Jump to content

Wingers


Recommended Posts

Once McManaman was introduced, and either him or Fessi were providing width on the left, and Wallace went out wide on the right we were a completely different team and Brentford couldn't live with us.

 

Hope we get back to bloody 4 4 2 now instead of switching to 3 5 2 in possession and relying on the full backs to provide all the width. Especially at home, maybe not away.

 

It has been found out now and any manager who watches the videos from the first half tonight and the Blackburn game will know exactly what to do and how to set their team up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree. The problem is we are overun in midfield. Teams pack midfield and play one up front and press us high. Hutch drops deep .  This leaves the central midfield man totally exposed as we play two up front. The problem for the first half was that the full backs didnt get up the pitch at all releasing bannan and wallace to come inside and form a midfield three. We can still play fessi in between the lines and a two of rhodes and either Fletcher hooper or Winnall.  This,system only works when the full backs push on. I would play mcmanaman and reach as wing backs high up the pitch so we can dominate play. This would work at home and we could press the ball From the off. Tonight we essentially had a back five. Palmer eventually got going fwd as the half went on and we got better apart from conceding from 2set pieces.  for for two is too rigid  and we are still outnumbered in midfield. We need to take the game to the opposing from the off and not worry about them..  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh by the way the back three would be loovens hutch and. Lees when fit. Ps last year.  Towards the end of the season We were too slow in possession in midfield and only improved when hutch went into the back 4 and we played a two of either lee lopez or bannan . Let the opposition worry about us. If we do like we did in the second half bombing on i wont have any complaints 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I don't have a problem with the tactic in general, just our application of it has become too predictable. It relies on what we do out of possession as well, but we don't press with the energy required. When we get the ball we lose it before the full backs have time to get forward. Then even when they do they are isolated and can't cross.

 

I'm certainly not advocating a rigid 4 4 2, just playing with wide attacking players to open the game up, create space and give us more options. Happy for the full backs to get forward and Hutch to drop in to cover once they do...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, wattowl said:

I disagree. The problem is we are overun in midfield. Teams pack midfield and play one up front and press us high. Hutch drops deep .  This leaves the central midfield man totally exposed as we play two up front. The problem for the first half was that the full backs didnt get up the pitch at all releasing bannan and wallace to come inside and form a midfield three. We can still play fessi in between the lines and a two of rhodes and either Fletcher hooper or Winnall.  This,system only works when the full backs push on. I would play mcmanaman and reach as wing backs high up the pitch so we can dominate play. This would work at home and we could press the ball From the off. Tonight we essentially had a back five. Palmer eventually got going fwd as the half went on and we got better apart from conceding from 2set pieces.  for for two is too rigid  and we are still outnumbered in midfield. We need to take the game to the opposing from the off and not worry about them..  

Well said i Agree 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...