|
Giggs
Jun 17, 2019 21:08:58 GMT
Post by alarch on Jun 17, 2019 21:08:58 GMT
Who do you think would get more out of this Wales squad - Giggs or Potter? That question crossed my mind too. Had Potter been in charge we would have got at least 3 points from the recent double header, probably 4, and quite possibly six.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Giggs
Jun 17, 2019 21:48:56 GMT
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2019 21:48:56 GMT
We weren't consistent until January because we literally didn't pick an unchanged lineup before mid-December. Every game was a different team in a different system, even after impressive wins and performances.
I was watching highlights of the u23s 16-17 PL Cup win the other day and the patterns of play are remarkably similar to what we were seeing in the senior side once that same core of players were allowed to play in their normal positions, regularly, week in week out.
The way we set up against Hungary reminded me very much of the times Potter tried to be too clever. DJ up front, best goalscorer on the wing. Failed many times before. Potter usually fixed it at half time though by reverting to the expected norm. Of course he'd do better than Giggs he's a qualified and experienced manager. Different level entirely. But is he better than the Hungary and Croatia managers?
|
|
|
Giggs
Jun 18, 2019 10:25:47 GMT
via mobile
Post by conwy10 on Jun 18, 2019 10:25:47 GMT
No idea what input Giggs' assistants have, but Osian Roberts looked as miserable as sin during the last two games. Totally different to Coleman's time when he was back and fore from the bench all game passing on info. I’ve always thought Osian Roberts was a genius but I’m starting to rethink. I was at a question and answer and he said if he didn’t have an equal or greater role than what he had under Coleman he’d walk away. Either he’s was trying to talk himself up and now hanging onto his job or he’s got just as much say in this as he did in the Euro campaign and partly responsible for the disaster. Of course it might not be so clear cut. He sees it’s a disaster and is staying on to try to help the players and the country despite being pushed aside. He’s adapted to give suggestions he knows Giggs will go for even if they’re not the best. He’d do well to distance himself from this to be honest before his reputation is tarnished.
|
|
|
Giggs
Jun 18, 2019 10:41:28 GMT
via mobile
Post by conwy10 on Jun 18, 2019 10:41:28 GMT
Obviously I don't watch the Wales team training but I think it's fairly clear from recent games that Giggs doesn't do much work on team shape. It is absolutely vital both for defensive solidity and to create a good passing team. Players need to know what positions to take up, when to fill in when certain players break forward, midfielders and forwards need to know what movement is required to ensure good passing angles when playing out from the back. Coleman did a huge amount of work on the defensive shape and there was almost always someone covering if Gunter or Taylor ventured forward (for example). You mentioned Jo Allen - he's a great player but has suffered somewhat in his choice of club! That aside people underestimate the amount of drilling needed to play a passing game. At Swansea's peak Martinez, Rodgers and Laudrup did a lot of work on team shape and movement - you might think that players should 'know' how to make space and create passing angles, but constant work on this makes it second nature and allows you to trust your team mates to be available. Last season Potter did a lot of this so that by mid season a bunch of kids were passing teams like Norwich off the park (unfortunately there was a bit more needed to actually win games!). The point being - none of this happens by accident, it requires work. Based on the evidence of Giggs' games (and my uninformed prejudice) I suspect: 1. We don't do enough on team shape (defensively or offensively) 2. There is no consistent approach to team play and tactics which makes it virtually impossible for players to adapt to a settled style. 3. Personnel changes, particularly unecessary ones, have undermined cohesion. Maybe he's trying to be a bit too clever. 4. Giggs has no track record and his experience is of working with elite players who (I suspect) need less direction than the majority of players (particularly the types we have). 5. Giggs wasn't particularly conscientious himself about the defensive part of his game. He frequently left our left backs isolated 2 on 1 and often gave the ball away in suicidal positions (Austria at home being a particularly egregious example). You get bailed out at Man Utd by top players, not so with Wales. I'm not sure he knows how to put these situations right beyond blaming players. 6. His ego may not allow him to see his limitations. I haven't seen or heard anything to suggest he has the humility to recognise his own mistakes. Given the lack of clear game plan I felt it was harsh to blame the players the way he did. It's no accident that the most successful Welsh managers of the last 30 years (Yorath and Coleman) understood the need for well drilled teams and consistent selection (where possible). After Coleman I would have liked to have seen someone experienced who could build on our defensive solidity and develop our ability to control and dictate games with passing football. Bar the Ireland game we haven't seen it. I think this could get a whole lot worse before it gets better. Such a shame because we have the exact blend of youth and experience needed for success. It's painful to watch it being wasted. Totally agree about the well drilled teams. If Spain, Germany, England call up a player you can guarantee he’s a first team regular at Chelsea, Valencia, Dortmund. With Wales we’re capping players before they’ve played a top flight game, on the bench for their clubs or in some cases not played for months. The advantage we have to have over other teams is know our game plan inside out. Know everyone’s roles and responsibilities, work hard for each other and play as a team. Hungary aren’t the best but look at the link up play by Dzsudzsak, he knew exactly what Szalai was thinking with every movement. Brooks and James couldn’t even organise who’s taking a free kick.
|
|
|
Giggs
Jun 18, 2019 11:01:25 GMT
Post by georgetm1 on Jun 18, 2019 11:01:25 GMT
The FAW have got a lot of questions to answer on Giggs' appointment. The way I see it is that it is a massive insult to our players, fans and FAW staff to continue putting in an inexperienced manager in charge of our national team. Coleman is still a free agent and i'm sure everyone would welcome him back with open arms.This is the first time in a long time that I see no hope with our national team especially with the youngsters we have available to us.
