|
|
Post by winsumluzsum on Nov 20, 2023 20:59:56 GMT
Broadhead was very energetic when he came on. In theory, a front three of James, Johnson and Broadhead should be good at pressing high up the pitch. That assumes Johnson is switched on, which is a big if. However, I think we have to go for it from the off, and press Turkiye high up the pitch. It's not something we've really tried in this campaign, but with that trio we could pull it off. I think we should start with a back three, put push the wing backs further on to form a 3-4-3 rather than a 5-2-3. Wing back on the opposite side of play to drop back to form a back four. If we're chasing the game second half, then a switch to a back 4 might work. Should we be in front second half bring on Wilson, Brooks and Moore and sit deep, looking to counter with long balls up to Moore, but making sure we get players in and around him. Broadleaf no, no, no. He lost the ball so many times in dangerous positions and totally killed our momentum Only use if it’s last roll of the die time as his game is just not good enough at international level He was hardly on long enough for such a negative take. I've watched the match twice and he wasn't any worse or better than our other forward players - but he was energetic. I really think Page needs to do something a little bit different if we're to get something from the Turkiye game, and if we are to attempt a high press then you have to play three front players who have what it takes. I'd be amazed if Page goes with a front three of James, Johnson and Broadhead. He's much more likely to to with Moore, Brooks and Wilson again. You can be pretty sure that the Turkish coach will be well prepared for that eventuality. |
|
|
|
Post by winsumluzsum on Nov 20, 2023 21:02:12 GMT
In Mepham's absence I would draft Low into the seniors for tomorrow's game. If we need a centre back off the bench I'd sooner choose him over Cabango, who's a solid Championship defender, but I would say that Low has a much higher ceiling...
|
|
|
|
Post by winsumluzsum on Nov 20, 2023 22:15:37 GMT
My wish may come true, if this quote from Page is anything to go by: "What we do need, from minute one, is energy. Off the back of [Turkey's] result against Germany and the threat they pose, we have to have energy in that team."
James and Johnson very likely to start, perhaps with Wilson on the right and Johnson as a 9.
|
|
|
|
Post by hooky on Nov 20, 2023 22:35:39 GMT
I do not listen to Page's ramblings anymore. If we get a results or get through the play offs it will be despite being held back by a coach who is well below the standard of his counterpart. We basically need a big slice of luck to compensate.
I have never lost faith completely in a manager(other than in Gould and Smith) like I have in Page. The worst thing is I feel indifferent as its just sad watching this all happen in slow motion. Wish him the best for the future but am tired of his tenure in charge now. We need to renew
|
|
|
|
Post by winsumluzsum on Nov 20, 2023 22:41:35 GMT
When he gets the starting tactics right things can go very well at times. The problem arises when his opposite number makes changes to counter what's working for us.
|
|
|
|
Post by manulike on Nov 20, 2023 22:55:19 GMT
Also got a pair of tickets available in the Canton stand. Face value. Available to transfer on the FAW app thingy. TT holder. Not a Steve Evans poster (if that matters)..... Happy to vouch for gwernybwch - as kosher as they come ;-) |
|
|
|
Post by fireboy0610 on Nov 20, 2023 23:14:58 GMT
Also got a pair of tickets available in the Canton stand. Face value. Available to transfer on the FAW app thingy. TT holder. Not a Steve Evans poster (if that matters)..... I got in there first ok 😁👌 |
|
|
|
Post by allezlesrouges on Nov 20, 2023 23:24:21 GMT
Yeah I'd like to see a back 4 tried, nothing to lose at this point. We haven't tried a back 4 since JJ has come in and I'd like to see whether it makes us any better in that system Ward Huggins-Lockyer-Rodon-Davies Ampadu-JJ Brennan-Wilson-James Moore Sorry but… back 4 hasn’t worked well for us for some time, and there is absolutely no world where Huggins is a better RB than Neco. I would probably start Broadhead up top. As Moore looked knackered But as I said we haven't tried a back 4 since JJ came in, so it's quite possible he fits a gap that makes that system come together and work. Vaguely gesturing to a back 4 not working previously as a reason not to do it again is just illogical in my opinion, should we never play a back 4 ever again by that logic?? No Furthermore it worked well under Giggs at a time, we even used it to great effect against Turkey at the Euros. There have also been plenty of poor performances in a back 5 now (Iran, USA, Armenia, Ukraine - all really important games where it hasn't worked), teams who know what they are doing seem to figure us out in that system. So you could just as easily say back 5 hasn't worked