Time to go back to 4-4-2

[Guest]

This isn’t going to be popular on here because lots of people don’t like 4-4-2 but it’s clear to me we aren’t going to get enough goals playing 1 up. Teams that play with one up like Liverpool or Man City have 3-4 other players in the wide positions and midfield who are a constant goal threat.. we just don’t have those players.

 

Just think that our luck will run out playing for 1-0s all the time, so it’s clear we aren’t going up this year playing like that. We need to play in a much more aggressive way going forward.

 

That means we probably need Fletcher, FF, Harris, Bannan, Luongo and one of Rhodes/Winnall on the pitch. It’s the only way we’re going to score goals.

 

I’d give this team a go:

 

              Westwood

Odubajo Iorfa Borner Fox

Harris Luongo Bannan FF

         Rhodes Fletcher

 

Pretty sure that team would get more goals than the current one. I know Rhodes has been cr*p, he’s obviously lacking confidence after being poor for 2-3 years but you never know if he could put a goal scoring run together if he got off to a good start with service. I can’t remember him getting much game time alongside Fletcher in a team that gets the ball into the box. Let’s be honest, nobody else is going to get us 15-20 a season

 

Just think that we need to try something different. We won’t go down either way and if it doesn’t work then it’s clear out time at the end of the season anyway

[frastheowl]

 

There's no need for Monk to start ripping everything up that he's been working on since he got here, because of a crazy 5 minutes where our normally reliant goalkeeper and centre half made two basic errors. 

 

I, and others, have been very complimentary about Monk's setup to games since he arrived. He's played 4-3-3 (4-5-1) and 4-4-2. He's played with up big lads up top, he's also gone with the target man/poacher option in other games. And by and large, it's had the desired effect. We've been difficult to play against, and it's given us a basis to stay in games and allow our extra quality to decide games. Just because teams win games 1-0, doesn't mean they are lucky. Since Monk arrived, the only game we could've been deemed fortunate to win was the Wigan game (0.45xG - 0.77xG).

 

Yesterday wasn't great. But, cast aside the last 5 minutes of elementary rookie errors, and it followed a similar script. We defended well for the mostpart, stayed in the game when not creating nor keeping the ball well, and allowed our extra quality to get us a goal late on...which should've seen us come away with a 1-0 victory.

 

That said...Monk was ultra negative in his setup yesterday...and it's the first time I've said it since he arrived. The absence of Bannan obviously contributed to that. But Blackburn were there for the taking, and our lack of ambition for the most part, ensured that Blackburn we're able to stay in and control a game, which in reality, should've been a very challenging affair. 

 

There's no way of knowing, and like I said, Monk and others can rightly point to the fact we were 5 minutes and two errors away from a turgid 1-0 victory, but I'm convinced, had we started with a more dynamic and forward thinking approach, we could've had a very comfortable afternoon. Whether that would've been going to a 4-4-2 with Nuhiu/Fletcher, or a more standard 4-2-3-1 with Forestieri in the number 10 spot...or even moving Reach into central midfield, and Murphy/Forestieri coming in to play out wide... all those options would've asked far more questions of a obviously shaky outfit than a midfield trio which involved both Pelupessy and Hutchinson, as well as a Kieran Lee playing far too deep.

[agentwalker]

Are we just papering over the numerous point blank saves and goal line clearances our keeper/defenders are having to make every game?

 

Forget the last 5 mins yesterday, we played crap and deserved nothing. If we'd have gotten away yesterday with the 1-0 win the entire team would have been arrested for mugging Blackburn.

[Ash77]

              Westwood

Odubajo Iorfa Borner Fox

 Luongo hutch Bannan

    Harris  Fletcher    ff

 

Im now convinced thats our best side, bring reach on for his main strength, legs and running when the jobs done for ff or luongo

 

Its 433 but is flexible, if ff more advanced than harris it can switch to 4411/442 or be 451 when needed too.

