Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Bob Peeters tactics and his formations

edited November 2014 in General Charlton
So far these are the formations I have witnessed from Bob Peeters this season.

4-5-1, 4-4-2, 4-4-1-1

Not too sure why he has to chop and change during the course of the season, Is he experimenting or is he still trying to work out the best team?

I personally feel 4-4-2 is the best option so we need to sacrifice a midfielder, maybe Jackson? I think Vetokele needs someone up top with him and I don't think Tuccedean did bad at the start alongside him, even he was not scoring enough goals. We were winning more games at the start and that was the formation we played.

Also, what is everyones view with zonal marking, especially with our defenders? The fact we have beastly Bikey and experienced Ben Haim, does zonal marking really suit them? I don't think so somehow.

Comments

  • I don't have a problem with managers changing formations. They haven't been massive changes, I think the overall philosophy has stayed the same as has the defence. How many times in the past have we been critical of managers being too stubborn to make changes to their tactics? I find it quite refreshing. Perhaps he isn't sure what is best but that's sort of the nature of the beast. We don't have the luxury of going out and getting anyone we want to fill the positions we need, so tinkering is to be expected.

    I posted in the post match thread that I feel a diamond in midfield would work, I'm not too concerned if we play an extra strikeror if it's an attacking midfielder supporting. I think Gud would be best suited to that tip of the diamond role. However, that would mean letting the full backs get forward more. I just don't think Bob is willing to do that. Perhaps rightly so, our defence has been and continues to be very solid. The dilemma is, and everyone knows it, that Igor needs support.

    On zonal marking, it's always brought up when wanting to criticise. It hasn't been part of our national game as long as other nations but I don't have a problem with it. Isn't it 4th in the league for goals against? Hard to argue with the facts. I'd also say zonal probably suits those two as well, Bikey isn't exactly a slouch when running as shown today and both can dominate and attack the ball when needed.
  • Its the substitutions that get me. Today they were poorly timed.

    Tactically, Peeters was superb though. Some good attacking football and solid defensively. We were undone by two factors:

    - Poor final ball
    - A situation where the CB went maverick and the LB fluffed his clearance up

    Not a Peeters issue there.
  • We're still a good team, we still have a good manager. it is not the end of the world.

    We got a last minute winner against Wigan, Huddersfield and Norwich. These things happen
  • Formations are also about what the other team is doing.
  • If you dont change things the opponents will have worked out what to do before kick off.
    There wasn't to much wrong with yesterday, considering the resources we have. We lost a good game of football yesterday to a team, I would think, will be in the top six at the end of the season.

    Definitely a better way to lose than we have done in the 7/8 years, at least we tried to vary our setup.
  • DiscoCAFC said:

    So far these are the formations I have witnessed from Bob Peeters this season.

    4-5-1, 4-4-2, 4-4-1-1

    Not too sure why he has to chop and change during the course of the season, Is he experimenting or is he still trying to work out the best team?

    I personally feel 4-4-2 is the best option so we need to sacrifice a midfielder, maybe Jackson? I think Vetokele needs someone up top with him and I don't think Tuccedean did bad at the start alongside him, even he was not scoring enough goals. We were winning more games at the start and that was the formation we played.

    Also, what is everyones view with zonal marking, especially with our defenders? The fact we have beastly Bikey and experienced Ben Haim, does zonal marking really suit them? I don't think so somehow.

    When was the last time Zonal marking cost us a goal? Brighton away back in August? If that's correct then I'm afraid it's a void point against Bob.
  • I actually prefer when a manager changes things about rather than stubbornly sticking to the same tactics week in week out even when its clear it doesn't work. Its knowing when to do it, thats the real trick. Subs wise we still don't have real impact subs available so he is very limited with what he can change from the bench.

    If we had that other striker, which bizarrely I got abuse for on twitter for criticising us not getting one, we would be so much more of a threat. We are one striker away from being a major player in this league. Considering where we were last year I'm so much happier this year but we do need that other striker.
  • Any manager that is so rigid he can't play his teams in a variety of formations even in play is not worth a carrot.
  • Yesterday's 4411 clearly worked considering how much possession we had and created chance after chance and how well Harriott did. Just poorly executed in the final third
  • The tactics and formation is the reason we are not a top 6 side and have drawn so many games.

