|
Giggs
Jun 19, 2019 12:20:47 GMT
Post by pendragon on Jun 19, 2019 12:20:47 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. I know, which is why I genuinely hope that it isn't the alternative scenario! 😬
|
|
|
Post by alarch on Jun 19, 2019 13:28:06 GMT
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 If you wanted to go defensive against Croatia and had all the players available and fully fit that would be a strong selection, but Ramsey wasn't available and Ampadu and Brooks weren't in a condition to play 90 minutes. Much as I've been critical of Giggs, the criticism of his non-selection of those two from the off was a bit of a straw man argument - which only helped Giggs deflect the more pertinent criticism of his selections and tactical setup.
|
|
|
Post by iot on Jun 19, 2019 13:34:14 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. Jesus Christ this is frustrating to read. I can't articulate it any better than allezlesrouges, but clearly on paper starting with Vaulks in a 4-3-3 is more defensive than dropping him from his deeper midfield role in place of an attacking midfielder such as brooks, lawrence, wooburn or matondo. I can't see how there's any argument about that. To say that playing 433 leaves more space in between the lines is a nonsense as it entirely depends on how it's implemented. Croatia played with a 433 but modric, kovacic and brozovic never lined up in a flat 3, they had the fluidity to cover spaces in between the lines. Our failure to do that was because of inadequate prepping and failure of the coaching staff to put in an appropriate structure, not the formation.
|
|
|
Post by alarch on Jun 19, 2019 13:46:13 GMT
That's far too simplistic - I mean did you ever see Chelsea under Mourinho? Most of Croatia's opportunities, including the second goal came from our inability to build coherently from the back, because of the big gaps between the lines of our chosen 4-3-3. Let's spell it out - that second goal basically two widely separated centre backs, and even wider full backs desperately scrambling to get back into position following an intercepted pass played over 30 metres - thanks to our 4-3-3. With a 4-2-3-1 the spaces wouldn't have had to be as far between the lines, and passes out of defence would be far less risky. Are you not willing to acknowledge this obvious fact?
Interesting how you've moved the goalposts and invoke Croatia's way of playing as evidence to support a 4-3-3, whilst simultaneously saying that they didn't play in a flat back 3. After the ROI 4-1 thrashing people claimed that we played a 4-3-3, and yet if you watch the game back we clearly adopted a 4-1-4-1 morphing into a 4-2-3-1 when Allen dropped back to support Ampadu. I guess you too will insist that was a 4-3-3 formation.
Perhaps one way to resolve this dispute is by pretending that a Wilson, James or Lawrence playing in the 10 position was an example of a fluid 4-3-3...
|
|
|
Post by CrackityJones on Jun 19, 2019 14:11:58 GMT
I really hope Giggs doesn't read the forum, this formation patter is going to confuse him even more than he is already.
|
|
|
Giggs
Jun 19, 2019 14:29:36 GMT
Post by iot on Jun 19, 2019 14:29:36 GMT
That's far too simplistic - I mean did you ever see Chelsea under Mourinho? Most of Croatia's opportunities, including the second goal came from our inability to build coherently from the back, because of the big gaps between the lines of our chosen 4-3-3. Let's spell it out - that second goal basically two widely separated centre backs, and even wider full backs desperately scrambling to get back into position following an intercepted pass played over 30 metres - thanks to our 4-3-3. With a 4-2-3-1 the spaces wouldn't have had to be as far between the lines, and passes out of defence would be far less risky. Are you not willing to acknowledge this obvious fact? Interesting how you've moved the goalposts and invoke Croatia's way of playing as evidence to support a 4-3-3, whilst simultaneously saying that they didn't play in a flat back 3. After the ROI 4-1 thrashing people claimed that we played a 4-3-3, and yet if you watch the game back we clearly adopted a 4-1-4-1 morphing into a 4-2-3-1 when Allen dropped back to support Ampadu. I guess you too will insist that was a 4-3-3 formation. Perhaps one way to resolve this dispute is by pretending that a Wilson, James or Lawrence playing in the 10 position was an example of a fluid 4-3-3... "That's far too simplistic - I mean did you ever see Chelsea under Mourinho? Most of Croatia's opportunities, including the second goal came from our inability to build coherently from the back, because of the big gaps between the lines of our chosen 4-3-3. Let's spell it out - that second goal basically two widely separated centre backs, and even wider full backs desperately scrambling to get back into position following an intercepted pass played over 30 metres - thanks to our 4-3-3. With a 4-2-3-1 the spaces wouldn't have had to be as far between the lines, and passes out of defence would be far less risky. Are you not willing to acknowledge this obvious fact?"
