One striker, did it work?

[Stoop]

3 hours ago, Mycroft said:

One up front at home against Wigan is horrific.  

 

We were very combersome and made hard work of it. Wigan offered very little and we should be a lot more enterprising. 

 

A welcome three points but need to be more attacking at home. 

Agreed

 

I thought we made harder work of today’s game than we needed to

[gurujuan]

Three in midfield gave us more control, but I’m not sure there’s any mileage in the current front three as a solution

[oldishowl]

Wasn’t surprised when I saw the team/ formation.

Didn’t expect Nuhiu to start having played so many minutes recently and Wigan were not weak in the air like Boro.

Don’t think Winnall nor Rhodes would have improved the starting eleven.

 

I also think it’s wrong to think we should be winning these games easily.

We are not good enough to take that for granted .

 

[gurujuan]

1 minute ago, oldishowl said:

Wasn’t surprised when I saw the team/ formation.

Didn’t expect Nuhiu to start having played so many minutes recently and Wigan were not weak in the air like Boro.

Don’t think Winnall nor Rhodes would have improved the starting eleven.

 

I also think it’s wrong to think we should be winning these games easily.

We are not good enough to take that for granted .

 

Out of interest, do you think that the current front three can ever be prolific?

[Mr. Tom]

We’d have torn them to bits with two up top and a tighter central 3 in midfield, rather than a spread 5 - both fullbacks were pushing up ok when needed, and Harris can play that lone wide role all day long. Hindsight being 20/20 I’d have played 4-4-2 today and we’d have won 3-0, but no complaints with the points in the bag. Made unduly heavy weather of it though, Wigan were atrocious.

[Owls2k]

'1 up front' is far too basic and many fans fall into the trap of simply clamouring for '2 up top'.

 

I've seen some horrendously defensive Wednesday teams that play 2 up front. 

 

Monk's had criticism in the past for being too concerned with the opposition rather than his own teams, he is very pragmatic with how he puts his side out. 

 

Under Carlos with ethos was a 'big team' mentality, Monk is slightly different, he seems to approach as the underdog in most games which can seem negative and is not always a great watch. 

 

 

 

[Owls2k]

32 minutes ago, gurujuan said:

Three in midfield gave us more control, but I’m not sure there’s any mileage in the current front three as a solution

Who is the current 3? Hutch, Bannan and Lee?

[Sultan_Pepper]

We had Luongo more advanced through the middle in that space that we sometimes fail to fill and it kind of worked, him and Lee can play there in that formation and it works pretty well. Can't shake the feeling that it's made for FF to sit there and twist and turn behind Fletcher but we never seem to get him in there

[oldishowl]

29 minutes ago, gurujuan said:

Out of interest, do you think that the current front three can ever be prolific?

 

Probably not but that doesn’t mean we can’t be competitive.

 

The Boro game was a one off, no matter what formation we play we don’t have the firepower to hammer teams. I think Monk will know this. The secret is to find a way to win games and keep picking up points.

 

I don’t see us playing teams off the park. The key is to compete in games , stay in them and positive and goals can come from strange places. I just think we have a better chance of doing this with 3 in the middle. 

 

Fulham have a fantastic front 3 on paper but they aren’t scoring for fun.

 

Teams tend to do well in this league by being solid, being organised  , getting goals from all round the team and using set pieces.

 

Teams like Preston and Charlton are doing well by flooding midfield and playing on the front foot all the time.

 

It will be interesting to see if anything changes after the international break with Monk saying he wants to work on our attacking during the break.

[DJMortimer]

5 hours ago, GMOwl72 said:

Whatever the formation and ins and outs, one thing is a given - we need to score more goals.

 

We're joint 6th highest scorers and joint 2nd best defence. Not much to complain about there.

 

5 hours ago, Salmonbones said:

Rhodes and Winnall can't do much when they aren't on the pitch.

 

Certainly in the case of Rhodes, it's only slightly less than when he is on the pitch.

 

[gurujuan]

36 minutes ago, oldishowl said:

 

Probably not but that doesn’t mean we can’t be competitive.

 

The Boro game was a one off, no matter what formation we play we don’t have the firepower to hammer teams. I think Monk will know this. The secret is to find a way to win games and keep picking up points.

 

I don’t see us playing teams off the park. The key is to compete in games , stay in them and positive and goals can come from strange places. I just think we have a better chance of doing this with 3 in the middle. 

 

Fulham have a fantastic front 3 on paper but they aren’t scoring for fun.

 

Teams tend to do well in this league by being solid, being organised  , getting goals from all round the team and using set pieces.