for us in key games. Ultimately we *have* to find a system that works, and I think we need to try a 4-2-3-1 with JJ in the mix now in order to get the best out of our strongest position the forward options. Football is about adapting to try and find a solution Re: Huggins, he's in really good form playing regularly in the Championship. Neco hasn't been playing, Roberts has been dropped by Burnley and been poor for us for some time. I don't know if Huggins is a better RB than either, but the level he's performing at suggests he deserves a shot. Why stick with a tried and tested (and failed) Roberts when we have an option who could surprise us (like JJ) and prove to be a brilliant option? Fair comment re: Moore, although I think it's more likely to see Brennan up top |
|
|
|
Post by majorraglan on Nov 20, 2023 23:33:31 GMT
Sorry but… back 4 hasn’t worked well for us for some time, and there is absolutely no world where Huggins is a better RB than Neco. I would probably start Broadhead up top. As Moore looked knackered But as I said we haven't tried a back 4 since JJ came in, so it's quite possible he fits a gap that makes that system come together and work. Vaguely gesturing to a back 4 not working previously as a reason not to do it again is just illogical in my opinion, should we never play a back 4 ever again by that logic?? No Furthermore it worked well under Giggs at a time, we even used it to great effect against Turkey at the Euros. There have also been plenty of poor performances in a back 5 now (Iran, USA, Armenia, Ukraine - all really important games where it hasn't worked), teams who know what they are doing seem to figure us out in that system. So you could just as easily say back 5 hasn't worked for us in key games. Ultimately we *have* to find a system that works, and I think we need to try a 4-2-3-1 with JJ in the mix now in order to get the best out of our strongest position the forward options. Football is about adapting to try and find a solution Re: Huggins, he's in really good form playing regularly in the Championship. Neco hasn't been playing, Roberts has been dropped by Burnley and been poor for us for some time. I don't know if Huggins is a better RB than either, but the level he's performing at suggests he deserves a shot. Why stick with a tried and tested (and failed) Roberts when we have an option who could surprise us (like JJ) and prove to be a brilliant option? Fair comment re: Moore, although I think it's more likely to see Brennan up top Back 4 has been a problem in the past, but we have to be prepared to mix things up otherwise we’ll be too predicable and other coaches will have our measure. Page needs to be able to show he can change a game using different tactics and substitutions. |
|
|
|
Post by quetzal on Nov 21, 2023 0:12:33 GMT
I got a gut feeling Armenia will get the draw in Croatia. I think we’ll be the problem
|
|
|
|
Post by hooky on Nov 21, 2023 8:10:25 GMT
Today could have been such an exciting day
So anti-climatic now. Would be a miracle if Croatia threw it away like we have twice - I say throw it away but we performed poorly twice and even if we played them a third time away from home - I doubt we'd do any better with the current set up
|
|
|
|
Post by conwy10 on Nov 21, 2023 9:52:50 GMT
Broadhead was very energetic when he came on. In theory, a front three of James, Johnson and Broadhead should be good at pressing high up the pitch. That assumes Johnson is switched on, which is a big if. However, I think we have to go for it from the off, and press Turkiye high up the pitch. It's not something we've really tried in this campaign, but with that trio we could pull it off. I think we should start with a back three, put push the wing backs further on to form a 3-4-3 rather than a 5-2-3. Wing back on the opposite side of play to drop back to form a back four. If we're chasing the game second half, then a switch to a back 4 might work. Should we be in front second half bring on Wilson, Brooks and Moore and sit deep, looking to counter with long balls up to Moore, but making sure we get players in and around him. To be fair I think the intention is always to push the wing backs up high and wide. For whatever reason though they put the brakes on. I know our defence hasn't let a goal in from open play in a few matches, but they aren't the most solid. Maybe there's a fear of going forward. I'll give energy, but I dont think we'd have any chance of holding anything up with him there. He's a bit weak on the ball, can't take a player on. That bit where he fell over when Moore and the defender took themselves out has been haunting me too. |
|
|
|
Post by fireboy0610 on Nov 21, 2023 10:11:01 GMT
Got two spare tickets for the game tomorrow night, both in the canton. Pm me if anyone is interested. Still got them, can meet up before the game. Pm me if anyone is interested. |
|
|
|
Post by fiveattheback on Nov 21, 2023 10:28:57 GMT