    When Ipswich sensed their were 2 extra points up for grabs, they made changes to play with 4 strikers on the pitch for the final minutes.

    In contrast with us, where Pope and others were trying to run the clock down for the last 10 mins.
  • Sponsored links:


  • The tactics and formation is the reason we are not a top 6 side and have drawn so many games.

    When Ipswich sensed their were 2 extra points up for grabs, they made changes to play with 4 strikers on the pitch for the final minutes.

    In contrast with us, where Pope and others were trying to run the clock down for the last 10 mins.

    But to be fair, look at how strong the Ipswich bench was.

    Peeters just didn't have that luxury, did he?

  • If we play 4-4-1-1 which did work well yesterday then I think you want to look at side like this at our full strength

    Henderson
    Solly/BenHaim/Bikey/Wiggins
    Wilson/Coq/Cousins/Harriot
    JBG
    Vetokele

    A few thoughts:
    -Think we have gotten over the initial hump of changing to zonal marking, we look comfortable defending set pieces
    -JBG needs to play in the hole think that could be his best position
    -Bob needs to drill the team into shooting from range more often, to many games this season Ive seen the guys look for a pass on the edge of box when a shot would have been the better choice, players like JBG, Harriot, Cousins etc all the ability to do it 'Plenty of shots' and all that
    -Getting Le Coq signed up for the rest of the season could be a huge boost
    -Think worth experimenting with 4-2-3-1 at some point aswell
  • I think it's fairly obvious that Peeters knows what he is doing. He has ideas about the way football should be played and is able to see past that ideal to set up teams that complement the strengths and minimise the weaknesses. At present at Charlton he is doing the latter every week.

    It won't have gone unnoticed in the football world that Bob is working very well with somewhat limited resources and he will soon start to appear on clubs radars. He's ambitious and why shouldn't he be. I hope Roland has the sense to extend his contract and offer him enough support to encourage Bob to stay loyal.
  • Oggy Red said:

    The tactics and formation is the reason we are not a top 6 side and have drawn so many games.

    When Ipswich sensed their were 2 extra points up for grabs, they made changes to play with 4 strikers on the pitch for the final minutes.

    In contrast with us, where Pope and others were trying to run the clock down for the last 10 mins.

    But to be fair, look at how strong the Ipswich bench was.

    Peeters just didn't have that luxury, did he?


    No, fair point, they are playing for Bournemouth and Swindon :)
  • The tactics and formation is the reason we are not a top 6 side and have drawn so many games.

    When Ipswich sensed their were 2 extra points up for grabs, they made changes to play with 4 strikers on the pitch for the final minutes.

    In contrast with us, where Pope and others were trying to run the clock down for the last 10 mins.

    4 strikers? I counted 3 and that was probably more down to lack of options for them.

    Some people seemed convinced we need to buy and play as many strikers ad possible. I think they must have been to the Pardew school of management.
  • Tactics, balance and formations, I've a hunch that Peeters knows more than me so I'll follow Clough's advice and brush up on my dominoes and meanwhile let the managers manage.
  • colthe3rd said:

    The tactics and formation is the reason we are not a top 6 side and have drawn so many games.

    When Ipswich sensed their were 2 extra points up for grabs, they made changes to play with 4 strikers on the pitch for the final minutes.

    In contrast with us, where Pope and others were trying to run the clock down for the last 10 mins.

    4 strikers? I counted 3 and that was probably more down to lack of options for them.

    Some people seemed convinced we need to buy and play as many strikers ad possible. I think they must have been to the Pardew school of management.


    Murphy/McGoldrick/Sammon/ Noel Hunt - all described as strikers by the Press association.
    Hunt replaced midfielder Anderson on 83.

    Pardew's team is 8th in the Prem !

    As for us:

    Igor - no problem, but the stats don't lie..........

    Church (when he was playing) (1) ?
    Ahearne Grant (0) ?
    George (2) ?
    Harriot (0) ?
    Moussa (1) ?