[Guest LittleG]

If we sign another striker in Jan Monk may switch to 4-4-2. Until then I think he will stick mainly with 4-3-3 with the odd match going to 4-4-2

[Holmowl]

Worth pointing out that we have been far more successful this season when playing 433 than 442.

 

Its true of the whole season, but think back to Cardiff and yesterday.

 

In a 433 we were up v Cardiff but blew it in 442. In a 433 we were drawing yesterday and lost in 442. 

 

Lost at Hull in 442. Only win in a 442 was at Boro.

 

 

 

 

[frastheowl]

14 minutes ago, agentwalker said:

Are we just papering over the numerous point blank saves and goal line clearances our keeper/defenders are having to make every game?

 

Forget the last 5 mins yesterday, we played crap and deserved nothing. If we'd have gotten away yesterday with the 1-0 win the entire team would have been arrested for mugging Blackburn.

 

There isn't really an issue with us papering over cracks from a defensive point of view. 

 

Yesterday was a poor performance, and the worst defensive display statistically, since Monk arrived. But despite that, we only conceded an xG of 1.49. So it was hardly a horror show, and actually, there's a case to say that we were unfortunate to concede two goals yesterday.

 

Prior to yesterday game, you have to go back to the Hull game where we conceded > 1 xG. That's exceptionally consistent. 

 

The issue is our attacking numbers.  We've yet to create xG of over 2 in any of our games since Monk arrived. 

[0114]

I like 442 when you play it the way we did with Bruce and we really exploited the wings. 

 

I’d like to see us use a 352. Or 343. Iorfa Lees and Borner as the 3, very balanced. Odubajo and Reach as wing backs. Allows us to play 3 in the middle when needed and also play wingers either side of one striker when needed. However I won’t be holding my breathe and expect 433 to be the mainstay. 

[StudentOwl]

Love Owlstalk... one loss (albeit it quite a few dogturd performances this season... a not insignificant number happening while playing 4-4-2 ) and we have a thread with a call to play every formation under the sun other than the one we've demonstrated over near a dozen games this season can put us into the top half of the table.

 

Weirdos.

[alan48]

Why weirdos Student ? Its a forum for discussion .

[Guest]

Someone correct me if im wrong but in one of Monks first interviews he spoke about us only scoring one goal a game and that we were not going to win many doing so. Seems funny now that he is trying to nick one nils, the very thing he spoke against in his first interview. 

 

Not sure this is fomation based to be fair, personnel and picking the right players for said formation is more important. The midfield 3 we put out yesterday was very defensive. Kieran Lee looks a shadow of his former self at the moment. 

[Westfield Owl]

1 hour ago, LondonOwl313 said:

Pretty sure that team would get more goals than the current one. I know Rhodes has been cr*p, he’s obviously lacking confidence after being poor for 2-3 years but you never know if he could put a goal scoring run together if he got off to a good start with service. I can’t remember him getting much game time alongside Fletcher in a team that gets the ball into the box. Let’s be honest, nobody else is going to get us 15-20 a season

 

No offence but by that logic, we might as well put anyone up front.

 

E.g. If we played David Bates as Fletcher’s strike partner and we started whipping in world-class crosses, he might just end up being in the right place to score one of them, his confidence is up and then you just never know...

 

You see how easy it is to speculate when your argument is based on ‘but you never know’.

 

I mean, you said yourself that he’s been crap for us.  Personally I cannot wait to get Rhodes off the wage bill.

 

If Fletcher needs a strike partner, Winnall, Nuhiu, Forestieri etc should be front of the queue.

[Guest LondonOwl313]

4 minutes ago, Westfield Owl said:

 

No offence but by that logic, we might as well put anyone up front.

 

E.g. If we played David Bates as Fletcher’s strike partner and we started whipping in world-class crosses, he might just end up being in the right place to score one of them, his confidence is up and then you just never know...

 

You see how easy it is to speculate when your argument is based on ‘but you never know’.