The issue with a back 4 isn't/wasn't the defence, it was the setup in front of it. We got the mix in midfield all wrong and it left the defence exposed, a James-Ampadu duo in front of the defence is a very solid platform and makes a back 4 doable
|
|
|
|
Post by morg on Nov 21, 2023 10:35:45 GMT
The issue with a back 4 isn't/wasn't the defence, it was the setup in front of it. We got the mix in midfield all wrong and it left the defence exposed, a James-Ampadu duo in front of the defence is a very solid platform and makes a back 4 doable Fair point. So would leave us with 4213 in attack becoming 451 in defence? |
|
|
|
Post by fiveattheback on Nov 21, 2023 10:45:56 GMT
The issue with a back 4 isn't/wasn't the defence, it was the setup in front of it. We got the mix in midfield all wrong and it left the defence exposed, a James-Ampadu duo in front of the defence is a very solid platform and makes a back 4 doable Fair point. So would leave us with 4213 in attack becoming 451 in defence? Something along the lines of Ward Williams Rodon Lockyer Davies Ampadu J.James D.James Wilson Johnson Moore Davies behind Johnson as the more defensive full back to cover Johnson, James' work rate to cover the more attacking Williams. I think that system can be more flexible than the back 5 we've played recently, what struck me against Armenia was show rigid we were, no switching it up which makes us easy to defend against. With this you could, for example, leave Johnson up top with Wilson moving wide for 10 minutes, Williams join in the midfield with Davies tucking in to a back 3 etc I understand you have to be solid, but you can be solid and still have a level of flexibility going forward. |
|
|
|
Post by fireboy0610 on Nov 21, 2023 10:52:04 GMT
Fair point. So would leave us with 4213 in attack becoming 451 in defence? Something along the lines of Ward Williams Rodon Lockyer Davies Ampadu J.James D.James Wilson Johnson Moore Davies behind Johnson as the more defensive full back to cover Johnson, James' work rate to cover the more attacking Williams. I think that system can be more flexible than the back 5 we've played recently, what struck me against Armenia was show rigid we were, no switching it up which makes us easy to defend against. With this you could, for example, leave Johnson up top with Wilson moving wide for 10 minutes, Williams join in the midfield with Davies tucking in to a back 3 etc I understand you have to be solid, but you can be solid and still have a level of flexibility going forward. That was near enough the side we should have started with on Saturday and I hope we go with something similar tonight but I seriously doubt it. |
|
|
|
Post by winsumluzsum on Nov 21, 2023 10:53:07 GMT
Broadhead was very energetic when he came on. In theory, a front three of James, Johnson and Broadhead should be good at pressing high up the pitch. That assumes Johnson is switched on, which is a big if. However, I think we have to go for it from the off, and press Turkiye high up the pitch. It's not something we've really tried in this campaign, but with that trio we could pull it off. I think we should start with a back three, put push the wing backs further on to form a 3-4-3 rather than a 5-2-3. Wing back on the opposite side of play to drop back to form a back four. If we're chasing the game second half, then a switch to a back 4 might work. Should we be in front second half bring on Wilson, Brooks and Moore and sit deep, looking to counter with long balls up to Moore, but making sure we get players in and around him. To be fair I think the intention is always to push the wing backs up high and wide. For whatever reason though they put the brakes on. I know our defence hasn't let a goal in from open play in a few matches, but they aren't the most solid. Maybe there's a fear of going forward. I'll give energy, but I dont think we'd have any chance of holding anything up with him there. He's a bit weak on the ball, can't take a player on. That bit where he fell over when Moore and the defender took themselves out has been haunting me too. Out of possession we definitely had no intention from the off of pushing our wing backs up. Watch the first 10 minutes back and you'll see what I mean - a definite 5-2-3. Osian Roberts commented on our wing back positioning being an issue 21 minutes into the first half. He also stressed the importance of getting support for Moore. I've nothing against 4 at the back per se, but it failed abysmally against Armenia at home, and I think with the short turnaround a big change in formation and tactics is asking for trouble. Better to tweak the formation and personnel and only change to a back 4 as a plan b. |
|
|
|
Post by curo12 on Nov 21, 2023 10:55:33 GMT
Sorry if the wrong place to write but I have 1 spare ticket for this eve if anyone is short of one. Block 102 :-)
|
|
|
|
Post by marsvolta on Nov 21, 2023 11:33:46 GMT
Right, heading to Cardiff now. See you all there folks.
