@Wendoverman I'm just itching for the chance. One step over the line...
@aloysius It provides better evidence than the entirely unjustified assumption that our winning run under 4-3-3 would have been even better as a 4-4-2.
In the years I have posted on the gasroom and its predecessor, I have seen some pretty gormless posts. This thread contains a contender for the most gormless post ever. Takes some doing. Perhaps the gentleman concerned should be proud of himself.
As you are pretty much attuned to GA Chris, can you tell me why he would sign his primary target in the Jan window, a known playmaker, then play him out of position and subsequently leave him out of the starting line-up?
He's not played Saunders out of position, he's perfectly capable as part of either three in a 4-3-3. And because he's not fully fit. Any more killer questions?
Not true at all. I talked with Saunders last week and he said he was fit to play and waiting for his chance. Plus, I am sure you are aware that when he as started he has been played out wide, which is not his preferred position. Any more self opinionated answers?
When we signed Sam S it felt like Gaz was looking for a plan B (beyond the hoof towards Beyo), however , there has been little or no sign of this transfering from training ground to match day. Maybe Tues night is the time to side swipe Plymouth? How good would that be Sam running the game through centre mid field on the ground. Camera torches out
@aloysius said:
Here's a thought experiment for those advocating we stick to a 433 because it's what brought us wins mid-season. Do you honestly think that if we had been playing a 442 during that period, with Akinfenwa and Kashket up front and two from Weston, PCH, Thompson and Wood on the wings, with O'Nien and Gape in central midfield, we wouldn't have won so many matches?
I think we would have, potentially with better scorelines. It's the system that works best with the players we have, especially when you're forced to substitute Southwell for Kashket and now have the luxury of subbing Saunders for Gape.
There's no reason why overlapping full-backs and wingers playing in their natural position would not have got even more crosses into the box for Akinfenwa to either convert himself or knock down to his strike partner. Plus you also have the option of through balls from the midfield for that partner to run on to.
It just seems blindingly obvious to me, and I'm not sure a poor 45 minutes in bad conditions at Grimsby provides a watertight argument in favour of sticking to 433.
If @DevC regards that as "gormless" either he is misusing the word or he's not seen too many games this season. Or perhaps this is not the post he was referring to.
Sorry,Micra. If you don't think it is "gormless" or frankly "fucking idiotic" to suggest with no evidence whatsoever that we under performed our potential during the long unbeaten run that moved us from around 20th in the league to around 5th and to the second best cup run in our history and indeed to suggest that we would have done even better if we had stuck with the formation that largely delivered 20th place,an unbeaten run the start of which correlated precisely with the switch from 442 to 433, well I am afraid you simply live in a different world to me. Sadly your world, the world of trump where truth is whatever you want it to be, appears to be the vogue. If only we hadn't released Ryan sellers in the summer, we'd be promoted by now and preparing for Chelsea at Wembley.
It's a little unfair to describe a thought experiment as gormless. I must admit though that the logic that @aloysius then applies to or seems a tad flawed.
I think our pinnacle of 4-3-3 this season was at Chesterfield where, for whatever reason, we ripped them apart up front. I really don't think 4-4-2 could have improved on that.
(We just need Hayes back telling the rest of the team how to play it properly!)
Possibly fair, Booker. A tad angrier than necessary - for which I should apologise notwithstanding that yesterday was not a good day - but stand by the principle. Lets hope we win this evening.
Playing a formation and giving players to maximise the effectiveness of that formation do not always go hand in hand.
On Saturday when PCH got out wide he had their right back all over the place. Sadly he did this on only a couple of occasions. Maybe that would have been the time to say lets go 4-4-2 AND TELL THE PLAYERS TO GET WIDE. Woody was on the park so we had 2 wide men. When we have played 4-4-2 earlier in the season we have done so with 3 central players and they have tended to play narrow resulting in a mess akin to kids under 11's.
Harriman (the QPR version, not the Wycombe one) was superb as a winger bombing down the line and delivering crosses or even shooting.
Personally tonight I would play PCH and Weston out on the wings with instructions to hit the lines and cross it. We know Bayo will win the headers and hopefully Southwell can do a more traditional striker role.