What the hell was Giggs smoking by putting in Lawrence for both games whose fuck ups lead to three of the goals conceded and putting in Vaulks against a hugely experienced Croatia team was absolutely mental.
By now he should have a proper starting 11 and all I see is him chopping and changing every 20 seconds. Our players need to know where they stand with him and he is doing a miserable job of it.
|
|
|
Post by cymroircarn on Jun 18, 2019 11:28:54 GMT
The FAW have got a lot of questions to answer on Giggs' appointment. The way I see it is that it is a massive insult to our players, fans and FAW staff to continue putting in an inexperienced manager in charge of our national team. Coleman is still a free agent and i'm sure everyone would welcome him back with open arms.This is the first time in a long time that I see no hope with our national team especially with the youngsters we have available to us. What the hell was Giggs smoking by putting in Lawrence for both games whose fuck ups lead to three of the goals conceded and putting in Vaulks against a hugely experienced Croatia team was absolutely mental. By now he should have a proper starting 11 and all I see is him chopping and changing every 20 seconds. Our players need to know where they stand with him and he is doing a miserable job of it. Hang on, Coleman left us for the £££ so why would he come back? He could have had an extension and work with this group but chose not too. Lawrence received praise following the Slovakia game and with Chester still injured I can see why Giggs played him against Croatia. I would have dropped him for Hungary certainly but maybe Mepham had a knock, we don’t know? I’m sure I read some on here were advocating Vaulks to start against Croatia. Are they mental as well? I’m not a fan of Giggs but let’s at least be balanced in criticism.
|
|
|
Giggs
Jun 18, 2019 12:26:01 GMT
Post by georgetm1 on Jun 18, 2019 12:26:01 GMT
The FAW have got a lot of questions to answer on Giggs' appointment. The way I see it is that it is a massive insult to our players, fans and FAW staff to continue putting in an inexperienced manager in charge of our national team. Coleman is still a free agent and i'm sure everyone would welcome him back with open arms.This is the first time in a long time that I see no hope with our national team especially with the youngsters we have available to us. What the hell was Giggs smoking by putting in Lawrence for both games whose fuck ups lead to three of the goals conceded and putting in Vaulks against a hugely experienced Croatia team was absolutely mental. By now he should have a proper starting 11 and all I see is him chopping and changing every 20 seconds. Our players need to know where they stand with him and he is doing a miserable job of it. Hang on, Coleman left us for the £££ so why would he come back? He could have had an extension and work with this group but chose not too. Lawrence received praise following the Slovakia game and with Chester still injured I can see why Giggs played him against Croatia. I would have dropped him for Hungary certainly but maybe Mepham had a knock, we don’t know? I’m sure I read some on here were advocating Vaulks to start against Croatia. Are they mental as well? I’m not a fan of Giggs but let’s at least be balanced in criticism. It doesn't hide the fact that Lawrence was responsible for 3 of the goals through his mistakes. And yes, I am saying they are mental concerning Vaulks. You don't put a championship player with very little experience in international fottball and 1.5 caps against the world cup finalists. The criticism I am giving Giggs is down to his lack of experience and the fact as we have all seen that he is a boring character, so I don't know how the hell he can get the players up for it like Coleman did. Let's not pretend that Coleman's career has been anything other than crap since he left, so I am sure he would consider a second chance. And I would much rather we had a manager that the players admire and respect than someone who has done nothing and still gets the top job.
|
|
|
Post by pendragon on Jun 18, 2019 12:48:46 GMT
The biggest concern I have about Giggs right now is whether he has the ability to learn from his mistakes and take on board constructive criticism. If he can, great, and maybe we can do something here. If not, we're in big trouble. A leader who doesn't learn or change is the worst type of leader in my opinion because there is no hope for rectifying those mistakes and you are doomed to repeat them.
In fairness, he may have had a point with regards to some of the players being either exhausted, injured or semi-fit which could account for at least, some of the crazy on-field team decisions, including the substitution of Brooks in Croatia, and Roberts and Mepham in Hungary. There is also a point to be had with regards to Bale not having had much game time at Real over the last three months, and the overall effect that had over the course of the two games. I'm hoping that this is what lay behind some of those team decisions, I really am.
What I cannot account for, is the strategy - or an apparent lack of it. Did Giggs gamble on most of the regulars being available? Or did he just not have a viable strategy? Deeply worrying if it turns out to have been the second point.
|
|
|
Giggs
Jun 18, 2019 13:42:57 GMT
Post by alarch on Jun 18, 2019 13:42:57 GMT
I’m sure I read some on here were advocating Vaulks to start against Croatia. Are they mental as well? Yes.
