Shoehorn FC

[Morepork]

9 minutes ago, Ronio said:

I know it will never happen.  

 

Just looking at different formations that could work for us.

 

I don't think we have the players to set up in a solid and balanced flat 442.

 

We could very well see something similar to a midfield diamond tomorrow.  Same set up we changed to after going down 2-1 against Ipswich.  

 

I know you were only hypothesising, nobody of sound mind holds the belief that we’d even consider change! 

 

I remain to be convinced we are able to field any formation that’s solid and balanced. 

[pazowl55]

23 minutes ago, Walt said:

City and Spurs do not play either a 442 or a diamond and generally go with one up front and play formations to give their attacking fullbacks cover. If you want your full backs to bomb on then I think you are going to have to play another formation to ones you mention ("Butterfield and Jones" sitting does hint at this). I sort of half agree with you as it does my nut in the way our fullbacks are targeted due to the lack of cover when they have burst forward to provide the width - the moves breaks down and bosh the opposition look to expose the glaring weakness on the flanks as we have no one covering the fullbacks. The exception to this wad Bristol City at home - the fullbacks did not venture forward and we were left with no width or creativity.

At least with Bannan and Lee out wide the full backs are encouraged to get forward more. 

We have basically just got to get Bannan higher up the field and Lee running beyond the strikers. that's when we are at our best. Also we need to maintain a level of discipline at the back with it at the same time. An extra midfielder to sit in front of the centre backs may help this.

[Indoor Owl]

14 minutes ago, Morepork said:

 

I know you were only hypothesising, nobody of sound mind holds the belief that we’d even consider change! 

 

I remain to be convinced we are able to field any formation that’s solid and balanced. 

 

See, I think we absolutely have sides that are solid and balanced. 

 

... What we don't have, and what seems to have everyone all worked up, are sides that will throw caution to the wind and attack leaving us exposed. 

 

If anything, we're too solid and balanced.

We're vanilla.

There isn't the attacking flair that too much TV coverage of Barca has conditioned people to expect at every game. 

 

We're Mourinho's United, not Cruyff's Barcelona.

Balanced to a fault, at the moment. 

Edited November 24, 2017 by Indoor Owl

[Dutch McLovin]

We all know that it’s gonna be 442 so we need to get the best out of Bannan up the pitch... in a 442 that’s difficult as it’s really wide or second striker. Which with our abundance of strikers is hard although it’s what we should do playing 3 at the back !

 

Forestieri Bannan

      Hooper 

 

what a front three that would be

[Walt]

3 minutes ago, pazowl55 said:

At least with Bannan and Lee out wide the full backs are encouraged to get forward more. 

We have basically just got to get Bannan higher up the field and Lee running beyond the strikers. that's when we are at our best. Also we need to maintain a level of discipline at the back with it at the same time. An extra midfielder to sit in front of the centre backs may help this.

Imo it doesn't work. Look at us against Utd - Bannan and Wallace go narrow (Lee as Bannan does would also naturally do this)  and our fullbacks were left wide open to Utd's 352. Look at us against Bolton, the same happened there but they were 4231. Look at us against Ipswich, see how often they hit the long diagonal ball to expose the full backs? It's a recurring  theme, attack our fullbacks as they have little cover. We need to alter the formation for this to work.

 

Bolton's manager:  "I watched Sheffield Wednesday against Leeds and they played well but I thought it would be interesting if they played the same team,” said Parkinson. “I know Adam Reach well and he’s a great lad but he’s a left-sided player playing left-back and we worked all week on getting the ball as quickly as we could to Sammy, hitting him on the diagonal. I think he gave him a very, very tough time in that first 45 minutes. “[Barry] Bannan playing on the left, he drifts in field a lot. He gives you a lot of problems in possession but out of it there was space for Mark (Little) to drive forward. Sammy, being left-footed, needs that overlapping full-back and Mark is willing to do that. It was a good combination.”