I think the problem is that Adams Park is too narrow these days for any wingers to actually get wide. I shuddered at the start of the season when I saw where they had put the lines as it seemed to indicate that our first priority was making it harder for other teams to play football rather than giving us the room to open up. (Its the same mentality as making the opposition kick towards their own fans first half when we win the toss away from home).
I'm also assuming that you can't change the dimensions of your pitch during the season? (I seem to remember hearing/reading it some years ago - but could easily be wrong).
But "a mess akin to kids under 11's" does perfectly describe some of what I've seen from us this season! (It's just a good job we've got some decent players)
And another thought on the 4-4-2 'thought experiment' earlier. Possibly one of the reasons for that purple patch earlier was that we had two strikers bang in form. Adding a third to the mix meant that the defenders couldn't really double up like they could have done if we'd have kept to two strikers (I appreciate there is a lot of over-simplification in there).
Playing it currently the opposition just need two on Bayo and the rest can stand around and watch.
@bookertease Been wondering about that formation lately myself. Think it could offer both decent defensive cover and flare attacking wing play, or am I being too simplistic?
@Micra "Your world" is, I believe, one in which you actually go to watch the team play, is it not? So perhaps your views are just as valid as those of a self opinionated loudmouth who lives 200 miles away from HW and watches the team only once or twice a season.
I agree that @aloysius' comment was anything but gormless. He made it clear enough that his point was conjecture (I think that is, more or less, what a "thought experiment" is) and, of course, there is no way in which to tell whether his proposed alternative ideas would have worked, or not. However he has every right to express his thoughts on this forum without being attacked in such an arrogant and offensive manner.
Sorry Ewan. What was it about the article that suggested poor research? Oh, sorry. Thinking as I type I assume you mean the verbatim quote from GA. (I was looking for some inane - or gormless- inaccuracy.)
This part:
Ainsworth told Wycombe Wanderers' official website that there was no reason his side could not beat Argyle, and go on to take a place in the play-offs for the third season running.
I know I'm getting old, but I don't remember us being in the play offs last season?
Comments
Haha well done Wig
I am not against an excellent long pass from JJ...it would have been nice to have seen at least one on Saturday for example!
@Wendoverman I'm just itching for the chance. One step over the line...
@aloysius It provides better evidence than the entirely unjustified assumption that our winning run under 4-3-3 would have been even better as a 4-4-2.
If you say so, Chris. It's just a shame you don't have more confidence in the players.
Let's go 3-5-2. That'll sort it.
Yeh come on Chris, have a bit of confidence in the players to be able to adapt and Aldo maybe pass the ball on the floor.
also not Aldo. However, he was a good player.
In the years I have posted on the gasroom and its predecessor, I have seen some pretty gormless posts. This thread contains a contender for the most gormless post ever. Takes some doing. Perhaps the gentleman concerned should be proud of himself.
I've got plenty of confidence in Gareth Ainsworth.
2-3-5 as I've said before it's time will come again
As you are pretty much attuned to GA Chris, can you tell me why he would sign his primary target in the Jan window, a known playmaker, then play him out of position and subsequently leave him out of the starting line-up?
He's not played Saunders out of position, he's perfectly capable as part of either three in a 4-3-3. And because he's not fully fit. Any more killer questions?
Not true at all. I talked with Saunders last week and he said he was fit to play and waiting for his chance. Plus, I am sure you are aware that when he as started he has been played out wide, which is not his preferred position. Any more self opinionated answers?
Funny that, I've seen him playing in the centre for us this season, but in any case he can play the wide positions of a three.
If Saunders is fully fit why did we have only six substitutes at Grimsby?
When we signed Sam S it felt like Gaz was looking for a plan B (beyond the hoof towards Beyo), however , there has been little or no sign of this transfering from training ground to match day. Maybe Tues night is the time to side swipe Plymouth? How good would that be Sam running the game through centre mid field on the ground. Camera torches out
If @DevC regards that as "gormless" either he is misusing the word or he's not seen too many games this season. Or perhaps this is not the post he was referring to.
