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

Options for player / formation change?

Though Robinson seems fixated with his 451, what other options do you see with the squad we currently have?

What player changes, if any, would you consider following the two defeats?

Comments

  • 4-4-2 or 4-4-1-1

    Amos
    Solly | Bauer | Pearce | Da Silva
    Holmes | Kashi | Forster-Caskey | Fosu
    Clarke | Magennis
  • In formation 3,2 4 1 Amos, Bauer,Pearce,Saar; Dicksteel Da Silva; Marshall, Reeves, Clarke; Holmes; Magennis.

    Worth a try when all fit? Perhaps a bit lightweight in mid 4 but very attacking.....
  • edited September 2017

    Though Robinson seems fixated with his 451, what other options do you see with the squad we currently have?

    What player changes, if any, would you consider following the two defeats?

    Never mind about formations, how's the head? :wink:

    3-5-2 attacking, 5-3-2 defending;
    Amos
    Solly Konsa Bauer Pearce Da Silva
    Fosu Kashi Holmes
    Clarke Magennis
  • edited September 2017
    Still don't think formation is the problem, it's far more the execution and lack of depth/fatigue.

    For Saturday, if he's fit I'd bring Reeves in to the 10 role and move Clarke out wide. Reeves is a match winner and can really unlock defenses.

    You could go 3-4-3 or 3-5-2 or even 4-4-2 but are they really better suited to our players? I don't think so.

    Bauer Pearce Sare
    Solly Kashi JFC DaSilva
    ............. Clarke
    ......... Mag Holmes

    Bauer Pearce Sarr
    Solly Kashi JFC DaSilva
    Clarke Mag Holmes

    Solly Bauer Pearce DaSilva
    Holmes Kashi JFC Fosu
    ....... Clarke Mag

    Don't see how any of those are better for our attacking players. Maybe three at the back gives us a bit more protection but it weakens us going forward and our big problem in defending is runs from deep or forwards pulling defenders our of position and I'm not convinced a back three helps either.
  • I don't think there is any issue with the starting formation, but it's the inability to change it if it's not working due to the bench or if certain players are unavailable, a different starting line up or for me the main issue is that Robinson only trains them to that one formation.

    We should be able to very easily switch to a 442 by moving a Holmes or Clarke into a front 2 but not sure they can cope with a complete change of system even if the players are the same.

    if they can train for it I'd actually try a 442 with Holmes up front with Magennis, Fosu and Clarke on the wings. Same problem remains though, almost nothing on the bench to freshen it up. At least then we might be a bit less predictable.


  • edited September 2017
    Rob7Lee said:

    I don't think there is any issue with the starting formation, but it's the inability to change it if it's not working due to the bench or if certain players are unavailable, a different starting line up or for me the main issue is that Robinson only trains them to that one formation.

    We should be able to very easily switch to a 442 by moving a Holmes or Clarke into a front 2 but not sure they can cope with a complete change of system even if the players are the same.

    if they can train for it I'd actually try a 442 with Holmes up front with Magennis, Fosu and Clarke on the wings. Same problem remains though, almost nothing on the bench to freshen it up. At least then we might be a bit less predictable.


    But Holmes needs space to pick the ball up in and run at defenses. He's not a player who is going to make runs in behind. So what's the use in playing him up front? And playing a 4-4-1-1 is basically the same as 4-2-3-1 when defending.

    I'd really like to know how people think a front two either in a 4-4-2 or a 3-5-2 will get more out of our players? It feels like people think we should play 4-4-2 because that's what they're comfortable with, not because it's what gets the best out of our team.
  • I'd like to see at least a couple of changes to freshen up the team, we have a few options.

    Konsa or Dijksteel for Solly
    Aribo for JFC
    Konsa for Kashi
    4-4-2 with Dodoo up front with Magennis, Clarke and Fosu out wide I guess while Holmes is out.

