Guest mkowl Posted December 16, 2017 Share Posted December 16, 2017 To me this is where being a boss matters. I like a few others on here run a business. A ten bob business saying that but when things go wrong my staff Don't want someone who blames the world for it going wrong or puts their head in the sand thinking it will go away. No they want a boss that takes responsibility, rolls up his sleeves and cracks on with sorting it out. Thus it's time for CC and /or DC to get them sleeves rolled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwinowl Posted December 16, 2017 Share Posted December 16, 2017 Brilliant post this. Exactly nail on the head. Sadly the players have become apathetic with the manger and his ways and it won't change, not now. Football is a simple game but that quote from robson is spot on, there's not too much wrong that a new manager can't sort. Look at Leicester , guy wins EPL gets sack. Wrong manager is put in place and trend continues. New guy comes in and doesn't change much , suddenly they're a good side again with the same personnel. DC has to change this. It's down to him to man up. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodie Posted December 16, 2017 Share Posted December 16, 2017 5 hours ago, Bark1062 said: There’s been plenty of us on here saying for long enough 352 is how we should be playing to get the best from our players, it’s the formation that would suit them, not shoe horning them into a system that quite obviously doesn’t suit them. Simple coaching basics! I’d tend to agree but the fact we don’t have 2 decent centre half’s never mind 3 makes it impossible in my eyes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the third man Posted December 16, 2017 Share Posted December 16, 2017 2 hours ago, kingsidney said: So to summerize...whatever he tries he still isn’t good enough. No, what ever he tries wont be good enough because he hasn't got a clue what to do he is now completely out of his depth, while it was good he didn't need to change anything. now its rubbish he doesn't know how to change things Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holmowl Posted December 16, 2017 Share Posted December 16, 2017 7 hours ago, WatfordOwl said: Everyone will scream til they are blue in the face about having 3 at the back but it will never happen under CC. Cannot see the wood for the trees at the moment. You and many, including the good lord Snoots, want three at the back. I totally understand the clamour for change, but 3 at the back? A back three of the error-strewn JVA, the invisible Vernancio, and Loovens. What makes anyone think that has the makings of a strong back three? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blatter Posted December 16, 2017 Share Posted December 16, 2017 3-5-2 is a very attractive proposition when things aren't working with the Carlos version of 4-4-2. Bear in mind though that his squad was assmbled to play this 4-4-2 game. If we were to have lined up as a 3-5-2 last night with the players available, can we all think about who we would have put into those positions. I tried and haven't really come up with a match winning 11against a Wolves team playing the system well. I'm not dismissing, it just curious to see if people think we had the players last night and have a chance of winning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingsidney Posted December 16, 2017 Share Posted December 16, 2017 4 minutes ago, Blatter said: 3-5-2 is a very attractive proposition when things aren't working with the Carlos version of 4-4-2. Bear in mind though that his squad was assmbled to play this 4-4-2 game. If we were to have lined up as a 3-5-2 last night with the players available, can we all think about who we would have put into those positions. I tried and haven't really come up with a match winning 11against a Wolves team playing the system well. I'm not dismissing, it just curious to see if people think we had the players last night and have a chance of winning. It looks more like the team was assembled by picking names out of a hat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Costello 77 Posted December 16, 2017 Share Posted December 16, 2017 Quality OP in a sea of dross. FFS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blatter Posted December 16, 2017 Share Posted December 16, 2017 9 minutes ago, kingsidney said: It looks more like the team was assembled by picking names out of a hat. Yes but that doesn't answer my question Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldishowl Posted December 16, 2017 Share Posted December 16, 2017 9 minutes ago, Blatter said: 3-5-2 is a very attractive proposition when things aren't working with the Carlos version of 4-4-2. Bear in mind though that his squad was assmbled to play this 4-4-2 game. If we were to have lined up as a 3-5-2 last night with the players available, can we all think about who we would have put into those positions. I tried and haven't really come up with a match winning 11against a Wolves team playing the system well. I'm not dismissing, it just curious to see if people think we had the players last night and have a chance of winning. Well we could have used the same 11 with Fox dropping into centre half like he did at Derby and Wallace playing as a central midfield player as he does sometimes, with Palmer and Reach as wide men. I have never seen Venancio play but him and Pudil were other options at the back. It would be nice to see if Venancio and Van Aken could cut it either side of Loovens. In the midfield I would've started Abdi instead of Wallace with Butterfield and Jones Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blatter Posted December 16, 2017 Share Posted December 16, 2017 7 minutes ago, oldishowl said: Well we could have used the same 11 with Fox dropping into centre half like he did at Derby and Wallace playing as a central midfield player as he does sometimes, with Palmer and Reach as wide men. I have never seen Venancio play but him and Pudil were other