Sorry,Micra. If you don't think it is "gormless" or frankly "fucking idiotic" to suggest with no evidence whatsoever that we under performed our potential during the long unbeaten run that moved us from around 20th in the league to around 5th and to the second best cup run in our history and indeed to suggest that we would have done even better if we had stuck with the formation that largely delivered 20th place,an unbeaten run the start of which correlated precisely with the switch from 442 to 433, well I am afraid you simply live in a different world to me. Sadly your world, the world of trump where truth is whatever you want it to be, appears to be the vogue. If only we hadn't released Ryan sellers in the summer, we'd be promoted by now and preparing for Chelsea at Wembley.
It's a little unfair to describe a thought experiment as gormless. I must admit though that the logic that @aloysius then applies to or seems a tad flawed.
I think our pinnacle of 4-3-3 this season was at Chesterfield where, for whatever reason, we ripped them apart up front. I really don't think 4-4-2 could have improved on that.
(We just need Hayes back telling the rest of the team how to play it properly!)
Possibly fair, Booker. A tad angrier than necessary - for which I should apologise notwithstanding that yesterday was not a good day - but stand by the principle. Lets hope we win this evening.
Playing a formation and giving players to maximise the effectiveness of that formation do not always go hand in hand.
On Saturday when PCH got out wide he had their right back all over the place. Sadly he did this on only a couple of occasions. Maybe that would have been the time to say lets go 4-4-2 AND TELL THE PLAYERS TO GET WIDE. Woody was on the park so we had 2 wide men. When we have played 4-4-2 earlier in the season we have done so with 3 central players and they have tended to play narrow resulting in a mess akin to kids under 11's.
Harriman (the QPR version, not the Wycombe one) was superb as a winger bombing down the line and delivering crosses or even shooting.
Personally tonight I would play PCH and Weston out on the wings with instructions to hit the lines and cross it. We know Bayo will win the headers and hopefully Southwell can do a more traditional striker role.
I think the problem is that Adams Park is too narrow these days for any wingers to actually get wide. I shuddered at the start of the season when I saw where they had put the lines as it seemed to indicate that our first priority was making it harder for other teams to play football rather than giving us the room to open up. (Its the same mentality as making the opposition kick towards their own fans first half when we win the toss away from home).
I'm also assuming that you can't change the dimensions of your pitch during the season? (I seem to remember hearing/reading it some years ago - but could easily be wrong).
But "a mess akin to kids under 11's" does perfectly describe some of what I've seen from us this season! (It's just a good job we've got some decent players)
Poor research from another local rag?
http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/wycombe-boss-wants-win-over-plymouth-argyle-to-boost-play-off-hopes/story-30202103-detail/story.html
And another thought on the 4-4-2 'thought experiment' earlier. Possibly one of the reasons for that purple patch earlier was that we had two strikers bang in form. Adding a third to the mix meant that the defenders couldn't really double up like they could have done if we'd have kept to two strikers (I appreciate there is a lot of over-simplification in there).
Playing it currently the opposition just need two on Bayo and the rest can stand around and watch.
(How does 4-5-1 sound?)
@bookertease Been wondering about that formation lately myself. Think it could offer both decent defensive cover and flare attacking wing play, or am I being too simplistic?
@Micra "Your world" is, I believe, one in which you actually go to watch the team play, is it not? So perhaps your views are just as valid as those of a self opinionated loudmouth who lives 200 miles away from HW and watches the team only once or twice a season.
I agree that @aloysius' comment was anything but gormless. He made it clear enough that his point was conjecture (I think that is, more or less, what a "thought experiment" is) and, of course, there is no way in which to tell whether his proposed alternative ideas would have worked, or not. However he has every right to express his thoughts on this forum without being attacked in such an arrogant and offensive manner.
Sorry Ewan. What was it about the article that suggested poor research? Oh, sorry. Thinking as I type I assume you mean the verbatim quote from GA. (I was looking for some inane - or gormless- inaccuracy.)
Not sure the comment that Pierre was missing on Saturday is particularly full of gorm.
This part:
Ainsworth told Wycombe Wanderers' official website that there was no reason his side could not beat Argyle, and go on to take a place in the play-offs for the third season running.
I know I'm getting old, but I don't remember us being in the play offs last season?
Sorry that was meant for @micra !