    I don't see anything we can gain from dropping Amos, Bauer, Pearce, Dasilva, Clarke and Holmes while we have no alternative to Magennis. We should have at least 5/6 that play when fit as they're our better players. We haven't really had that since Powell was sacked.

    I haven't been impressed by JFC and Kashi in recent games. Perhaps too much too soon for Kashi? Not seeing the top half Champ player some say he is but he's gone from being out for the best part of 2 years to playing every league game.

    Said before JFC is a decent all rounder rather than having a few stand out areas of his game. Looks good when we're playing well, would like to him offer more when we're struggling.

    Really need Reeves and Marshall back for more attacking options.

    Obviously should have signed another striker. That really limits our options.

    As for other variants of 4-5-1/4-2-3-1 such as 4-1-4-1 or 4-4-1-1 they're really not that different. Someone could say we play either of those and it wouldn't be wrong. It's just a simple way of describing how a team lines up.
  • Phillips
    solly Bauer Pearce Lennon
    Dijksteel Kashi Aribo
    Holmes Reeco Maginnis
  • People get very troubled about formations but just shifting the players round doesn't necessarily change how you play. The main problem I see with Robinson is whether we line up 4-2-3-1, 3-5-2 or 1,6,1,2 with the goalkeeper on commentary he'd still want to operate with his one style of playing; possession-based passing football involving always playing out from the back, using the holding midfielder to start every move, passing in triangles and praying that someone makes an aggressive run to get in behind the defence. When it's good it works great; Kashi and JFC are good passers, Holmes and Fosu can get past a defender, Clarke works hard to try and stop Magennis getting too isolated and the fullbacks look for the opportunity to go beyond their winger and cross. When it's figured out though, Kashi gets pressed early, his passing options become sideways or nothing, Holmes gets marked out of the game and Magennis becomes an expensive bollard. We don't change up our creative routes so if the opponent does their disrupting job well we're toast.

    Mourinho has always been the master of having a few styles in his back pocket. All being well he'll set up with fast, strong players and look to go at weaker opponents. Against stronger teams he'll instruct his players to sit deep and strike on the counter. If the opposition has a key player he'll have them nobbled; man-marking, rotational fouling, the works. If his team aren't breaking down a stubborn opposition he'll put on a second striker (or a Fellaini) and have the ball lumped long to try and cause some chaos. He's rarely happy just sitting there and watching his team's set-up getting found out during the match. We don't do anything like that so before we start worrying about whether or not we're lining up with inverted wingbacks in a 5 or a flat three in midfield, we need to be coaching the players in what to do if our usual plan isn't working; how to bypass that tight press on the out-ball from the defence and how to take advantage of two players being tied up on marking Holmes. We had this exact problem with Peeters and it turned into a tailspin for him. I think Robinson is a better coach than Peeters, but he doesn't have a Vetokele either

    Agree it's about systems and patterns of play more than formation.

    To be fair to Karl second half at Gills we did try and go long ball to Magennis and ket Dodoo/Clarke/Holmes feed off the scraps. It didn't work. It only played into Gills hands in my opinion as they had the bright and strength to deal with that whereas they might have tired if we had kept running at them.
  • Sponsored links:


  • We don't have a manager that feels comfortable a different formation.
  • Curbs was very good at pre match and in-play tactical adjustments and i just dont think Robinson has the nous,and is also stubborn to the system he wants to play,that was his downfall at mk hope his learnt from that but at the moment ive seen no evidence of it.
  • He's used this system for his whole career, bar a chunk of last season when he didn't have the players. The lack of striking options means that he's lumbered with this formation, unless he decides to bring in an extra central midfield player
  • I would be tempted to play the Christmas tree, 4-3-2-1 with konsa coming in, needs to make I change with Holmes suspended. Could also see clarke and reeves playing as a pair of tens.

    Not sue Solly has the legs for it though tbh
  • SDAddick said:

    Rob7Lee said:

    I don't think there is any issue with the starting formation, but it's the inability to change it if it's not working due to the bench or if certain players are unavailable, a different starting line up or for me the main issue is that Robinson only trains them to that one formation.