|
|
|
Giggs
Jun 18, 2019 14:37:13 GMT
via mobile
Post by cymroircarn on Jun 18, 2019 14:37:13 GMT
Hang on, Coleman left us for the £££ so why would he come back? He could have had an extension and work with this group but chose not too. Lawrence received praise following the Slovakia game and with Chester still injured I can see why Giggs played him against Croatia. I would have dropped him for Hungary certainly but maybe Mepham had a knock, we don’t know? I’m sure I read some on here were advocating Vaulks to start against Croatia. Are they mental as well? I’m not a fan of Giggs but let’s at least be balanced in criticism. It doesn't hide the fact that Lawrence was responsible for 3 of the goals through his mistakes. And yes, I am saying they are mental concerning Vaulks. You don't put a championship player with very little experience in international fottball and 1.5 caps against the world cup finalists. The criticism I am giving Giggs is down to his lack of experience and the fact as we have all seen that he is a boring character, so I don't know how the hell he can get the players up for it like Coleman did. Let's not pretend that Coleman's career has been anything other than crap since he left, so I am sure he would consider a second chance. And I would much rather we had a manager that the players admire and respect than someone who has done nothing and still gets the top job. As i said before I am no fan of Giggs but how Coleman is not blamed for any of this is beyond me! He had the opportunity to take this squad forward but decided not to. If he had stayed we would never had Giggs in!
|
|
|
Giggs
Jun 18, 2019 14:37:48 GMT
via mobile
Post by cymroircarn on Jun 18, 2019 14:37:48 GMT
I’m sure I read some on here were advocating Vaulks to start against Croatia. Are they mental as well? Yes. Not like you to provide a short concise answer 😉
|
|
|
Giggs
Jun 18, 2019 14:41:52 GMT
via mobile
Post by cymroircarn on Jun 18, 2019 14:41:52 GMT
The biggest concern I have about Giggs right now is whether he has the ability to learn from his mistakes and take on board constructive criticism. If he can, great, and maybe we can do something here. If not, we're in big trouble. A leader who doesn't learn or change is the worst type of leader in my opinion because there is no hope for rectifying those mistakes and you are doomed to repeat them. In fairness, he may have had a point with regards to some of the players being either exhausted, injured or semi-fit which could account for at least, some of the crazy on-field team decisions, including the substitution of Brooks in Croatia, and Roberts and Mepham in Hungary. There is also a point to be had with regards to Bale not having had much game time at Real over the last three months, and the overall effect that had over the course of the two games. I'm hoping that this is what lay behind some of those team decisions, I really am. What I cannot account for, is the strategy - or an apparent lack of it. Did Giggs gamble on most of the regulars being available? Or did he just not have a viable strategy? Deeply worrying if it turns out to have been the second point. Good points made above. I don’t really see what he is trying to achieve. There is no pattern to our play, no consistency. Yes players are not playing for their clubs, but that has not hampered us in the past? If only Bale had scored it could be a different story....
|
|
|
Giggs
Jun 18, 2019 14:57:34 GMT
Post by 1gwaunview on Jun 18, 2019 14:57:34 GMT
I'm perturbed that things seem to be unravelling and we'll end up back in the doldrums again very soon. It's obvious for all their undoubted talent the players need guidance going forward, and I'm not sure the present incumbent has the knowledge/will or personality to turn it around. Is it Osian's place to be more assertive in his comments perhaps, being more experienced with Wales? At the end of the day it's Giggs who's manager, so it'll be his head on the block if/or as seems more likely now, when we fail.
|
|
|
Post by nwcherries on Jun 18, 2019 15:44:48 GMT
Personally I've never really understood why a national teams manager needs to be that nationality. As long as they can speak the language effectively, surely it would be best to just get the best manager available for the squad?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Giggs
Jun 18, 2019 17:16:53 GMT
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2019 17:16:53 GMT
Personally I've never really understood why a national teams manager needs to be that nationality. As long as they can speak the language effectively, surely it would be best to just get the best manager available for the squad? In a competition between nations every competitor should have to qualify for their team. Managers and coaches are some of the most important players.
|
|
|
Giggs
Jun 18, 2019 19:07:53 GMT
Post by allezlesrouges on Jun 18, 2019 19:07:53 GMT
I’m sure I read some on here were advocating Vaulks to start against Croatia. Are they mental as well? Yes. Who could have started instead of Vaulks? We had no other viable option at CM. Ampadu wasn't fit to start that game.
|
|
|
Giggs
Jun 18, 2019 19:13:21 GMT
via mobile
alarch likes this
Post by cadno on Jun 18, 2019 19:13:21 GMT
Who could have started instead of Vaulks? We had no other viable option at CM. Ampadu wasn't fit to start that game. 3 4 2 1. Hennessey Mepham Ash Davies Gunts Allen Smith Taylor Bale Vokes James. Plenty of cover for the mid 2. Try and get a clean sheet. Bring ampadu and brooks on when needed. Also pick Joniesta ahead of Vaulks.
|
|
|
Giggs
Jun 18, 2019 19:26:51 GMT
Post by alarch on Jun 18, 2019 19:26:51 GMT
Not like you to provide a short concise answer 😉 Cruel but fair
|
|
|
Post by alarch on Jun 18, 2019 19:32:08 GMT
Who could have started instead of Vaulks? We had no other viable option at CM. Ampadu wasn't fit to start that game. We could have gone either with the box formation as Cadno suggests or a 4-2-3-1, limiting the space between the lines, keeping things compact in the middle of the park where Croatia were at their strongest. Instead we were wide open in and out of possession. I find the idea that 4-3-3 was a defensive formation bizarre, especially with the players we had at our disposal. I don't want to be too hard on Vaulks, who could be a very good fit at Cardiff, but it was crazy for him to be expected to make his competitive debut out in Croatia, in the heat. Not only does he play for a team relegated from the Championship, but his qualities are those of a box-to-box midfielder rather than those of a defensive mid, and all his strong points are those that match a traditional British style side. What was the idea behind playing someone like him - in that game of all games? Crazy stuff. It just shows incoherent, jumbled up thinking.
