Our wingers this season

[Holmowl]

4 minutes ago, zzmdu said:

 

 

You'd sub our top scorer (of the last 2 seasons), in favour of strikers who errr... haven't been the top scorer.

 

No, I would start him on the left. But I suspect you knew this before you asked me!

 

However, if CC has decided he isn't wanted on the left, and I suspect that is the case now we have Boyd, then 100% I would never start a match with FF striker. The other proper strikers thrive on having a proper partner. We play better, we score more and we gather more points. Proven, not a theory. 

[gurujuan]

54 minutes ago, Holmowl said:

 

Except that he doesn't. He receives the ball to feet back to goal with a gorilla up his jaxie. Worse still, we chip it towards his head. 

 

Its horrible. It doesn't work. It needs binning.

 

Should be wide or sub. But he will start and be striker. And goals will dry up. As they have done for two seasons. Then Carlos will push him wide. And we will score lots and win. But Carlos will revert to him as striker. And the goals will dry up.....repeat 

 

But he doesn't play up there with his back to goal He finds pockets of space in between the lines, and is very difficult to pick up. The issue is, if he does play there, who plays the lone striker role? Forestieri plays better with Joao, than any of the other strikers, but that doesn't offer us enough goals. It could work, if we could get goals from elsewhere, Matias for example. It would be hard to justify playing those three together, as one isn't yet up to the job, and the other struggles to get on the pitch. 

Luckily, Hooper can perform a similar role to Forestieri, albeit without the same panache, and he links up well with Fletcher. Maybe Rhodes can be the target man? We've yet to see how he links up with Forestieri, or Hooper for that matter. Rhodes himself plays better in a more orthodox front two, often alongside Winnall. The trouble is, I can't see us playing an orthodox front two on a regular basis

Edited July 13, 2017 by gurujuan

[Holmowl]

26 minutes ago, gurujuan said:

 

But he doesn't play up there with his back to goal He finds pockets of space in between the lines, and is very difficult to pick up. The issue is, if he does play there, who plays the lone striker role? Forestieri plays better with Joao, than any of the other strikers, but that doesn't offer us enough goals. It could work, if we could get goals from elsewhere, Matias for example. It would be hard to justify playing those three together, as one isn't yet up to the job, and the other struggles to get on the pitch. 

Luckily, Hooper can perform a similar role to Forestieri, albeit without the same panache, and he links up well with Fletcher. Maybe Rhodes can be the target man? We've yet to see how he links up with Forestieri, or Hooper for that matter. Rhodes himself plays better in a more orthodox front two, often alongside Winnall. The trouble is, I can't see us playing an orthodox front two on a regular basis

 

Ok lets take that point by point.

 

He finds pockets of space - absolutely agree. And he does it wonderfully. He tries deeper, and as Joel's heat-maps and 30,000 pairs of eyes confirm he usually ends up in a deep inside left position. The problem is, as you say, that effectively leaves us playing with a lone-striker. Hence, my mantra "nobody scores partnering Nando" which is fact (3 all last season!!!!). We haven't bought a goal-scoring lone-striker.

 

I agree too, that Nando plays best with Joao, though I would add Nuhiu to that. But neither are a goal-scorer.

 

You then say it would work if we score goals from elsewhere. We know Wallace and Lee are good for 5 or 6. Hopefully Boyd or Reach will match that too. Bannan never scores. I love him and would play him 46/46, but he gets you one or two per season. 

 

Some will say Abdi. Well we got it confirmed today, what many of us guessed, that we are 442. So first it needs to be shown that Abdi can work in a two. And maybe he can. But with FF coming so deep to pick up the ball, don't he and Abdi get in each other's way? Both wanting to drive at defences from pretty much the same position?

 

I think Matias is fanciful. If he is fit, and if he is genuinely any good in the Championship, and if he convinces so well that he pushes ahead of Wallace or Boyd or Reach, then he might just increase our goal tally.

 

My opinion, is that we are a far better side with two strikers. The results over the last two season back this up. Add FF to this, playing wide, and the results are simply staggering, and our football is a joy to watch.

Edited July 13, 2017 by Holmowl

[gurujuan]

1 hour ago, Holmowl said:

 

Ok lets take that point by point.

