Shrimpsvoices

Jim is always at a loss to explain why we cannot score goals given the number of chances and misses close to goal. Could I suggest he stands and watches the warm up before a match where professional footballers cannot hit the target with no defender and only the goalkeeper to beat. About 80% of the shots are wide or in the Omega Stand. If practice makes perfect we have perfected the art of missing the target wonderfully.

basically Olivier is just like an old Paul Mullin(target man) wins loads of balls but gets to isolated.

I'd like to see McGurk played in the role of Phil Jevons alongside Mullin in a front 2 partnership in a 4 4 2, it's simple and tactically uncomplicated its like second nature to players from grass roots.

the last time we did that we gate crashed the play-offs!!

I agree with George - I would love to see McGurk alongside Oliver in a 4-4-2

Is it me or at times are we trying to walk the ball in the net?
Have a bash Crewe did yesterday and looked what happened.

Ispyshrimp wrote:Is it me or at times are we trying to walk the ball in the net?
Have a bash Crewe did yesterday and looked what happened.

That's why I like Campbell - not afraid to give it a go rather than waiting for the perfect opportunity.

George Dawes wrote:basically Olivier is just like an old Paul Mullin(target man) wins loads of balls but gets to isolated.

I'd like to see McGurk played in the role of Phil Jevons alongside Mullin in a front 2 partnership in a 4 4 2, it's simple and tactically uncomplicated its like second nature to players from grass roots.

the last time we did that we gate crashed the play-offs!!

Just what I've been advocating numerous times on this forum. Unfortunately the management don't appear to go along with this style of play opting for a more 'modern game' approach adopted by the vast majority of Efl club's. If only we could be different and do it 'our way'.

Jim seems to follow the fashionable tactics at the time. When he got the job he said he wanted pace and width which saw us bring in Reid but I can't remember another out and out winger being signed. He likes the 4-3-3 with the target man and two inside forwards but we don't have the creativity to supply so we hoof it. The full backs never press on so we are really narrow and easy to play against. He has gone all Conte this season and tried to get poor League 2 defenders to play in a 3 with wing backs and Wildig trying trying to get up to support a target man.

Completed passes and ball retention might make good viewing on a computer screen but in reality, its just shitty 5 yard passes that don't influence the game which results in shit viewing for the punter and poor results.

The reason we don't play 4-4-2 is, when you're up against a formation with three or four central midfielders, you are dominated in that area of the park all too easily as the opposition has free men there in a dangerous position to do damage to you. The way Atletico and Leicester managed it was to have extremely energetic forwards who could chase back into midfield when out of possession to make up those numbers. We haven't got those, so please, put the 4-4-2 arguments to bed. It won't work.

What we lack at the moment is a) any kind of surprise factor in attack or b) any kind of advantage in midfield.

For the attack, the attacking midfielders don't get forward too often or with any sort of pace to surprise the opposition defenders, it's all a bit predictable. There's no verticality, everyone just holds position instead of having one or two powering forward. There's nothing defenders hate more than people running at them with pace, especially on diagonals. I'd like to see Oliver moved out to the right where his pace and height can be used with him running in rather than having him stay static in the centre. He played very well for York last season once moved out there and scored a lot of goals. Ellison can do that job from the left, albeit probably not for 90 minutes, but we have Thompson to come on and McGurk possibly.

The other thing is advantage in midfield. At the moment we have a couple staying deep and (usually) WIldig at the top of the triangle, and it's not working. It means we mostly go man for man against the teams we face, and to be blunt, our personnel aren't quite as good as a lot of other teams in the division. Id like to see one holding midfielder (Rose/Kenyon?), two shuttlers (Fleming/Kenyon/Osbourne/Wildig?) and one false nine who in defence plays at the tip of the diamond but who can get forward to support the wingers cutting inside when necessary (McGurk seems like the man for this job, but possibly Thompson/Campbell too) - like a poor man's Fabregas when he played up front for Spain. That way, when defending, we have the extra man in midfield to outnumber them, but when attacking we have two or three providing the verticality from either out wide or centrally.

Good luck in explaining that to Flemmo

marky No.1 wrote:Good luck in explaining that to Flemmo

His role doesn't really change.

Would Jim understand what The Marksman's comments mean??

Well, I'm convinced.
Jim OUT!! The Marksman to be the new manager, and put into practice for Saturday's trip to Carlisle.

Football is basically a simple game.....it's bloody managers and coaching staff who make it complicated by the use of endless formations and asking players to play out of position or in roles that they are not familiar with.

We played it simple v Hartlepool and Wycombe with a positive out come.

