Playing two wingers, what’s the point?

[Dutch McLovin]

Just now, Holmowl said:

Couldn’t be more wrong imo.

 

How often did Carlos switch Forestieri wide and bring Bannan central during that first season, because we were almost totally devoid of goals in the starting line-up.

That's exactly my point, and it worked. Its flexible in games and can be changed on the way its going. I know were not going to agree on Forestieri's position but you have to admit having Bannan further up the pitch helps us creativity wise ?

[Holmowl]

8 minutes ago, Dutch McLovin said:

That's exactly my point, and it worked. Its flexible in games and can be changed on the way its going. I know were not going to agree on Forestieri's position but you have to admit having Bannan further up the pitch helps us creativity wise ?

I think exaggerate how deep Bannan plays. He seeks out the ball. He is always available.

 

As a comparison, watch how deep Grealish drops when he plays for Villa. At S6 last season he was picking the ball up from their keeper.

 

Bannan is half the player when he’s wide left. Forestieri is half the player when he’s central. There’s an obvious answer therefore.

[oldishowl]

1 hour ago, Holmowl said:

Couldn’t be more wrong imo.

 

How often did Carlos switch Forestieri wide and bring Bannan central during that first season, because we were almost totally devoid of goals in the starting line-up.

We have this debate every time it comes up.

The switch wasn’t in itself because we were devoid of goals it was the plan.

 

Carlos was perfectly happy to play 60 mins at a very slow tempo with Bannan and Wallace nominally wide to just control the football.

 

He would then bring an extra forward on , move FF and Bannan and most importantly lift the tempo. We changed from slow tempo to a high press, keeping teams in their own half and the whole side became more attacking and we scored more goals. Everybody remembers Lee, FF and Bannan chasing around like mad men.

No team could play that pace for 90 mins, and we were far from the fittest!

 

Looking as us now.

You cannot play Bannan wide in our current high tempo style, wouldn’t work. Look at the tracking the wide players do. We would have to change our tempo and try and control the ball more.

 

However our squad are now struggling with the physical side of our current style. Last two games some players have looked dead on their feet. The front two and 4 midfielders are covering an awful lot of ground pressing teams  and I don’t think we can keep playing this way unless we rotate more of the fringe players. Are they good enough.?

From a Bannan perspective he is spending too much time chasing people down rather than passing the ball.

 

I expect a change in formation for Saturday, especially with Hutch missing.
 

 

[York_Owl]

12 hours ago, Holmowl said:

Couldn’t be more wrong imo.

 

How often did Carlos switch Forestieri wide and bring Bannan central during that first season, because we were almost totally devoid of goals in the starting line-up.

I’m not a fan of 4-4-2 these days but I think you could put up a strong argument that a midfield four of:

 

Harris Hutchinson Luongo Bannan

 

would be stronger than:

 

Murphy Hutchinson Bannan Harris

 

 

[james o connor]

On 12/12/2019 at 00:13, gurujuan said:

If only we still had Joao, he would have been ideal

I’m sure the reading fans say the same . First shrewd thing chansiri has done during his time here 

[gurujuan]

2 hours ago, james o connor said:

I’m sure the reading fans say the same . First shrewd thing chansiri has done during his time here 

Well we needed to sell, although if we’re still going to be penalised, maybe we should have kept him Not sure what Reading fans would think, but he has a better goals/assists record this season, than any of our players. If we are playing two up front, he’d have been the perfect partner for Fletcher

[MotherGoose]

Haven’t got the players to play 4-3-3. It turns rapidly into isolation for the 1 in a rubbish 4-5-1. 
 

Flat 4-4-2 with two wide players on their ‘correct’ sides for me. It’s not fashionable in football anymore but it’s the system we have the players for 

[gurujuan]

6 minutes ago, MotherGoose said:

Haven’t got the players to play 4-3-3. It turns rapidly into isolation for the 1 in a rubbish 4-5-1. 
 

Flat 4-4-2 with two wide players on their ‘correct’ sides for me. It’s not fashionable in football anymore but it’s the system we have the players for 

Do we though? Who plays alongside Fletcher, and do we have an ideal central midfield pairing? In truth, as Oldish suggested, the make up of the squad, suggests that we will struggle with both systems until the squad is rebalanced

[james o connor]

20 hours ago, Holmowl said:

Couldn’t be more wrong imo.

 

How often did Carlos switch Forestieri wide and bring Bannan central during that first season, because we were almost totally devoid of goals in the starting line-up.

We are also ignoring the fact forestieri is finished as well 

[Guest wilyfox]

8 minutes ago, gurujuan said:

Do we though? Who plays alongside Fletcher, and do we have an ideal central midfield pairing? In truth, as Oldish suggested, the make up of the squad, suggests that we will struggle with both systems until the squad is rebalanced

 

Monk has a key decision to make on his preferred system. It will shape recruitment. 

[Guest wilyfox]

3 minutes ago, james o connor said:

We are also ignoring the fact forestieri is finished as well 

 

Ain't that the truth! Monk reiterating how careful we must be with Forestieri said one thing to me... He's tweaked his knee, not serious, but we don't wanna put a likely move next month in jeopardy. Wouldn't surprise me if we've seen the last of him now. Wrap in cotton wool time. 