 

I mean, you said yourself that he’s been crap for us.  Personally I cannot wait to get Rhodes off the wage bill.

 

If Fletcher needs a strike partner, Winnall, Nuhiu, Forestieri etc should be front of the queue.

Well what I mean is, Rhodes at least has/had pedigree as a goalscorer. He may well be completely past it at 29... but a large number of his appearances for us have been on his own up front for the last 20 mins of games, or up front with FF. He plays well when off a target man like Gestede.. yet I can’t remember too many games where he’s played off Fletcher. If we were going to play 2 up, we all know Nuhui will never be prolific so it’s Rhodes or Winnall from what we have left. FF is more of a wide midfielder to me.. want to see him in the team too but he never plays well in a front two. Most of them will be cleared out at the end of the season anyway including Rhodes, but we don’t have a lot of options right now

[Andrew_Owl]

Iorfa to right back, Lees or Thorniley to centre back, Luongo and Lee in cm, Harris and FF wide, Fletcher and Nuhiu/Winnall up top

[Guest LondonOwl313]

51 minutes ago, frastheowl said:

 

There isn't really an issue with us papering over cracks from a defensive point of view. 

 

Yesterday was a poor performance, and the worst defensive display statistically, since Monk arrived. But despite that, we only conceded an xG of 1.49. So it was hardly a horror show, and actually, there's a case to say that we were unfortunate to concede two goals yesterday.

 

Prior to yesterday game, you have to go back to the Hull game where we conceded > 1 xG. That's exceptionally consistent. 

 

The issue is our attacking numbers.  We've yet to create xG of over 2 in any of our games since Monk arrived. 

Well this is kind of the point.. do we want to keep expected goals conceded down by being very defensively set up, or do we want to keep them down by attacking and keeping teams away from our goal. I don’t think we’ll get expected goals scored up playing the way we are so we need to do something different. And it’s not just about yesterday, it’s been coming for a while as it’s been the same all season. Most of our games could have gone either way

[A E Neuman NYowl]

1 hour ago, Holmowl said:

Worth pointing out that we have been far more successful this season when playing 433 than 442.

 

Its true of the whole season, but think back to Cardiff and yesterday.

 

In a 433 we were up v Cardiff but blew it in 442. In a 433 we were drawing yesterday and lost in 442. 

 

Lost at Hull in 442. Only win in a 442 was at Boro.

 

 

 

 

I don't think we're play 433 when Reach is one of the front 3, he just doesn't have the natural instinct and positioning of a frontman in a 433.

 

We may look like we are going 433 at kick off but we soon revert to more of a 442 with Reach not offering the support to Fletcher that Harris does.

 

Not trying to slag Reach off here as I do think he has attributes that are needed in the team.

[Guest LondonOwl313]

1 hour ago, Holmowl said:

Worth pointing out that we have been far more successful this season when playing 433 than 442.

 

Its true of the whole season, but think back to Cardiff and yesterday.

 

In a 433 we were up v Cardiff but blew it in 442. In a 433 we were drawing yesterday and lost in 442. 

 

Lost at Hull in 442. Only win in a 442 was at Boro.

 

 

 

 

Well it depends, that may be strictly true but playing 4-3-3/4-5-1 we’ve been lucky to win plenty of games. Stoke, Wigan and Luton were all very tight wins where we didn’t exactly play well. We haven’t beaten anyone other than the bottom sides still. The Hull game was almost the same as those wins but went the other way. One of the better performances was against Leeds and that was 4-4-2.

