen. Cox can’t keep picking Green and Hippo in the hope that they turn into footballers.
1 user thanked author for this post.
Do not understand why Cam Wilson has ‘gone’ into the wastelands ! Must be his turn I guess.
In all his home academy games I never saw Wilson lose interest, forget his role or fail to contribute. Gets opportunities on the bench and ………..there he was gone. Yet he contributes well in his recent academy appearances.
Give the lad a chance, certainly no worse than Hippolyte or Green ( who now has a dead leg ).
8 users thanked author for this post.
Give the lad a chance, certainly no worse than Hippolyte or Green ( who now has a dead leg ).
So an improvement on the 2 he usually has.
2 users thanked author for this post.
Definitely worth a go; Cox can’t use the excuse that we are more secure with 5 at the back with our abysmal record.
Stick Jarvis in the middle with Loft and Scrimshaw either and see what happens.
1 user thanked author for this post.
We cannot play 5 at the back because our coaching staff seem unaware of the basics of playing this system.
One of the benefits of playing it properly is that without the ball the full backs/wing backs can engage and mark the opposition wide men and limit/stop crosses coming in.
When we play it our full backs tuck in very narrow and leave the opposition wide men freedom of the park. We compound it by having the midfield drop deep and allow the opposition to ping the balls out wide pretty much unchallenged – see the space Forest Green’s No 6 and No 21 had last Saturday to continually pass the ball out wide unchallenged. Their No 21 just walked into 10 yards of space whenever they had the ball and then played it out wide to a free man about 20 times in the game. I spent the first half looking at our bench expecting them to get a midfield player to close him down but it never happened. Just after half time I was delighted to see Hackney take the ball of him rather easily – I though halleluja someone has said something at half time. That was the only time our midfield challenged him until he was substituted late in the game so the Hackney challenge was just a coincidence.
I don’t believe O’Malley, Thompson, Millen, Rowe and Pugh all make the same decision to stand 20 or 30 yards off the opposition wide players so it must be a team tactic.
The consequence is that when the ball inevitably gets played wide our full backs are busting a gut to then close the gap and more often than not an unchallenged cross comes in. Given crossed balls are the main source of goal chances in League 2 it is no wonder we concede so often.
The insurance policy of 3 centre backs against one or two central strikers should allow the wing backs to get tight and stay tight and force the opposition down the middle. Simple but not the way we play it. Coaching basics chapter 1.
3 users thanked author for this post.
That would be classed as a gamble, the lads are used to sitting deep and relying on breakaways and luck and hopefully someone can hit the target for a change, so don’t expect any sudden change to a losing formation
1 user thanked author for this post.
If sitting deep and getting into shape worked at League 2 level surely we would have seen some benefits by now. It just gifts possession to the opposition in danger areas.
Even in the 1 game we have managed to win this season Tranmere had a steady stream of unchallenged crosses in the first half from their right hand side. It was only because they were so shite they didnt make anything of them. You can play for or five centre backs – if you allow streams of unchallenged crosses into the area you are going to concede chances.
.
1 user thanked author for this post.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.