    We should be able to very easily switch to a 442 by moving a Holmes or Clarke into a front 2 but not sure they can cope with a complete change of system even if the players are the same.

    if they can train for it I'd actually try a 442 with Holmes up front with Magennis, Fosu and Clarke on the wings. Same problem remains though, almost nothing on the bench to freshen it up. At least then we might be a bit less predictable.


    But Holmes needs space to pick the ball up in and run at defenses. He's not a player who is going to make runs in behind. So what's the use in playing him up front? And playing a 4-4-1-1 is basically the same as 4-2-3-1 when defending.

    I'd really like to know how people think a front two either in a 4-4-2 or a 3-5-2 will get more out of our players? It feels like people think we should play 4-4-2 because that's what they're comfortable with, not because it's what gets the best out of our team.
    In my view only really works effectively for the majority of the time when you have a top striker, we don't. For all of Magennis's strengths, he's not a great goalscorer especially with his feet, how many did he miss recently? So you rely on the three behind to weigh in with goals, In my view he's more of a Leaburn, get the ball up to his feet or chest, he can hold it up, lay off to the winger and get himself into the box, or at times lay off or flick on to his strike partner.

    Holmes capable of playing Up there, but Clarke is probably the better option with Holmes staying on the wing.

    Ultimately all our eggs are in one basket as usual, 3 games in 8 days and no changes is always going to be tuff in this formation. Teams have already worked out how to play against us, they won't always succeed but neither will we, I expect us to have a winning run again but also a loosing one. When it works we'll score 2-3, when it doesn't we'll not score so best we can hope for in those games is a 0-0.
  • wmcf123 said:

    He's used this system for his whole career, bar a chunk of last season when he didn't have the players. The lack of striking options means that he's lumbered with this formation, unless he decides to bring in an extra central midfield player

    sadly I think this is pretty much the case
  • I posted this on another thread on Saturday .. here we go again

    3 4 3 is the way to go .. drop da Silva and/or Solly, bring in Sarr .. like this .. Sarr, Bauer, Pearce .. Konsa, Kashi, F-Caskey, Fosu/Reeves .. Holmes, Clarke, Magennis .. of course .. it will never happen,
    Robinson has improved but he's still a one trick stage magician .. we will never score the necessary goals playing his 4231 way, especially with Magennis as the sole striker .. he's strong, honest and willing but just does not have the required scoring ability to be left alone up front
  • As pleasing as the Oldham & Southend results were it was clear the challenges posed were, and are, precisely the ones we needed/ will need to overcome this season.

    As Wigan confirmed it will be no surprise if such challenges are to be pretty much standard fare from opposing sides. Wigan had the ability to then go on and outplay us.

    Now Gillingham with a bit of good fortune have shown, with the right resilience, we are not the power we thought we were.

    The "earn the right to play" challenge is fundamental to senior football in the UK but as you slide down the pyramid the preponderance of physicality ratchets up to the point of a "war of attrition". Any side seeking to achieve promotion has to overcome such challenges. The 2011/2012 squad was built to compete beyond the point of attrition.

    Systems are very important but ultimately it is about players. The upgrade in the creativity & mobility is very welcome but the side invites a physical challenge. Tell me you would not;
    - test Solly and Kashi to see if they can handle 2 games in a week
    - challenge Da Silva's physical stature
    - see if our creative midfield has the appetite for a "battle".

    Early season each club, still with hopes of a positive 8 months, will be up for a competitive battle and seek to shut us down. None are going to simply let us play.

    We have had a bad week. It happens. We can give credit to the team for meeting its early challenges but just as such results did not mean we would "walk" this league, this week does not mean we have become "shit" overnight.

    The physicality takes a toll on players as the season progresses which is exacerbated by a pattern of play rigidly built around a high tempo pressing game. It increases the performance demand on certain players. Why does Magennis always struggle at the end of games? Who keeps a tiring forward on the pitch to supply a physical, aerial presence in set piece defence?

