Southwell out wide...
Have to say i really do feel for Dayle, his record at Boston shouldn't be forgotten as a striker yet Gareth seems to refuse to change the system and shoves Dayle out wide. I find it hard to hear people getting on his back when clearly he isn't happy to be put out wide either yet still tries his best. Similar to Hayes at the weekend to, he clearly isn't a winger yet Gareth is reluctant to change the formation to suit the players best. love to hear the views of others on this?
0
Comments
It's quite clear Wycombe should play with two up-front. Bayo plus Mackail-smith, Southwell, Kashket or Tyson. Then you can either have wing backs with Freeman/Saunders in the hole. Or play 4-4-2 ideally with Harriman right and several options left. But what do I know?
Agree with both of you.
While I don't think the wider guys in a 4-3-3 have to be classic wingers as such, it's pretty clear Southwell out wide doesn't help us, or him!
I think Paris, Tyson and CMS can do a good job in this current system though, and Gaz obviously does.
Hayes and Southwell out wide can't happen again though. I wonder if Tyson dropped out quite late and Gaz decided it was too late to switch the formation, hence throwing Hayes in.
Saturday threw up two massive worries, the obvious defence being such a mess, and Saunders/Paris/Tyson all being injured together. Really hope that isn't going to be a common theme, on top of Kashket being anyone's guess.
It is not quite clear at all Midlander. it is the latest fashionable winge whenever the team loses.
GA job is to get more points than the sum of his squads parts. He has done remarkably well over the last three seasons. Whether we would have done better playing 442 every week can never be known. Personally I doubt it.
Mood is turning though and I sense that it is very possible that neither GA or AH will be here this time next season. My guess is that it wouldn't be too long before supporters were pining for the days when we challenged every season at the top of the table. Be careful what you wish for.
Since when is requesting 4-4-2 fashionable?!
I want 4-4-2 because every time we revert to it, we actually create chances and look dangerous.
I thought the 4321 system we played at the start of the second half actually worked quite well. Having Bayo at the tip with Freeman and CMS close behind played far more to their strengths than a flat, spread out front three. The only real piece of the jigsaw missing from the attack was Saunders - I hope his is the shortest term of the injuries.
Southwell, I'm afraid, will have to accept that with Bayo, CMS, Tyson, PCH and Kashket in the squad and Freeman looking very potent, he's not going to be an automatic name on the team sheet. I do have some sympathy for him being played out of position though. Far better for him would be to come on to replace Bayo when he tires to provide fresh legs at the tip of the pyramid. Once he's got a few goals from his natural position the weight of expectation will be off him and he'll play with more confidence when selected from the start.
I'd like to see this line up next week :
Harriman Stewart Muller Jacobson
O'Nien Saunders Gape
CMS Freeman
Akinfenwa
If Saunders is still out play O'Nien in the creative role and put Bean or Rowe as defensive midfielder, moving Gape up to box-to-box.
@DevC do we not lack width? Is that not the obvious thing that needs fixing?
I look at results and see the manager delivering more than we could reasonably expect him too. So I trust his judgment. I remember the other urban myths of recent years - eg Ryan Sellers is the answer to all our problems
I look at Strongest team's suggestion of (if I understand him) - back five, PCH, Saunders, Onien/Gape, Tyson: Akinfenwa, CMS. That team would be completely overrun IMHO. I'll back the football professionals judgement over the group wisdom of the crowd.
Create more width and you weaken midfield, boost midfield and you weaken defence. there is no perfect solution. If Bayo is playing with his unique attributes and weaknesses, I can see why the manager believes 433 to be the best solution.
Dev, do you have a couple of pre-written comments on copy and paste you use to preface every one of your comments?
Your views on the correlation between budget and finishing position are more than well known.
wow, someone's fed the DevC auto-responder some steroids this morning
same old, same old, snooze snooze snooze
On the original point I agree that if we play a 4-3-3 Southwell should either come on as a striaght sub for Bayo...or start as the main striker if the Beast is injured. Ditto for Hayes...no pace...he might as well be the target man if the target man isn't available. Playing the two of them upfront on Saturday was a mistake that I hope Gaz has realised. If you've got young players at least give them a go if there are injuries or stop signing them! It's goign to become clear that unless you are a defender or a stopping midfielder...a loan to us might be wasted.
As usual, I agree with @Wendoverman. 4-3-3 worked extremely well the week before at Port Vale while it has also been highly ineffective when we only lump the ball to Bayo.
The personnel that started on Saturday was the bigger issue. Southwell just isn't made for the wide right position and Hayes seems not to be right for any position in the team any more.
Given the personnel available on Saturday (and lets assume CMS and Stewart were not fit enough to start), what line up would you have started with, HC. (without 20-20 hindsight)
@DevC. Without hindsight, I'd not change the defence. The issue I referred to just now was starting Hayes and Southwell as the wide two. Compared to Tyson/ Paris the week before, this was never going to produce much threat.