COME ON WALES
|
|
|
|
Post by iot on Nov 21, 2023 11:58:30 GMT
Broadleaf no, no, no. He lost the ball so many times in dangerous positions and totally killed our momentum Only use if it’s last roll of the die time as his game is just not good enough at international level He was hardly on long enough for such a negative take. I've watched the match twice and he wasn't any worse or better than our other forward players - but he was energetic. I really think Page needs to do something a little bit different if we're to get something from the Turkiye game, and if we are to attempt a high press then you have to play three front players who have what it takes. I'd be amazed if Page goes with a front three of James, Johnson and Broadhead. He's much more likely to to with Moore, Brooks and Wilson again. You can be pretty sure that the Turkish coach will be well prepared for that eventuality. A high press will be the popular option, fans will go nuts if we start sitting off, but I think Turkey would love nothing more than facing a high press. The issue is that we would have to press high as a team, meaning a high defensive line. Turkey absolutely thrived on Croatia's high defensive line and got behind them a few times. They're also technically very good, so would likely be able to play through the press and find themselves tonnes of space |
|
|
|
Post by allezlesrouges on Nov 21, 2023 12:07:02 GMT
Broadhead was very energetic when he came on. In theory, a front three of James, Johnson and Broadhead should be good at pressing high up the pitch. That assumes Johnson is switched on, which is a big if. However, I think we have to go for it from the off, and press Turkiye high up the pitch. It's not something we've really tried in this campaign, but with that trio we could pull it off. I think we should start with a back three, put push the wing backs further on to form a 3-4-3 rather than a 5-2-3. Wing back on the opposite side of play to drop back to form a back four. If we're chasing the game second half, then a switch to a back 4 might work. Should we be in front second half bring on Wilson, Brooks and Moore and sit deep, looking to counter with long balls up to Moore, but making sure we get players in and around him. To be fair I think the intention is always to push the wing backs up high and wide. For whatever reason though they put the brakes on. I know our defence hasn't let a goal in from open play in a few matches, but they aren't the most solid. Maybe there's a fear of going forward. I'll give energy, but I dont think we'd have any chance of holding anything up with him there. He's a bit weak on the ball, can't take a player on. That bit where he fell over when Moore and the defender took themselves out has been haunting me too. Smart teams know how to pin back the wing backs. Armenia proved themselves a smart team, Iran and the USA have done similar things to us |
|
|
|
Post by allezlesrouges on Nov 21, 2023 12:11:07 GMT
To be fair I think the intention is always to push the wing backs up high and wide. For whatever reason though they put the brakes on. I know our defence hasn't let a goal in from open play in a few matches, but they aren't the most solid. Maybe there's a fear of going forward. I'll give energy, but I dont think we'd have any chance of holding anything up with him there. He's a bit weak on the ball, can't take a player on. That bit where he fell over when Moore and the defender took themselves out has been haunting me too. Out of possession we definitely had no intention from the off of pushing our wing backs up. Watch the first 10 minutes back and you'll see what I mean - a definite 5-2-3. Osian Roberts commented on our wing back positioning being an issue 21 minutes into the first half. He also stressed the importance of getting support for Moore. I've nothing against 4 at the back per se, but it failed abysmally against Armenia at home, and I think with the short turnaround a big change in formation and tactics is asking for trouble. Better to tweak the formation and personnel and only change to a back 4 as a plan b. But you have to look at the reasons why it failed. There's nothing mystical about a back 4 not working for us. It's because we played a 3 man midfield where Ampadu was on his own against 2 number 10s, and Ramsey/Wilson were playing as very attacking 8s which is why we looked so open With JJ alongside Ampadu and a number 10 in front that may be far less of an issue, and we add in an extra attacker Ward Neco-Lockyer-Rodon-Davies Ampadu-JJ James-Wilson-Brennan Moore I liked what a previous poster said about putting Davies behind Brennan. Brennan is also playing as a LW for Spurs now, so this may get the best put of him - I want to see him step up tonight. If Kieffer is shagged then put Brennan up front and bring Brooks on |