    Unless you have options and the game management on the pitch to adjust one of two things will happen. Either players run themselves into the ground trying to make "the system" work or they drop their tempo. If your goal threat is built on tempo you will likely fail.

    I am reminded of the film "They Shoot Horses Don't They?" An exaggeration I know but without a large enough "front line" squad we will struggle. .

    Clubs introduced squad rotation for a reason.

    Issues with the balance/ size/ experience of squad will stack up. Tiring players make mistakes, make inappropriate challenges, or overstretch and end up with injuries. It is not just luck. It is common sense, squad management and resource.

    The addition of Reeves & Marshall will be important but so will the management of the game time for Pearce, Solly, Kashi, Clarke, Magennis & Holmes.

    On any given day we have a first XI able to beat any side in the division.

    What we do not have is more than 15 (at best) senior professionals to make up a proven first XI. It resembles "fantasy football" management.

    Including coach Jackson we retained 8 senior professionals, recycled Kashi & Da Silva and added 5 ( 3 permanent) professionals. Excluding Cebellos & Vetokele we parted with 10 senior professionals. Beyond the "senior" players we remarkably have 12 young players who have shown "the potential" to have a career in the game.

    To compete over a season you need the entire squad to contribute. Over the coming weeks we should be prepared to (and NEED to) see the likes of Barnes, Konsa, Sarr, Aribo, Dijksteel, Lapsie and Hackett Fairchild more heavily involved.

    If Mr (2 players for every position) Robinson has players in his squad he is not prepared play they have no place in his squad. We had 6 months to get this right - you do not now get to point to the inexperience on the bench.

    No matter their inexperience, the squad needs these lads to prove they can compete to be in the team. It is how a squad is supposed to work. Either they are good enough or they are not.

    It is why the final week of the transfer window was so unsatisfactory. The departures of Novak, Crofts, Charles Cook and Hanlan without replacement limits options. 6 months work weakened in 6 days. The Magennis situation is unhealthy.

    Limited options means no competition for places, no game changing bench, no system flexibility, no "next man up", no squad rotation, fatigue, loss of form, injuries, "deep end training" and stagnated player development.

    This past week I suspect we all thought Wigan would offer a footballing challenge while Gillingham would dig in and fight for their lives. It was always going to be interesting to see what teams we selected and what energy levels would be evident. Whether the outcomes of the week represent a pattern we are going to have to accommodate for a while or indeed the rest of the season it is still too early to say.

    My challenge is, as structured, I am not sure we can ask too much more of the "frontline" team who until this week were delivering results. They have been set up and drilled to play a certain way. Are they are individually suited, do they have the collective set up, or "sufficient on-field nous", the options to change the pattern of play if needed?

    Any side can have a bad week. It is now how the manager, coaching staff and players move forward. I will reserve judgement until the end of October, another 8 fixtures, a third of the season, where the squad has had time to evolve and work through its challenges.

    There is much for the squad to prove. People need to step up. There should be opportunities to be seized. We can but give them all the chance to prove what they can do..... one step at a time.

    The challenges will not diminish. We will need to respond against Bury. It will be another physical competitive battle. Lee Clark sides are rarely backward in fighting their corner.

    It is where "Honest Rob" with Messrs Jackson and Bowyer need to earn their "corn".


    Notes:

    Front line squad

    1. Amos 2. Solly 3. Bauer 4. Pearce 5. Forster-Caskey 6. Kashi 7. Marshall* 8. Reeves* 9. Clarke 10. Holmes 11. Magennis

    12. Konsa (based on 1 full season with us)
    13. Fosu (based on 1 season at Colchester)
    14. Da Silva (based on 1/2 season with us)
    15. Coach Jackson

