Best of Both Worlds - Hannah Montana 2006 (3 Viewers)

[Ccfcisparks]

This is pretty deep and, honestly, too insightful for someone like me who doesn't really appreciate the in depth analysis of how the game works! I do however like to hear these opinions, they are eye opening and provide food for thought. While I enjoyed the short lived fun of (for example) Warthog, I'm really glad that the Chicken is playing nice and is continuing to make some great and knowlegeable posts.

Yes excellent analysis. Much better than anything Chris has posted, who is constantly slating "McGraw"

 

---

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Yes excellent analysis. Much better than anything Chris has posted, who is constantly slating "McGraw"

I will say it puzzles me why he couldn't have just posted like this in the first place. Certainly makes better reading than @CCFCAnalysis anyway.

 

[Ccfcisparks]

I will say it puzzles me why he couldn't have just posted like this in the first place. Certainly makes better reading than @CCFCAnalysis anyway.

Its always fun to WUM. The fact he's perma banned still confuses me but I wont go onto that

 

[Sick Boy]

I will say it puzzles me why he couldn't have just posted like this in the first place. Certainly makes better reading than @CCFCAnalysis anyway.

 

[Captain Dart]

It does make you raise question marks over how pragmatic he is. We did really well with 5ATB but he couldn't wait to get rid of it and seems to refuse to contemplate using it again (watch us line up with 5ATB next game now!)

I get that Grimes plays that deep he's almost an extra centre back anyway but he's so good with the ball why shouldn't we be looking to utilise that further up the field? I also think that most of our strike force would work better in a two (Simms and BTA for example).

It would of course leave us with only one backup CB in Lati (who I think would also suit 5ATB) but if we got an injury we could revert to a back 4. Dasilva as a wingback would get caught with the ball over the top more often (though hopefully the extra CB would guard against that) and maybe Brau would be able to make that less of an issue when he's settled in?

We've got the cover at both fullbacks now to allow rotation for the extra workload wingbacks have and although it would seemingly not suit the likes of EMC or Saka it just means they don't have to play all the time and burnout, leaving them fresh for when we do want to switch to wide forward players.

I don't think we should play it all the time, but I think it's something we should have in our locker rather than just sticking to this one formation all the time.

Grimes has this uncanny ability to ghost past his marker and break the forward press. Kitching and Thomas sometimes do the same but far less frequently and in a much clunkier manner.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Its always fun to WUM. The fact he's perma banned still confuses me but I wont go onto that

It might be fun to WUM but it's more fun to get into the weeds and talk football.

 

[Ccfcisparks]

It might be fun to WUM but it's more fun to get into the weeds and talk football.

into the weeds? are you a shmee alt?

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

into the weeds? are you a shmee alt?

 

[Oggysstarjumps]

Interesting read, thank you. I've been thinking about what's causing our inability to defend set pieces - and not playing Simms, Sheaf, Bidders (a decision I'm not arguing with) definitely has an impact here when you're swapping them with EMC, Torp and Da Silva. By doing this, we've shown we can blow teams away, but we're not going to go up conceding the number of chances we've given to some of the poorer teams in the league. So this could be part of the answer - and grinding out results is something we're definitely going to need over the course of the season. BTW, I also love CCFC Analysis too. Keep it all coming!!

 

[Chicken Mcgraw]

Interesting read, thank you. I've been thinking about what's causing our inability to defend set pieces - and not playing Simms, Sheaf, Bidders (a decision I'm not arguing with) definitely has an impact here when you're swapping them with EMC, Torp and Da Silva. By doing this, we've shown we can blow teams away, but we're not going to go up conceding the number of chances we've given to some of the poorer teams in the league. So this could be part of the answer - and grinding out results is something we're definitely going to need over the course of the season. BTW, I also love CCFC Analysis too. Keep it all coming!!

Agreed!

 

[skybluecam]

I don’t like watching us in a back 3/5 because as you say the football looks awful. We did get decent results from it last season though.

Could maybe see us using it to see out results and away from home. But I have always felt Lampard is pretty loyal to his 4 back system and only used the 5 when forced to last season?

The more I hear about Woolfenden the more he doesn’t seem to be what we needed lol

 

[skybluecam]

Also @Chicken Mcgraw what's Brau done so wrong?

