|
|
Post by athenempadu on Feb 2, 2024 8:49:22 GMT
Now is not the time to experiment, but at some point I would like to see James on the right, Johnson on the left, with Brooks at No.10. I'm sure there are goals to be had if we play with inverted wingers. (James has been banging them in at Leeds). With a CF too - so a back 4 then? It's no problem with Ampadu & James sitting in front of them. It's how Leeds play, and Rodon is thriving in a back 4. |
|
|
|
Post by athenempadu on Feb 2, 2024 8:54:02 GMT
With a CF too - so a back 4 then? i would love it if we went to a back 4 to accommodate our attacking talents (by that i mean if we were able to successfully play with a back 4). but unfortunately it has to be a back 5 for the foreseeable... to keep us in games and to prevent us getting over run Ampadu often drops in-between the two CB's during a game when required, so we have the perfect player to make a back 4 work. |
|
|
|
Post by iot on Feb 2, 2024 10:01:44 GMT
i would love it if we went to a back 4 to accommodate our attacking talents (by that i mean if we were able to successfully play with a back 4). but unfortunately it has to be a back 5 for the foreseeable... to keep us in games and to prevent us getting over run Ampadu often drops in-between the two CB's during a game when required, so we have the perfect player to make a back 4 work. I tend to agree with rangers15. We've had the constant temptation over the last few years to play with a back 4 to fit in another attacker, but it hasn't been as effective. I accept that wasn't helped at times by playing Ramsey in deep midfield, although there have been other occasions where we've had an Ampadu-Morrell combo and it's still been ineffective. In fact, we started 3 of the first 4 games of the campaign with Ampadu and Morrell ahead of a back 4 (Croatia away, Latvia home, and Turkey away) and I don't think we looked more of a threat (the opposite in fact) and were more ineffective overall compared to latter performances when we switched to a back 5. It may be slightly different now with James ahead of morrell and Ampadu having played more consistently in midfield, but I suspect it wouldn't go the way we all hope. There's also the question of the impact on the back 4. Rodon would be fine, but I'd still be concerned about playing Davies as one of two centre backs against good quality opposition. I know he's been deployed there a lot for Spurs this season, but we're not Spurs - he would be a much more traditional cb for us in a much more traditional system and may get found out a lot more. Neco isn't nearly as effective when switches from a wing back to a full back as well. So even though we would be able to get a better 11 on the pitch with a 4231 formation, I still think we're likely to perform better overall with a back 5. |
|
|
|
Post by allezlesrouges on Feb 2, 2024 11:31:04 GMT
I think we've proven a back 5 is best for us at home, enables us to be more attacking and on the front foot because we impose ourselves more at home. It also gives us a solid defensive platform simultaneously
However, I do think the back 5's weaknesses have been shown up in away performances against teams that can get on top of us. Armenia being the prime example. What happens is due to the fact we're the away side we can't impose ourselves as well as at home, and then teams pîn back our wing backs and it becomes very difficult to play out and take the pressure off because it becomes so congested
In some respects I think a back 4 away from home with Ampadu & JJ in front might make us more solid. There's more space for build up play so we keep the ball better. We'd have wide outlets as well as more, so more options for long balls (when we play long in a back 5 it never seems to work because the 10s have to drop back & Moore gets isolated), and having a genuine counter-attacking threat is a key thing we missed against Armenia
Next time we have a tough away qualifier I would like to see;
Ward
Neco-Rodon-Mepham-Davies
JJ-Ampadu
Brennan-Brooks-DJ
Moore
I'm open to Lockyer/Wilson/Ramsey for Mepham/Brooks, but I think Moore down the middle with two quick wingers will see a better away showing that what we've done recently
|
|
|
|
Post by athenempadu on Feb 2, 2024 12:06:00 GMT