|
|
|
Post by alarch on Jun 18, 2019 19:36:08 GMT
Who could have started instead of Vaulks? We had no other viable option at CM. Ampadu wasn't fit to start that game. 3 4 2 1. Hennessey Mepham Ash Davies Gunts Allen Smith Taylor Bale Vokes James. Plenty of cover for the mid 2. Try and get a clean sheet. Bring ampadu and brooks on when needed. Also pick Joniesta ahead of Vaulks. Not my preferred formation - but it would have achieved something similar to a 4-2-3-1 - by making it more difficult for the Croatians to progress through central areas. Playing with wing backs and a box formation I would have started with Wilson and James as a pair of 10s behind Bale.
|
|
|
Giggs
Jun 18, 2019 19:56:38 GMT
iot likes this
Post by allezlesrouges on Jun 18, 2019 19:56:38 GMT
Who could have started instead of Vaulks? We had no other viable option at CM. Ampadu wasn't fit to start that game. We could have gone either with the box formation as Cadno suggests or a 4-2-3-1, limiting the space between the lines, keeping things compact in the middle of the park where Croatia were at their strongest. Instead we were wide open in and out of possession. I find the idea that 4-3-3 was a defensive formation bizarre, especially with the players we had at our disposal. I don't want to be too hard on Vaulks, who could be a very good fit at Cardiff, but it was crazy for him to be expected to make his competitive debut out in Croatia, in the heat. Not only does he play for a team relegated from the Championship, but his qualities are those of a box-to-box midfielder rather than those of a defensive mid, and all his strong points are those that match a traditional British style side. What was the idea behind playing someone like him - in that game of all games? Crazy stuff. It just shows incoherent, jumbled up thinking. If you go with a more attacking formation like 4-2-3-1 you run the risk of being overrun, especially considering midfield was their strength. It could have been a far worse scoreline than 2-1 if we had gone more attacking. It sounds like your issue is more with the formation than Vaulks himself, and that you agree in a 4-3-3 there was no other option than to play Vaulks. My issue with your points is that you are placing a huge emphasis on the importance of formation. Now formation can be important, and can be the deciding factor at times, but in reality what the players are instructed to do in their roles is far more important than the formation. For example, Klopp's Liverpool and Guardiola's Barcelona both played 4-3-3, but the players are instructed to perform different duties meaning they are very different to watch. Klopp's 4-3-3 is solid and focused on the high press, whereas Guardiola's is expansive and fluid. In principle, I think playing a 4-3-3 against Croatia is the right option IF the players are given the right instructions AND the game plan is executed well. Even then Croatia's quality might be too much for us, but suggesting that we just needed to drop Vaulks and switch to a 4-2-3-1 and that would solve all our problems is wrong in my opinion. Like you say, we were far too open in and out of possession. However, this isn't a flaw of the formation, it's a flaw of the game plan/execution.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2019 20:03:35 GMT
We could have gone either with the box formation as Cadno suggests or a 4-2-3-1, limiting the space between the lines, keeping things compact in the middle of the park where Croatia were at their strongest. Instead we were wide open in and out of possession. I find the idea that 4-3-3 was a defensive formation bizarre, especially with the players we had at our disposal. I don't want to be too hard on Vaulks, who could be a very good fit at Cardiff, but it was crazy for him to be expected to make his competitive debut out in Croatia, in the heat. Not only does he play for a team relegated from the Championship, but his qualities are those of a box-to-box midfielder rather than those of a defensive mid, and all his strong points are those that match a traditional British style side. What was the idea behind playing someone like him - in that game of all games? Crazy stuff. It just shows incoherent, jumbled up thinking. If you go with a more attacking formation like 4-2-3-1 you run the risk of being overrun, especially considering midfield was their strength. It could have been a far worse scoreline than 2-1 if we had gone more attacking. It sounds like your issue is more with the formation than Vaulks himself, and that you agree in a 4-3-3 there was no other option than to play Vaulks. My issue with your points is that you are placing a huge emphasis on the importance of formation. Now formation can be important, and can be the deciding factor at times, but in reality what the players are instructed to do in their roles is far more important than the formation. For example, Klopp's Liverpool and Guardiola's Barcelona both played 4-3-3, but the players are instructed to perform different duties meaning they are very different to watch. Klopp's 4-3-3 is solid and focused on the high press, whereas Guardiola's is expansive and fluid. In principle, I think playing a 4-3-3 against Croatia is the right option IF the players are given the right instructions AND the game plan is executed well. Even then Croatia's quality might be too much for us, but suggesting that we just needed to drop Vaulks and switch to a 4-2-3-1 and that would solve all our problems is wrong in my opinion. Like you say, we were far too open in and out of possession. However, this isn't a flaw of the formation, it's a flaw of the game plan/execution. There's no meaningful difference between a 4-2-3-1 and a 4-4-1-1 where the wide players track back and take responsibility for defending the wide areas we left exposed to one world class winger and another top prospect in Brekalo. Giggs formation was more attacking in that it left 3 forward instead of just the 2 we had against Slovakia.