 

He finds pockets of space - absolutely agree. And he does it wonderfully. He tries deeper, and as Joel's heat-maps and 30,000 pairs of eyes confirm he usually ends up in a deep inside left position. The problem is, as you say, that effectively leaves us playing with a lone-striker. Hence, my mantra "nobody scores partnering Nando" which is fact (3 all last season!!!!). We haven't bought a goal-scoring lone-striker.

 

I agree too, that Nando plays best with Joao, though I would add Nuhiu to that. But neither are a goal-scorer.

 

You then say it would work if we score goals from elsewhere. We know Wallace and Lee are good for 5 or 6. Hopefully Boyd or Reach will match that too. Bannan never scores. I love him and would play him 46/46, but he gets you one or two per season. 

 

Some will say Abdi. Well we got it confirmed today, what many of us guessed, that we are 442. So first it needs to be shown that Abdi can work in a two. And maybe he can. But with FF coming so deep to pick up the ball, don't he and Abdi get in each other's way? Both wanting to drive at defences from pretty much the same position?

 

I think Matias is fanciful. If he is fit, and if he is genuinely any good in the Championship, and if he convinces so well that he pushes ahead of Wallace or Boyd or Reach, then he might just increase our goal tally.

 

My opinion, is that we are a far better side with two strikers. The results over the last two season back this up. Add FF to this, playing wide, and the results are simply staggering, and our football is a joy to watch.

 

Good points. Interested in what you would call two strikers. From what I've seen, the only true pair of strikers, are Winnall and Rhodes, otherwise it's a lone striker, with either Hooper, or Forestieri just behind. I don't think anythings set in stone, but I'd be surprised if we play a proper pair of strikers in anything but the odd game. Like our narrow wingers, the link man gives us more bodies in midfield.

I was reading about Baldock's role at Brighton, in their local paper. Although Brighton play a more orthodox 4-4-2 than us, ours is more 4-4-1-1 when we lose possesion, Baldock sees himself as their link man. I always presumed him and Murray were a classic old school, little and large pairing. In fact, their system is more like ours, except the wingers stay wide. They can do this because they always have two combative central midfielders

[Holmowl]

22 minutes ago, gurujuan said:

 

Good points. Interested in what you would call two strikers. From what I've seen, the only true pair of strikers, are Winnall and Rhodes, otherwise it's a lone striker, with either Hooper, or Forestieri just behind. I don't think anythings set in stone, but I'd be surprised if we play a proper pair of strikers in anything but the odd game. Like our narrow wingers, the link man gives us more bodies in midfield.

I was reading about Baldock's role at Brighton, in their local paper. Although Brighton play a more orthodox 4-4-2 than us, ours is more 4-4-1-1 when we lose possesion, Baldock sees himself as their link man. I always presumed him and Murray were a classic old school, little and large pairing. In fact, their system is more like ours, except the wingers stay wide. They can do this because they always have two combative central midfielders

 

My two strikers would be any two from Fletch, Rhodes and Hooper.

[Bouncing Owl]

25 minutes ago, gurujuan said:

 

Good points. Interested in what you would call two strikers. From what I've seen, the only true pair of strikers, are Winnall and Rhodes, otherwise it's a lone striker, with either Hooper, or Forestieri just behind. I don't think anythings set in stone, but I'd be surprised if we play a proper pair of strikers in anything but the odd game. Like our narrow wingers, the link man gives us more bodies in midfield.

I was reading about Baldock's role at Brighton, in their local paper. Although Brighton play a more orthodox 4-4-2 than us, ours is more 4-4-1-1 when we lose possesion, Baldock sees himself as their link man. I always presumed him and Murray were a classic old school, little and large pairing. In fact, their system is more like ours, except the wingers stay wide. They can do this because they always have two combative central midfielders

 

That last point of yours is my main issue. I don't think our centre midfielders are players that are suited to playing in a midfield 2. I also think you need pace on the wings. Carlos wants us to play narrow making us hard to play against but this can become extremely pragmatic and dull. It looks like it's going to be the same as last season.  

[gurujuan]

43 minutes ago, Holmowl said:

 

My two strikers would be any two from Fletch, Rhodes and Hooper.

 

Carlos though, seems to prefer Hooper in a number ten role. Without me checking your previous stats, did the Fletcher/Rhodes pairing prove effective?