[Animis]

24 minutes ago, gurujuan said:

Do we though? Who plays alongside Fletcher, and do we have an ideal central midfield pairing? In truth, as Oldish suggested, the make up of the squad, suggests that we will struggle with both systems until the squad is rebalanced

 

We look more comfortable in a 4-4-2. Rhodes is by far the best partner for Fletcher, but he tired on 60mins the other night. I trust the coaching staff can work on this as lasting 2 thirds of the game isn't sustainable particularly when you only have Nuihu to come on if your wanting to press on.

 

In the CC first season, we did indeed sit back for the first 45/60mins then press on. To be fair it worked. We now seem to press from the off, and tire/sit back for the last 20/15 mins. Unless you've got a comfortable lead, this results, as we've seen all too often this season, in mistakes, and the opposition pressing with chances and goals at the end of the game. Our squad may be too old for a full-on 90mins and we may have to think this tactic through as we don't appear to be able to get 2 or 3 up in the first half dominant spells. Brentford was different to a degree, as we came up against a good team and we looked off in the first half, but managed a good 20 mins spell in the 2nd to get back into the game, but again fell away in the last 10 mins or so allowing Brentford a handful of very good chances which if one had gone in would reinforce this point.

 

Energy; squad balance; 90min+ tactics and game management are the key.

[gurujuan]

9 minutes ago, Animis said:

 

We look more comfortable in a 4-4-2. Rhodes is by far the best partner for Fletcher, but he tired on 60mins the other night. I trust the coaching staff can work on this as lasting 2 thirds of the game isn't sustainable particularly when you only have Nuihu to come on if your wanting to press on.

 

In the CC first season, we did indeed sit back for the first 45/60mins then press on. To be fair it worked. We now seem to press from the off, and tire/sit back for the last 20/15 mins. Unless you've got a comfortable lead, this results, as we've seen all too often this season, in mistakes, and the opposition pressing with chances and goals at the end of the game. Our squad may be too old for a full-on 90mins and we may have to think this tactic through as we don't appear to be able to get 2 or 3 up in the first half dominant spells. Brentford was different to a degree, as we came up against a good team and we looked off in the first half, but managed a good 20 mins spell in the 2nd to get back into the game, but again fell away in the last 10 mins or so allowing Brentford a handful of very good chances which if one had gone in would reinforce this point.

 

Energy; squad balance; 90min+ tactics and game management are the key.

It’s all about opinions, but what evidence is there that Rhodes is an effective partner for Fletcher? In truth, all our forwards are a much of a muchness, ie not very good. Certainly, to me at least, none warrant the decision to leave out an extra midfield player, Luongo. That was not my original point though, I’m not adverse to giving Rhodes a go, but by playing two out and out wingers, we are less secure, and really no more prolific

[Animis]

1 hour ago, gurujuan said:

It’s all about opinions, but what evidence is there that Rhodes is an effective partner for Fletcher? In truth, all our forwards are a much of a muchness, ie not very good. Certainly, to me at least, none warrant the decision to leave out an extra midfield player, Luongo. That was not my original point though, I’m not adverse to giving Rhodes a go, but by playing two out and out wingers, we are less secure, and really no more prolific

 

I like the work rate of Harris, and Reach when he's on it - this gives the manager the comfort that they will track back and do more than a traditional winger (Waddle, Francis). CC liked Wallace for this reason, and the fact that as wingers, they cut inside and provide a goal threat as well. Harris and Reach would be more effective with a more mobile and solid centre midfield, which has been an issue for 4 years +. I thought Bannan and Hutch played really well on Wednesday, and their energy stifled Derby, allowing us to attack pretty much at will. Unfortunately as we have seen, we fail to take the chances, and end up with a small margin, which when we collectively tire, becomes very difficult to defend. Luongo should only be  a replacement for the midfield 4 not a striker.

 

Rhodes was a good foil for Fletch; particularly in the first half, and with some game time I think we will convert the chances that seem to come our way fairly regularly. The Reach cross in the 2nd which Fletch headed over with Rhodes better placed behind him is an example where it nearly worked - 2-0 at that point and the game was over.

[FreshOwl]

On 11/12/2019 at 22:42, Kopparberg said:

It appears the problem could be Murphy. 

 

At least when Reach has an off day he’s usually blocking an opposition threat. 

 

Lee/Luongo/Reach should all be in front of Murphy. 

Agreed. Murphy barely looks a footballer. How on earth did he ever warrant a £10m fee? 

[MotherGoose]

3 hours ago, gurujuan said:

Do we though? Who plays alongside Fletcher, and do we have an ideal central midfield pairing? In truth, as Oldish suggested, the make up of the squad, suggests that we will struggle with both systems until the squad is rebalanced

That’s a fair point.
 

I think we’d do better muddling though with Fletcher +1 (of Rhodes, Nuhiu, Winnall). And 2 wide players (of Reach, Murphy and Harris)

 

It’s my prejudice against 4-3-3/4-5-1 systems. I don’t like them unless you have really, really good players.  
 

In the championship if you have a player that has one particularly strong attribute that they show that regularly then you’re pretty happy with them. 
 

If you’re asking them to play in this sort of dynamic system you’re looking for them to be able to multiple jobs well and I don’t think that many championship players have that ability.

[meggoisgod]

On 11/12/2019 at 22:43, mogbad said:

 

Two wingers leaves us too lightweight in central midfield.

Bannan leaves us too lightweight in CM

[SettleForADraw]

On 11/12/2019 at 22:42, Kopparberg said:

It appears the problem could be Murphy. 

 

At least when Reach has an off day he’s usually blocking an opposition threat. 

 

Lee/Luongo/Reach should all be in front of Murphy. 

Murphy is absolute gash.