 

[Robdylan]

2 hours ago, pazowl55 said:

My team for tomorrow would involve shoehorning Bannan and Lee.

 

Like this as a four or a diamond.

 

Lee  Butterfield Jones Bannan.

 

Reach Left back. Back to Fletcher and Hooper up front. Rest as usual.

 

Basically we need Bannan on the ball high up the pitch. 

 We need Lee to make runs beyond the strikers without completely emptying the midfield.

We need to free up Bannan and Lee when we attack and have them higher and playing them on the wings does this more than playing them in the centre.  

 

Fletcher, Hooper and Bannan ( if high up the pitch enough) will play some wonderful one touch football if given the opportunity to. also with the running of Lee into the channels and Butterfield higher we will find it easier to pass round teams with the more technical players where they can hurt them.

 

But most importantly in order for us to be confident in attack we need to be confident at the back and having Jones and Butterfield as the centre midfielders with the simple instruction of give it to Barry then sit may give Loovens and Lees the protection they need when Hunt and Reach push forward.

 

Yes shoehorning is not great but this is the only only way I see us getting goals and still having the right players back to stop us conceding 2 mins later.

 

I'm a big fan of Bannan's, but you cannot play him on the left of midfield, either in a flat 4 or on the left of a diamond.

 

 

I'm assuming you watched the embarrassment against United.

 

When he starts wide left, he naturally drifts into the centre of midfield. He can't help it. And that creates 2 problems:

 

1. It leaves a gaping hole down the left hand side of the pitch, meaning that the left back can't get forward.

 

2. Teams can double up on our left back. 

 

 

If you can stomach it, go and re-watch the first half against United. Carlos should have been ashamed of himself. He was stood in the technical area, doing nothing as Bannan played 80% of the first half stood near the centre circle. If you think I'm exaggerating, see for yourself. There were also times where he was stood over near the right touch line with Wallace and Lee. Reach only got forward once in the first half. He was totally exposed as Bannan had gone missing. All of our attacks went down the right hand side, which left United free to exploit our left hand side. It was an utter shambles. How Carlos as had a book published on football tactics, is truly baffling. 

 

 

Bannan should be nowhere near the left hand side of midfield. 

 

Let Reach stand on the touch line. Let him actually play on the wing for once. He's a good crosser of the ball.

 

If we had Reach on one wing, and a direct right winger on the right, the strikers would thrive.

 

Carlos's tactics are awful. 

 

He should have bought a right winger in the summer, and he should have us playing in an attacking straight from the kick off. 

 

 

[Morepork]

44 minutes ago, Indoor Owl said:

 

See, I think we absolutely have sides that are solid and balanced. 

 

... What we don't have, and what seems to have everyone all worked up, are sides that will throw caution to the wind and attack leaving us exposed. 

 

If anything, we're too solid and balanced.

We're vanilla.

There isn't the attacking flair that too much TV coverage of Barca has conditioned people to expect at every game. 

 

We're Mourinho's United, not Cruyff's Barcelona.

Balanced to a fault, at the moment. 

 

Well we’re definitely Vanilla!!

 

Funny how people’s view in what’s balanced can be so different.

 

What you describe above as balanced isn’t balanced at all IMO. I don’t see how we can be too solid and balanced. Surely that’s unbalanced!! 

 

I totally agree we’re either too negative (unbalanced) and refuse to throw caution to the wind which would also be unbalanced. Good sides are first and foremost consistent and secondly able to balance a solid defence with a reasonably potent strike force. We can only do one of those at a time, occasionally two......

[Robdylan]

38 minutes ago, Walt said:

Imo it doesn't work. Look at us against Utd - Bannan and Wallace go narrow (Lee as Bannan does would also naturally do this)  and our fullbacks were left wide open to Utd's 352. Look at us against Bolton, the same happened there but they were 4231. Look at us against Ipswich, see how often they hit the long diagonal ball to expose the full backs? It's a recurring  theme, attack our fullbacks as they have little cover. We need to alter the formation for this to work.