|
|
|
Post by iot on Nov 21, 2023 12:37:49 GMT
Out of possession we definitely had no intention from the off of pushing our wing backs up. Watch the first 10 minutes back and you'll see what I mean - a definite 5-2-3. Osian Roberts commented on our wing back positioning being an issue 21 minutes into the first half. He also stressed the importance of getting support for Moore. I've nothing against 4 at the back per se, but it failed abysmally against Armenia at home, and I think with the short turnaround a big change in formation and tactics is asking for trouble. Better to tweak the formation and personnel and only change to a back 4 as a plan b. But you have to look at the reasons why it failed. There's nothing mystical about a back 4 not working for us. It's because we played a 3 man midfield where Ampadu was on his own against 2 number 10s, and Ramsey/Wilson were playing as very attacking 8s which is why we looked so open With JJ alongside Ampadu and a number 10 in front that may be far less of an issue, and we add in an extra attacker Ward Neco-Lockyer-Rodon-Davies Ampadu-JJ James-Wilson-Brennan Moore I liked what a previous poster said about putting Davies behind Brennan. Brennan is also playing as a LW for Spurs now, so this may get the best put of him - I want to see him step up tonight. If Kieffer is shagged then put Brennan up front and bring Brooks on I don't quite agree - think you're trying to have your cake and eat it slightly by not accepting that we would need to sacrifice some defensive solidity in going to a back 4. What we'd essentially be doing is swapping a centre back for an attacking player. That's what we did in the first couple of windows apart from Armenia, where we went a step further and played ramsey in the holding mid spot to have 5 attacking players (7 if you count the wing backs) on the pitch. But in the other first three games, we lined up with a the same balance that you suggest (but with Morrell for James and a couple other personnel differences, but with like for like players). In those games, we were quite poor against Croatia and Turkey and didn't look as solid as the last few games. I wouldn't necessarily mind going for it with a back 4 tonight, but I don't think it's right to say we wouldn't be sacrificing some defensive solidity in doing so. It was also interesting that Page mentioned in his post match comments that DJ had come on as a left wing back. We were so shapeless in the last 20-30 minutes that I hadn't even picked up on the fact that DJ was playing as a wingback, which maybe tells its own story. |
|
|
|
Post by morg on Nov 21, 2023 12:58:14 GMT
But you have to look at the reasons why it failed. There's nothing mystical about a back 4 not working for us. It's because we played a 3 man midfield where Ampadu was on his own against 2 number 10s, and Ramsey/Wilson were playing as very attacking 8s which is why we looked so open With JJ alongside Ampadu and a number 10 in front that may be far less of an issue, and we add in an extra attacker Ward Neco-Lockyer-Rodon-Davies Ampadu-JJ James-Wilson-Brennan Moore I liked what a previous poster said about putting Davies behind Brennan. Brennan is also playing as a LW for Spurs now, so this may get the best put of him - I want to see him step up tonight. If Kieffer is shagged then put Brennan up front and bring Brooks on I don't quite agree - think you're trying to have your cake and eat it slightly by not accepting that we would need to sacrifice some defensive solidity in going to a back 4. What we'd essentially be doing is swapping a centre back for an attacking player. That's what we did in the first couple of windows apart from Armenia, where we went a step further and played ramsey in the holding mid spot to have 5 attacking players (7 if you count the wing backs) on the pitch. But in the other first three games, we lined up with a the same balance that you suggest (but with Morrell for James and a couple other personnel differences, but with like for like players). In those games, we were quite poor against Croatia and Turkey and didn't look as solid as the last few games. I wouldn't necessarily mind going for it with a back 4 tonight, but I don't think it's right to say we wouldn't be sacrificing some defensive solidity in doing so. It was also interesting that Page mentioned in his post match comments that DJ had come on as a left wing back. We were so shapeless in the last 20-30 minutes that I hadn't even picked up on the fact that DJ was playing as a wingback, which maybe tells its own story. James came on for Wilson and seemed to be playing down the left with Neco. (Which seemed odd). Wasn't until Connor went off with about 10 mins to go that Dan went to WB? I do wonder whether he's thinking of starting DJ in that position tonight though. |