|
|
|
Giggs
Jun 18, 2019 20:09:23 GMT
Post by allezlesrouges on Jun 18, 2019 20:09:23 GMT
If you go with a more attacking formation like 4-2-3-1 you run the risk of being overrun, especially considering midfield was their strength. It could have been a far worse scoreline than 2-1 if we had gone more attacking. It sounds like your issue is more with the formation than Vaulks himself, and that you agree in a 4-3-3 there was no other option than to play Vaulks. My issue with your points is that you are placing a huge emphasis on the importance of formation. Now formation can be important, and can be the deciding factor at times, but in reality what the players are instructed to do in their roles is far more important than the formation. For example, Klopp's Liverpool and Guardiola's Barcelona both played 4-3-3, but the players are instructed to perform different duties meaning they are very different to watch. Klopp's 4-3-3 is solid and focused on the high press, whereas Guardiola's is expansive and fluid. In principle, I think playing a 4-3-3 against Croatia is the right option IF the players are given the right instructions AND the game plan is executed well. Even then Croatia's quality might be too much for us, but suggesting that we just needed to drop Vaulks and switch to a 4-2-3-1 and that would solve all our problems is wrong in my opinion. Like you say, we were far too open in and out of possession. However, this isn't a flaw of the formation, it's a flaw of the game plan/execution. There's no meaningful difference between a 4-2-3-1 and a 4-4-1-1 where the wide players track back and take responsibility for defending the wide areas we left exposed to one world class winger and another top prospect in Brekalo. Giggs formation was more attacking in that it left 3 forward instead of just the 2 we had against Slovakia. Yes this is my point, formation is somewhat arbitrary. 4-2-3-1, 4-3-3, 4-4-1-1, 4-5-1 they are all variations that can play out in a multitude of differing ways dependent on instructions.
|
|
|
Giggs
Jun 18, 2019 21:49:42 GMT
Post by alarch on Jun 18, 2019 21:49:42 GMT
If you go with a more attacking formation like 4-2-3-1 you run the risk of being overrun, especially considering midfield was their strength. It could have been a far worse scoreline than 2-1 if we had gone more attacking. It sounds like your issue is more with the formation than Vaulks himself, and that you agree in a 4-3-3 there was no other option than to play Vaulks. My issue with your points is that you are placing a huge emphasis on the importance of formation. Now formation can be important, and can be the deciding factor at times, but in reality what the players are instructed to do in their roles is far more important than the formation. For example, Klopp's Liverpool and Guardiola's Barcelona both played 4-3-3, but the players are instructed to perform different duties meaning they are very different to watch. Klopp's 4-3-3 is solid and focused on the high press, whereas Guardiola's is expansive and fluid. In principle, I think playing a 4-3-3 against Croatia is the right option IF the players are given the right instructions AND the game plan is executed well. Even then Croatia's quality might be too much for us, but suggesting that we just needed to drop Vaulks and switch to a 4-2-3-1 and that would solve all our problems is wrong in my opinion. Like you say, we were far too open in and out of possession. However, this isn't a flaw of the formation, it's a flaw of the game plan/execution. The idea that 4-3-3 is inherently more defensive than a 4-2-3-1 is a nonsense. Mourinho is a big exponent of 4-2-3-1 and you can hardly claim Mourinho's sides were attacking - in fact his teams have often been derided for "parking the bus", with an emphasis on keeping things tight defensively above all else. They were compact and would totally dominate central areas. I agree that formations aren't the be all and end all, and I said previously that had we been able to play a midfield trio of Ampadu, Allen and Smith then we would have been a lot more solid. But even then we would have to have deployed our front three differently. How much did James and especially Bale contribute to the defensive effort against Croatia? Next to nothing I would say. From a defensive perspective we were virtually a 4-3-0. The way Giggs put us out, with a flat 4-3-3, with Vaulks and Bale on the right, was seriously stupid - the fact that poor Roberts was left one-on-one against Perisic on so many occasions was hardly a surprise with the paucity of support that he got. It seems to me that you're the one who's wedded to a 4-3-3 come what may - if you're saying that we had to include Vaulks so that we could adopt that formation regardless of whether we had suitable personnel to implement it. I'm actually pretty pissed off all over again having listened to EJFOF. Normally I really enjoy listening to the trio, and they have great chemistry and offer great insights into the behind the scenes stuff. But I find the analysis of the double-header lacks any sort of acuity or coherent thought process. Some good isolated points were made, but it's painfully obvious that none of the three had watched the match again - which should be the minimum to be able to offer any sort of credible analysis. If only the likes of @swansanalytics could do a job on Wales that they do with respect to their club sides.
