Jump to content

Recommended Posts

We don't have the quality to play complex multi positional tactics. 

We need old fashioned wide midfielders with overlapping full backs. 

There are very few players who are capable of both good attacking play and good defenders. Any that are any good are way out of our league. 

Simple 4-4-2 or 4-4-1-1

Easier for ordinary quality players to be good in a single position instead of trying to play both attacker and defender roles. 

We have a squad capable of playing straightforward tactics without over complicating things. It would also be easier to have players able to slot into a position if the main player gets injured or banned. 

3-5-2 or 5-3-2 requires more versatile players who are more skilled and cost more than we have. 

Keep it simple. 

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thought our tactics were pretty simple, ball over the top and look to win second balls. 

 

I don't think it's the system, rather our new forward line which needs work on the training ground and completing recruitment wise. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ball over the top to our big strikers --- oh dear , havent got any , better try Harris , or Reach or Rhodes or Windass or Kachunga . Yep , that'll work .

Link to post
Share on other sites

What I was trying to say but obviously failed is that with the players we have there are a few options of who to play in any position. 

Eg

Reach isn't a wing back but is better at wide midfield. Odabajo is fearful as a full back but is OK as a wide midfield. 

Just my opinion. 

Several options in centre midfield. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, A12owl said:

We don't have the quality to play complex multi positional tactics. 

We need old fashioned wide midfielders with overlapping full backs. 

There are very few players who are capable of both good attacking play and good defenders. Any that are any good are way out of our league. 

Simple 4-4-2 or 4-4-1-1

Easier for ordinary quality players to be good in a single position instead of trying to play both attacker and defender roles. 

We have a squad capable of playing straightforward tactics without over complicating things. It would also be easier to have players able to slot into a position if the main player gets injured or banned. 

3-5-2 or 5-3-2 requires more versatile players who are more skilled and cost more than we have. 

Keep it simple. 

 

'Let's change tactics so I can understand it better'.

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, A12owl said:

What I was trying to say but obviously failed is that with the players we have there are a few options of who to play in any position. 

Eg

Reach isn't a wing back but is better at wide midfield. Odabajo is fearful as a full back but is OK as a wide midfield. 

Just my opinion. 

Several options in centre midfield. 

I think you make some good points, and it’s certainly a case that a lot of our players look happier in a back four. We do have some players who can adapt though to different roles, but others who you feel might play better in a flat back four. That is the area we are talking about really. 
I do feel though, that unless you are going to devise some Carlos type system, you will always be better off with a three in midfield, especially when those three are the strength of our team. If that then means a 4-3-3, then I don’t think that would be a problem. Certainly I’d rather have the extra forward, than the extra centre back. Yes it means that two of the forwards will be wide attackers, but we have players who can operate in that role already Not sure Monk will change though, despite no clear evidence to suggest 3-5-2 works

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, WalthamOwl said:

What Monk needs is a plan b when his original tactics don’t work. 

Agree, but when we're still working on plan A, suspect that may be further down the to do list 😀

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, A12owl said:

We don't have the quality to play complex multi positional tactics. 

We need old fashioned wide midfielders with overlapping full backs. 

There are very few players who are capable of both good attacking play and good defenders. Any that are any good are way out of our league. 

Simple 4-4-2 or 4-4-1-1

Easier for ordinary quality players to be good in a single position instead of trying to play both attacker and defender roles. 

We have a squad capable of playing straightforward tactics without over complicating things. It would also be easier to have players able to slot into a position if the main player gets injured or banned. 

3-5-2 or 5-3-2 requires more versatile players who are more skilled and cost more than we have. 

Keep it simple. 

 


Reverse the pyramid...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Weren’t those simple tactics the ones that failed so disastrously after Christmas last season?

Wasn’t it the collective opinion of the Owlstalk experts that Monk should stop chopping and changing his tactics/formation?

 

Isn’t it a fact that the defence is tighter with three at the back and three in central midfield?

 

The squad is in the process of a major overhaul. The last thing needed whilst new players are being introduced is more confusion about the style of play. Well after the transfer window closes when everyone is fully integrated into the squad is the time to start tinkering with tactics.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Blatter said:

Weren’t those simple tactics the ones that failed so disastrously after Christmas last season?

Wasn’t it the collective opinion of the Owlstalk experts that Monk should stop chopping and changing his tactics/formation?