options at the back. It would be nice to see if Venancio and Van Aken could cut it either side of Loovens. In the midfield I would've started Abdi instead of Wallace with Butterfield and Jones Not easy is it? You both play Wallace in central midfield and start without him. You play an untried centre back against the Championship's top team and presumably drop Jones who had a very good game last night for either Wallace or Abdi My point is that nobody has put names against positions in a 3-5-2 from those available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Snooty Posted December 16, 2017 Author Share Posted December 16, 2017 (edited) 53 minutes ago, Blatter said: My point is that nobody has put names against positions in a 3-5-2 from those available. Nuhui Rhodes Hooper Reach Jones Butterfield Palmer Fox Van Aken Loovens Wildsmith Joao Rhodes Hooper Reach Jones Butterfield Palmer Fox Van Aken Loovens Wildsmith Nuhui Joao Hooper Reach Jones Butterfield Palmer Pudil Van Aken Loovens Wildsmith Nuhui Rhodes Hooper Reach Jones Butterfield Palmer Fox Van Aken Loovens Wildsmith Hooper Rhodes Abdi Reach Jones Butterfield Palmer Pudil Loovens Venâncio Wildsmith Hooper Rhodes Abdi Reach Jones Butterfield Palmer Pudil Venâncio Loovens Wildsmith Hooper Joao Walllace Fox Jones Butterfield Palmer Pudil Van Aken Venânci Wildsmith Hooper Joao Matias Fox Jones Butterfield Palmer Pudil Van Aken Venâncio Wildsmith Hooper Nuhiu Fox Reach Butterfield Palmer Jones Van Aken Loovens Venâncio Wildsmith Hooper Nuhiu Fox Abdi Butterfield Palmer Jones Van Aken Loovens Venâncio Wildsmith Hooper Rhodes Fox Abdi Butterfield Palmer Jones Van Aken Loovens Venâncio Wildsmith Hooper Nuhiu Reach Jones Butterfield Palmer Van Aken Fox Loovens Venâncio Wildsmith Hooper Nuhiu Reach Jones Abdi Palmer Butterfield Fox Loovens Venâncio Wildsmith Hooper Rhodes Wallace Reach Jones Butterfield Matias Fox Van Aken Loovens Wildsmith Hooper Nuhiu Reach Wallace Jones Butterfield Matias Van Aken Loovens Venâncio Wildsmith Hooper Nuhiu Joao Reach Jones Butterfield Matias Van Aken Loovens Venâncio Wildsmith Nuhiu Hooper Abdi Reach Jones Butterfield Matias Van Aken Loovens Venâncio Wildsmith Joao Hooper Matias Reach Jones Butterfield Palmer Pudil Van Aken Loovens Wildsmith There's many more. I don't have the patience to type them all... Loads of ways of lining those players up. Different players bringing different qualities to the role. You can play all put wingers in the wide spots like Venables did with Anderton and McManaman. Or you can put fit up and downers in. Like Reach. You could put more defensive minds wide players in like Fox or a Pudil. You can Abdi in a free roll trying to find the slide rule pass, or Hooper feeding off the front pair. You could even stick Matias or Wallace in there and tell them to run at folks down the middle from deep. Or you can play with Jones sat off. Mopping things up. Or even Butterfield as as a deep lying ball player. Or maybe Van Aken with his pinged long passes. You can make any combination of front players. A two, or even a three. One playing off the others. There's almost limitless combinations. We could try a different combination in 46 games.... Its the fact we haven't even looked at it.... apparently .because our 4-4-2 has been working so well and we've just had rotten luck.... Edited December 16, 2017 by Lord Snooty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Hunt Posted December 16, 2017 Share Posted December 16, 2017 4 hours ago, mcmigo said: We have a massive problem going forwards and it is relatively clear as to what the issue is. The opposition defences have worked out a great way of playing against us. They push us up the pitch knowing that rhodes and hooper, or fletcher if he plays, aren’t quick enough to run onto any through or over balls. If striker one wins a flick on from a long ball, striker 2 won’t get a chance because he is still 30 yards out and not quick enough to run on. At best hooper will get onto the flick, spin and feed out wide. As an added bonus, none of the centre mid players can run onto anything either. That leaves only the wingers to worry about if you play a high line against us. Wallace I don’t worry about as a full back as the only risk is that he comes inside and smacks one. So easy to show him outside each time. That leaves just reach as having any potential threat. Squeeze tight on him and you have basically got us cracked. the high line also means that our midfield is forced back as well, hence you had jones and butterfield playing so far back leaving the forwards not just isolated but very deep as well. We need to sell rhodes sadly and try and find a kid who is whip quick and move the team up the pitch. Otherwise we are in, and I hate to say this, relegation trouble. You forgot to mention that our main attacking threat and the reason Carlos uses 442 is that we send our fullbacks forward at every occasion leaving a massive chasm that teams with pace exploit for fun when inevitably the likes of Hunt and Fox fail to beat the first man or send it sailing over the back , Palmer has been more measured and played well again last night but Fox is a car crash of a player . 352 with Van Aken carrying the ball out of defence would shove us further up the pitch , play Reach and Palmer as the flank men . