Jump to content

One striker, did it work?


Recommended Posts

3 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:

 

image.png.d8e6f932867f36d1b0ce7f14b463f105.png

 

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 using my own pre-existing biases... 'cause I quite like 4-3-3? Genuinely curious to know your guys' musings on it... 

 

Think the goal proves the point. Ball into the box looking for Fletcher,  but Reach is in there with him and Luongo supporting. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 05/10/2019 at 21:18, 83owl said:

 

Playing pelupessy today indicates monk is always going to play a holding midfielder. Our defensive record since monk came in is good so this vindicates that decision. 

 

You want to play two up top at home so you bring in one of Nuhiu  (poor scoring record but brings other things to the team) Rhodes (poor scoring record and brings nothing else to the team) or winnall who has had a major injury. Who out of bannan, Reach, harris or luongo are you going to drop to bring in one of these strikers?

Drop joey and play Lloungo as the holding midfielder

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Luongo and Lee are the only box to box midfielders we have. To play luongo but to restrict him as a holding midfielder when bannan sits deep anyway just leaves a load of space in the middle of midfield. Lee is the other box to box player but hasn’t looked anywhere near the player we know before his injury. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 05/10/2019 at 17:24, bigash_swfc said:

We didn't give Hull City any respect going 4-4-2 and lost.

We gave Wigan the respect, 4-5-1 and won.

 

Rock and Roll vs. Total Control. 

 

Should have approached Hull differently.

we lost at hull because fletcher our main (at present) weapon wasn't playing.

hopefully monk will cure that at Christmas.

we gave a small, bottom of the table (should be easily put away as PNE did with the dings) side every chance of sharing the spoils by not finishing them off, and in the end westwood  had to save us those two points, that shouldn't be happening against the likes of wigan.

if you call dragging ourselves down the field, short passing, and getting to the attack in around 3/4 minutes 'control' you've been listening to the tripe they talk after motd too much.

yes we 'should have approached hull differently' but we don't yet have the players to do so, your mate saw to that when he signed them for 'tiptap'.

2 forwards against 75% of sides at hillsborough, show 'respect' to those that fully deserve it. not everyone does, so crush them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 05/10/2019 at 17:41, alanharper said:

Let's be honest if it wasn't for a bit of Borner magic which led to the goal and Luongo's finish this place would be in meltdown after a poor game with no creativity which was entirely predictable as soon as the team sheet came out to reveal that we'd dropped a striker to pack the midfield - against Wigan at home. 

 

But as every football fan knows a dull 1-0 win is preferable to a 3-3 thriller. 

at present our 'second striker' options aren't worth a handful of beans.

nigh on all rolled into one wouldn't make a striker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 07/10/2019 at 21:24, Mycroft said:

Entertainment wise it certainly didn't work.

at this moment in time, with monk new in the job, and not having his own players in, we have to take the win, BUT overloading the m/f and starving the attack to scrape past mighty wigan is not going to put arses on seats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 06/10/2019 at 17:40, StudentOwl said:

 

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

 

image.png.d8e6f932867f36d1b0ce7f14b463f105.png

 

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 using my own pre-existing biases... 'cause I quite like 4-3-3? Genuinely curious to know your guys' musings on it... 

 

This thread has appeared again, so, to continue, I get the average position map. My point is how isolated Fletch is from goal kicks as well as in his hold-up play. He never seems to have either KH or AR nearby for the flick / lay off. As proven with KH on the map. To call us a 4-3-3 is a bit dubious I think. Harris & Reach track back a lot as well, which automatically makes us a 4-5-1. Whereas, with Atdhe & Fletch, or Winnall & Fletch, it's an obvious 2. Take Atdhe & Sam away, it becomes a one. Doesn't it? :biggrin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, The only way is S6 said:

 

This thread has appeared again, so, to continue, I get the average position map. My point is how isolated Fletch is from goal kicks as well as in his hold-up play. He never seems to have either KH or AR nearby for the flick / lay off. As proven with KH on the map. To call us a 4-3-3 is a bit dubious I think. Harris & Reach track back a lot as well, which automatically makes us a 4-5-1. Whereas, with Atdhe & Fletch, or Winnall & Fletch, it's an obvious 2. Take Atdhe & Sam away, it becomes a one. Doesn't it? :biggrin:


Heat maps are very useful, but they are trumped by results.

 

In a 442 this season

 

QPR lost 2-1

Boro won 4-1

Hull lost 1-0

 

P3. W1. D0. L2. One point per game

 

In a 433

 

Reading won 3-1

Barnsley won 2-0

Millwall lost 1-0

Luton won 1-0

Preston lost 2-1

Huddersfield won 2-0

Fulham drew 1-1

Wigan won 1-0

 

P8. W5. D1. L2. Two points per game

 

We talk about showing too much respect by playing one striker at Hillsborough. We stank the place out v QPR and created fewer chances than any other game this season.

 

Not for one second am I suggesting we rule out 442. Im a big fan of it done properly. But 433 is not necessarily a negative set-up.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Holmowl said:


Heat maps are very useful, but they are trumped by results.

 

In a 442 this season

 

QPR lost 2-1

Boro won 4-1

Hull lost 1-0

 

P3. W1. D0. L2. One point per game

 

In a 433

 

Reading won 3-1

Barnsley won 2-0

Millwall lost 1-0

Luton won 1-0

Preston lost 2-1

Huddersfield won 2-0

Fulham drew 1-1

Wigan won 1-0

 

P8. W5. D1. L2. Two points per game

 

We talk about showing too much respect by playing one striker at Hillsborough. We stank the place out v QPR and created fewer chances than any other game this season.

 

Not for one second am I suggesting we rule out 442. Im a big fan of it done properly. But 433 is not necessarily a negative set-up.

 

 

Don't you think we've played 4-5-1 in any game then HO?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Somebody would have to explain the difference between 433 and 451. I don’t see any.

Fulham play two quality attacking wide men but they have to track back to defend.

What system do they play?

 

In the heat map somebody put up, Harris and Reach are in advance of Fletcher. Which system is that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Holmowl said:


Heat maps are very useful, but they are trumped by results.

 

In a 442 this season

 

QPR lost 2-1

Boro won 4-1

Hull lost 1-0

 

P3. W1. D0. L2. One point per game

 

In a 433

 

Reading won 3-1

Barnsley won 2-0

Millwall lost 1-0

Luton won 1-0

Preston lost 2-1

Huddersfield won 2-0

Fulham drew 1-1

Wigan won 1-0

 

P8. W5. D1. L2. Two points per game

 

We talk about showing too much respect by playing one striker at Hillsborough. We stank the place out v QPR and created fewer chances than any other game this season.

 

Not for one second am I suggesting we rule out 442. Im a big fan of it done properly. But 433 is not necessarily a negative set-up.

 

we don't have the forward and midfield players in the squad to play 4-4-2, the m/f is lightweight, and we haven't a second forward to call owt.

not monks fault, or bruces' for that matter (bruce was actually trying to shift the deadwood and dross on).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...