"Horses For Courses"

doombear

doombear

Member
Location
Too far from Selhurst Park
Country
England
Early days, I know, but as I look at our defensive options, I simply don't see a combination that works as a back 3. Furthermore, even Timber's running around yesterday doesn't hide the impression I get that we are being murdered in midfield. Time to switch to a 4-3-3 or 4-3-2-1?

I think a midfield 3 of Wharton, Timber and Kamada would make us more solid and the likes of Mitchell and Tomiyasu would be solid full back options. However, which two CBs to choose remains a problem.

Thoughts peoples?
 
doombear said:
Early days, I know, but as I look at our defensive options, I simply don't see a combination that works as a back 3. Furthermore, even Timber's running around yesterday doesn't hide the impression I get that we are being murdered in midfield. Time to switch to a 4-3-3 or 4-3-2-1?

I think a midfield 3 of Wharton, Timber and Kamada would make us more solid and the likes of Mitchell and Tomiyasu would be solid full back options. However, which two CBs to choose remains a problem.

Thoughts peoples?
Click to expand...
We definitely need to ditch 3 at the back. It’s leaving us short handed in midfield while also leaving us exposed out wide (look at how we are conceding goals) and meaning we have no width in attack. In short we are probably playing the worst formation we could be for our players.

I’d go four at the back. Mitchell at left back, Mingueza at right back (Khalali has struggled defensively). Tomiyasu and Ahanor as centre backs as they’ve looked the most assured.

Right now I’d play 4-5-1 with a deep lying defensive midfielder, two in the middle and two wingers. McNeil left wing snd Pino right (assuming Sarr is still sulking). JSL up top. Just try and be as solid as possible and get as many balls crossed into JSL as we can.

I don’t really care if the football is ugly for a bit, we have to stop being so easy to play against and get some clean sheets.
 
JHB said:
We definitely need to ditch 3 at the back. It’s leaving us short handed in midfield while also leaving us exposed out wide (look at how we are conceding goals) and meaning we have no width in attack. In short we are probably playing the worst formation we could be for our players.

I’d go four at the back. Mitchell at left back, Mingueza at right back (Khalali has struggled defensively). Tomiyasu and Ahanor as centre backs as they’ve looked the most assured.

Right now I’d play 4-5-1 with a deep lying defensive midfielder, two in the middle and two wingers. McNeil left wing snd Pino right (assuming Sarr is still sulking). JSL up top. Just try and be as solid as possible and get as many balls crossed into JSL as we can.

I don’t really care if the football is ugly for a bit, we have to stop being so easy to play against and get some clean sheets.
Click to expand...
I kinda agree with this. Shame we don’t have someone that can take on a defender and skin him then deliver a brilliant cross. Bottom line is we need to stop bleeding three goals a game.
 
JHB said:
We definitely need to ditch 3 at the back. It’s leaving us short handed in midfield while also leaving us exposed out wide (look at how we are conceding goals) and meaning we have no width in attack. In short we are probably playing the worst formation we could be for our players.

I’d go four at the back. Mitchell at left back, Mingueza at right back (Khalali has struggled defensively). Tomiyasu and Ahanor as centre backs as they’ve looked the most assured.

Right now I’d play 4-5-1 with a deep lying defensive midfielder, two in the middle and two wingers. McNeil left wing snd Pino right (assuming Sarr is still sulking). JSL up top. Just try and be as solid as possible and get as many balls crossed into JSL as we can.

I don’t really care if the football is ugly for a bit, we have to stop being so easy to play against and get some clean sheets.
Click to expand...

Amen to that!
 
What i cant understand is, you go from your first choice, Iraola, a back four, 4-2-3-1 man, with experience, to Sage, a 3 at the back man with no experience at all.
 
I would put Paddy in Temporary charge, he can organise a back four with his eyes shut, where our back three are playing like they have their eyes shut.
 
doombear said:
Early days, I know, but as I look at our defensive options, I simply don't see a combination that works as a back 3. Furthermore, even Timber's running around yesterday doesn't hide the impression I get that we are being murdered in midfield. Time to switch to a 4-3-3 or 4-3-2-1?

I think a midfield 3 of Wharton, Timber and Kamada would make us more solid and the likes of Mitchell and Tomiyasu would be solid full back options. However, which two CBs to choose remains a problem.

Thoughts peoples?
Click to expand...
That midfield has three who like to get forward and ball play but no CDM who can cover - will only work with a back four but not a back 3 as we seem to always want to play at the moment.
 
I'm really not sure why to everyone the clear and obvious answer is always switching to a back 4?

If it was so bleeding obvious, dont you think one of our coaches might have thought to implement it?

Maybe, just maybe, the formation isn't as important as the instructions....?

Because lets be honest, we are playing the same formation as last year, but the difference in playing style is huge.

Last year people were begging to go to a back 4 to improve us going forward.......this season the same formation change will now make us tighter at the back?
 
MrRobbo said:
I'm really not sure why to everyone the clear and obvious answer is always switching to a back 4?

If it was so bleeding obvious, dont you think one of our coaches might have thought to implement it?

Maybe, just maybe, the formation isn't as important as the instructions....?

Because lets be honest, we are playing the same formation as last year, but the difference in playing style is huge.