I think we've proven a back 5 is best for us at home, enables us to be more attacking and on the front foot because we impose ourselves more at home. It also gives us a solid defensive platform simultaneously However, I do think the back 5's weaknesses have been shown up in away performances against teams that can get on top of us. Armenia being the prime example. What happens is due to the fact we're the away side we can't impose ourselves as well as at home, and then teams pîn back our wing backs and it becomes very difficult to play out and take the pressure off because it becomes so congested In some respects I think a back 4 away from home with Ampadu & JJ in front might make us more solid. There's more space for build up play so we keep the ball better. We'd have wide outlets as well as more, so more options for long balls (when we play long in a back 5 it never seems to work because the 10s have to drop back & Moore gets isolated), and having a genuine counter-attacking threat is a key thing we missed against Armenia Next time we have a tough away qualifier I would like to see; Ward Neco-Rodon-Mepham-Davies JJ-Ampadu Brennan-Brooks-DJ Moore I'm open to Lockyer/Wilson/Ramsey for Mepham/Brooks, but I think Moore down the middle with two quick wingers will see a better away showing that what we've done recently A modern back 4 is very fluid, and they can morph into a back 3 when required. Full-backs can become wingers or midfielders, and wingers can become midfielders or full-backs. Midfielders can drop into defensive positions or attack, etc, and everybody defends as a unit. With all of these new tactical innovations taking place, having 3 defenders lined up in a row at the back seems a bit old fashioned and ponderous to me. However, I wouldn't trust Page to implement any new system like this, so it's best to stick to a back 3! |
|
|
|
Post by iot on Feb 2, 2024 12:28:51 GMT
I think we've proven a back 5 is best for us at home, enables us to be more attacking and on the front foot because we impose ourselves more at home. It also gives us a solid defensive platform simultaneously However, I do think the back 5's weaknesses have been shown up in away performances against teams that can get on top of us. Armenia being the prime example. What happens is due to the fact we're the away side we can't impose ourselves as well as at home, and then teams pîn back our wing backs and it becomes very difficult to play out and take the pressure off because it becomes so congested In some respects I think a back 4 away from home with Ampadu & JJ in front might make us more solid. There's more space for build up play so we keep the ball better. We'd have wide outlets as well as more, so more options for long balls (when we play long in a back 5 it never seems to work because the 10s have to drop back & Moore gets isolated), and having a genuine counter-attacking threat is a key thing we missed against Armenia Next time we have a tough away qualifier I would like to see; Ward Neco-Rodon-Mepham-Davies JJ-Ampadu Brennan-Brooks-DJ Moore I'm open to Lockyer/Wilson/Ramsey for Mepham/Brooks, but I think Moore down the middle with two quick wingers will see a better away showing that what we've done recently Interesting theory, but can't say I agree with it. I just think it's too much of a reach and you're reading too much into one or two games. Intuitively, I think most people would say a back 5 is a more effective formation away from home because it's a better counterattacking formation. Also if you look at the campaign as a whole, we played 2 away games each with a back 4 (Croatia and Turkey) and back 5 (Latvia and Armenia). None were good performances, although I would say the latter were better than the former (let's be honest, we were lucky not to lose by a couple of goals in Croatia). Yes, having our wingbacks pinned back is always the risk and downfall of a back 5, so the focus should be around rectifying that, and I just don't buy that it's due to us playing away from home that we get pinned back. I keep banging on about it, but we were brilliant against good quality opposition playing with a back 5 away in Prague in the previous campaign, when's the last time we put in a performance like that away from home with a back 4? |
|
|
|
Post by iot on Feb 2, 2024 12:32:37 GMT
I think we've proven a back 5 is best for us at home, enables us to be more attacking and on the front foot because we impose ourselves more at home. It also gives us a solid defensive platform simultaneously However, I do think the back 5's weaknesses have been shown up in away performances against teams that can get on top of us. Armenia being the prime example. What happens is due to the fact we're the away side we can't impose ourselves as well as at home, and then teams pîn back our wing backs and it becomes very difficult to play out and take the pressure off because it becomes so congested In some respects I think a back 4 away from home with Ampadu & JJ in front might make us more solid. There's more space for build up play so we keep the ball better. We'd have wide outlets as