It really is simple. At its most basic level, it's attacking formation vs defensive formation one way and defensive formation vs attacking formation the other way. Some of the positions are going to cancel each other out, and some men are going to be left spare. What you want is for their spare men to be a) crap and b) in a position where they can't hurt you; and vice versa for your spare men. If you can get that spare man in the centre of midfield, that gives you a big advantage.

This is why we're seeing the rise of 3 defender formations in the Premiership. It's not about having three defenders, it's about having four in the centre of midfield - in a diamond or a square - and then arranging your other players around them. Chelsea can use either a diamond (Hazard at the tip) or a square (Hazard and Pedro attacking) depending on personnel. Liverpool have four in the centre of midfield (look at Firmino's average position in games to see what I mean) but use two wide forwards and four defenders instead. Portugal in the Euros had four in the centre of midfield, four defenders and one forward always pulling wide at any one time (Nani to the right, Ronaldo to the left). Wales overperformed with four central midfielders and three centre backs. It works.

The Marksman wrote:It really is simple. At its most basic level, it's attacking formation vs defensive formation one way and defensive formation vs attacking formation the other way. Some of the positions are going to cancel each other out, and some men are going to be left spare. What you want is for their spare men to be a) crap and b) in a position where they can't hurt you; and vice versa for your spare men. If you can get that spare man in the centre of midfield, that gives you a big advantage.

This is why we're seeing the rise of 3 defender formations in the Premiership. It's not about having three defenders, it's about having four in the centre of midfield - in a diamond or a square - and then arranging your other players around them. Chelsea can use either a diamond (Hazard at the tip) or a square (Hazard and Pedro attacking) depending on personnel. Liverpool have four in the centre of midfield (look at Firmino's average position in games to see what I mean) but use two wide forwards and four defenders instead. Portugal in the Euros had four in the centre of midfield, four defenders and one forward always pulling wide at any one time (Nani to the right, Ronaldo to the left). Wales overperformed with four central midfielders and three centre backs. It works.

I agree with you Marksman.
Having the spare man available is crucial, in attack or defence.
In a simple way, the spare man is usually involved in assisting or scoring a goal.
I wish Jim would look at it in the way you have described.
Good post.

seasonsinthesun wrote:

The Marksman wrote:It really is simple. At its most basic level, it's attacking formation vs defensive formation one way and defensive formation vs attacking formation the other way. Some of the positions are going to cancel each other out, and some men are going to be left spare. What you want is for their spare men to be a) crap and b) in a position where they can't hurt you; and vice versa for your spare men. If you can get that spare man in the centre of midfield, that gives you a big advantage.

This is why we're seeing the rise of 3 defender formations in the Premiership. It's not about having three defenders, it's about having four in the centre of midfield - in a diamond or a square - and then arranging your other players around them. Chelsea can use either a diamond (Hazard at the tip) or a square (Hazard and Pedro attacking) depending on personnel. Liverpool have four in the centre of midfield (look at Firmino's average position in games to see what I mean) but use two wide forwards and four defenders instead. Portugal in the Euros had four in the centre of midfield, four defenders and one forward always pulling wide at any one time (Nani to the right, Ronaldo to the left). Wales overperformed with four central midfielders and three centre backs. It works.

I agree with you Marksman.
Having the spare man available is crucial, in attack or defence.
In a simple way, the spare man is usually involved in assisting or scoring a goal.
I wish Jim would look at it in the way you have described.
Good post.

What's the point in having a spare man if you hoof it over his head?

Ntini wrote:

seasonsinthesun wrote:

The Marksman wrote:It really is simple. At its most basic level, it's attacking formation vs defensive formation one way and defensive formation vs attacking formation the other way. Some of the positions are going to cancel each other out, and some men are going to be left spare. What you want is for their spare men to be a) crap and b) in a position where they can't hurt you; and vice versa for your spare men. If you can get that spare man in the centre of midfield, that gives you a big advantage.

This is why we're seeing the rise of 3 defender formations in the Premiership. It's not about having three defenders, it's about having four in the centre of midfield - in a diamond or a square - and then arranging your other players around them. Chelsea can use either a diamond (Hazard at the tip) or a square (Hazard and Pedro attacking) depending on personnel. Liverpool have four in the centre of midfield (look at Firmino's average position in games to see what I mean) but use two wide forwards and four defenders instead. Portugal in the Euros had four in the centre of midfield, four defenders and one forward always pulling wide at any one time (Nani to the right, Ronaldo to the left). Wales overperformed with four central midfielders and three centre backs. It works.

I agree with you Marksman.
Having the spare man available is crucial, in attack or defence.
In a simple way, the spare man is usually involved in assisting or scoring a goal.
I wish Jim would look at it in the way you have described.
Good post.

What's the point in having a spare man if you hoof it over his head?

another good post

Think back to Aaron Wildig's great goal away at Carlisle from Ellison's cross.
He became the "spare man" in that attack, and just passed the ball into the back of the net.
That illustrates Marksman's point I think.