[gurujuan]

41 minutes ago, Bouncing Owl said:

 

That last point of yours is my main issue. I don't think our centre midfielders are players that are suited to playing in a midfield 2. I also think you need pace on the wings. Carlos wants us to play narrow making us hard to play against but this can become extremely pragmatic and dull. It looks like it's going to be the same as last season.  

 

Totally agree. My argument has always been, if we play narrow wingers to get more bodies in the middle to compensate for our midfield pair not being combative, then why not sign a couple of midfielders that are combative? It seems daft to negate our possible attacking options to shore up an area that needed a different type of player in the first place Why splash £4m on Abdi, we could used in to bring in a Kayal type player.

[ramone]

On 7/12/2017 at 07:44, jonnyowl said:

Reach at LB all season.

 

No, just no

[billyblack]

30 minutes ago, gurujuan said:

 

Totally agree. My argument has always been, if we play narrow wingers to get more bodies in the middle to compensate for our midfield pair not being combative, then why not sign a couple of midfielders that are combative? It seems daft to negate our possible attacking options to shore up an area that needed a different type of player in the first place Why splash £4m on Abdi, we could used in to bring in a Kayal type player.

Hence my other post about playing a 442 again this season.first season was try out. Last season it didnt work either based on our squad and injuries and formation. Repeating again this year in my opinion is just foolish. Change players or change formation. Its been said to death.

[StudentOwl]

2 hours ago, gurujuan said:

 

But he doesn't play up there with his back to goal He finds pockets of space in between the lines, and is very difficult to pick up.

 

1 hour ago, Holmowl said:

 

Ok lets take that point by point.

 

He finds pockets of space - absolutely agree. And he does it wonderfully. He tries deeper, and as Joel's heat-maps and 30,000 pairs of eyes confirm he usually ends up in a deep inside left position. The problem is, as you say, that effectively leaves us playing with a lone-striker. Hence, my mantra "nobody scores partnering Nando" which is fact (3 all last season!!!!). We haven't bought a goal-scoring lone-striker.

 

For whatever little it's worth, with the stuff in bold meaning it's 'better' in that position (As I wade into this debate, drop this in and then run away and hide)

 

Striker stats (per 90 mins):

Successful dribbles - 1.2/1.9 (63%)

Possession lost - 5.8

Shots - 3.6

Goals - 0.4

Passes attempted - 26.6

Passing % - 81%

Assists - 0.1

 

Left wing stats (per 90 mins):

Successful dribbles - 2.1/2.8 (75%)

Possession lost - 4.5

Shots - 3.3

Goals - 0.3

Passes attempted - 35.7

Passing % - 74

Assists - 0.3

 

 

Conclusion:

He receives the ball more and gets more touches on the ball when he plays wide left. So he gets much more involved in play whilst playing wide left than he does playing up front... and that's a fact, not just opinion based on observation. He also has the chance to be much more "exciting" with successful dribbles past opponents and less likely to be tackled... he's also much more likely to create with more assists. However, conversely, playing up front allows him to have a greater passing success rate through a greater volume of "short passes" (21 out of 26 [81%] of his passes are short playing up front, vs 24.4 of 35.7 [68%]' whilst playing wide left). He also gets a slight increase in the number of shots and goals he can get being up front. 

 

I'd still have to sign with Holmowl on this one and say, in an attacking sense at least, the team benefits more from him being wide left than up front...

Edited July 13, 2017 by StudentOwl

[oldishowl]

5 minutes ago, StudentOwl said:

 

 

For whatever little it's worth, with the stuff in bold meaning it's 'better' in that position (As I wade into this debate, drop this in and then run away and hide)

 

Striker stats (per 90 mins):

Successful dribbles - 1.2/1.9 (63%)

Possession lost - 5.8

Shots - 3.6

Goals - 0.4

Passes attempted - 26.6

Passing % - 81%

Assists - 0.1

 

Left wing stats (per 90 mins):

Successful dribbles - 2.1/2.8 (75%)

Possession lost - 4.5

Shots - 3.3

Goals - 0.3

Passes attempted - 35.7

Passing % - 74

Assists - 0.3

 

 

Conclusion:

He receives the ball more and gets more touches on the ball when he plays wide left. So he gets much more involved in play whilst playing wide left than he does playing up front... and that's a fact, not just opinion based on observation. He also has the chance to be much more "exciting" with successful dribbles past opponents and less likely to be tackled... he's also much more likely to create with more assists. However, conversely, playing up front allows him to have a greater passing success rate through a greater volume of "short passes" (21 out of 26 [81%] of his passes are short playing up front, vs 24.4 of 35.7 [68%]' whilst playing wide left). He also gets a slight increase in the number of shots and goals he can get being up front. 