 

Isn’t it a fact that the defence is tighter with three at the back and three in central midfield?

 

The squad is in the process of a major overhaul. The last thing needed whilst new players are being introduced is more confusion about the style of play. Well after the transfer window closes when everyone is fully integrated into the squad is the time to start tinkering with tactics.

You create a tactic to suit the players you have not the other way round. Play them in their natural position where they feel comfortable and have trained in the position for some time. 

In my opinion. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, WalthamOwl said:

What Monk needs is a plan b when his original tactics don’t work. 

I think Plan a is play midfielders as Strikers, Plan b is play defenders as strikers.

 

I prefer the plan where we play players in their recognised position and not play players out of position then slag them off for not performing. I also like to play my strongest team not the players that I like the most - football is about results not yes men.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The jury is still out on 352 for me with the personnel we have. 

 

It has it’s benefits - I like that the back 3 can* get time on the ball 

 

I like the midfield 3 - we seem to get overrun with just Bannan plus 1 other. 

 

It’s the wide areas and front two I would like to see work better. 

 

Or we could get a strong CF and play 433

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You say we need old fashioned wide midfielders with overlapping fullbacks. 

Does that mean you want to get rid of bannan??

or play him wide left like we did most of the time in the two playoff seasons??. 

 

To play 4-4-2 you need 2 solid and well rounded high workrate and energy midfielders in the centre to compete against a 3 otherwise you get over run. 

We were most effective in a 2 when hutch and Lee were in their pomp and either Wallace, bazza or Nando created out wide. 

 

I get people don't like change, but personally I like the flexibility which we can start to work on once we're fully grounded in the 3-5-2 system.

With  this system can be changed really easily into either a 5-3-2 variation, a 4-4-3 or a 4-4-2 with only one /2 substitutes depending on the team picked. Especially if we start with Harris & penney as wingbacks. 

 

                          Dawson 

        

             Iorfa       Lees       borner. 

 

Harris                                               penney

             Brown  Luongo  bannan 

 

               Windass.       Rhodes 

 

If we decide to go back four we switch it around a little 

                           Dawson 

 

Iorfa.            Lees.         Borner.     Penney

 

Harris.       Brown.       Luongo.    Bannan

       

              Windass.    Rhodes 

Or if we want to switch 4-3-3 we just play Harris up top with Windass and Rhodes. 

 

As I said for me once were fully grounded in this system we can become more flexible and change things without needing to even make a substitute if things arnt working. It just takes time to implement. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we saw a little bit of what’s wrong with playing 3-5-2 on Sunday. Our wide players didn’t have the quality to consistently deliver balls into the danger areas, and the first goal came about because the centre backs didn’t know who was picking up whom. This happened a lot in the awful run last season, with a lot of it put down to personal errors. That’s guff really, most goals conceded will be down to an error somewhere in the build up, and often those errors were down to a players limitations in the system. There are good things to come out of it, like allowing us to play a midfield three for example. Although in my opinion, 4-3-3 would allow us to do the same thing, but would mean we would have more defenders in roles they felt more comfortable in

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, gurujuan said:

I think we saw a little bit of what’s wrong with playing 3-5-2 on Sunday. Our wide players didn’t have the quality to consistently deliver balls into the danger areas, and the first goal came about because the centre backs didn’t know who was picking up whom. This happened a lot in the awful run last season, with a lot of it put down to personal errors. That’s guff really, most goals conceded will be down to an error somewhere in the build up, and often those errors were down to a players limitations in the system. There are good things to come out of it, like allowing us to play a midfield three for example. Although in my opinion, 4-3-3 would allow us to do the same thing, but would mean we would have more defenders in roles they felt more comfortable in

 

It would all improve with forwards who know the what the role demands.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Inspector Lestrade said:

 

It would all improve with forwards who know the what the role demands.

Yes it would, but by switching to a 4-3-3, it would mean that we only needed to concentrate on one department, the forwards. Defence and midfield would be sorted, and I’d even suggest we could find a more potent three from the players we have, if as it seems, we are signing Paterson. Paterson, Windass and Kachunga, would be more threatening than perming any two from the three. Better still of course, if we just sign some new strikers 

It’s not rocket science is it. Monk has opted for a system which clearly doesn’t suit the players we have, needing us to consider far more recruitment than is really needed, when our time could be focussed on getting the attack sorted He’s making things far more complicated than they need be

Link to post
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...