    We had a 10 foot tall fella on the bench yesterday, heaven knows what he has to do to get a game.
    Why not bring him on and let Bikey play the last 5 minutes up front ?

  • colthe3rd said:

    The tactics and formation is the reason we are not a top 6 side and have drawn so many games.

    When Ipswich sensed their were 2 extra points up for grabs, they made changes to play with 4 strikers on the pitch for the final minutes.

    In contrast with us, where Pope and others were trying to run the clock down for the last 10 mins.

    4 strikers? I counted 3 and that was probably more down to lack of options for them.

    Some people seemed convinced we need to buy and play as many strikers ad possible. I think they must have been to the Pardew school of management.


    Murphy/McGoldrick/Sammon/ Noel Hunt - all described as strikers by the Press association.
    Hunt replaced midfielder Anderson on 83.

    Pardew's team is 8th in the Prem !

    As for us:

    Igor - no problem, but the stats don't lie..........

    Church (when he was playing) (1) ?
    Ahearne Grant (0) ?
    George (2) ?
    Harriot (0) ?
    Moussa (1) ?

    We had a 10 foot tall fella on the bench yesterday, heaven knows what he has to do to get a game.
    Why not bring him on and let Bikey play the last 5 minutes up front ?

    Fair enough on Hunt but I would have said winger.

    My point about strikers is just by buying and/or playing an extra one wouldn't necessarily mean more goals. Yesterday was better but chances created have been very low in recent weeks so the lack of goals isn't just poor finishing, in fact more of the better chancres fell to midifelders and defenders running from deep yesterday. Lumping an extra striker in probably wouldn't have made much difference.
  • To mount a serious challange you need four strikers all capable of doing a job and complementing each other. IMHO we have two and they don't.
  • The tactics and formation is the reason we are not a top 6 side and have drawn so many games.

    When Ipswich sensed their were 2 extra points up for grabs, they made changes to play with 4 strikers on the pitch for the final minutes.

    In contrast with us, where Pope and others were trying to run the clock down for the last 10 mins.

    I take your point VP, however it could equally be argued that Peeter's tactics and conservative selections is the reason why we are in the top half of the table. He is making the best use as he sees it of a squad composed of many new players, one not overburdened with very gifted players and with few striking options. He is probably aware that the owner does not intend to spend silly money, perhaps any money on unproven or risky purchases, caution is the keyword hence the number of draws and low goal scoring tally .
    Yesterday .. McCarthy outthought Peeters .... As you say we looked nervous and were playing for time towards the end so MM sent on extra strikers, the big tough Sammon and the crafty Hunt to really wind up the pressure .. it worked. McCarthy has years of managerial experience, he also has a well resourced team of players, he can almost sniff out weaknesses in the opposition and metaphorically knows when to go for the throat. Peeters is a new boy, he will learn and hopefully before too long he will have a new player or two to work with
  • Sponsored links:


  • I don't really blame Peeters - he's learning as he goes .
    You can't buy experience.

    McCarthy has been round the block again and again.
    And he would have done his homework on Charlton.

    He'd have known that we sit behind the ball late on when we're running out of steam and have something to hold on to.

    And you bet he set up his bench to pose us some fresh problems, when we start to flag.




  • There's an enormous amount of hot air given to formations - none of it useful.
    More important than easy to understand schematics for the hard of reading is having the right players in the right positions (as far as squad depth allows) - not having square pegs in round holes - making sure each bloke knows what his role is and giving the shirkers and thickos a thorough lambasting when they slack off or get it wrong.
    Eg asking a youngster who has done most of his youth football as a right back or centre half to play as the left sided midfielder of a 4 is just plain daft. It gets worse when there is a hopelessly one-footed so called winger whose right foot is barely useful for standing on and never for kicking let alone crossing, Bob plays him on the right and for the half hour or so that the workshy icelandic show pony is asked to play on the left he hides away and doesn't try a leg.
    4-4-2, 4-5-1, 4-3-3 are all equally irrelevant and dismantled by this kind of thinking - we end up playing with 8 outfield players at best cos 2 are so easily snuffed out by their own limitations/attitude before the opposition has to worry about them.
  • To mount a serious challange you need four strikers all capable of doing a job and complementing each other. IMHO we have two and they don't.