Exactly what the "right" team might have been, assuming Paris, Tyson and Saunders all out and CMS unable to start, is difficult. That's most of our attacking threat missing (with Kashket out, too). I think I'd have been considering a 4-4-2 with Freeman in midfield and Hayes or Southwell alongside Bayo. If 4-3-3 was the way to go, Freeman instead of either Hayes or Southwell, probably the former, would have been my preference.
So presuming CMS couldn't start, broadly the same with freeman in for hayes.
How would a 442 have lined up. Gape, Onien, Bloomfield and Freeman in the same side. Some sort of diamond?
Honestly, Dev, you could line the four up as you like - probably Freeman on the right, right? Or, if you were willing to mess with the back four, play Harriman wide right, Freeman on the left and O'Nien and Gape/ Bean in the middle.
TBH, the main point was playing Southwell and Hayes together in the front three. Neither has the pace or trickery to offer a threat there.
On paper without the power of hindsight, I am not convinced any of your 442 options looks any more threatening than the team that was put out. Perhaps it was the best available at the time given injury situation. If all were available, I dare say Tyson PCH and Saunders would have replaced Southwell, Bloomers and Hayes. Add in CMS and hopefully on day Kashket and quite hard to pick the front three if Tyson and CMS perform reasonably well.
I think we've already established that without injuries, the team would have looked very different.
@Devc I have to agree with @HCblue agreeing with me...!
CMS COULD have started - because he DID on 45 minutes. If a couple of important players were injured, we could have replaced at least one with the new signing - who looked very lively when he did come on, even if Freeman did not start, and replace HIM when he tired. It may not have changed the result it is true, but we might not have spent the first 20 minutes never getting out of our own half. That was not an attacking first eleven by any means and sadly on this ocassion we DID have players who could have stepped in if Gaz had been a bit more confident. Not one person I spoke to in the Beechdean BEFORE the match expressed anything but quizzical gloom when seeing Hayesy in that position in that formation on the teamsheet...and you know what...WE were right. GA got it wrong. And we are allowed to say so.
It's a myth that Southwell doesn't have the pace. He's quick. He's just not a winger.
@drcongo agreed. He is quick but the stick he gets for playing out of position is going to take it's toll I think. It seems we signed a striker and are now moaning because he's not an effective winger. Unless he demanded GA played him like that, I don't see the point myself.
Spot on @drcongo and he has been made to spend the first few games chasing aimless long balls. The personnel was wrong on Saturday, Freeman should have started, CMS probably could have started and Harriman could have played further up the pitch. We were at home after all.
The key thing will be how we deal with this on Saturday. CMS, Stewart and Freeman will almost certainly start. Saunders looks to be back at training and I guess will be in contention. That will make a huge difference to the side. A new keeper and starting Muller at centre half would be a bonus too but what do I know.
Thompson was considerably quicker.
Southwell has never impressed me but he looked good as part of a three when Paris went off at Vale. I wouldn't write him off just yet as an option.
4-4-2 isn't necessarily the answer, it weakens us in midfield and if we've got the players to play in a 4-3-3 (which we will have most of the time presuming CMS can do a job there) that's what I'd go with. I'm sure at some point this season we'll play 4-4-2 and win, but that doesn't mean we'd win every game with a 4-4-2.
Agreed, but any given week you have to pick the system and players to give you the best chance of winning. Surely all of us saw that starting line up on Saturday and thought "oh dear"?
What I liked was that Gaz realised this and made positive changes at half time which had a positive impact on the game. Another week we'd have gone on to win that match
But let in four goals like that and you're not going to win the football match. Any post match discussion amongst supporters can't just ignore what went on, whether Dev thinks that makes hon morally superior to us or not
The best football we've played under GA was in te 1at half of the playoff final season playing 442 woody left and PCH right we then lost PCH in January and gradually stopped playing it although it does leave u lighter in the middle of the park it does offer it does offer more cover for the full backs which is where 433 leaves u exposed I'm not saying it's definitely the answer but it certainly offered a lot more then than what were getting now. For me the main thing we need is to play 2 up front bayo +1 hopefully Stewart coming back will sure up the defence and baz will teach brown how to come off his line and dominate his area
The fact we changed at half time and got better is very much a positive, yes. The result and some of the defensive performances very much a negative.
I think the fact that we improved in the second half was far more to do with the bollocking they clearly got at half time that with the subs we made. All of a sudden, Harriman and O'Nien started taking their time with the ball instead of immediately hoofing it. It's amazing how much a game changes if you think about what you're going to do with the ball.
Having said that, Freeman's performance was the silver lining in that brown cloud. Really thoughtful possesion and good skills.
Freeman always seems to be to have a bit of composure about his play and always finds a man with a pass.
Maybe it's not being a physical beast, be it pace, hard chasing and heading that stops him becoming a regular. It shouldn't do. A thoughtful winger might be just what we need.