There is nothing wrong with the formation not being balanced. It is all about the players within it. My preference if I had the choice would be 4-3-3 or 4-3-2-1 but we will probably all have different favourites as will different managers. True, some managers may be more pragmatic, look what they have or don't have and play a formation around that even if it is not their favoured one. It isn't that anybody is right or wrong, but Jacko does need to unlock it next season. He deserves a chance to do this. He knows how he wants to set up so he has to ensure we have the right players to make his formation work.
Give JJ a chance.! His first run of games in charge was the first real enjoyment I've had out of CAFC for years so in my world he deserves it just for that. And surely if Thomas backs him and buys him players he wants he'll do as well or better than whatever Adkins-style journeyman alternative we'd be in the market for. And if Thomas doesn't back whatever manager with minimum three or four decent signings who aren't (like the last lot) worse than what we've got then we're going nowhere anyhow, no argument.
Anyone who watched the Lincoln home match sober knows Conor Washington had 4 great chances that day and Jayden Stockley had two opportunities as well. So even that game we had chances to be out of sight despite conceding a couple of poor goals. I said when JJ took over at Sunderland that if he got the Job he would end the season in credit but anyone who thought we would end up in the play offs hadn't been paying attention to the mandatory injuries we get every season for about 4 years; plus we lacked the midfield goal scorers that Aribo, Holmes, Fosu etc used to add to the team if the strikers/lone striker didn't score.
Goal luck to Mason Burstow when he sits on the bench for Chelsea's U23, next season or one of the Chelsea nursery teams other than Cafc, maybe the Dutch side that Chelsea own.
Give JJ a chance.! His first run of games in charge was the first real enjoyment I've had out of CAFC for years so in my world he deserves it just for that. And surely if Thomas backs him and buys him players he wants he'll do as well or better than whatever Adkins-style journeyman alternative we'd be in the market for. And if Thomas doesn't back whatever manager with minimum three or four decent signings who aren't (like the last lot) worse than what we've got then we're going nowhere anyhow, no argument.
Years? You didn't enjoy promotion under Bowyer or the first half of the championship season?
Yup Adkins said he played deeper, Washington said he played deeper but apparently we won because we ditched the 4231 and went to 442 🤷♂️
To be fair in the 90s that would have been called a 4-4-2.
People are comfortable with what they’ve always known. That’s why some want wide players to play on their “correct” side, don’t like wingers playing wing back, want back threes to be made up of three “proper” centre backs and 4-4-2 is the standard “back to basics” formation.
Anyone who watched the Lincoln home match sober knows Conor Washington had 4 great chances that day and Jayden Stockley had two opportunities as well. So even that game we had chances to be out of sight despite conceding a couple of poor goals. I said when JJ took over at Sunderland that if he got the Job he would end the season in credit but anyone who thought we would end up in the play offs hadn't been paying attention to the mandatory injuries we get every season for about 4 years; plus we lacked the midfield goal scorers that Aribo, Holmes, Fosu etc used to add to the team if the strikers/lone striker didn't score.
Goal luck to Mason Burstow when he sits on the bench for Chelsea's U23, next season or one of the Chelsea nursery teams other than Cafc, maybe the Dutch side that Chelsea own.
You're going to hate to find out who we start up front next season.
For all the criticism of the formation, some of it is valid BTW, what is the alternative?
For multiple reasons a back 4 is out of the question, is it.
