Shrimpsvoices

Well done Tim Padfield asking the questions that need to be asked like how can we compete with Bolton but not Charlton and do we respect clubs because of their reputation and not where they are in the league, he also asks about why there was no subs.

Derek said we have played very attacking this season

Very attacking football?!! Certainly not on away games it’s been ultra defensive and you could argue playing one up front in home games has been ultra cautious! You would have thought with the run of 4 wins in not many more games playing 2 up front might have finally caused the penny to drop with Derek that was the way forward but no!!! I think we had a reasonable if not great squad that was restricted this year by a pretty negative thinking manager!

I definitely need to go to Specsavers then...but I'll give my bins a good polish for this Saturday's game...just in case ...

P/T Indie wrote:Well done Tim Padfield asking the questions that need to be asked like how can we compete with Bolton but not Charlton and do we respect clubs because of their reputation and not where they are in the league, he also asks about why there was no subs.

Derek said we have played very attacking this season

Where can we find this? "Very attacking"? Really??? I know Berlin Wailer thinks zero shots on target is acceptable, even 'fun', but even he wouldn't describe that as "very attacking"!

Always wondered does Tim attend games he always seems clued up on what to ask.

Good questions from Tim, and some good responses from Derek too.

I'll be honest, they're generally pretty bang-on. Particularly over the last few months, we've generally been playing very offensive lineups.

jona77 wrote:Very attacking football?!! Certainly not on away games it’s been ultra defensive and you could argue playing one up front in home games has been ultra cautious! You would have thought with the run of 4 wins in not many more games playing 2 up front might have finally caused the penny to drop with Derek that was the way forward but no!!! I think we had a reasonable if not great squad that was restricted this year by a pretty negative thinking manager!

Two up top does not equal attacking football. It's an utter falsehood. Formations/how many centre forwards you play are not inherent to being attacking or defensive. Really basic example - Man City mostly play with one centre forward, are they defensive? Tim's actually correctly pointed out how attacking our lineup was against Charlton, and that only had one centre forward!

Away games - we've played Mayor at wing back against Ipswich, frequently had a midfield three of Shaw/Weir/Crowley (even against Derby). Don't people realise how attacking that midfield is? Especially when we're playing 4-3-3. Shaw isn't really a defensive midfielder. He's big and gets stuck in, but that's not really his proper role. It's either him or drafting in Gibson to play there. I'd say our performances in general, as well as our ability to attack, have been hampered all season by not having a proper defensive midfielder.

We've often had attacking lineups, in part because we lack any real defensive midfielders. Do people not realise how attacking Shaw/Weir/Crowley - Mayor/Stockton/Gnahoua (Derby away, for example) is? It's an issue of balance more than anything.

Keith wrote:Where can we find this? "Very attacking"? Really??? I know Berlin Wailer thinks zero shots on target is acceptable, even 'fun', but even he wouldn't describe that as "very attacking"!

Yes, we've struggled massively to create at times. But this isn't because there's been a lack of intent. That's another complete falsehood, and pretty blinkered thinking only looking at the outcome without trying to analyse it properly. Our lineups have often had plentiful amounts of attacking talent in them.

The issue has been similar all season - balance in the side. Some real talent, but not quite the right blend of defensive players to help maximise that. Plus injuries making things very tough in a small squad.

As I've said in another thread, I do think we maybe should have stuck with that back three more since January, but to say that we've lacked attacking intent given some of our lineups is ludicrous.

We achieved promotion from League 2 predominantly implementing a 4-2-3-1 system, nobody complained then???

Little Shrimp wrote:
I'll be honest, they're generally pretty bang-on. Particularly over the last few months, we've generally been playing very offensive lineups.

Two up top does not equal attacking football. It's an utter falsehood. Formations/how many centre forwards you play are not inherent to being attacking or defensive. Really basic example - Man City mostly play with one centre forward, are they defensive? Tim's actually correctly pointed out how attacking our lineup was against Charlton, and that only had one centre forward!

Yes, we've struggled massively to create at times. But this isn't because there's been a lack of intent. That's another complete falsehood, and pretty blinkered thinking only looking at the outcome without trying to analyse it properly. Our lineups have often had plentiful amounts of attacking talent in them.

As I've said in another thread, I do think we maybe should have stuck with that back three more since January, but to say that we've lacked attacking intent given some of our lineups is ludicrous.

When we won four out of five games, we did so with two up front.
Since then, we've had one up front in almost every game (or three up front, but two playing very wide, so still, one up front).

Why not return to the formation that worked in four out of five games? I think we've started with a front two, in one game since.

I'll accept that we have been attacking, if you can explain why we created so few chances since we went back to one up front? Regardless of "attacking intent", it quite simply hasn't worked. I know one striker can work. But it isn't, and hasn't all season.

Freez wrote:We achieved promotion from League 2 predominantly implementing a 4-2-3-1 system, nobody complained then???