 

Bolton's manager:  "I watched Sheffield Wednesday against Leeds and they played well but I thought it would be interesting if they played the same team,” said Parkinson. “I know Adam Reach well and he’s a great lad but he’s a left-sided player playing left-back and we worked all week on getting the ball as quickly as we could to Sammy, hitting him on the diagonal. I think he gave him a very, very tough time in that first 45 minutes. “[Barry] Bannan playing on the left, he drifts in field a lot. He gives you a lot of problems in possession but out of it there was space for Mark (Little) to drive forward. Sammy, being left-footed, needs that overlapping full-back and Mark is willing to do that. It was a good combination.”

 

 

Bang on Walt.

 

It doesn't encourage the left back/wing back to push forward. 

 

It just shows how bad things are that fans are advocating playing players out of position. 

[Jim]

Fox played ok the other night. I was surprised when he was took off TBH. There probably will be changes tomorrow but not as many as we might think. Personally I would play Palmer and Fletcher in place of Hunt and Rhodes.

[pazowl55]

What's the solution then. because 4-4-2 Reach and Wallace on the wings. Bannan treading on loovens and Lees toes, playing balls out wide for someone to cross to a flat back 4 to clear certainly isn't working. At least Bannan in a diamond in midfield of some sort gets him further forward and able to play killer passes that matter.

Yes it does totally expose the full backs shoehorning but at least if might produce something going forward. just need better cover back.

[pazowl55]

4 minutes ago, Great Big Galaa said:

Fox played ok the other night. I was surprised when he was took off TBH. There probably will be changes tomorrow but not as many as we might think. Personally I would play Palmer and Fletcher in place of Hunt and Rhodes.

Wallace for Lee maybe aswell. 

[Walt]

7 minutes ago, Robdylan said:

 

Bang on Walt.

 

It doesn't encourage the left back/wing back to push forward. 

 

It just shows how bad things are that fans are advocating playing players out of position. 

I can see why CC plays Bannan and Wallace narrow pal, I don't agree with it mind as it seems you and me feel the same way about it. He is bobbar scared of being out numbered in the middle because most teams have three in there. I just can't fathom why he wouldn't play a 433 or some variation of it. I'd have thought CC would be far more familiar with that set up than a 442 / diamond? 

 

[Ronio]

2 minutes ago, pazowl55 said:

What's the solution then. because 4-4-2 Reach and Wallace on the wings. Bannan treading on loovens and Lees toes, playing balls out wide for someone to cross to a flat back 4 to clear certainly isn't working. At least Bannan in a diamond in midfield of some sort gets him further forward and able to play killer passes that matter.

Yes it does totally expose the full backs shoehorning but at least if might produce something going forward. just need better cover back.

442 diamond could be a real possibility.  Suits the players we have imo.  

 

Something like   

 

                     Westwood

     Hunt    Lees    Van Aken  Reach

                       Jones  

                 Lee         Baz 

                     Hooper  

               Nuhiu     Rhodes

 

Jones sitting in front of the defence, allows the full backs to bomb forward.  Also gives Bannan or Lee the license to get forward more often.  

 

Hoops playing the no 10 role, Nuhiu hounding their centre back's with just sheer will, and Rhodes playing off the shoulder looking to score.  Would definitely work,  in theory anyways.  

[Deepcar_lights]

Goes to show it ain't easy baby. It didn't end well last time I tried to shoehorn something into something . I can't see our starting 11 being any different.

[Ballmeist]

We might aswell not have Jones and Butterfield. Both contribute nothing on the pitch. Waste of a shirt playing one of them, never mind both together! 

[pazowl55]

42 minutes ago, Ronio said:

442 diamond could be a real possibility.  Suits the players we have imo.  