|
|
|
Giggs
Jun 19, 2019 7:24:54 GMT
iot likes this
Post by allezlesrouges on Jun 19, 2019 7:24:54 GMT
If you go with a more attacking formation like 4-2-3-1 you run the risk of being overrun, especially considering midfield was their strength. It could have been a far worse scoreline than 2-1 if we had gone more attacking. It sounds like your issue is more with the formation than Vaulks himself, and that you agree in a 4-3-3 there was no other option than to play Vaulks. My issue with your points is that you are placing a huge emphasis on the importance of formation. Now formation can be important, and can be the deciding factor at times, but in reality what the players are instructed to do in their roles is far more important than the formation. For example, Klopp's Liverpool and Guardiola's Barcelona both played 4-3-3, but the players are instructed to perform different duties meaning they are very different to watch. Klopp's 4-3-3 is solid and focused on the high press, whereas Guardiola's is expansive and fluid. In principle, I think playing a 4-3-3 against Croatia is the right option IF the players are given the right instructions AND the game plan is executed well. Even then Croatia's quality might be too much for us, but suggesting that we just needed to drop Vaulks and switch to a 4-2-3-1 and that would solve all our problems is wrong in my opinion. Like you say, we were far too open in and out of possession. However, this isn't a flaw of the formation, it's a flaw of the game plan/execution. The idea that 4-3-3 is inherently more defensive than a 4-2-3-1 is a nonsense. Mourinho is a big exponent of 4-2-3-1 and you can hardly claim Mourinho's sides were attacking - in fact his teams have often been derided for "parking the bus", with an emphasis on keeping things tight defensively above all else. They were compact and would totally dominate central areas. I agree that formations aren't the be all and end all, and I said previously that had we been able to play a midfield trio of Ampadu, Allen and Smith then we would have been a lot more solid. But even then we would have to have deployed our front three differently. How much did James and especially Bale contribute to the defensive effort against Croatia? Next to nothing I would say. From a defensive perspective we were virtually a 4-3-0. The way Giggs put us out, with a flat 4-3-3, with Vaulks and Bale on the right, was seriously stupid - the fact that poor Roberts was left one-on-one against Perisic on so many occasions was hardly a surprise with the paucity of support that he got. It seems to me that you're the one who's wedded to a 4-3-3 come what may - if you're saying that we had to include Vaulks so that we could adopt that formation regardless of whether we had suitable personnel to implement it. I'm actually pretty pissed off all over again having listened to EJFOF. Normally I really enjoy listening to the trio, and they have great chemistry and offer great insights into the behind the scenes stuff. But I find the analysis of the double-header lacks any sort of acuity or coherent thought process. Some good isolated points were made, but it's painfully obvious that none of the three had watched the match again - which should be the minimum to be able to offer any sort of credible analysis. If only the likes of @swansanalytics could do a job on Wales that they do with respect to their club sides. On paper 4-2-3-1 is more attacking as you are placing a player further up the pitch, but like I've already said I'm aware that any formation can be more attacking or more defensive depending on how it is implemented. I haven't suggested we had to include Vaulks, I've asked you who would you have played instead of Vaulks that would have created more solidity in a 4-2-3-1 that you're advocating for? Because it sounds like you want a no.10 type player to come in for Vaulks to make us more defensively solid, which doesn't make sense to me. Who could this player have been against Croatia? T Lawrence or Woodburn seem like the only possibilities, and I don't think bringing either of these in really makes us more solid. I agree that we ended up in a 4-3-0 a lot of the time, which is 100% Giggs's fault. However, if we had played 4-2-3-1 like you suggested we may have ended up in a 4-2-0 at times, which is even worse, so I don't understand why you think makes this change would have helped us in any way on the day. I'm certainly not wedded to 4-3-3, and I think you've missed the point of what I'm saying if you think that. I believe the reason we lost to Croatia was down to a combination of the players not being given the right instructions/the players being unable to execute the instructions, not because of formation. This is where we disagree.
|
|
|
Giggs
Jun 19, 2019 11:15:07 GMT
Post by alarch on Jun 19, 2019 11:15:07 GMT
On paper 4-2-3-1 is more attacking as you are placing a player further up the pitch, but like I've already said I'm aware that any formation can be more attacking or more defensive depending on how it is implemented. I haven't suggested we had to include Vaulks, I've asked you who would you have played instead of Vaulks that would have created more solidity in a 4-2-3-1 that you're advocating for? Because it sounds like you want a no.10 type player to come in for Vaulks to make us more defensively solid, which doesn't make sense to me. Who could this player have been against Croatia? T Lawrence or Woodburn seem like the only possibilities, and I don't think bringing either of these in really makes us more solid. I agree that we ended up in a 4-3-0 a lot of the time, which is 100% Giggs's fault. However, if we had played 4-2-3-1 like you suggested we may have ended up in a 4-2-0 at times, which is even worse, so I don't understand why you think makes this change would have helped us in any way on the day. I'm certainly not wedded to 4-3-3, and I think you've missed the point of what I'm saying if you think that. I believe the reason we lost to Croatia was down to a combination of the players not being given the right instructions/the players being unable to execute the instructions, not because of formation. This is where we disagree. It doesn't follow that putting a player further up the pitch in a 4-2-3-1 as opposed to a 4-3-3 makes the team more attacking, depending on the role given to the number 10 out of possession. If the player is given the remit to block passing lanes and make it difficult to pass out from the back (which Ramsey does well, and Wilson, Lawrence or James could have done) then the attacking play of the opposition can be stopped at source. Also, by introducing an additional line of defensive the team becomes more compact in and out of possession, rather than being stretched, with big gaps between the lines. This was definitely a factor with the first goal, where Vida was given all the space and time in the world to stroll out of defence and play the ball up to Kramaric. Who knows how Giggs would have implemented a 4-2-3-1. With his gung ho approach to things it could have ended up as a 4-2-0, but in a 4-2-3-1 the wingers typically track back and help out the full backs, and, as I said, the number 10 should try and disrupt passing angles. I'm not going to trawl back through posts and determine who said what when, but there was definitely a narrative on here of "we need to play a 4-3-3 to be more defensively solid, and in Ampadu's absence Vaulks must therefore start". That was the principle cause of my objection to us playing 4-3-3. Had we dropped off Croatia altogether, then 4-3-3 may well have given us a solid defensive platform (although then the formation would have probably have morphed into a 4-5-1), as the space between the lines would have been reduced and the wingers would be better positioned to help out defensively. Drawing the Croatians onto us might then have given us the space for James and Bale to be played in behind - which did happen once when Bale failed to square to James, after Allen's lofted pass. Had Giggs adopted such a negative tactical setup he would undoubtedly have been criticised for his negativity, but it would have made a lot more sense than the neither one thing nor another setup that we had, resulting in excessive space between the lines in and out of possession. Ironically enough I pretty much agree with your penultimate sentence above. I believe that it was Giggs' failure to implement a workable game plan and to prepare the players properly was the main reason for our poor display. The formation is part of that, but only a part. Player selection was probably the second most significant factor (pretty much anybody ahead of Vaulks, Williams ahead of Lawrence, and possibly Gunter ahead of Roberts - if only because if you were going to give each 90 minutes it would have made much more sense for Gunter to play the Croatia game and the more attacking Roberts to play against Hungary). To be fair, individual errors, for which Giggs can't be blamed, can't be ignored. For example Hennessey's failure to collect the ball for the first goal, given that his starting position was at the edge of the box and Perisic didn't get to the ball until it was well inside the box. But a lot of the responsibility for our poor performance in Croatia lies at Giggs' door.
