Total OTT comments by many posters on here. In my opinion Wigan are the best side we have played in League 1 either this round or last round. Having said that they were very nasty. We didn't react well to this and in fact their first goal came about as a lack of discipline after some nasties. The referee was dreadful. We have played far worse than that and won.
that is not a good sign - may get away with it on a few occaisons but more often or not we'll lose.
So far this season we let a 2-0 lead slip against the (then) bottom team & only won because they went down to 10 men. We've also lost to Plymouth, who are now 2nd bottom & their only win was against us. Unless we buck up our ideas we are going to be mid-table (at best) and can see a defeat looming on Gillingham on Saturday.
We have too may fancy Dans & not enough midfield Generals. No Kinsella or Holland & certainly no Killer, Mendonca or BWP up front.
Whooah, hang on a minute buddy..I don't think it's quite as simple as that
The thing last night was, that Karl only made like for like subs. Konsa was asked to just do Kashis job. But Konsa is a fabulously versatile player who can cause chaos further forward ( see Northampton, nailed on penalty). KAG like fo like with Fosu, and promptly vanished. Well obviously Dodoo wasn't like for like with Billy Clarke, but he was out wide. Nobody got close to Josh, and in the meantime Wigan filled their boots...
Hey sorry everyone, my comment somewhere back there about "Plan B meaning flat 4-4-2" was meant as a lot more tongue in cheek than it was taken. Reading it back I completely get why, it just sounds bitchy. And reading this thread it's clear that that's not the case by-and-large.
On the Plan B thing, I'd actually argue that on Tuesday night we went to our Plan B, and it didn't work. By the end we were lumping balls to Josh for Ricky and Dodoo to win flick-ons, and we didn't have much joy there. But before that, Pearce looked to bypass the midfield on a fair few occasions by simply chipping the ball forward in the general direction of Josh, with no clear purpose. We also had the midfielders, even Kashi, trying to play quick balls forward to Josh. It seemed an attempt to get in behind Wigan, but it didn't come off and it was pretty much meat and drink for Burn and Bruce. As I said in my match rating I think, that was clearly purposeful given the high line two slow center backs were playing, but it meant we often gave possession away cheaply.
I know this won't always be the case, but instead of a Plan B, I thought we needed to sort of double down on, and be more successful at, our Plan A. We're not a huge team, so just lumping the ball forward, especially in this league where you will get most center backs perfectly comfortable in dealing with that, is unlikely to bear much fruit. On Tuesday I felt we needed to be patient, keep the ball more, and looked for a slower build-up than we're used to. We were unable to keep meaningful possession in the middle third, which is usually where we thrive. Had we been more patient, and looked less knackered, I think we'd have gotten a grip eventually. And when we have the ball in the middle third, it improves our supply into our forward players, and it means that we can play those quick, interchanging passes which break open defenses. For as good as their defense was, we didn't test Wigan's center backs on the deck nearly enough. Both are very clever, but both lack in pace and drawing them out of position with quick passing and movement in the final third was, I think, the best way to try to break them down.
So the way I see it you have sort of three broad options when wanting to make a sweeping change to how you play: change approach, change personnel, or change formation.
The change of approach I went over above. I think far more often than not a continuation of, and patience with, the way we play football is going to bear fruit. I've said this before, but just as we looked like we might be starting to grow into the game, we conceded the second. But the way to beat Wigan wasn't in the air, it was on the deck, getting those slow center backs turned and defending facing their own goal. They did a great job of stopping our supply line to the forward four, and we seemed to run out of ideas.
The change of player thing is a problem right now. We're without Reeves, who that game was absolutely calling out for. I've been incredibly impressed with Clarke, but Reeves has more subtly and grace than Clarke, and the ability to bring him on last night would have helped us retain possession, and Reeves has a great eye for a pass. Because he was starved of service, Clarke went chasing the ball, and while that can be really helpful in more open games or against weaker oppo, on Tuesday it just left Josh more isolated. Marshall, whose pace can cause a lot of problems and who has the ability to make something from nothing, will also help. It will make it harder to double up on Ricky. Fosu is going to be a great player, he was just subdued by a better team.
Change of formation: So first off I would say one loss shouldn't mean a complete change in gameplan that we've been working on since pre-season. I know there are some who some have suggested going to three at the back. I'd be in favor of that late in games, to add some extra height in defense. Also, if we're without Kashi, then it's worth examining. For most of the time, I think Kashi does so well, and thus we do so well in possession, by him having the freedom to drop between the two center halves to pick the ball up. At that point he's seeing the game in 180 degrees--everything is in front of him. And when he does that, we are playing a sort of 3-4-3 at that moment, with three players in the center back positions, two wing backs, two in central midfield with JFC and usually Clarke dropping deeper, then the three up front.