We'll have to see what happens but I wouldn't be majorly shocked if Jackson recalled the way we played under Powell. Powell also insisted on two strikers and wasn't against a back 3 but when we played with 4 at the back he was very careful to make sure the more expansive winger was on the side with the defensive full back and the midfielder in front of the attacking full back could come in and cover narrow where needed. The fact that midfielder was Jackson you'd assume would give him insight into how that balance was intended to work. We honestly didn't have the most creative central two to cater to our way of playing, Stephens dropped deeper and deeper as the season went on and Hollands mostly snapped at players trying to go through the middle and drove the ball up when he could. We were capable of going over the top to BWP, using Green to cross out wide or Wiggins to get to the byeline, or just hammering it at Yann and watching him tenpin anyone who trid to win a header off him. The problem we'll likely have is being able to get the right kind of player in to suit it. We were very lucky that Jackson and Solly were already in place, so we only had to target a maruading LB and a didn't have to fixate too much on the defensive qualities of the right winger. We would have to rebuild a lot of things to play that way next season. I know 442 is the default for a lot of people but it was a very specific set of players that made it work effectively for us in11/12. I don't think we would have done half as well if we'd spent the season with Evina and Francis as the full backs, or a proper winger on the left
This formation is only really slightly different if you look at where the players actually play as opposed to putting labels on them. You could well imagine that team being set up the same as are now. All beat it the left and right are the other way round.
Exactly right. Formations aren't 'real', they are only a shorthand way to try to explain how a team is expected to play.
The 11/12 team could quite easily have been set-up as a 352 in this way:
These players don't map exactly in terms of ability on the pitch, but you can bet that the roles they are being to asked to perform are nearly identical to their counterpart from 10 years earlier.
I think this is madness. Of the players listed I'd say the strikers are doing the same job and the central CB but that's about it. Hamer was a creative presence himself which MacG can't match. Stephens and Fraser might end up playing similarly if we ever see what Fraser offers but Hollands and Dobson are doing completely different jobs. Hollands was the more attacking of the two midfielders and was expected to provide goals, Dobson's job is to sit in front of the back four and not a great deal else. Wagstaff only started 9 league games so I don't know why you've included him over Green, likely because Green (25 starts) has never tracked back in his life so would make as good a WB as he would a swan, and Wiggins and Matthews couldn't be more different in terms of their roles. Wiggins had a huge creative burden and Matthews is far more focused on defending (in theory). I wouldn't compare Taylor (41 league starts, not Cort, 10) and Clare at all. I don't remember Taylor having the responsibility to overlap the wing back and drive the ball up the pitch. I would have remembered, because it would have been hilarious. As for Gilbey, his role is exclusively to raise Leuth's blood pressure, I can't see anything else being the case, but he's definitely not there to pull in and help the full back overlap while getting down the wing himself. These comparisons just don't match the reality of what we did that season, even if you could theoretically crowbar these players into that formation there's no way they're functionally being asked to do the same things
For all the criticism of the formation, some of it is valid BTW, what is the alternative?
For multiple reasons a back 4 is out of the question, is it.
We'll have to see what happens but I wouldn't be majorly shocked if Jackson recalled the way we played under Powell. Powell also insisted on two strikers and wasn't against a back 3 but when we played with 4 at the back he was very careful to make sure the more expansive winger was on the side with the defensive full back and the midfielder in front of the attacking full back could come in and cover narrow where needed. The fact that midfielder was Jackson you'd assume would give him insight into how that balance was intended to work. We honestly didn't have the most creative central two to cater to our way of playing, Stephens dropped deeper and deeper as the season went on and Hollands mostly snapped at players trying to go through the middle and drove the ball up when he could. We were capable of going over the top to BWP, using Green to cross out wide or Wiggins to get to the byeline, or just hammering it at Yann and watching him tenpin anyone who trid to win a header off him. The problem we'll likely have is being able to get the right kind of player in to suit it. We were very lucky that Jackson and Solly were already in place, so we only had to target a maruading LB and a didn't have to fixate too much on the defensive qualities of the right winger. We would have to rebuild a lot of things to play that way next season. I know 442 is the default for a lot of people but it was a very specific set of players that made it work effectively for us in11/12. I don't think we would have done half as well if we'd spent the season with Evina and Francis as the full backs, or a proper winger on the left
This formation is only really slightly different if you look at where the players actually play as opposed to putting labels on them. You could well imagine that team being set up the same as are now. All beat it the left and right are the other way round.