 

[Chicken Mcgraw]

Also @Chicken Mcgraw what's Brau done so wrong?

Looks like he’s never seen a football before

 

[Chris1987]

Yes excellent analysis. Much better than anything Chris has posted, who is constantly slating "McGraw"

Must be still sore honey bunch . Hope you can overcome your insecurity . The problem really does appear to be quite acute .

 

[fernandopartridge]

I don’t like watching us in a back 3/5 because as you say the football looks awful. We did get decent results from it last season though.

Could maybe see us using it to see out results and away from home. But I have always felt Lampard is pretty loyal to his 4 back system and only used the 5 when forced to last season?

The more I hear about Woolfenden the more he doesn’t seem to be what we needed lol

Our football in the 4ATB has only really looked exciting this season, and that might be down to the coaching of the players and confidence more than formation. So, it could be that we suddenly start to look a bit more cohesive in an alternative formation anyway.

 

[procdoc]

Very good analysis @Chicken Mcgraw
It would be interesting to see if we employ that formation, as you can’t argue with the results it yielded

 

[skybluecam]

Our football in the 4ATB has only really looked exciting this season, and that might be down to the coaching of the players and confidence more than formation. So, it could be that we suddenly start to look a bit more cohesive in an alternative formation anyway.

We looked much better in the 4 back last season than 3/5.

To me we don't seem to have a clear plan going forward in the 5 at the back.

 

[Wyken Sky Blue]

*this is a disclaimer to say the post is very long and potentially boring so if you don’t fancy reading that amount then this is your warning. I am also not advocating the use of 3-5-2, just merely speculating what it may look like!

With the current make up of the squad, there’s a slight possibility we may return to a back 5 at some stage. This is mostly because Luke Woolfenden has arrived leaving us with 3 first team CB’s who are going to be expecting minutes. We also have Bidwell and Lati who would be far more suited to playing CB in a back 3 than 4. Kaine Kesler Hayden has come from a Preston team that played a back 3 system too.

I cannot bear to watch Miguel Angel Brau play any more minutes at all never mind at left wing. That’s a very real possibility if we stick with a back 4.

Can we make a back 5 work?

Well let’s look at the success we had with it last season. By my reckoning we used a back 5 in the following games:

Coventry 1-0 Bristol City - 3-5-2 (W)
Blackburn 0-2 Coventry - 3-5-2 (W)
Coventry 2-1 Watford - 3-5-2 (W)
Swansea 0-2 Coventry - 3-5-2 (W)
Coventry 0-2 Leeds - 3-5-2 (L)
Coventry 1-4 Ipswich - 5-4-1 (L)
Coventry 1-0 QPR - 3-5-2 (W)
Sheffield Wednesday 1-2 Coventry - 3-5-2 (W)

Throughout these games, Lampard regularly reverted to a 5-4-1. That allowed him to use Sakamoto or Mason Clark on one side and Rudoni on the other. I didn’t particularly like it, but it at least shows the wide men wouldn’t be totally excluded from the team should we go that way.

In truth this run of form wasn’t pretty. We ground out results and sometimes needed late goals to do so. The points tally however speaks for itself and that form didn’t continue once we ended the season in a back 4.

How did it look then?

Going forwards:

It wasn’t too dissimilar to what we are running with currently. As shown in the images below it involves the full backs very high and wide with Rudoni and another forward floating around a central striker:

View attachment 45806
You can see Grimes is slightly highly than usual but as always, Rudoni and Torp are acting as box crashing forwards.

Both wingbacks are attacking the box. Lampard specifically mentioned this to the press a few times as something that he demands in the absence of wingers.

Going backwards:

In both variations of the 5 back, I was always interested in how narrow Lampard wanted to defend. This is an example of us pressing in midfield, look how narrow we sit:

View attachment 45807

Then when deep in our own half, you could throw a blanket over the back 5 and midfield 3:

View attachment 45808

The principle here is that, when high on the pitch, forcing the ball to the opposition full backs allows us to cut passing lanes and prevent more dangerous players getting on the ball.

When deep, we are forcing the cross to come in and relying on our back 3 to win the first header. We need to be wary here as Rushworth has looked incredibly shaky when the opposition have put quality crosses over, particularly to his back post.