I think it'd be good to have the ability to go to three at the back, but the problems I see, in addition to it potentially muting Kashi, are: 1) Solly isn't really a wingback, and 2) where do Reeves and/or Clarke fit in that system? I think Solly can do a job at wingback, and to his credit he's been much better about getting forward this season than he has been in the past, but I still don't think it's quite natural to him.
More importantly, a 3-4-3 would take Reeves and/or Clarke out of the middle, if not out of the team. Alternatively, we could go to a 3-4-1-2 with Josh and Dodoo up front, but where does that leave Ricky? I guess he could play up front with Josh but we all know that's not for him, he's much better getting the ball wide or dropping deep into the space. So I'd not be against three at the back on certain occasions, especially if we have injury problems in the middle of the pitch, but I don't think it's a long term thing.
One of the great things about 4-2-3-1 is its flexibility. There are times, when we're defending, where it becomes a 4-4-1-1. That said, something that I think has been apparent at various points this season is that we need to do more work on our defensive shape when we're pegged back. That's not going to be the norm for us, we're going to spend a lot of time with the ball or looking to press the ball, but when we are pressed I think we need to be better at being compact and keeping the pitch as narrow as possible. Too often last night, and notably against Oldham, we let central players get in between the lines and/or find pockets of space and hurt us. We need to tighten up.
Secondly, I think we need to be better at just keeping possession for possessions sake. The Spanish call it "defending with the ball." It's something we were desperately calling out for against Oldham, and we were better about but still not great about against Southend. Yes, The Valley crowd may get on the players' backs sometimes, which is unfortunate. But given the footballers we have, we need to be a possession based team (in addition to the above), and being a successful possession-based team means having the ability to dictate play with the ball. So if that means slowing things down, playing sideways, and stifling some of the moment of the other team/running the clock down, so be it. The other team can't score when we have the ball, simplistic I know, and that constant possession will tire teams who try to go out and press us.
That's my thoughts on "Wigan-gate." I still think we've had a good start. I think Tuesday night we came up against the team I've picked as champions, and pretty much all of our players had a bad night and looked tired at the same time as we had opponents who could both stop us from playing and punish our mistakes ruthlessly. There are not many teams in the division who can do that.
Not 3-4-3 but 3-5-2. Centre backs still have themselves as options out wide but also WBs in front and Kashi/JFC coming deep. If they press too hard, a Josh nod on to a 2nd striker will test two CBs more. Also more height for a small XI.
Friend of mine rang me this morning who was at the game, but i didnt know was there. He doesn't follow us but went along to see a match... His view was that we were one dimensional and didnt have a plan to change things round... We know that yhough.
Find it sad that people now begin to call our manager "Gobby".
Atleast he had the balls to walk into a press conference after the game, made no excuses, said we were out played and he lost the battle in terms of tactics. He can put his hands and say we were outplayed and that they got it wrong, rather than pathetic childish comments.
As Karl said, they are together as a team when they win as well as when they lose.
Really is laughable how some people react to one result.
I agree; I think it's ridiculous how someone can come on here after a 3-0 loss and criticise supporters for expressing their concern at the result, or accuse people of going into meltdown after a few comments saying we didn't play well. Maybe you should take a little break from the 3-0 loss thread if you can't fathom people not being happy with losing badly.
The same people that were saying who our key players were a couple days before then proceed to say he shouldn't have been on the pitch you mean ? Or those that were saying this is some of the best football we have played, then after a defeat we have no plan B Facts are in a season you take the highs with the lows, We got beat by a good team, accept it, don't start having a go at players after one bad result, and as for the Gobby remarks more like playground stuff.
KR has been dubbed variously: gobby, fat, scouse, gobbinson, lush, verbose, 'profane genital epithet' from about his second press interview. Nobody has written anything harsh, rude or critical of the fat lager swilling gobshitter all of a sudden just because the performance against Wigan was piss poor. The preposterous gabbling buffoon has frequently attracted all manner of insult, opprobrium and invective since the spring. I'm absolutely certain he's significantly less upset by it than some snowflakes on this forum are on his behalf. The absence of a Plan B is not up for rational debate.
Comments
On the Plan B thing, I'd actually argue that on Tuesday night we went to our Plan B, and it didn't work. By the end we were lumping balls to Josh for Ricky and Dodoo to win flick-ons, and we didn't have much joy there. But before that, Pearce looked to bypass the midfield on a fair few occasions by simply chipping the ball forward in the general direction of Josh, with no clear purpose. We also had the midfielders, even Kashi, trying to play quick balls forward to Josh. It seemed an attempt to get in behind Wigan, but it didn't come off and it was pretty much meat and drink for Burn and Bruce. As I said in my match rating I think, that was clearly purposeful given the high line two slow center backs were playing, but it meant we often gave possession away cheaply.