Exactly right. Formations aren't 'real', they are only a shorthand way to try to explain how a team is expected to play.
The 11/12 team could quite easily have been set-up as a 352 in this way:
These players don't map exactly in terms of ability on the pitch, but you can bet that the roles they are being to asked to perform are nearly identical to their counterpart from 10 years earlier.
I think this is madness. Of the players listed I'd say the strikers are doing the same job and the central CB but that's about it. Hamer was a creative presence himself which MacG can't match. Stephens and Fraser might end up playing similarly if we ever see what Fraser offers but Hollands and Dobson are doing completely different jobs. Hollands was the more attacking of the two midfielders and was expected to provide goals, Dobson's job is to sit in front of the back four and not a great deal else. Wagstaff only started 9 league games so I don't know why you've included him over Green, likely because Green (25 starts) has never tracked back in his life so would make as good a WB as he would a swan, and Wiggins and Matthews couldn't be more different in terms of their roles. Wiggins had a huge creative burden and Matthews is far more focused on defending (in theory). I wouldn't compare Taylor (41 league starts, not Cort, 10) and Clare at all. I don't remember Taylor having the responsibility to overlap the wing back and drive the ball up the pitch. I would have remembered, because it would have been hilarious. As for Gilbey, his role is exclusively to raise Leuth's blood pressure, I can't see anything else being the case, but he's definitely not there to pull in and help the full back overlap while getting down the wing himself. These comparisons just don't match the reality of what we did that season, even if you could theoretically crowbar these players into that formation there's no way they're functionally being asked to do the same things
Lol'd this post for the image of Danny Green as a swan! Please someone photoshop this. :-)
Anyone who watched the Lincoln home match sober knows Conor Washington had 4 great chances that day and Jayden Stockley had two opportunities as well. So even that game we had chances to be out of sight despite conceding a couple of poor goals. I said when JJ took over at Sunderland that if he got the Job he would end the season in credit but anyone who thought we would end up in the play offs hadn't been paying attention to the mandatory injuries we get every season for about 4 years; plus we lacked the midfield goal scorers that Aribo, Holmes, Fosu etc used to add to the team if the strikers/lone striker didn't score.
Goal luck to Mason Burstow when he sits on the bench for Chelsea's U23, next season or one of the Chelsea nursery teams other than Cafc, maybe the Dutch side that Chelsea own.
No one can fault Washington for his effort and genuine all round enthusiasm…..however, his natural goal scoring instincts are not anywhere near good enough. A real shame for all concerned, there’s so many things to admire him for but sadly finding the back of the net isn’t one of them.
For all the criticism of the formation, some of it is valid BTW, what is the alternative?
For multiple reasons a back 4 is out of the question, is it.
We'll have to see what happens but I wouldn't be majorly shocked if Jackson recalled the way we played under Powell. Powell also insisted on two strikers and wasn't against a back 3 but when we played with 4 at the back he was very careful to make sure the more expansive winger was on the side with the defensive full back and the midfielder in front of the attacking full back could come in and cover narrow where needed. The fact that midfielder was Jackson you'd assume would give him insight into how that balance was intended to work. We honestly didn't have the most creative central two to cater to our way of playing, Stephens dropped deeper and deeper as the season went on and Hollands mostly snapped at players trying to go through the middle and drove the ball up when he could. We were capable of going over the top to BWP, using Green to cross out wide or Wiggins to get to the byeline, or just hammering it at Yann and watching him tenpin anyone who trid to win a header off him. The problem we'll likely have is being able to get the right kind of player in to suit it. We were very lucky that Jackson and Solly were already in place, so we only had to target a maruading LB and a didn't have to fixate too much on the defensive qualities of the right winger. We would have to rebuild a lot of things to play that way next season. I know 442 is the default for a lot of people but it was a very specific set of players that made it work effectively for us in11/12. I don't think we would have done half as well if we'd spent the season with Evina and Francis as the full backs, or a proper winger on the left
This formation is only really slightly different if you look at where the players actually play as opposed to putting labels on them. You could well imagine that team being set up the same as are now. All beat it the left and right are the other way round.