 

Something like   

 

                     Westwood

     Hunt    Lees    Van Aken  Reach

                       Jones  

                 Lee         Baz 

                     Hooper  

               Nuhiu     Rhodes

 

Jones sitting in front of the defence, allows the full backs to bomb forward.  Also gives Bannan or Lee the license to get forward more often.  

 

Hoops playing the no 10 role, Nuhiu hounding their centre back's with just sheer will, and Rhodes playing off the shoulder looking to score.  Would definitely work,  in theory anyways.  

Would prefer this bit more solid. 

 

              Westwood

Hunt  Lees  Loovens  Reach

       Butterfield  Jones 

   Lee      Hooper     Bannan  

               Fletcher 

 

And the three main men are free to roam behind Fletcher and cause havoc.

Edited November 24, 2017 by pazowl55

[Holmowl]

Doesn't work @pazowl55

 

Our results with Lee right or Bannan left have been just awful.

 

We need more width and more balance, not less.

[pazowl55]

2 hours ago, Holmowl said:

Doesn't work @pazowl55

 

Our results with Lee right or Bannan left have been just awful.

 

We need more width and more balance, not less.

I think it's all about getting you best players in positions where they can hurt the opponent the most and making sure we also shut up shop up the other end. 

We are really struggling to do either at the moment.

 

I am sure your going to tell me bannan operates better from the centre of the park. But that aint much good if he ain't got Lee or Forestieri running off him and creating space and angles for him to pass into. Reach and Wallace offer little in this respect.

We need to be getting in behind more we don't have any pace so it has to be done with quick incisive passes.

 

Why would we want to play with proper wide men when our wide men can't play like proper wide men. If we are going to play Wallace and he is going to cut in then why not just play Lee there as all Wallace is doing at the moment is cutting in and smacking it over the bar or wide anyway.

I understand we need them as cover in front of full backs but even when they are there we still get cut open with diagonal balls across the pitch.

 

Teams we play against that play 5 in the middle. We have to be doing someone different against these as it's the same old thing time and time again and it's at the stage now that if Bannan don't create someone, we got nothing. 

Edited November 25, 2017 by pazowl55

[Walt]

7 hours ago, pazowl55 said:

Would prefer this bit more solid. 

 

              Westwood

Hunt  Lees  Loovens  Reach

       Butterfield  Jones 

   Lee      Hooper     Bannan  

               Fletcher 

 

And the three main men are free to roam behind Fletcher and cause havoc.

Most teams that play 4231 have got skilful / pacy wide type players where you've got Bannan and Lee.

I think if you put FF in Bannan's position and either Wallace or Mataias (sp?) in for Lee it would be far more balanced as the two inside forwards would deter the oppo's fullbacks / wingbacks from overloading our fullbacks. Imo Bannan and Lee wouldn't do this as they will be too central.

In that formation I'd be tempted to play Abdi instead of Hooper. It's a big call and a leap of faith because Hooper is so important to us and Abdi has so far been a flop but the Abdi I remember played that role brilliantly.

 

[pazowl55]

2 hours ago, Walt said:

Most teams that play 4231 have got skilful / pacy wide type players where you've got Bannan and Lee.

I think if you put FF in Bannan's position and either Wallace or Mataias (sp?) in for Lee it would be far more balanced as the two inside forwards would deter the oppo's fullbacks / wingbacks from overloading our fullbacks. Imo Bannan and Lee wouldn't do this as they will be too central.

In that formation I'd be tempted to play Abdi instead of Hooper. It's a big call and a leap of faith because Hooper is so important to us and Abdi has so far been a flop but the Abdi I remember played that role brilliantly.

 

Basically we haven't got the resources. If Forestieri was fit he would be in. But he would protect the full back a lot less that what Bannan would. 

You mentioned a pacy skilful wide player and offer up Wallace. and as for Matias and Abdi if they were the answer we would know it by now.

 

It's a very narrow formation not how it looks there.

But we don't have a Mane or a Salah type player avalible to us so why play with that formation and style.