An if we win promotion from League Two next season, predominantly playing 4-2-3-1, no-one will complain again. If it works, great. But, it isn't working this season, and hasn't all season long.

I've no objection to any system if it can be made to work. I do object to sticking with a system that has been a failure all season.

I think DA suspects we haven’t the personnel to successfully play the 4-2-3-1 in this division, the only DM we have is a left back deployed there in Gibbo, so we need two and don’t really have a viable single one, as Gibbo has had to be left CB and left back so much as Max has been injured.
Could be wrong mind.

Keith wrote:Why not return to the formation that worked in four out of five games? I think we've started with a front two, in one game since.

Absolutely fair enough, and it's a point I agree with as well! I'm not 100% sure why the change (Derby away aside, 4-3-3 worked great until the McGoldrick free kick). Perhaps it was influenced by the departure of Phillips? I know Mellon had a promising game against BR but he did make a couple of sloppy possession errors which may have spooked Derek, and overall I don't think anybody can say he's anywhere near the calibre of Phillips.

Maybe Watts could have been put in that role, or someone could have had a word with Hunter to tell him to run in behind a bit more (that said, I think his injury seems to have hampered his pace). Although neither offer the same all round striker play that Phillips did.

There are things I'd definitely question, but also there will have been some kind of reasonable logic behind the decisions. I honestly think it's more balance in the side rather than formation that's the issue.

Good, pertinent questions from Tim Padfield - he does a good job, doesn’t he.

In terms of us being ‘attacking’, yes the line up has plenty of attacking talent in it but often we just sit too deep and don’t press the opposition until they’re well in our half. Not always but this is usually the case away from home, and in certain home games we seem to ‘settle’ for a draw too easily and sit back when the opposition look like they’d be beatable if we were braver and pushed for a winner ourselves.

By sitting back, we are only ever winning possession deep in our own half and we seem to have no runners/outlet because we are constantly sat in our own box in banks of four/three/whatever.

This doesn’t always happen but it does happen a lot.

Keith mentions two up front being the common factor when we won that run of games. To my mind, the thing we did consistently during those games was play on the front foot and press high up the pitch.

CityShrimp wrote:Keith mentions two up front being the common factor when we won that run of games. To my mind, the thing we did consistently during those games was play on the front foot and press high up the pitch.

I'd agree with that too. I agree that one central striker can work in some teams, so I'm not fundamentally opposed. But we've had too big a gap between the lone forward man and the rest of the team. That makes him (usually Stockton) far too easy to mark out of the game. A second player up front reduces that isolation and gives the defenders something else to think about.

Also, defending too deep invites sustained pressure, which eventually leads to opportunities for the opposition and builds their confidence.

Defending set pieces, with everyone back, also invites pressure. Having eleven players in the penalty area for corners & attacking free-kicks leaves no 'out ball'. One of the goals recently (forget which one, so many!) the opposition had only their keeper in their own half, with their two defenders halfway in to our half. Rawson got a good head on the corner to clear it from the area, but it was picked up by their defenders and played back in. Leaving a couple of our players on the half way line will force the opposition to leave players back too. In effect, those Morecambe players are still 'defending' the set piece, because they are taking players out of the opposition attack, and they give us a chance of clearing the ball without having to win it a second time.

What we really can't afford to do today, is let Oxford score first and grow in confidence. A draw is as bad as a defeat in this match.

Keith wrote:

CityShrimp wrote:Keith mentions two up front being the common factor when we won that run of games. To my mind, the thing we did consistently during those games was play on the front foot and press high up the pitch.

I'd agree with that too. I agree that one central striker can work in some teams, so I'm not fundamentally opposed. But we've had too big a gap between the lone forward man and the rest of the team. That makes him (usually Stockton) far too easy to mark out of the game. A second player up front reduces that isolation and gives the defenders something else to think about.

Also, defending too deep invites sustained pressure, which eventually leads to opportunities for the opposition and builds their confidence.

Defending set pieces, with everyone back, also invites pressure. Having eleven players in the penalty area for corners & attacking free-kicks leaves no 'out ball'. One of the goals recently (forget which one, so many!) the opposition had only their keeper in their own half, with their two defenders halfway in to our half. Rawson got a good head on the corner to clear it from the area, but it was picked up by their defenders and played back in. Leaving a couple of our players on the half way line will force the opposition to leave players back too. In effect, those Morecambe players are still 'defending' the set piece, because they are taking players out of the opposition attack, and they give us a chance of clearing the ball without having to win it a second time.

What we really can't afford to do today, is let Oxford score first and grow in confidence. A draw is as bad as a defeat in this match.

Had to check that it was Keith who wrote the above and not myself.

100% in agreement in every word that was written.

As for DA's interview.....gave me the impression that the man's not for turning and is adamant that his way is the only way. To imply that Charlton are as good as Bolton and hence we set up the way we did wasn't at all convincing.