I know this won't always be the case, but instead of a Plan B, I thought we needed to sort of double down on, and be more successful at, our Plan A. We're not a huge team, so just lumping the ball forward, especially in this league where you will get most center backs perfectly comfortable in dealing with that, is unlikely to bear much fruit. On Tuesday I felt we needed to be patient, keep the ball more, and looked for a slower build-up than we're used to. We were unable to keep meaningful possession in the middle third, which is usually where we thrive. Had we been more patient, and looked less knackered, I think we'd have gotten a grip eventually. And when we have the ball in the middle third, it improves our supply into our forward players, and it means that we can play those quick, interchanging passes which break open defenses. For as good as their defense was, we didn't test Wigan's center backs on the deck nearly enough. Both are very clever, but both lack in pace and drawing them out of position with quick passing and movement in the final third was, I think, the best way to try to break them down.
So the way I see it you have sort of three broad options when wanting to make a sweeping change to how you play: change approach, change personnel, or change formation.
The change of approach I went over above. I think far more often than not a continuation of, and patience with, the way we play football is going to bear fruit. I've said this before, but just as we looked like we might be starting to grow into the game, we conceded the second. But the way to beat Wigan wasn't in the air, it was on the deck, getting those slow center backs turned and defending facing their own goal. They did a great job of stopping our supply line to the forward four, and we seemed to run out of ideas.
The change of player thing is a problem right now. We're without Reeves, who that game was absolutely calling out for. I've been incredibly impressed with Clarke, but Reeves has more subtly and grace than Clarke, and the ability to bring him on last night would have helped us retain possession, and Reeves has a great eye for a pass. Because he was starved of service, Clarke went chasing the ball, and while that can be really helpful in more open games or against weaker oppo, on Tuesday it just left Josh more isolated. Marshall, whose pace can cause a lot of problems and who has the ability to make something from nothing, will also help. It will make it harder to double up on Ricky. Fosu is going to be a great player, he was just subdued by a better team.
Change of formation: So first off I would say one loss shouldn't mean a complete change in gameplan that we've been working on since pre-season. I know there are some who some have suggested going to three at the back. I'd be in favor of that late in games, to add some extra height in defense. Also, if we're without Kashi, then it's worth examining. For most of the time, I think Kashi does so well, and thus we do so well in possession, by him having the freedom to drop between the two center halves to pick the ball up. At that point he's seeing the game in 180 degrees--everything is in front of him. And when he does that, we are playing a sort of 3-4-3 at that moment, with three players in the center back positions, two wing backs, two in central midfield with JFC and usually Clarke dropping deeper, then the three up front.
I think it'd be good to have the ability to go to three at the back, but the problems I see, in addition to it potentially muting Kashi, are: 1) Solly isn't really a wingback, and 2) where do Reeves and/or Clarke fit in that system? I think Solly can do a job at wingback, and to his credit he's been much better about getting forward this season than he has been in the past, but I still don't think it's quite natural to him.
More importantly, a 3-4-3 would take Reeves and/or Clarke out of the middle, if not out of the team. Alternatively, we could go to a 3-4-1-2 with Josh and Dodoo up front, but where does that leave Ricky? I guess he could play up front with Josh but we all know that's not for him, he's much better getting the ball wide or dropping deep into the space. So I'd not be against three at the back on certain occasions, especially if we have injury problems in the middle of the pitch, but I don't think it's a long term thing.
One of the great things about 4-2-3-1 is its flexibility. There are times, when we're defending, where it becomes a 4-4-1-1. That said, something that I think has been apparent at various points this season is that we need to do more work on our defensive shape when we're pegged back. That's not going to be the norm for us, we're going to spend a lot of time with the ball or looking to press the ball, but when we are pressed I think we need to be better at being compact and keeping the pitch as narrow as possible. Too often last night, and notably against Oldham, we let central players get in between the lines and/or find pockets of space and hurt us. We need to tighten up.
Secondly, I think we need to be better at just keeping possession for possessions sake. The Spanish call it "defending with the ball." It's something we were desperately calling out for against Oldham, and we were better about but still not great about against Southend. Yes, The Valley crowd may get on the players' backs sometimes, which is unfortunate. But given the footballers we have, we need to be a possession based team (in addition to the above), and being a successful possession-based team means having the ability to dictate play with the ball. So if that means slowing things down, playing sideways, and stifling some of the moment of the other team/running the clock down, so be it. The other team can't score when we have the ball, simplistic I know, and that constant possession will tire teams who try to go out and press us.
That's my thoughts on "Wigan-gate." I still think we've had a good start. I think Tuesday night we came up against the team I've picked as champions, and pretty much all of our players had a bad night and looked tired at the same time as we had opponents who could both stop us from playing and punish our mistakes ruthlessly. There are not many teams in the division who can do that.
The absence of a Plan B is not up for rational debate.