Flooding their box..

[Costello 77]

In a 433 have we got the midfield to go into their box and flood it?

 

Against Fulham for instance .. can we get the penetration to continually enter the box and flood it?

[RichieB]

Just now, Costello 77 said:

penetration to continually enter the box and flood it?

 

[Guest The Horse]

We'd need to have Bannan and one other really pushing hard into their box whenever we have the chance to fully penetrate them when they leave themselves exposed.

[OWLERTON GHOST]

9 minutes ago, Costello 77 said:

In a 433 have we got the midfield to go into their box and flood it?

 

Against Fulham for instance .. can we get the penetration to continually enter the box and flood it?

Yes.......

[frastheowl]

14 minutes ago, Costello 77 said:

In a 433 have we got the midfield to go into their box and flood it?

 

Against Fulham for instance .. can we get the penetration to continually enter the box and flood it?

 

In Luongo and Lee we have two players have the energy and desire to get themselves into the box to effect things. 

 

However, if we continue with a midfield three of Hutch, Bannan and Reach, we'll struggle to get numbers in the box. It isn't Hutch's role to, Bannan doesn't get himself into the box, preferring to linger outside the box to pick up loose balls, and Reach seems to be reluctant to get himself into those goalscoring positions in the box often enough. 

 

It's a real concern for Reach playing that No. 10 role. No doubting he offers a lot of positives in there ..he works hard, he always tidy on the ball and he's solid and reliable. But, in a side lacking creativity and invention, we suffer, because Reach doesn't seem to be able to bring that to his central role. Too often he seems to get stuck in a middle ground, neither effectively close enough to link up with Fletcher, yet disconnected from the double pivot in midfield. Good No. 10's do it naturally.

 

Unfortunately, we just don't have a natural No. 10 in our squad, which is why a 4-2-3-1 system will continue to yield stodgy, disjointed offensive play, however, we'll maintain a good degree of solidity and structure defensively. I think Monk, if he's going to stick with a back four (a constant during his managerial career), may have to choose between a more standard 4-3-3 with a single DM and two more adventurous midfielders (I'd love to see Bannan play that role, however, he naturally seems to prefer playing deeper) like he adopted at Swansea, or a more structured 4-4-2 like he played at Leeds and Birmingham.

 

Can teams nowadays afford to play 4-4-2 with two out and out wingers? More often than not, wide mdifelders are asked to tuck inside to provide more central cover and allow space for full backs to exploit (Carvalhal's 4-4-2 was a prime example of that, with Bannan and Wallace as wide midfielders). 

Edited September 18, 2019 by frastheowl

[shandypants]

17 minutes ago, Costello 77 said:

In a 433 have we got the midfield to go into their box and flood it?

 

Against Fulham for instance .. can we get the penetration to continually enter the box and flood it?

I think that anyone that can’t penetrate the box in the first half needs pulling off at halftime. 

[lanzaroteowl]

Don't try to google it!

[bobness]

I'm more worried about whether the cream pies will be warm. Catering has been shocking so far

[sonofbert2]

11 minutes ago, lanzaroteowl said:

Don't try to google it!

 

I just did.

 

Left me thinking that with Reach on the left (switching with Harris) and either Lee or Luongo in the middle then we  should manage to squirt a few more chances.

[B&WOwl]

This might work.

[new zealand owl]

I would like us to pound their wings and flood their box. Variety is the spice of life

[Mr Farrell]

For me, if you are looking to flood the box, you need to get in round the back first.

[Rogers]

Do we have the stamina to go box to box?  I don't we can keep it up for the whole game.

 

Come on you blues.

 

Fulham will be craving for cottaging.

[Drewswfc]

Let's hope it's not us who are in for a rough ride. I hate it when they're in our box all the time, especially when their wingers are pumping balls into our box for  that big lad mitrovic to tap into that big orifice in our box..... Let's hope we come out on top.... We don't want to be hitting no sticky patches this early in the season

[OWLERTON GHOST]

3 hours ago, Mr Farrell said:

For me, if you are looking to flood the box, you need to get in round the back first.

So you are suggesting Reach in a holding role ?

[Inspector Lestrade]

8 hours ago, frastheowl said:

 

In Luongo and Lee we have two players have the energy and desire to get themselves into the box to effect things. 