|
|
|
Post by allezlesrouges on Nov 21, 2023 13:02:59 GMT
But you have to look at the reasons why it failed. There's nothing mystical about a back 4 not working for us. It's because we played a 3 man midfield where Ampadu was on his own against 2 number 10s, and Ramsey/Wilson were playing as very attacking 8s which is why we looked so open With JJ alongside Ampadu and a number 10 in front that may be far less of an issue, and we add in an extra attacker Ward Neco-Lockyer-Rodon-Davies Ampadu-JJ James-Wilson-Brennan Moore I liked what a previous poster said about putting Davies behind Brennan. Brennan is also playing as a LW for Spurs now, so this may get the best put of him - I want to see him step up tonight. If Kieffer is shagged then put Brennan up front and bring Brooks on I don't quite agree - think you're trying to have your cake and eat it slightly by not accepting that we would need to sacrifice some defensive solidity in going to a back 4. What we'd essentially be doing is swapping a centre back for an attacking player. That's what we did in the first couple of windows apart from Armenia, where we went a step further and played ramsey in the holding mid spot to have 5 attacking players (7 if you count the wing backs) on the pitch. But in the other first three games, we lined up with a the same balance that you suggest (but with Morrell for James and a couple other personnel differences, but with like for like players). In those games, we were quite poor against Croatia and Turkey and didn't look as solid as the last few games. I wouldn't necessarily mind going for it with a back 4 tonight, but I don't think it's right to say we wouldn't be sacrificing some defensive solidity in doing so. It was also interesting that Page mentioned in his post match comments that DJ had come on as a left wing back. We were so shapeless in the last 20-30 minutes that I hadn't even picked up on the fact that DJ was playing as a wingback, which maybe tells its own story. 1) I'm not saying it will be equally solid as a back 5, just that it will be solid enough and could improve our attacking play. I think caution to the wind time, let's sacrifice a bit of solidity to really go for it 2) Morrell & James aren't like for like. James is more physical so I'd like to see us try with him because I think it will make us look better than those games you mentioned where Morrell played. Before Morrell was sent off against Turkey, I don't think Turkey created a chance or even got near our box - that game went badly after the sending off |
|
|
|
Post by melynwy on Nov 21, 2023 13:17:49 GMT
But you have to look at the reasons why it failed. There's nothing mystical about a back 4 not working for us. It's because we played a 3 man midfield where Ampadu was on his own against 2 number 10s, and Ramsey/Wilson were playing as very attacking 8s which is why we looked so open With JJ alongside Ampadu and a number 10 in front that may be far less of an issue, and we add in an extra attacker Ward Neco-Lockyer-Rodon-Davies Ampadu-JJ James-Wilson-Brennan Moore I liked what a previous poster said about putting Davies behind Brennan. Brennan is also playing as a LW for Spurs now, so this may get the best put of him - I want to see him step up tonight. If Kieffer is shagged then put Brennan up front and bring Brooks on I don't quite agree - think you're trying to have your cake and eat it slightly by not accepting that we would need to sacrifice some defensive solidity in going to a back 4. What we'd essentially be doing is swapping a centre back for an attacking player. That's what we did in the first couple of windows apart from Armenia, where we went a step further and played ramsey in the holding mid spot to have 5 attacking players (7 if you count the wing backs) on the pitch. But in the other first three games, we lined up with a the same balance that you suggest (but with Morrell