No, absolutely not, for the reasons I've explained on more than one occasion! The only difference with a 433 is that we played an additional midfielder with a more defensive mindset in place of an attacking midfielder which, if implemented properly, allows less room for the opposition to dictate things from midfield. I agree we were very open, but that'n not because of the formation, it's because of the broader set-up. Again, playing this way doesn't necessarily create more space in between the lines if it's done correctly. With the croatians, when one would push up the others would drop deep, covering areas against the counter. We didn't have the same understanding and that's where we fell short in those instances you've cited. "Interesting how you've moved the goalposts and invoke Croatia's way of playing as evidence to support a 4-3-3, whilst simultaneously saying that they didn't play in a flat back 3. After the ROI 4-1 thrashing people claimed that we played a 4-3-3, and yet if you watch the game back we clearly adopted a 4-1-4-1 morphing into a 4-2-3-1 when Allen dropped back to support Ampadu. I guess you too will insist that was a 4-3-3 formation."
How have I moved the goalposts? If you read through my posts you'll see I made the precise same point days ago. I really don't think you understand what I'm trying to say because I've always maintained that playing a 433 doesn't mean you keep wedded to a flat midfield 3. I don't recall anyone trying to claim we played with a 433 against Ireland. I've seen you claim that once before but I'm pretty sure no one actually said it, happy to be proved wrong. "Perhaps one way to resolve this dispute is by pretending that a Wilson, James or Lawrence playing in the 10 position was an example of a fluid 4-3-3..."
I think there is an important difference, particularly when Ramsey returns because most fans seem to think he should be deployed as a 10. However, I'm with Allegri, who said, when recruiting him for Juve, that arsenal never played him in his correct position. He's neither a 10 nor a deep midfielder, he's in-between, or a 6 as Allegri described it. When he plays as a 10 and receives the ball in advanced positions where there's less space, he can sometimes struggle. He's better in an all-action role, where he can pick up the ball in deeper positions and drive forward, without the defensive responsibilities of playing in a midfield 2, or ghost into the box with his excellent off the ball runs. That's why I would argue our strongest lineup is a 433.
|
|
|
Giggs
Jun 19, 2019 15:23:10 GMT
Post by 1gwaunview on Jun 19, 2019 15:23:10 GMT
I really hope Giggs doesn't read the forum, this formation patter is going to confuse him even more than he is already. 'What's a formation?' he asked.
|
|
|
Giggs
Jun 19, 2019 15:55:53 GMT
Post by rushlegend on Jun 19, 2019 15:55:53 GMT
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)
Coleman was manager against Austria!
|
|
|
Post by alarch on Jun 19, 2019 16:02:13 GMT
Remarkably perhaps I don't disagree much with the substantive parts of your arguments, iot, especially what you say about Ramsey. Which leaves me scratching my head, as to what we're actually debating at all. It seems to come down to semantics, rather than substance. So you favour a fluid formation (as do I, I've recently eulogised the fluid 4-1-4-1/4-2-3-1 we adopted against ROI at home). You also talk about the Croatian way of playing "one would push up the others would drop deep" - which sounds suspiciously like a formation that morphs in to a 4-2-3-1.
Truth is, when formations are discussed, they will almost invariably present over-simplifications of the way a team actually plays. The formation that people refer to is often the resting defensive formation when the ball is the opposition half, and in their possession. But the offensive formation often takes on a different character, inevitably so to some extent as you obviously can't advance on the opposition in rigid banks of three or four lines. With the fluid formation we adopted against ROI at home we even varied the formation within the defensive phase, with Allen often dropping back alongside Ampadu, as ROI progressed the ball up the pitch.