 

However, if we continue with a midfield three of Hutch, Bannan and Reach, we'll struggle to get numbers in the box. It isn't Hutch's role to, Bannan doesn't get himself into the box, preferring to linger outside the box to pick up loose balls, and Reach seems to be reluctant to get himself into those goalscoring positions in the box often enough. 

 

It's a real concern for Reach playing that No. 10 role. No doubting he offers a lot of positives in there ..he works hard, he always tidy on the ball and he's solid and reliable. But, in a side lacking creativity and invention, we suffer, because Reach doesn't seem to be able to bring that to his central role. Too often he seems to get stuck in a middle ground, neither effectively close enough to link up with Fletcher, yet disconnected from the double pivot in midfield. Good No. 10's do it naturally.

 

Unfortunately, we just don't have a natural No. 10 in our squad, which is why a 4-2-3-1 system will continue to yield stodgy, disjointed offensive play, however, we'll maintain a good degree of solidity and structure defensively. I think Monk, if he's going to stick with a back four (a constant during his managerial career), may have to choose between a more standard 4-3-3 with a single DM and two more adventurous midfielders (I'd love to see Bannan play that role, however, he naturally seems to prefer playing deeper) like he adopted at Swansea, or a more structured 4-4-2 like he played at Leeds and Birmingham.

 

Can teams nowadays afford to play 4-4-2 with two out and out wingers? More often than not, wide mdifelders are asked to tuck inside to provide more central cover and allow space for full backs to exploit (Carvalhal's 4-4-2 was a prime example of that, with Bannan and Wallace as wide midfielders). 

 

They say when there is a natural disaster some people carry on as if nothing has happened.

 

I salute you Sir.

[oldowl67]

21 minutes ago, OWLERTON GHOST said:

So you are suggesting Reach in a holding role ?

Maybe Reach around the back? Could Borner be useful for this?

[Hitcat]

8 hours ago, frastheowl said:

 

In Luongo and Lee we have two players have the energy and desire to get themselves into the box to effect things. 

 

However, if we continue with a midfield three of Hutch, Bannan and Reach, we'll struggle to get numbers in the box. It isn't Hutch's role to, Bannan doesn't get himself into the box, preferring to linger outside the box to pick up loose balls, and Reach seems to be reluctant to get himself into those goalscoring positions in the box often enough. 

 

It's a real concern for Reach playing that No. 10 role. No doubting he offers a lot of positives in there ..he works hard, he always tidy on the ball and he's solid and reliable. But, in a side lacking creativity and invention, we suffer, because Reach doesn't seem to be able to bring that to his central role. Too often he seems to get stuck in a middle ground, neither effectively close enough to link up with Fletcher, yet disconnected from the double pivot in midfield. Good No. 10's do it naturally.

 

Unfortunately, we just don't have a natural No. 10 in our squad, which is why a 4-2-3-1 system will continue to yield stodgy, disjointed offensive play, however, we'll maintain a good degree of solidity and structure defensively. I think Monk, if he's going to stick with a back four (a constant during his managerial career), may have to choose between a more standard 4-3-3 with a single DM and two more adventurous midfielders (I'd love to see Bannan play that role, however, he naturally seems to prefer playing deeper) like he adopted at Swansea, or a more structured 4-4-2 like he played at Leeds and Birmingham.

 

Can teams nowadays afford to play 4-4-2 with two out and out wingers? More often than not, wide mdifelders are asked to tuck inside to provide more central cover and allow space for full backs to exploit (Carvalhal's 4-4-2 was a prime example of that, with Bannan and Wallace as wide midfielders). 

 

Let Bannan do his wandering, just stick Reach just off Fletcher. Forget the creativity, let him get himself into some decent scoring positions. Bannan who'll inevitably roam higher and higher up the pitch will provide all the creativity necessary in the newly created space.

[Samurai Blue]

It’s a pity that this thread has descended into a filthy, innuendo strewn smutfest, as I feel some salient points are being lost in the fog of double-entendres.

 

I personally prefer us to set up with one in the hole, giving us the freedom to play around with a lively pair further up. A few well timed pushes from the rear can also allow us to counter, flip them around and get on top.

[OWLERTON GHOST]

20 minutes ago, oldowl67 said:

Maybe Reach around the back? Could Borner be useful for this?

Post not

Post........errrrrr...