The Marksman wrote:The reason we don't play 4-4-2 is, when you're up against a formation with three or four central midfielders, you are dominated in that area of the park all too easily as the opposition has free men there in a dangerous position to do damage to you. The way Atletico and Leicester managed it was to have extremely energetic forwards who could chase back into midfield when out of possession to make up those numbers. We haven't got those, so please, put the 4-4-2 arguments to bed. It won't work.

What we lack at the moment is a) any kind of surprise factor in attack or b) any kind of advantage in midfield.

For the attack, the attacking midfielders don't get forward too often or with any sort of pace to surprise the opposition defenders, it's all a bit predictable. There's no verticality, everyone just holds position instead of having one or two powering forward. There's nothing defenders hate more than people running at them with pace, especially on diagonals. I'd like to see Oliver moved out to the right where his pace and height can be used with him running in rather than having him stay static in the centre. He played very well for York last season once moved out there and scored a lot of goals. Ellison can do that job from the left, albeit probably not for 90 minutes, but we have Thompson to come on and McGurk possibly.

The other thing is advantage in midfield. At the moment we have a couple staying deep and (usually) WIldig at the top of the triangle, and it's not working. It means we mostly go man for man against the teams we face, and to be blunt, our personnel aren't quite as good as a lot of other teams in the division. Id like to see one holding midfielder (Rose/Kenyon?), two shuttlers (Fleming/Kenyon/Osbourne/Wildig?) and one false nine who in defence plays at the tip of the diamond but who can get forward to support the wingers cutting inside when necessary (McGurk seems like the man for this job, but possibly Thompson/Campbell too) - like a poor man's Fabregas when he played up front for Spain. That way, when defending, we have the extra man in midfield to outnumber them, but when attacking we have two or three providing the verticality from either out wide or centrally.

diamond shape 4 man midfield, with 1xDM 2xCM 1xAM, makes the middle of the park more compact, puts you're counter argument to bed, me old cock sparrow

McGurk tracks back works is socks off. So we do have got those to make it work, and don't want both forwards tracking back, need at least one staying up on the last shoulder of the opposition defence.

Ntini wrote:

seasonsinthesun wrote:

The Marksman wrote:It really is simple. At its most basic level, it's attacking formation vs defensive formation one way and defensive formation vs attacking formation the other way. Some of the positions are going to cancel each other out, and some men are going to be left spare. What you want is for their spare men to be a) crap and b) in a position where they can't hurt you; and vice versa for your spare men. If you can get that spare man in the centre of midfield, that gives you a big advantage.

This is why we're seeing the rise of 3 defender formations in the Premiership. It's not about having three defenders, it's about having four in the centre of midfield - in a diamond or a square - and then arranging your other players around them. Chelsea can use either a diamond (Hazard at the tip) or a square (Hazard and Pedro attacking) depending on personnel. Liverpool have four in the centre of midfield (look at Firmino's average position in games to see what I mean) but use two wide forwards and four defenders instead. Portugal in the Euros had four in the centre of midfield, four defenders and one forward always pulling wide at any one time (Nani to the right, Ronaldo to the left). Wales overperformed with four central midfielders and three centre backs. It works.

I agree with you Marksman.
Having the spare man available is crucial, in attack or defence.
In a simple way, the spare man is usually involved in assisting or scoring a goal.
I wish Jim would look at it in the way you have described.
Good post.

What's the point in having a spare man if you hoof it over his head?

In a nutshell
Brilliant

The Marksman wrote:It really is simple. At its most basic level, it's attacking formation vs defensive formation one way and defensive formation vs attacking formation the other way. Some of the positions are going to cancel each other out, and some men are going to be left spare. What you want is for their spare men to be a) crap and b) in a position where they can't hurt you; and vice versa for your spare men. If you can get that spare man in the centre of midfield, that gives you a big advantage.

This is why we're seeing the rise of 3 defender formations in the Premiership. It's not about having three defenders, it's about having four in the centre of midfield - in a diamond or a square - and then arranging your other players around them. Chelsea can use either a diamond (Hazard at the tip) or a square (Hazard and Pedro attacking) depending on personnel. Liverpool have four in the centre of midfield (look at Firmino's average position in games to see what I mean) but use two wide forwards and four defenders instead. Portugal in the Euros had four in the centre of midfield, four defenders and one forward always pulling wide at any one time (Nani to the right, Ronaldo to the left). Wales overperformed with four central midfielders and three centre backs. It works.

So how about this lot for a change -
.........................................Baz..............................................
McGowan .................Old ................... Lavelle.........................Brough
Jordan .....................Flemmo..............Kenyon..........................Oliver
................................McGurk.............Muller...........................