    In support

    1. Phillips - I season in the National League
    2. Page* - 1/2 season with Coventry
    3. Sarr - 1/ 2 season in Ligue 2
    4. Lennon* - 1/2 season for us 2013/2014
    5. Aribo - 15 starts for us 2016/2017
    6. Ahearne Grant - 11 starts for us 2015/2016
    7. Dodoo - 6 starts in the SPL & SLC

    8. Barnes 9. Djiksteel 10. Hackett Fairchild 11. Lapsie 12. Kennedy*

    * Ignores injuries
  • I posted this on another thread on Saturday .. here we go again

    3 4 3 is the way to go .. drop da Silva and/or Solly, bring in Sarr .. like this .. Sarr, Bauer, Pearce .. Konsa, Kashi, F-Caskey, Fosu/Reeves .. Holmes, Clarke, Magennis .. of course .. it will never happen,
    Robinson has improved but he's still a one trick stage magician .. we will never score the necessary goals playing his 4231 way, especially with Magennis as the sole striker .. he's strong, honest and willing but just does not have the required scoring ability to be left alone up front

    Your answer is to play Konsa and Fosu/Reeves at wing back despite not only neither of them ever playing there, and none of them being players who provide natural width?

    If we were playing 4-4-2 nobody would be talking about a change of formation, they'd be talking about a change in patters, positioning, execution, etc. To be fair there are a couple of really thoughtful posts poiting this out. But largely it feels like the criticism of 4-2-3-1 is that either the players don't understand it or we don't understand it.

    It's been pretty bog standard in the game for coming up on 15 years now. Konsa and DaSilva were four, Clarke and Pearce and Holmes all roughly 15. Players will be at least somewhat familiar with it, and I'd venture most of them will have played it before.
  • I like the idea of three at the back given our strength there, but the alternative may be to swop our CHs. Both have been consistently decent but the pace of Sarr and Konsa would allow us to play ten or more yards further up the pitch and thus pass shorter. Additionally Sarr's long passing could negate high pressing. He has been getting decent reviews of late.
  • Sponsored links:


  • I like the idea of three at the back given our strength there, but the alternative may be to swop our CHs. Both have been consistently decent but the pace of Sarr and Konsa would allow us to play ten or more yards further up the pitch and thus pass shorter. Additionally Sarr's long passing could negate high pressing. He has been getting decent reviews of late.

    We've gone from nailed on promotion candidates to praying that Naby Sarr can save our season within the space of a fortnight. Never boring at Charlton!
  • SDAddick said:

    I posted this on another thread on Saturday .. here we go again

    3 4 3 is the way to go .. drop da Silva and/or Solly, bring in Sarr .. like this .. Sarr, Bauer, Pearce .. Konsa, Kashi, F-Caskey, Fosu/Reeves .. Holmes, Clarke, Magennis .. of course .. it will never happen,
    Robinson has improved but he's still a one trick stage magician .. we will never score the necessary goals playing his 4231 way, especially with Magennis as the sole striker .. he's strong, honest and willing but just does not have the required scoring ability to be left alone up front

    Your answer is to play Konsa and Fosu/Reeves at wing back despite not only neither of them ever playing there, and none of them being players who provide natural width?

    If we were playing 4-4-2 nobody would be talking about a change of formation, they'd be talking about a change in patters, positioning, execution, etc. To be fair there are a couple of really thoughtful posts poiting this out. But largely it feels like the criticism of 4-2-3-1 is that either the players don't understand it or we don't understand it.

    It's been pretty bog standard in the game for coming up on 15 years now. Konsa and DaSilva were four, Clarke and Pearce and Holmes all roughly 15. Players will be at least somewhat familiar with it, and I'd venture most of them will have played it before.

    width in a 343? .. Holmes and Clarke .. as to players being experienced at 4231 ? .. does not matter to me if they've played it for years .. it's the wrong formation for these players in this division .. I can't recall another side playing this way .. still, we all have our preferences and opinions, however in this case Robinson is just WRONG ((:>)

    (would not mind if I am wrong of course .. we can play 118 or 811 for all I really care so long as promotion is the end result)
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!