 

Teams like Preston and Charlton are doing well by flooding midfield and playing on the front foot all the time.

 

It will be interesting to see if anything changes after the international break with Monk saying he wants to work on our attacking during the break.

I think you’re probably right with that Sacrificing one of the midfielders, for another striker, is unlikely to get us better results, whereas three in the middle makes us more competitive. 

[Holmowl]

2 hours ago, gurujuan said:

Three in midfield gave us more control, but I’m not sure there’s any mileage in the current front three as a solution

 

Why no mileage for today’s front 3?

 

Three wins and a draw out of their 4 starts.

 

Reading, Fulham, Boro, Wigan.

[GMOwl72]

7 hours ago, DJMortimer said:

 

We're joint 6th highest scorers and joint 2nd best defence. Not much to complain about there.

 

 

 

Disagree. If we could have found a goal at Hull or Milwall from the play we had we would be at least 2 points better off. Might seem like not a lot at this stage (and some will quote the ‘it evens out over the season’ rubbish) but over a season if we don’t find the net more it will hurt us. Let’s set the standard rather than looking at the average.

Edited October 6, 2019 by GMOwl72

[StudentOwl]

We won 1-0 in a game that, bar a first half mistake from Joey P and a reaction save from a set-piece from Westwood, we never looked in danger of losing. We also lined up 4-3-3 against a side that played 4-2-3-1... and yet some are still questioning as to whether we were set up correctly or not?

 

How many times have we bemoaned us playing with two CMs against sides that outnumber us in the middle? As it is, Pelupessy is in the process of taking their central midfielders out of his pocket this morning... and how on earth would anyone on Owlstalk think they would make that sentence a few months back?

 

We were very comfortable... yes, one up top worked.

[The only way is S6]

Was that not 4-5-1 then?

Nobody near Fletch for 90% of the game, especially with every ball from KW.

I fail to see a front 3 yesterday. 
At least with a recognised front 2, there’s a chance of a man to get the ball after Fletch heads it. 

 

[FreshOwl]

2 hours ago, The only way is S6 said:

Was that not 4-5-1 then?

Nobody near Fletch for 90% of the game, especially with every ball from KW.

I fail to see a front 3 yesterday. 
At least with a recognised front 2, there’s a chance of a man to get the ball after Fletch heads it. 

 

Exactly. I never understand why we call it 443 on here. Reach and Harris are never close to Fletch, they’re midfielders 

[The only way is S6]

19 minutes ago, FreshOwl said:

Exactly. I never understand why we call it 443 on here. Reach and Harris are never close to Fletch, they’re midfielders 

You can expect some Diane Abbott comments now 

[StudentOwl]

6 hours ago, The only way is S6 said:

Was that not 4-5-1 then?

Nobody near Fletch for 90% of the game, especially with every ball from KW.

I fail to see a front 3 yesterday. 
At least with a recognised front 2, there’s a chance of a man to get the ball after Fletch heads it. 

 

 

3 hours ago, FreshOwl said:

Exactly. I never understand why we call it 443 on here. Reach and Harris are never close to Fletch, they’re midfielders 

Posts like this always interest me. Because if you look at the map of our player's average positions from yesterday:

 

 

it looks like you two are objectively wrong. Are you using pre-conceived biases to come to a conclusion that isn't true? Or is the map above very misleading? My own opinion of yesterday is that Fletch was well supported by the midfield- which I was pleased to see was backed up by the map above when I looked for it. But then am I using my own pre-existing biases... 'cause I quite like 4-3-3? Genuinely curious to know your guys' musings on it... 

Edited October 6, 2019 by StudentOwl

[The only way is S6]

2 hours ago, StudentOwl said:

 

Posts like this always interest me. Because if you look at the map of our player's average positions from yesterday:

 

 

it looks like you two are objectively wrong. Are you using pre-conceived biases to come to a conclusion that isn't true? Or is the map above very misleading? My own opinion of yesterday is that Fletch was well supported by the midfield- which I was pleased to see was backed up by the map above when I looked for it. But then am I using my own pre-existing biases... 'cause I quite like 4-3-3? Genuinely curious to know your guys' musings on it... 

 

I’d love to discuss it with you, but can’t get on OT via laptop for security cert reasons. Whatever that is?! Pain in ass tapping on phone all time.

[StudentOwl]

23 minutes ago, The only way is S6 said:

 

I’d love to discuss it with you, but can’t get on OT via laptop for security cert reasons. Whatever that is?! Pain in ass tapping on phone all time.

Don't worry about it mate, the site has been pretty unworkable for me too... Neil's forgot to put pennies in the meter again