So, perhaps we can agree that a fluid, dynamic formation, which gives the likes of Allen, Ampadu and Ramsey flexibility in their how they fit into the overall system, is how we should aim to play in the future. Where I will continue to disagree is when someone attempts to put forward the logical argument - we must play defensively, so we must adopt a 4-3-3 (implicitly a flat three lines), which means that Will Vaulks has to play because he plays centrally. That is a seriously dodgy line of reasoning.
|
|
|
Giggs
Jun 19, 2019 17:02:46 GMT
via mobile
Post by jackanapes on Jun 19, 2019 17:02:46 GMT
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) Coleman was manager against Austria! 2-0 defeat to Austria in 2005, Toshack’s first competitive game I think.
|
|
|
Giggs
Jun 19, 2019 19:59:37 GMT
Post by allezlesrouges on Jun 19, 2019 19:59:37 GMT
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 You've mis-read my post. Read the part in bold. Ampadu/Ramsey/Brooks/Chester weren't available for the Croatia game. As a side note I like the team you've put down there. I'd like us to play a team like that in the away leg vs Slovakia.
|
|
|
Giggs
Jun 19, 2019 20:49:23 GMT
via mobile
Post by welshiron on Jun 19, 2019 20:49:23 GMT
Apologies
|
|
|
Post by cadno on Jun 20, 2019 12:25:46 GMT
It's interesting reading about el Maestro and the work he's done with the Uruguay national team since 2006.
He made sure the youth teams u15 to u21 all share the same facilities as the senior side, and they have the same playing philosophy for all age groups.
He also made education an important part for the youth, teaching them about Uruguayan history and culture, so that when they play they know what it means to represent their country and share the same passion as the fans.
It's good to know Wales have been doing very similar things, with the "Welsh way", and teaching the players the anthem and a bit of our history. Credit to Osian Roberts and many others for this.
Hopefully Giggs is sitting down with the new call ups, Vaulks, Lawrence, Moore etc, to make sure they have the right passion to play for us and it's not too much to do with propelling their career. To be fair, Vaulks and Lawrence seem like tidy blokes, and they have made an effort to fit in.
It's good that Giggs is giving our young players opportunities, he just needs to find the right balance now for the rest of this campaign!
|
|
|
Giggs
Jun 20, 2019 13:32:53 GMT
via mobile
Post by welshiron on Jun 20, 2019 13:32:53 GMT
Vaulks and Lawrence arent youngsters they are more akin to journeyman.
|
|
|
Giggs
Jun 28, 2019 12:01:44 GMT
via mobile
Post by welshiron on Jun 28, 2019 12:01:44 GMT
Article on BBC site saying how is is still learning.
I say go and learn elsewhere just wish we had moved on from being a stepping stone and offering apprentices.
|
|
|
Giggs
Aug 14, 2019 11:31:22 GMT
Post by 1gwaunview on Aug 14, 2019 11:31:22 GMT
Giggs and his class of '92 cronies attempting to set up a satellite university to Lancaster Uni according to Radio Wales this morning. Shouldn't he be preparing for our next Euro qualifiers? Sorry my mistake, he doesn't like leaving the 'M5 or M60' postal code area unless it's to the Far East.
|
|
|
Post by Jamie-Bins on Aug 14, 2019 11:47:22 GMT
The thing about the fact Giggs lives is Manchester is getting really, really boring. Interesting fact - Chris Coleman lived in London, was this an issue? Gary Speed in Chester, was that a problem? Do people genuinely believe the reason for recent form is down to where he lives?
|
|
|
Giggs
Aug 14, 2019 12:13:18 GMT
Post by iot on Aug 14, 2019 12:13:18 GMT
The thing about the fact Giggs lives is Manchester is getting really, really boring. Interesting fact - Chris Coleman lived in London, was this an issue? Gary Speed in Chester, was that a problem? Do people genuinely believe the reason for recent form is down to where he lives? I don't think where he lives is an issue at all in itself, but if it dictates the way he approaches his role then clearly it is. We know that, for recent home fixtures, that giggs has uprooted the squad from training and staying at the vale to doing so at carrington. He may have done that because he thinks it's the better move, but the convenience for him may also be a factor. I've read one article saying the players are not happy with the move. I really don't like it because of what it symbolises - the squad are meeting up to represent Wales. When previous managers were at the helm, there would be small things like making sure everyone learns the anthem, there would be things around making players more aware of welsh history, putting on videos about such things prior to matches to really psyche them up. So moving out of Wales to stay at facilities in England for a couple of weeks works against all of that. Impossible to say for sure what the drivers are behind those decisions and what impact they have, but they could be affecting things.