How can it look now?

Does Grimes prevent it from working?

Grimes made his full debut at home to QPR in a 1-0 win. I’m sure we all remember how poor that game was and the goal wasn’t scored until Kitching was subbed and we reverted to a back 4.

The following game we went to Sheffield Wednesday and remained in a back 5. We struggled until a last minute calamity from Bannan and Pierce Charles. The back 5 was never seen again.

The dilemma is that Grimes wants to play in the back 3 when on the ball. He wants to get us from our own box to the opposition half almost by himself. He cannot do this in a back 5 and would have to trust the centre backs to progress from deep themselves:

Interestingly this following screenshot shows the set up with Grimes and the back 3. Just after this, Kitching breaks the lines with a great pass, Grimes turns and plays a nice forward ball into EMC. We gained 50-60 yards in 2 passes. So Grimes is capable to doing it:

View attachment 45809

How I think it could look:

Our on ball system would need to look like this:
View attachment 45812

Here’s a real life example of what this looks like:

View attachment 45813


There is a weird diamond at the back with both wing backs high and wide and the usual rotations from the forwards.

Off the ball it’s something like this:

View attachment 45814

But can it stop our main weaknesses?

Well what are they? This year it has been defending set pieces. Last year it was being bullied at poor teams away from home (Luton, Derby, Plymouth). With MVE, Dasilva, Grimes, Sakamoto (and even potentially Allen now), it is very hard for us to match up with the most physical sides at set pieces and sometimes throughout the game. Adding in a centre half should in at least in theory aid those issues. That centre half is…

Luke Woolfenden

Having seen a fair bit of him, he isn’t that great in the air, nor does he have much pace. He seems more suited to a back 5 in that he is classy on the ball and a good reader of the game. Here’s the numbers:

View attachment 45818

It doesn’t make much sense to me to sign a player with these strengths when you have Grimes. I believe it would have made more sense to bring in a more athletic / duel winning cb whose limitations on the ball could be covered by Grimes dropping deep. Woolfenden is a pretty similar profile to Hughes which suggests it was that type of player we were seeking. That to me again hints a back 5 could be in his thinking.

As the title of Hannah Montana’s hit song says, can we get the best of both worlds?

We look great in the 4-2-3-1 at times. Scintillating going forward to the point teams can’t live with us. But we are frail at the back, we concede a lot of goals. Saturday’s tale of 2 halves shown this.

In a 3-5-2, we aren’t fluid, the attack is clunky but we defend more solidly and don’t look petrified at every set piece.

It has been levelled at Lampard that he is reluctant to use his bench. Would he be willing to change formation during games?

The idea being that, whilst 2-1 up away at Oxford for example, you could substitute Mason Clark for Woolfenden and have that extra bite at set pieces and defensive solidity. You have attacked well, got ahead, now try to grind it out.

How about the Thomas Frank style of back 4 at home and back 5 away? Okay it’s not quite that simple but the idea is, in the ‘easier’ home games you can play the expansive 4-2-3-1 and in the tougher more physical away days you revert to the back 5.

This could potentially allow us to have the best of both worlds. We retain that attacking threat and fluidity in the games / periods we need it but can go defensive when required. If you look at Plymouth last year as an example, we were able to tear them apart at home but they outmatched us physically away. Would that have happened had we tweaked into a back 5 at their place?

As of right now, EMC and Sakamoto are going to need to rack up more minutes than they have managed at any season during their careers. There just isn’t adequate cover for them. You have Asante but he might be needed up top too. Then you’re into the full backs covering there. That’s a risk. Having the flexibility to change systems at will can help manage their minutes without forcing them to the bench for 5 games in a row.

Can a 3-5-2 work? Will it even happen? Can we use both in the same game? What are your thoughts?

Sent from my Pixel 8 using Tapatalk

 

[Chicken Mcgraw]

Sent from my Pixel 8 using Tapatalk

Evening Sky Blue 1991, missed you mate. Any Fleur East gigs recently?

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

We looked much better in the 4 back last season than 3/5.

To me we don't seem to have a clear plan going forward in the 5 at the back.

Results disagree.