well as more, so more options for long balls (when we play long in a back 5 it never seems to work because the 10s have to drop back & Moore gets isolated), and having a genuine counter-attacking threat is a key thing we missed against Armenia Next time we have a tough away qualifier I would like to see; Ward Neco-Rodon-Mepham-Davies JJ-Ampadu Brennan-Brooks-DJ Moore I'm open to Lockyer/Wilson/Ramsey for Mepham/Brooks, but I think Moore down the middle with two quick wingers will see a better away showing that what we've done recently A modern back 4 is very fluid, and they can morph into a back 3 when required. Full-backs can become wingers or midfielders, and wingers can become midfielders or full-backs. Midfielders can drop into defensive positions or attack, etc, and everybody defends as a unit. With all of these new tactical innovations taking place, having 3 defenders lined up in a row at the back seems a bit old fashioned and ponderous to me. However, I wouldn't trust Page to implement any new system like this, so it's best to stick to a back 3! I think you've identified the issue with that last sentence + to be fair to Page, it's just a lot more difficult to introduce tactical innovations in international football because you only get 3 or 4 training days each window. Connor Roberts was playing brilliantly as a hybrid full back / CM last season, and you'd imagine that Neco has the skillset to do it as well, so I've often felt that could give us a really interesting dynamic in midfield, but I just don't think Page has the nous or time to implement it. |
|
|
|
Post by athenempadu on Feb 2, 2024 13:56:48 GMT
A modern back 4 is very fluid, and they can morph into a back 3 when required. Full-backs can become wingers or midfielders, and wingers can become midfielders or full-backs. Midfielders can drop into defensive positions or attack, etc, and everybody defends as a unit. With all of these new tactical innovations taking place, having 3 defenders lined up in a row at the back seems a bit old fashioned and ponderous to me. However, I wouldn't trust Page to implement any new system like this, so it's best to stick to a back 3! I think you've identified the issue with that last sentence + to be fair to Page, it's just a lot more difficult to introduce tactical innovations in international football because you only get 3 or 4 training days each window. Connor Roberts was playing brilliantly as a hybrid full back / CM last season, and you'd imagine that Neco has the skillset to do it as well, so I've often felt that could give us a really interesting dynamic in midfield, but I just don't think Page has the nous or time to implement it. I wouldn't pay too much attention to what I'm saying, as I've been watching a lot of Farke ball lately! |
|
|
|
Post by allezlesrouges on Feb 2, 2024 22:36:50 GMT
I think we've proven a back 5 is best for us at home, enables us to be more attacking and on the front foot because we impose ourselves more at home. It also gives us a solid defensive platform simultaneously However, I do think the back 5's weaknesses have been shown up in away performances against teams that can get on top of us. Armenia being the prime example. What happens is due to the fact we're the away side we can't impose ourselves as well as at home, and then teams pîn back our wing backs and it becomes very difficult to play out and take the pressure off because it becomes so congested In some respects I think a back 4 away from home with Ampadu & JJ in front might make us more solid. There's more space for build up play so we keep the ball better. We'd have wide outlets as well as more, so more options for long balls (when we play long in a back 5 it never seems to work because the 10s have to drop back & Moore gets isolated), and having a genuine counter-attacking threat is a key thing we missed against Armenia Next time we have a tough away qualifier I would like to see; Ward Neco-Rodon-Mepham-Davies JJ-Ampadu Brennan-Brooks-DJ Moore I'm open to Lockyer/Wilson/Ramsey for Mepham/Brooks, but I think Moore down the middle with two quick wingers will see a better away showing that what we've done recently Interesting theory, but can't say I agree with it. I just think it's too much of a reach and you're reading too much into one or two games. Intuitively, I think most people would say a back 5 is a more effective formation away from home because it's a better counterattacking formation. Also if you look at the campaign as a whole, we played 2 away games each with a back 4 (Croatia and Turkey) and back 5 (Latvia and Armenia). None were good performances, although I would say the latter were better than the former (let's be honest, we were lucky not to lose by a couple of goals in Croatia). Yes, having our wingbacks pinned back is always the risk and downfall of a back 5, so the focus should be around rectifying that, and I just don't buy that it's due to us playing away from home that we get pinned back. I keep banging on about it, but we were brilliant against good quality opposition playing with a back 5 away in Prague in the previous campaign, when's the last time we put in a performance like that away from home with a back 4? I'm trying to read into games where we had 2 sitting midfielders, so Ampadu with either JJ or Morrell. The two games we played with a back 4 we managed to limit Croatia (the xG was 1.75-0.67 which suggests 2-1 would have been a fair score), and then against Turkey we limited them prior to the red card (albeit I'll accept we offered nothing much going forward in both games) We did well against Latvia with a back 5 yes, but again that fits into what I'm saying because they were an inferior opponent who couldn't pin us back - so it worked in that game. Then we go to Armenia away who are a better side and it's possibly our worst performance out of the lot and we offer next to nothing Yes we were great in that Prague game but the Czechs were awful, so it's hard to say how much of that was down to us just being good but I'm willing to grant that as a positive example of the back 5. We played a back 4 when we beat Turkey 2-0 in the Euros, and crucially we had round pegs in round holes with Allen & Morrell behind Ramsey and Bale & DJ out wide with Moore up top. The reason I thought 5 at the back was a good idea was due to our midfield problems, but now we've unearthed JJ I think a back 4 is viable again, and could give us more of an outlet for away games - that's why I want to see us try it in the Nations League. JJ coming in is the gamechanger that makes it viable because I believe he gives us the structure and stability to make it work |
|
|
|
Post by allezlesrouges on Feb 3, 2024 11:33:52 GMT
Starting on the right today, and keeping Kulusevski out of the team
|
|
|
|
Post by athenempadu on Feb 3, 2024 12:09:38 GMT
Starting on the right today, and keeping Kulusevski out of the team They should have kept him on the bench for a while. |
|
|
|
Post by athenempadu on Feb 3, 2024 14:22:21 GMT
And he's off (64')
Total Touches - 20
Goals - 0
Assists - 0
Chances Created - 0
Successful Dribbles - 1/2 (50%)
Accurate Crosses - 0/1 (0%)
Accurate Long Balls - 0/2 (0%)
Pass Accuracy - 6/15 (40%)
Tackles Won - 0/1 (0%)
Aerial Duels Won - 0/3 (0%)
Ground Duels Won - 3/7 (43%)
|
|
|
|
Post by surge on Feb 10, 2024 17:09:24 GMT
Scores when coming off the bench.
|
|
|
|
Post by athenempadu on Mar 2, 2024 22:07:10 GMT
Assists when coming off the bench.
|
|
|
|
Post by erasedcitizen on Mar 3, 2024 9:51:22 GMT
Assists when coming off the bench. First assist was a peach. Even Werner couldn't miss! |
|
|
|
Post by athenempadu on Mar 10, 2024 12:45:33 GMT
Starts on the left against Villa.
|
|
|
|
Post by cynonvalley on Mar 10, 2024 14:13:41 GMT
Gol!
|
|
|
|
Post by allezlesrouges on Mar 10, 2024 20:50:04 GMT
4 goals and 6 assists in 24 Premier League games now
|
|
|
|
Post by cogancoronation31 on Mar 22, 2024 10:36:09 GMT
Looking back at last night's bright start against Finland, Brennan's contribution should not be overlooked. It was his smart one-two with Harry wilson that led directly to Brooksie's opener.
Overall performance from Brennan also praiseworthy - many nice touches, offlays and of course being in the right place for that important third goal just after HT.
|
|
|
|
Post by athenempadu on Mar 24, 2024 15:37:05 GMT
Looking back at last night's bright start against Finland, Brennan's contribution should not be overlooked. It was his smart one-two with Harry wilson that led directly to Brooksie's opener. Overall performance from Brennan also praiseworthy - many nice touches, offlays and of course being in the right place for that important third goal just after HT. Johnson is a key member of the team and we are lucky to have him, Wilson, James, and Brooks, especially since the latter never plays more than 60 mins in a match (medical reasons?), and throwing Moore into the mix I would say they are all essential players for us. |
|
|
|
Post by hooky on Mar 24, 2024 16:02:16 GMT
James and Brennan = pace
Ampadu and JJ = strength and athleticism
Neco = attacking full back with quality
Rodon and Mepham = great height at back
Brooks, Wilson and Ramsey (when he is fit) = playmaking capability
Moore = a different way of playing the game with a target man
Davies = intelligence
Vast majority of our players are capable of grabbing a goal.