|
|
|
Post by Jamie-Bins on Aug 14, 2019 12:21:16 GMT
The thing about the fact Giggs lives is Manchester is getting really, really boring. Interesting fact - Chris Coleman lived in London, was this an issue? Gary Speed in Chester, was that a problem? Do people genuinely believe the reason for recent form is down to where he lives? I don't think where he lives is an issue at all in itself, but if it dictates the way he approaches his role then clearly it is. We know that, for recent home fixtures, that giggs has uprooted the squad from training and staying at the vale to doing so at carrington. He may have done that because he thinks it's the better move, but the convenience for him may also be a factor. I've read one article saying the players are not happy with the move. I really don't like it because of what it symbolises - the squad are meeting up to represent Wales. When previous managers were at the helm, there would be small things like making sure everyone learns the anthem, there would be things around making players more aware of welsh history, putting on videos about such things prior to matches to really psyche them up. So moving out of Wales to stay at facilities in England for a couple of weeks works against all of that. Impossible to say for sure what the drivers are behind those decisions and what impact they have, but they could be affecting things. wasn't the Carrington stay a one off due to the fact we played in Wrexham? Pretty sure the team have carried on being based in the Vale for matches based in Cardiff.
|
|
|
Giggs
Aug 14, 2019 12:26:10 GMT
Post by 1gwaunview on Aug 14, 2019 12:26:10 GMT
The thing about the fact Giggs lives is Manchester is getting really, really boring. Interesting fact - Chris Coleman lived in London, was this an issue? Gary Speed in Chester, was that a problem? Do people genuinely believe the reason for recent form is down to where he lives? No, the poor results of late not down to where he lives but to his naive management, poor tactics deployed and some players not being at their best.
|
|
|
Giggs
Aug 14, 2019 18:44:18 GMT
Post by manulike on Aug 14, 2019 18:44:18 GMT
... It's Giggs - Let's get 100% behind him
|
|
|
Giggs
Aug 14, 2019 19:06:59 GMT
Post by 1gwaunview on Aug 14, 2019 19:06:59 GMT
... It's Giggs - Let's get 100% behind him Yes for sure, just like we'll be behind Croatia, Hungary and Slovakia by the end of the qualifiers.
|
|
|
Post by welshiron on Aug 14, 2019 21:01:07 GMT
The problem is Giggs was always going to be devisive and the appt was the end of together stronger
|
|
|
Post by gwernybwch on Aug 17, 2019 13:38:57 GMT
One Day. Two Cities. One person earning £1,350 a day as Manager of Wales, the other helping out at the FAW whilst on his holidays.
|
|
|
Post by pendragon on Aug 17, 2019 16:40:25 GMT
We will need to rely on the fitness and form of our players during the rest of the qualifiers for sure. Really not certain what Giggs has in store next and whether it will yield any fruits.
Thankfully, Bale, James, Mepham and Wilson have had a cracking start. Hope it stays that way!
|
|
|
Post by cadno on Aug 17, 2019 18:05:19 GMT
We will need to rely on the fitness and form of our players during the rest of the qualifiers for sure. Really not certain what Giggs has in store next and whether it will yield any fruits. Thankfully, Bale, James, Mepham and Wilson have had a cracking start. Hope it stays that way! + Lawrence and joniesta!
|
|
|
Post by pendragon on Aug 19, 2019 16:55:26 GMT
We will need to rely on the fitness and form of our players during the rest of the qualifiers for sure. Really not certain what Giggs has in store next and whether it will yield any fruits. Thankfully, Bale, James, Mepham and Wilson have had a cracking start. Hope it stays that way! + Lawrence and joniesta! If their form continues, Giggs will only need to figure out the best starting eleven and their strongest squad positions, build some cammaraderie and the hard work will have been done!
|
|
|
Giggs
Aug 20, 2019 16:09:53 GMT
via mobile
alarch likes this
Post by welshiron on Aug 20, 2019 16:09:53 GMT
Rob Page joins as an assistant.
Talk about cheap and lazy option.
Bring back Bobby Gould at least everyone hated him.
|
|
|
Giggs
Aug 21, 2019 8:48:52 GMT
Post by cogancoronation31 on Aug 21, 2019 8:48:52 GMT
Understand that RG is out and about in the remoter parts of Wales today, meeting fans and explaining squad inclusions/exclusions.
Q: Has Dummett been dropped for a reason? Thought he was impressive vs Trinidad & Tobago earlier this year.
|
|
|
Post by manulike on Aug 21, 2019 10:29:01 GMT
I am not one who enjoys being critical of our managers. Never have been. Even in the Dark Days. However, I would really appreciate it, if someone in the FAW will have a word in Mr Giggs' ear and tell him when eight year-old kids come to a FAW press conference and ask him who was the best player he ever played with or the best goal he ever scored - PLEASE dig a little deeper than Man United players/goals ;-(( You did have 64 caps as a player and a dozen or so as a coach ...
|
|