 

I'd still have to sign with Holmowl on this one and say, in an attacking sense at least, the team benefits more from him being wide left than up front...

 

If only a team was only about an "attacking sense"

Also he has only ever started on the left against a top six opposition once.

95% of his left wing starts have been at home.

How can any comparisons be meaningful when facts like that are not taken into account.

I am not being critical. I just don't understand how comparisons can be meaningful when things like those above are not reflected in any way

[StudentOwl]

9 minutes ago, oldishowl said:

 

If only a team was only about an "attacking sense"

Also he has only ever started on the left against a top six opposition once.

95% of his left wing starts have been at home.

How can any comparisons be meaningful when facts like that are not taken into account.

I am not being critical. I just don't understand how comparisons can be meaningful when things like those above are not reflected in any way

Hey, I'm not saying it's infallible, and I'm fully aware that the team just isn't about an 'attacking sense'

But if you gave us a home game against a team in the bottom half of the table, I'd start with FF wide left. Wouldn't do it all the time, but those are the games I definitely would do it if I were Carlos. 

[IstillhateSteveBould]

18 minutes ago, oldishowl said:

 

If only a team was only about an "attacking sense"

Also he has only ever started on the left against a top six opposition once.

95% of his left wing starts have been at home.

How can any comparisons be meaningful when facts like that are not taken into account.

I am not being critical. I just don't understand how comparisons can be meaningful when things like those above are not reflected in any way

 

This. 

 

It's just data. Certainly doesn't prove anything.

 

To get a true reflection you have to take so many more things into consideration. 

 

 

 

[Jim]

Wallace and Boyd are shoe-ins for me. Pleasantly surprised what Wallace has produced for us. Got to be up there with Westwood, Loovens and Lee for one of our best free transfer business.

 

I also think Carlos will give Matias a run, fitness permitting of course 

[jrh]

So Forestieri started 6 games on the left according to many on here. Two of those were Birmingham 3-0 and Norwich 5-1, which were both our most comfortable wins. Coincidence? I think not.

[Etchesketch]

On 12/07/2017 at 08:37, CalmJimmers said:

Is Stobbs going to be included? Is he 20 now? Just signed his first pro contract - wonder if he's going to head out on loan.

 

Crying out for some pace somewhere in the team - so one paced it can become predictable.

 

Unless Westwood is secretly Usain Bolt 

It's Stobbs third contract.  He signed one at 17, one last year and got another year this summer.  At 20 if he doesn't break through this season you would think he would be on his way.  More than three years since his first team debut and he has made just one sub appearance since.  Matt Penney was doing great wide left two seasons ago but he seems to have been converted to a left back last season. Never started a game for Bradford so don't know where he would have played there!

[Holmowl]

4 hours ago, oldishowl said:

 

If only a team was only about an "attacking sense"

Also he has only ever started on the left against a top six opposition once.

95% of his left wing starts have been at home.

How can any comparisons be meaningful when facts like that are not taken into account.

I am not being critical. I just don't understand how comparisons can be meaningful when things like those above are not reflected in any way

 

He started left against the Champions, Burnley last season. Really good performance and a very good 1-1.

3 hours ago, IstillhateSteveBould said:

 

This. 

 

It's just data. Certainly doesn't prove anything.

 

To get a true reflection you have to take so many more things into consideration. 

 

 

 

 

I agree.

 

Goals - tick

Goals conceded - tick

Wins - tick

Great to watch - tick

 

You list whatever else is important and show us all why FF on the left doesn't work.

 

Edited July 13, 2017 by Holmowl

[oldishowl]

29 minutes ago, jrh said:

So Forestieri started 6 games on the left according to many on here. Two of those were Birmingham 3-0 and Norwich 5-1, which were both our most comfortable wins. Coincidence? I think not.

 

He played striker in our best two away performances of the season , away at Wolves and Newcastle

Coincidence. I think not.

 

[jrh]

5 minutes ago, oldishowl said:

 

He played striker in our best two away performances of the season , away at Wolves and Newcastle

Coincidence. I think not.

 

So you think we make use of our squad better and we are better when he is up front?