 

Think I’ve seen enough of our 1 up formation to think that we’ll probably be solid yet not prolific, and will likely be mid table and not promotion material. It may well be that whatever formation we play this group of players just isn’t good enough to go up. But would rather have a go attack wise and fail that way than watch us scrape through games. It’s just not very enjoyable watching it as you can never relax 

[Westfield Owl]

13 minutes ago, LondonOwl313 said:

Well what I mean is, Rhodes at least has/had pedigree as a goalscorer. He may well be completely past it at 29... but a large number of his appearances for us have been on his own up front for the last 20 mins of games, or up front with FF. He plays well when off a target man like Gestede.. yet I can’t remember too many games where he’s played off Fletcher. If we were going to play 2 up, we all know Nuhui will never be prolific so it’s Rhodes or Winnall from what we have left. FF is more of a wide midfielder to me.. want to see him in the team too but he never plays well in a front two. Most of them will be cleared out at the end of the season anyway including Rhodes, but we don’t have a lot of options right now

 

What has Rhodes goal-scoring pedigree been like for the last 4 years?

 

I agree that the likes of Nuhiu will never be prolific.  But since Rhodes signed for SWFC, who has the better minutes-to-goal ratio - Nuhiu or Rhodes?  I’ll give you a clue, it’s not Rhodes.  Rhodes should be a last-resort back-up option IMO.  He’s had so many chances here and failed.

 

I agree that FF is better playing wide.  But I’d still rather have Forestieri playing up front than Rhodes.  Likewise Murphy or Harris could also bring some much-needed pace and trickery to the forward-line if they linked up with Fletcher.  Like in previous years where we have played Antonio or JJ in the false 9 role.

 

My point is that we do have plenty of decent options actually.  To say otherwise is a bit of a cop-out really.  It’s up to the manager to get the best out of our squad by picking the best blend of player’s skills; which like you’ve said, isn’t by playing the ultra negative tactics like Monk did yesterday.

[frastheowl]

13 minutes ago, LondonOwl313 said:

Well this is kind of the point.. do we want to keep expected goals conceded down by being very defensively set up, or do we want to keep them down by attacking and keeping teams away from our goal. I don’t think we’ll get expected goals scored up playing the way we are so we need to do something different. And it’s not just about yesterday, it’s been coming for a while as it’s been the same all season. Most of our games could have gone either way

 

But they aren't mutually exclusive are they?

 

The aim has to be to maximise our attacking efficiency, whilst also ensuring we stay defensively tight. 

 

The last thing Wednesday need to do, is to start conceding cheap goals on a regular basis, in a quest to score more. Clean sheets and good defensive records make you competitive and get teams promoted. Look at Cardiff two seasons ago...no real quality, but an ability to keep clean sheets and edge games out. United went up last season, by basing their system around keeping clean sheets. 

 

Of course, you have to score goals...but good defensive records are essential. Boro, finished 7th last season scoring less than a goal a game...they only conceded 41 goals all season. 

 

Don't think for one minute that Monk will be happy with us from an offensive point of view. He'll be striving to improve our outputs, whether that be by tinkering with systems, personnel or, waiting til January, to bring in players he'll perceive to make a difference. 

[Guest LondonOwl313]

25 minutes ago, frastheowl said:

 

But they aren't mutually exclusive are they?

 

The aim has to be to maximise our attacking efficiency, whilst also ensuring we stay defensively tight. 

 

The last thing Wednesday need to do, is to start conceding cheap goals on a regular basis, in a quest to score more. Clean sheets and good defensive records make you competitive and get teams promoted. Look at Cardiff two seasons ago...no real quality, but an ability to keep clean sheets and edge games out. United went up last season, by basing their system around keeping clean sheets. 

 

Of course, you have to score goals...but good defensive records are essential. Boro, finished 7th last season scoring less than a goal a game...they only conceded 41 goals all season. 

 

Don't think for one minute that Monk will be happy with us from an offensive point of view. He'll be striving to improve our outputs, whether that be by tinkering with systems, personnel or, waiting til January, to bring in players he'll perceive to make a difference. 

Well obviously we don’t want to throw clean sheets away but the point is if we’re under pressure in tight games eventually the strong defensive record will suffer 

 

Utd last season scored 1.7 goals per game and had a tight defence. We’re on for 1.27 goals per game, so it’s a big difference