Exactly right. Formations aren't 'real', they are only a shorthand way to try to explain how a team is expected to play.
The 11/12 team could quite easily have been set-up as a 352 in this way:
These players don't map exactly in terms of ability on the pitch, but you can bet that the roles they are being to asked to perform are nearly identical to their counterpart from 10 years earlier.
I think this is madness. Of the players listed I'd say the strikers are doing the same job and the central CB but that's about it.
1. Hamer was a creative presence himself which MacG can't match.
2. Stephens and Fraser might end up playing similarly if we ever see what Fraser offers but Hollands and Dobson are doing completely different jobs. Hollands was the more attacking of the two midfielders and was expected to provide goals, Dobson's job is to sit in front of the back four and not a great deal else.
3. Wagstaff only started 9 league games so I don't know why you've included him over Green, likely because Green (25 starts) has never tracked back in his life so would make as good a WB as he would a swan, and
4. Wiggins and Matthews couldn't be more different in terms of their roles. Wiggins had a huge creative burden and Matthews is far more focused on defending (in theory).
5. I wouldn't compare Taylor (41 league starts, not Cort, 10) and Clare at all. I don't remember Taylor having the responsibility to overlap the wing back and drive the ball up the pitch. I would have remembered, because it would have been hilarious.
6. As for Gilbey, his role is exclusively to raise Leuth's blood pressure, I can't see anything else being the case, but he's definitely not there to pull in and help the full back overlap while getting down the wing himself.
These comparisons just don't match the reality of what we did that season, even if you could theoretically crowbar these players into that formation there's no way they're functionally being asked to do the same things
1. If your argument here is creativity, MacG has a couple of assists already this season. Is he as good as Hamer? No, but that's not the point I was making.
2. The combination of Stephens and Hollands is covered by the combination of Dobson and Fraser. I honestly put Fraser with Stephens because they are the better passers, although Dobson is no mug either. If it makes you feel more comfortable I can switch them and put Dobson and Stephens together (sit and pass from deep) with Hollands and Fraser (left footers, score a few) together?
3. I picked Wagstaff for no reason in particular - although he obviously was the better player... :-) You make a great joke about Danny Green however I'm sure half of this forum would have said the same thing about Corey Blackett-Taylor before he actually played there, wouldn't they? The fact is, he is contributing occasionally to the defensive side but his primary focus is getting down the wing, exactly as it was for Wagstaff/Green.
4. I'll refer back to point 1 on this one. The only reason Matthews is more defensively focused than Wiggins is because Wiggins was about four times the player. Just because the player is worse doesn't mean they not being asked to do similar things tactically. Look at the goal away at Wimbledon, Matthews has this in his locker but can't produce it often enough.
5. Taylor or Cort getting wide and overlapping the wing back would be funny, yes. The whole idea of overlapping centre backs would've been hilarious ten years ago so I don't disagree. Probably the toughest comparison I had to make.
6. Gilbey and Jackson have more similar roles than you might want to admit - they run themselves into the ground and contribute in both boxes. That's the theory anyway. Despite the song from his playing days, Jackson very rarely ran down the wing. He never had the pace for that. He sat tight, provided presence in the middle of the park, contributed a few goals and let Wiggins supply the width behind him.
None of this is sheer fantasy. I think it's a bit of an uncomfortable truth for some.
Anyone who watched the Lincoln home match sober knows Conor Washington had 4 great chances that day and Jayden Stockley had two opportunities as well. So even that game we had chances to be out of sight despite conceding a couple of poor goals. I said when JJ took over at Sunderland that if he got the Job he would end the season in credit but anyone who thought we would end up in the play offs hadn't been paying attention to the mandatory injuries we get every season for about 4 years; plus we lacked the midfield goal scorers that Aribo, Holmes, Fosu etc used to add to the team if the strikers/lone striker didn't score.