|
|
|
Giggs
Jun 19, 2019 11:26:12 GMT
Post by pendragon on Jun 19, 2019 11:26:12 GMT
Based on the evidence, I think what we saw was a culmination of injuries and fitness problems, coupled with the lack of a strong and coherent game plan. I do think there is some truth to Giggs' reasoning that some players were plagued by fitness issues, which would then directly have led to the baffling team decisions.
What I am struggling to work out is, was there originally a game plan implemented at the training camp in Portugal with all the regular starters whom we'd expect to start? Were the fitness problems identified after that, causing a somewhat haphazard contingency plan to be enacted? That's the only logical explanation I can think of to account for how things ultimately panned out on Giggs' part.
|
|
|
Giggs
Jun 19, 2019 11:44:53 GMT
Post by alarch on Jun 19, 2019 11:44:53 GMT
Based on the evidence, I think what we saw was a culmination of injuries and fitness problems, coupled with the lack of a strong and coherent game plan. I do think there is some truth to Giggs' reasoning that some players were plagued by fitness issues, which would then directly have led to the baffling team decisions. What I am struggling to work out is, was there originally a game plan implemented at the training camp in Portugal with all the regular starters whom we'd expect to start? Were the fitness problems identified after that, causing a somewhat haphazard contingency plan to be enacted? That's the only logical explanation I can think of to account for how things ultimately panned out on Giggs' part. That would be a logical explanation. The alternative, that Giggs doesn't have much of a clue what he's doing, has a lot to commend it as well.
|
|
|
Post by allezlesrouges on Jun 19, 2019 11:52:21 GMT
On paper 4-2-3-1 is more attacking as you are placing a player further up the pitch, but like I've already said I'm aware that any formation can be more attacking or more defensive depending on how it is implemented. I haven't suggested we had to include Vaulks, I've asked you who would you have played instead of Vaulks that would have created more solidity in a 4-2-3-1 that you're advocating for? Because it sounds like you want a no.10 type player to come in for Vaulks to make us more defensively solid, which doesn't make sense to me. Who could this player have been against Croatia? T Lawrence or Woodburn seem like the only possibilities, and I don't think bringing either of these in really makes us more solid. I agree that we ended up in a 4-3-0 a lot of the time, which is 100% Giggs's fault. However, if we had played 4-2-3-1 like you suggested we may have ended up in a 4-2-0 at times, which is even worse, so I don't understand why you think makes this change would have helped us in any way on the day. I'm certainly not wedded to 4-3-3, and I think you've missed the point of what I'm saying if you think that. I believe the reason we lost to Croatia was down to a combination of the players not being given the right instructions/the players being unable to execute the instructions, not because of formation. This is where we disagree. It doesn't follow that putting a player further up the pitch in a 4-2-3-1 as opposed to a 4-3-3 makes the team more attacking, depending on the role given to the number 10 out of possession. If the player is given the remit to block passing lanes and make it difficult to pass out from the back (which Ramsey does well, and Wilson, Lawrence or James could have done) then the attacking play of the opposition can be stopped at source. Also, by introducing an additional line of defensive the team becomes more compact in and out of possession, rather than being stretched, with big gaps between the lines. This was definitely a factor with the first goal, where Vida was given all the space and time in the world to stroll out of defence and play the ball up to Kramaric. Who knows how Giggs would have implemented a 4-2-3-1. With his gung ho approach to things it could have ended up as a 4-2-0, but in a 4-2-3-1 the wingers typically track back and help out the full backs, and, as I said, the number 10 should try and disrupt passing angles. I'm not going to trawl back through posts and determine who said what when, but there was definitely a narrative on here of "we need to play a 4-3-3 to be more defensively solid, and in Ampadu's absence Vaulks must therefore start". That was the principle cause of my objection to us playing 4-3-3. Had we dropped off Croatia altogether, then 4-3-3 may well have given us a solid defensive platform (although then the formation would have probably have morphed into a 4-5-1), as the space between the lines would have been reduced and the wingers would be better positioned to help out defensively. Drawing the Croatians onto us might then have given us the space for James and Bale to be played in behind - which did happen once when Bale failed to square to James, after Allen's lofted pass. Had Giggs adopted such a negative tactical setup he would undoubtedly have been criticised for his negativity, but it would have made a lot more sense than the neither one thing nor another setup that we had, resulting in excessive space between the lines in and out of possession. Ironically enough I pretty much agree with your penultimate sentence above. I believe that it was Giggs' failure to implement a workable game plan and to prepare the players properly was the main reason for our poor display. The formation is part of that, but only a part. Player selection was probably the second most significant factor (pretty much anybody ahead of Vaulks, Williams ahead of Lawrence, and possibly Gunter ahead of Roberts - if only because if you were going to