Last year people were begging to go to a back 4 to improve us going forward.......this season the same formation change will now make us tighter at the back?
Click to expand...
Mainly because our defence hasn't worked well since about January. When something just doesn't work, it's probably best to try a change. Last season it was more our attack didn't work either.
We could say our attack is better but our defence has to change somewhere. Would that be a fair statement?
I'm not sure why people get all defensive about suggested changes. For a start, it won't make any difference what you or I say.
We're only really chewing the cud and chucking some options out.
The narkiness is coming from s*** performances - which are from our defensive tactics right now.
Do we have a defence coach? Never looked it up. I'd presume Paddy. How did he always play? A back four. It's no where near as hard a transition as being made out.
Obviously, the other way is to massively readjust the back three. We're never a back five - which I believe is the defensive/ out of possession requirement for this formation. If we could get the wing back to slot in, that might work. Currently, we're being caught out there in those wide channels. That actually involves an unsustainable workload on the wing backs if they are the only ones who are wide to cross too. Again, indicating that perhaps we should use defenders in defence and wingers in attack, providing the width.
 
Aray said:
No experience of the premier league, do you mean? What a bit like Glasner…
Click to expand...
Indeed, I posted about this. I had absolutely no idea why I thought Glasner a better fit than Sage. I'd never really heard of either as I don't bother with much except for Palace. It was just a gut feeling. Something fitted, something doesn't fit. No idea why.
 
Our back 3 is very weak, and to have 2 of the 3 being loanees is poor decision making from Sage. Richards should be our senior CB but he looks very vulnerable without decent players either side of him.

Far cry from the Lacroix and Guehi days. Urgent investment is needed in a decent play balling centre back with leadership qualities in Jan.
 
ASCPFC said:
Indeed, I posted about this. I had absolutely no idea why I thought Glasner a better fit than Sage. I'd never really heard of either as I don't bother with much except for Palace. It was just a gut feeling. Something fitted, something doesn't fit. No idea why.
Click to expand...
Circumstances are important. Glasner came in mid season so had some time. He also inherited a settled squad with some genuinely world class players in it and a settled defence. That meant it was less risky bringing in somebody without Premier League experience as they would have time to adapt.

Sage has none of those things in his favour. It was always going to be a rebuild year and a dangerous time for us. That’s why a bringing in somebody without Premier League experience was always going to be a huge gamble.
 
JHB said:
Circumstances are important. Glasner came in mid season so had some time. He also inherited a settled squad with some genuinely world class players in it and a settled defence. That meant it was less risky bringing in somebody without Premier League experience as they would have time to adapt.

Sage has none of those things in his favour. It was always going to be a rebuild year and a dangerous time for us. That’s why a bringing in somebody without Premier League experience was always going to be a huge gamble.
Click to expand...
I agree it was always going to be a tough year of rebuild whilst contending with the extra euro games, but not sure it would be any easier for a manager with prem experience. And also, what names were available to us, we tried with the Bournemouth bloke but don't think there were many others out there with prem league experience who would've come to us.
 
ASCPFC said:
Mainly because our defence hasn't worked well since about January. When something just doesn't work, it's probably best to try a change. Last season it was more our attack didn't work either.
We could say our attack is better but our defence has to change somewhere. Would that be a fair statement?
I'm not sure why people get all defensive about suggested changes. For a start, it won't make any difference what you or I say.
We're only really chewing the cud and chucking some options out.
The narkiness is coming from s*** performances - which are from our defensive tactics right now.
Do we have a defence coach? Never looked it up. I'd presume Paddy. How did he always play? A back four. It's no where near as hard a transition as being made out.
Obviously, the other way is to massively readjust the back three. We're never a back five - which I believe is the defensive/ out of possession requirement for this formation. If we could get the wing back to slot in, that might work. Currently, we're being caught out there in those wide channels. That actually involves an unsustainable workload on the wing backs if they are the only ones who are wide to cross too. Again, indicating that perhaps we should use defenders in defence and wingers in attack, providing the width.
Click to expand...

Of course. We can all see that. I just never understand why 4 at the back is heralded as the way to fix the problems. (Just as it was the way to fix the blunted attack in the last regime).

Mitchell will play LB, Khaili will play RB, we'll just lose a CB. Which I'm not sure is a good idea, considering home many free headers the oppo are having. All 3 of Ipswich's goals were headers or from headers.

We could instead temper Mitchell and Khaili's starting position etc. so we play more like a 533, instead of the 353 we are playing at the mo.

The world and his wife can see that we are too open. Added to that we are making lots of individual mistakes.

Personally its the individual stuff that would grate me most if I were Sage. Lets be honest, all of their goals on Sat were completely avoidable. Everyone gives up on the first giving him a free header, Richards is too slow to react for the 2nd, and I'd argue he should have been going for the 3rd (instead of Khalaili.
 
Aray said:
No experience of the premier league, do you mean? What a bit like Glasner…
Click to expand...
Exactly, 4 wins at home in 18 games, if you don't understand why they won at Aston villa and got a draw at Liverpool, and haven't scored a goal at home, there is no point discussing tactics.
 
MrRobbo said:
I'm really not sure why to everyone the clear and obvious answer is always switching to a back 4?

If it was so bleeding obvious, dont you think one of our coaches might have thought to implement it?

Maybe, just maybe, the formation isn't as important as the instructions....?

Because lets be honest, we are playing the same formation as last year, but the difference in playing style is huge.

Last year people were begging to go to a back 4 to improve us going forward.......this season the same formation change will now make us tighter at the back?
Click to expand...
Who Sages overpaid goffers
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top