Goal luck to Mason Burstow when he sits on the bench for Chelsea's U23, next season or one of the Chelsea nursery teams other than Cafc, maybe the Dutch side that Chelsea own.
You're going to hate to find out who we start up front next season.
Why ? My point was in matches when Washington and Stockley play as a two up front we generally create lots of chances and get positive results. Against Lincoln both were profligate so we lost.
Aneke and the new striker hopefully will give us 4 strikers who can push each other on and Chuks can be involved in the squad at least as many occasions as in his last full season when he was in the 18 on 36 occasions and was a super Sub.
It's pointless mentioning Daniel Kanu as he will be gone quicker than Mason Burstow when a Premier team offer a million or two.
The reason why we are no where near getting promoted this season seems pretty apparent when you look at the list above. Of the players in the right column only Blackett Taylor is better than the player he is paired with on the left. We can chop and change managers as much as we like, but better players are required to get a decent chance of promotion
The only defence I can give for JJ is he has proved he can muster a team to beat some of the best teams on their own patch ~ Sunderland, Rotherham etc
Without Stuckley and Missington playing he fails to get anything from this squad. Which is worrying. During this period I believe I witnessed the worst Charlton side in 40 years.
And when he DOES play Stuckley &Missington they seem to create and miss LOTS of chances.
All of which makes me think - if the team functions very well when these two are playing ~ how much better will the team play if we replace them with strikers that can actually score
If we can beat Sunderland and Rotherham away then we have at least proved ourselves capable at this level. But the consistency is not there. Yet.
Give JJ a chance.! His first run of games in charge was the first real enjoyment I've had out of CAFC for years so in my world he deserves it just for that. And surely if Thomas backs him and buys him players he wants he'll do as well or better than whatever Adkins-style journeyman alternative we'd be in the market for. And if Thomas doesn't back whatever manager with minimum three or four decent signings who aren't (like the last lot) worse than what we've got then we're going nowhere anyhow, no argument.
Years? You didn't enjoy promotion under Bowyer or the first half of the championship season?
Was just typing this out but seen you've beaten me to it!
The reason why we are no where near getting promoted this season seems pretty apparent when you look at the list above. Of the players in the right column only Blackett Taylor is better than the player he is paired with on the left. We can chop and change managers as much as we like, but better players are required to get a decent chance of promotion
Spot on. It’s very similar if you compare to Bowyer’s team too.
If you get lucky with a brilliant manager getting an average squad promoted it’ll likely fall apart when the manager moves on.
There’s not really any doubt that Jackson would get better results if he had one or two more senior strikers. If we improve other positions too that can only help.
At this level winning games is more important than playing the best football, but better football is also more likely with improved recruitment.
Of those players above in the 11/12 team only three (Solly, Wagstaff and Jackson) were at the club the previous season. With the exception of Kermorgant all the rest were bought early and took part in pre season.
In some ways we are in a similar position to where we were at the end of 10/11 season in that several weeks before the end of the season we know which league we will be playing our football in next year. If the club are serious about really pushing for promotion I would suggest we do similar. That means maybe Blackett Taylor, Dobson and Lavelle could be regular starters next term and some of the others useful squad players and back up. Bit we would need around seven players early that are of a higher quality to what we have and regular first 11 starters.
Comments
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/58289416
Goal luck to Mason Burstow when he sits on the bench for Chelsea's U23, next season or one of the Chelsea nursery teams other than Cafc, maybe the Dutch side that Chelsea own.
People are comfortable with what they’ve always known. That’s why some want wide players to play on their “correct” side, don’t like wingers playing wing back, want back threes to be made up of three “proper” centre backs and 4-4-2 is the standard “back to basics” formation.
Lol'd this post for the image of Danny Green as a swan! Please someone photoshop this. :-)
A real shame for all concerned, there’s so many things to admire him for but sadly finding the back of the net isn’t one of them.