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buxtongent Posted December 16, 2017 Share Posted December 16, 2017 I thought Wallace was playing midfield. He certainly wasn't playing on either wing. The best comment IMO was in another post The difference between the two teams was that we played the ball to the feet of the man, who then had to stop, control the ball then decide who to pass to. Wolves were a very well drilled side and they played the ball into space, which was immediately picked up by a man. They were also prepared to shoot from outside the penalty area, and from any player, not a designated one as often seems the case with Wednesday. They also had two and often three central defenders who were faster than our players. Not large differences, but sufficient. And why do we, when playing the ball out of defence , play tap=tap between each other. , the ball often being passed immediately back to the defender ,amove which does nothing but slow our attack up, or often bring t to a standstill. We are very pedestrian in our attacks and allow teams to get men behind the ball in numbers, preventing us having a shot at goal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 16, 2017 Share Posted December 16, 2017 Last night Wolves admit themselves they weren’t at their best yet four things really stood out for me. Our midfield was effectively taken out of the game, not by Wolves but by us. All too often we followed two particular patterns. We either passed back to defence or the keeper and long balled it up to Rhodes (who was marked by two or three men) or we laid it to the wing backs who floated high diagonal balls in the general direction of their box or couldn’t beat the first man with the cross. Even schoolboy or youth coaches know it is all but impossible to attack floaty crosses but yet we kept doing it. The odd time we didn’t follow these two patterns were when the defence or keeper succeeded in their long balls up to the strikers, who then laid it off to the wingbacks who either passed back to the defence or keeper or floated a ball in diagonally. It is like they can’t see another way to play. Hooper also seems to have developed a bit of a victim mentality at times, he gets a few bad tackles and seems to take forever to get off his knees and stop gesturing to the officials, while play goes on around him. Fox epitomised the lack of desire too, that second yellow he saw himself get beaten to the chance yet again and just gave up. He was absolutely knáckered but he didn’t even try to go with his man. Loovens was caught miles from his man loads of times too. It was almost as if they knew they were beat for skill and had conceded it was better to let their opponent just go by. Our passing is also very odd. Not in the direction (we all know that we seem to be hopeless at forward direction) but in the way that our players seem to isolate themselves. Every time Wolves got the ball last night they seemed to have two or three players show for the pass and another one or two moving into channels at speed. When we have it you can’t see that type of movement from our players, hardly anyone shows for it and we have only the wing backs making any bursts of speed. Is this merely a formation problem or, as I suspect, are the players now actually not wanting to show for it because they don’t want the ball? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Snooty Posted December 16, 2017 Author Share Posted December 16, 2017 41 minutes ago, Will69 said: Hooper also seems to have developed a bit of a victim mentality at times, he gets a few bad tackles and seems to take forever to get off his knees and stop gesturing to the officials, while play goes on around him. Since probably around the Barnsley game Hooper has looked more and more frustrated. He looks like a player who is truly f*cked off with how things are going. 41 minutes ago, Will69 said: Fox epitomised the lack of desire too, that second yellow he saw himself get beaten to the chance yet again and just gave up. He was absolutely knáckered but he didn’t even try to go with his man. Loovens was caught miles from his man loads of times too. It was almost as if they knew they were beat for skill and had conceded it was better to let their opponent just go by. That's what was frustrating me. People make mistakes, we accept that. Sometimes you might mistimed your jump and miss the header. Or their player might produce a decent bit of skill to get past. .....but you have to kill yourself to get back and make up for it. Not stand with the hands on the hips thinking 'someone else will deal with it'. Or even worse....not think at all. It's all very.......laid back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Snooty Posted December 16, 2017 Author Share Posted December 16, 2017 4 hours ago, Holmowl said: A back three of the error-strewn JVA, the invisible Vernancio, and Loovens. What makes anyone think that has the makings of a strong back three? With 5 in midfield it's possible (only possible mind) that those centre halves might actually have less defending to do... Venâncio must be wondering what he has to do to get a game. Still think letting Sasso go was a major rick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holmowl Posted December 16, 2017 Share Posted December 16, 2017 1 hour ago, Lord Snooty said: With 5 in midfield it's possible (only possible mind) that those centre halves might actually have less defending to do... Venâncio must be wondering what he has to do to get a game. Still think letting Sasso go was a major rick. I think occasionally squads lend themselves to 3 at the back. Not ours. If our (next) manager wants to adopt that he needs to buy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldishowl Posted December 16, 2017 Share Posted December 16, 2017 Well. I thought the error strewn centre halfs played very well last night. Wildsmith never made a save. It was the best game I have seen from Van Aken. It is obvious why. He is a lot better playing against footballing strikers than against big strong boys who knock him about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Snooty Posted December 16, 2017 Author Share Posted December 16, 2017 4 minutes ago, Holmowl said: I think occasionally squads lend themselves to 3 at the back. Not ours. If our (next) manager wants to adopt that he needs to buy. To be honest we've no way of knowing. Venâncio might be the answer but without him ever getting a run who knows. Loovens might look better with an extra body along side him. Till we try we just don't know. And the the frustrating thing. We won't try anything. We just plod on...same old same old..While the top 6 pull away Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now