    This!
    Let's remember that this season wasn't about "mounting a serious challenge"
    Harriott not good at crossing and played well with Sordell at the end of last season so he's been given a chance up front with Vetokele.
    Church - gone
    Piggott - out on loan
    Reza - out on loan - could he have done a job?
    Tucudean - not so good at Liege - occasional flashes but...

    Let's face it CAFC has built a decent squad (with cover) for ten out of 11 positions after the squad of the last three years was dismantled. And they've done with just one big money signing and some decent loans.

    Whether the club invests in January or the summer we are on the right path. Those criticising our performances this season either forget last season's fun in the bottom six or like to write flame like messages to get a rise from other fans.

    We have been in the top ten all season and it's as obvious as the dogs proverbial as to what is required to move onwards and upwards.

  • The tactics and formation is the reason we are not a top 6 side and have drawn so many games.

    When Ipswich sensed their were 2 extra points up for grabs, they made changes to play with 4 strikers on the pitch for the final minutes.

    In contrast with us, where Pope and others were trying to run the clock down for the last 10 mins.

    Bob scuppered our season. Playing for a draw against the Spanners was a disgrace.
  • edited March 2015
    I could understand Peeter's tactics at the start of the season.

    We had a below average team (on budget) and only one decent striker.

    So he decided to play to our strength, which was our defence.

    Keep it tight and try and nick a goal. It worked, we were unbeaten, but after about 10 games the opposition had worked us out.

    Bournemouth, our first defeat, showed that if the opposition scored first, we had no plan B.
    We went one down at the start of that game and still carried on defending.

    So more teams went for us early on and we had no reply.

    I think Peeters, was rightish, to keep this tactic away from home and maybe at home against the top teams.
    But where he really lost the plot, was keeping the same tactic at home against the poorer teams.

    He still defended against Millwall (D) Blackpool (D), Cardiff (D) and Brighton (L).

    We should have attacked those 4 and I believe we would have gathered 12 points instead of 3.

  • I think it's fairly obvious that Peeters knows what he is doing. He has ideas about the way football should be played and is able to see past that ideal to set up teams that complement the strengths and minimise the weaknesses. At present at Charlton he is doing the latter every week.

    It won't have gone unnoticed in the football world that Bob is working very well with somewhat limited resources and he will soon start to appear on clubs radars. He's ambitious and why shouldn't he be. I hope Roland has the sense to extend his contract and offer him enough support to encourage Bob to stay loyal.

    Doh!

  • "Keep it tight and try and nick a goal."

    I can imagine Bob Peeters said this when we played the mighty Blackpool and Millwall !
    Under Bob, it was like watching paint dry,
    Since Norwich H/t It feels like we want to paint the town red.

    I said Luzon started with the biggest deficit any Head coach as ever had,
    Manly because of the process of selection.

    He's winning me over because not only does he have some idea How to set the team up
    to play attacking football but when a opposition player is giving us grief, as Antonio did last night. He can delegate Gomez and Bulot to negate the threat.
    He was very Pro active as we were 2-1 up, but spotted the danger( I don't have too tell him what to do at H/T since Norwich).

    Hearing Guy Luzon say we played beautiful Football against Huddersfield( we did)
    Sexy football must be coming soon.


  • LoOkOuT said:

    I think it's fairly obvious that Peeters knows what he is doing. He has ideas about the way football should be played and is able to see past that ideal to set up teams that complement the strengths and minimise the weaknesses. At present at Charlton he is doing the latter every week.

    It won't have gone unnoticed in the football world that Bob is working very well with somewhat limited resources and he will soon start to appear on clubs radars. He's ambitious and why shouldn't he be. I hope Roland has the sense to extend his contract and offer him enough support to encourage Bob to stay loyal.

    Doh!

    Yes, but hindsite and all that.
  • The football under BP became ever slower and more predictable. Most of our possession was in our own half and we created next to nothing.
    Our squad may not have been the best but there was no ambition in our play and it was pretty dire to watch.
  • The time spent playing the ball across the back 4 clearly frustrated the players as well as the audience
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!