for James and a couple other personnel differences, but with like for like players). In those games, we were quite poor against Croatia and Turkey and didn't look as solid as the last few games. I wouldn't necessarily mind going for it with a back 4 tonight, but I don't think it's right to say we wouldn't be sacrificing some defensive solidity in doing so. It was also interesting that Page mentioned in his post match comments that DJ had come on as a left wing back. We were so shapeless in the last 20-30 minutes that I hadn't even picked up on the fact that DJ was playing as a wingback, which maybe tells its own story. It’s not simply swapping a defender for an attacker. You’re also swapping two wing-backs for two defensive full-backs. We don’t usually play “5 at the back” - it’s 3 at the back, especially in possession. Switching to a back 4 gives 4 players (mostly) at the back in possession, which can give more solidity in defense on the counter/immediately after we lose the ball. |
|
|
|
Post by vvm on Nov 21, 2023 13:25:59 GMT
Some good ideas and suggestions on potential lineups and what changes could be made for tonight but I think we might be dreaming if we think Page will do anything other than the exact same team as Saturday with maybe Brooks swapped for Johnson or James.
|
|
|
|
Post by iot on Nov 21, 2023 13:29:45 GMT
I don't quite agree - think you're trying to have your cake and eat it slightly by not accepting that we would need to sacrifice some defensive solidity in going to a back 4. What we'd essentially be doing is swapping a centre back for an attacking player. That's what we did in the first couple of windows apart from Armenia, where we went a step further and played ramsey in the holding mid spot to have 5 attacking players (7 if you count the wing backs) on the pitch. But in the other first three games, we lined up with a the same balance that you suggest (but with Morrell for James and a couple other personnel differences, but with like for like players). In those games, we were quite poor against Croatia and Turkey and didn't look as solid as the last few games. I wouldn't necessarily mind going for it with a back 4 tonight, but I don't think it's right to say we wouldn't be sacrificing some defensive solidity in doing so. It was also interesting that Page mentioned in his post match comments that DJ had come on as a left wing back. We were so shapeless in the last 20-30 minutes that I hadn't even picked up on the fact that DJ was playing as a wingback, which maybe tells its own story. It’s not simply swapping a defender for an attacker. You’re also swapping two wing-backs for two defensive full-backs. We don’t usually play “5 at the back” - it’s 3 at the back, especially in possession. Switching to a back 4 gives 4 players (mostly) at the back in possession, which can give more solidity in defense on the counter/immediately after we lose the ball. I was referring to the change in personnel that the change in shape brings, but fair comment. I would still maintain, however, that we've looked much more balanced with a back 5. We've switched between a back 4 and a back 5 several times since Page took over, and generally I'd say we've been better with the latter. But I would have a problem with throwing caution to the wind tonight given the circumstances. |
|
|
|
Post by melynwy on Nov 21, 2023 13:34:43 GMT
It’s not simply swapping a defender for an attacker. You’re also swapping two wing-backs for two defensive full-backs. We don’t usually play “5 at the back” - it’s 3 at the back, especially in possession. Switching to a back 4 gives 4 players (mostly) at the back in possession, which can give more solidity in defense on the counter/immediately after we lose the ball. I was referring to the change in personnel that the change in shape brings, but fair comment. I would still maintain, however, that we've looked much more balanced with a back 5. We've switched between a back 4 and a back 5 several times since Page took over, and generally I'd say we've been better with the latter. But I would have a problem with throwing caution to the wind tonight given the circumstances. Absolutely agree. I’ve always thought we’re more comfortable with a back 3 + wingbacks in the last decade or so. But that’s not to say there’s an inherent problem with 4-2-3-1 or whatever - it just depends on personnel, and we have a different team now to when we last tried it. Mot saying I’m calling for it tonight though! (Not saying I’m not either…) |
|