You just wish we had a goalkeeper who actually played games (!) and that our central defenders were capable of nicking the odd set piece goal - it is a bit shocking when you consider Rodon and Mepham are both 6ft 4in - the same height as the Orc that is Harry Maguire!
We have a pretty nice blend of players that give us options with just a couple of weaknesses. Vast majority of our players are now playing regularly and we have been lucky with injuries this time.
I hope we can do it!
|
|
|
|
Post by jimexotic on Mar 26, 2024 23:37:05 GMT
Some very promising moments from Brennan tonight, there was a moment where he beautifully controlled the ball from a long pass and took it in is stride and it made me think "yeah, he's the one we're looking to in the future to make things happen". The team lacked a spark in the final third tonight but it wasn't for Brennan's lack of trying.
|
|
|
|
Post by morg on Mar 26, 2024 23:41:24 GMT
Think Moore as a second half sub is the way to go from now on. Front 3 from Wilson,Brooks,Johnson,James and in time Colwill,Koumas etc. Think Poland were probably relieved when they saw Kieffer start.
|
|
|
|
Post by athenempadu on Mar 26, 2024 23:52:49 GMT
Think Moore as a second half sub is the way to go from now on. Front 3 from Wilson,Brooks,Johnson,James and in time Colwill,Koumas etc. Think Poland were probably relieved when they saw Kieffer start. I'd like to see us try a 4-2-3-1 at some point, maybe in a friendly. |
|
|
|
Post by gruffudd on Mar 26, 2024 23:58:47 GMT
Some great touches by Brennan, looked very dangerous in first half, looked like either a 1on1 with keeper or cross from him to get a goal. After he went off not much going forward from us.
|
|
|
|
Post by ddirpytnop on Mar 27, 2024 0:40:21 GMT
Some great touches by Brennan, looked very dangerous in first half, looked like either a 1on1 with keeper or cross from him to get a goal. After he went off not much going forward from us. Definitely one of Brennan's better games. Rather unlucky to be substituted so early in my opinion. Moore should have been the one to come off. |
|
|
|
Post by gruffudd on Mar 27, 2024 0:45:36 GMT
Some great touches by Brennan, looked very dangerous in first half, looked like either a 1on1 with keeper or cross from him to get a goal. After he went off not much going forward from us. Definitely one of Brennan's better games. Rather unlucky to be substituted so early in my opinion. Moore should have been the one to come off. Why was Brooks brought on then off, suggestion was he was not fit or ill. |
|
|
|
Post by dai on Mar 27, 2024 1:40:58 GMT
Definitely one of Brennan's better games. Rather unlucky to be substituted so early in my opinion. Moore should have been the one to come off. Why was Brooks brought on then off, suggestion was he was not fit or ill. Page has confirmed post match that Brooks has been ill since Thursday night and hasn't trained at all before this match. |
|
|
|
Post by gruffudd on Mar 27, 2024 1:46:28 GMT
Why was Brooks brought on then off, suggestion was he was not fit or ill. Page has confirmed post match that Brooks has been ill since Thursday night and hasn't trained at all before this match. Then why did he play, there were other options. |
|
|
|
Post by dai on Mar 27, 2024 1:48:37 GMT
Page has confirmed post match that Brooks has been ill since Thursday night and hasn't trained at all before this match. Then why did he play, there were other options. Who knows. Why did Moore play 120 minutes despite being knackered after 70? Why did Page decide to play Dan James at RWB for the first time (I think) in a playoff final? It's easy to criticise afterwards, but lots of questionable decisions from Page tonight. |
|