give each 90 minutes it would have made much more sense for Gunter to play the Croatia game and the more attacking Roberts to play against Hungary). To be fair, individual errors, for which Giggs can't be blamed, can't be ignored. For example Hennessey's failure to collect the ball for the first goal, given that his starting position was at the edge of the box and Perisic didn't get to the ball until it was well inside the box. But a lot of the responsibility for our poor performance in Croatia lies at Giggs' door. I agree with pretty much everything you’ve said here. Ramsey is great at being a “defensive 10” because he has the work rate to track back from the forward positions. I’m not sure Lawrence/James/Wilson can do this as well as him, which may be why Giggs used a flat 3 instead. If I was the manager I’d have gone really defensive for this one. Some people see setting up for a draw as negative, personally I see a point in Croatia as a massive positive. No doubt he would have been slaughtered by many for being defensive but it would have made more sense like you say. With that in mind, here’s how I would have set up for a point with the available players, in a 5-4-1. Hennessey Gunter Mepham Williams Davies Taylor Roberts Allen Smith James Bale We’d have far less possession than them, and would probably struggle to create anything, but it solves the Perisic problem and would be very difficult for them to play through us.
|
|
|
Giggs
Jun 19, 2019 12:08:03 GMT
via mobile
Post by welshiron on Jun 19, 2019 12:08:03 GMT
It doesn't follow that putting a player further up the pitch in a 4-2-3-1 as opposed to a 4-3-3 makes the team more attacking, depending on the role given to the number 10 out of possession. If the player is given the remit to block passing lanes and make it difficult to pass out from the back (which Ramsey does well, and Wilson, Lawrence or James could have done) then the attacking play of the opposition can be stopped at source. Also, by introducing an additional line of defensive the team becomes more compact in and out of possession, rather than being stretched, with big gaps between the lines. This was definitely a factor with the first goal, where Vida was given all the space and time in the world to stroll out of defence and play the ball up to Kramaric. Who knows how Giggs would have implemented a 4-2-3-1. With his gung ho approach to things it could have ended up as a 4-2-0, but in a 4-2-3-1 the wingers typically track back and help out the full backs, and, as I said, the number 10 should try and disrupt passing angles. I'm not going to trawl back through posts and determine who said what when, but there was definitely a narrative on here of "we need to play a 4-3-3 to be more defensively solid, and in Ampadu's absence Vaulks must therefore start". That was the principle cause of my objection to us playing 4-3-3. Had we dropped off Croatia altogether, then 4-3-3 may well have given us a solid defensive platform (although then the formation would have probably have morphed into a 4-5-1), as the space between the lines would have been reduced and the wingers would be better positioned to help out defensively. Drawing the Croatians onto us might then have given us the space for James and Bale to be played in behind - which did happen once when Bale failed to square to James, after Allen's lofted pass. Had Giggs adopted such a negative tactical setup he would undoubtedly have been criticised for his negativity, but it would have made a lot more sense than the neither one thing nor another setup that we had, resulting in excessive space between the lines in and out of possession. Ironically enough I pretty much agree with your penultimate sentence above. I believe that it was Giggs' failure to implement a workable game plan and to prepare the players properly was the main reason for our poor display. The formation is part of that, but only a part. Player selection was probably the second most significant factor (pretty much anybody ahead of Vaulks, Williams ahead of Lawrence, and possibly Gunter ahead of Roberts - if only because if you were going to give each 90 minutes it would have made much more sense for Gunter to play the Croatia game and the more attacking Roberts to play against Hungary). To be fair, individual errors, for which Giggs can't be blamed, can't be ignored. For example Hennessey's failure to collect the ball for the first goal, given that his starting position was at the edge of the box and Perisic didn't get to the ball until it was well inside the box. But a lot of the responsibility for our poor performance in Croatia lies at Giggs' door. I agree with pretty much everything you’ve said here. Ramsey is great at being a “defensive 10” because he has the work rate to track back from the forward positions. I’m not sure Lawrence/James/Wilson can do this as well as him, which may be why Giggs used a flat 3 instead. If I was the manager I’d have gone really defensive for this one. Some people see setting up for a draw as negative, personally I see a point in Croatia as a massive positive. No doubt he would have been slaughtered by many for being defensive but it would have made more sense like you say. With that in mind, here’s how I would have set up for a point with the available players, in a 5-4-1. Hennessey Gunter Mepham Williams Davies Taylor Roberts Allen Smith James Bale We’d have far less possession than them, and would probably struggle to create anything, but it solves the Perisic problem and would be very difficult for them to play through us. Smith ahead of Ampadu? James ahead of Brooks? Neil Taylor?? Gunter?? Team would be Hennessey Roberts Davies Mepham William's Chester Ampadu Allen Brooks Ramsey Bale
|
|