2. The combination of Stephens and Hollands is covered by the combination of Dobson and Fraser. I honestly put Fraser with Stephens because they are the better passers, although Dobson is no mug either. If it makes you feel more comfortable I can switch them and put Dobson and Stephens together (sit and pass from deep) with Hollands and Fraser (left footers, score a few) together?
3. I picked Wagstaff for no reason in particular - although he obviously was the better player... :-) You make a great joke about Danny Green however I'm sure half of this forum would have said the same thing about Corey Blackett-Taylor before he actually played there, wouldn't they? The fact is, he is contributing occasionally to the defensive side but his primary focus is getting down the wing, exactly as it was for Wagstaff/Green.
4. I'll refer back to point 1 on this one. The only reason Matthews is more defensively focused than Wiggins is because Wiggins was about four times the player. Just because the player is worse doesn't mean they not being asked to do similar things tactically. Look at the goal away at Wimbledon, Matthews has this in his locker but can't produce it often enough.
5. Taylor or Cort getting wide and overlapping the wing back would be funny, yes. The whole idea of overlapping centre backs would've been hilarious ten years ago so I don't disagree. Probably the toughest comparison I had to make.
6. Gilbey and Jackson have more similar roles than you might want to admit - they run themselves into the ground and contribute in both boxes. That's the theory anyway. Despite the song from his playing days, Jackson very rarely ran down the wing. He never had the pace for that. He sat tight, provided presence in the middle of the park, contributed a few goals and let Wiggins supply the width behind him.
None of this is sheer fantasy. I think it's a bit of an uncomfortable truth for some.
Why ? My point was in matches when Washington and Stockley play as a two up front we generally create lots of chances and get positive results. Against Lincoln both were profligate so we lost.
Aneke and the new striker hopefully will give us 4 strikers who can push each other on and Chuks can be involved in the squad at least as many occasions as in his last full season when he was in the 18 on 36 occasions and was a super Sub.
It's pointless mentioning Daniel Kanu as he will be gone quicker than Mason Burstow when a Premier team offer a million or two.
Solly -> Purrington
Morrison -> Lavelle
Cort -> Clare
Wagstaff -> Blackett-Taylor
Stephens -> Fraser
Hollands -> Dobson
Jackson -> Gilbey
Wiggins -> Matthews
Kermorgant -> Stockley
BWP -> Washington
The reason why we are no where near getting promoted this season seems pretty apparent when you look at the list above. Of the players in the right column only Blackett Taylor is better than the player he is paired with on the left. We can chop and change managers as much as we like, but better players are required to get a decent chance of promotion
Without Stuckley and Missington playing he fails to get anything from this squad. Which is worrying. During this period I believe I witnessed the worst Charlton side in 40 years.
And when he DOES play Stuckley &Missington they seem to create and miss LOTS of chances.
All of which makes me think - if the team functions very well when these two are playing ~ how much better will the team play if we replace them with strikers that can actually score
If we can beat Sunderland and Rotherham away then we have at least proved ourselves capable at this level. But the consistency is not there. Yet.
No matter how what context you want to put to it no one would have been successful with this squad of players.
If you get lucky with a brilliant manager getting an average squad promoted it’ll likely fall apart when the manager moves on.
There’s not really any doubt that Jackson would get better results if he had one or two more senior strikers. If we improve other positions too that can only help.
At this level winning games is more important than playing the best football, but better football is also more likely with improved recruitment.
In some ways we are in a similar position to where we were at the end of 10/11 season in that several weeks before the end of the season we know which league we will be playing our football in next year. If the club are serious about really pushing for promotion I would suggest we do similar. That means maybe Blackett Taylor, Dobson and Lavelle could be regular starters next term and some of the others useful squad players and back up. Bit we would need around seven players early that are of a higher quality to what we have and regular first 11 starters.
We've won 2 of our last 5 and 5 of our last 15.
Hard to believe that puts us near the top of any form table.