Cards on the table: where will we finish? (7 Viewers)

clint van damme said:

Dont agree.

We should have used it in more games than We have recently.
And to say we were lucky against Swansea and Blackburn is laughable.

Click to expand...

Mucca Mad Boys said:

The chance creation has been a problem in all the games we’ve lost. How does 5-3-2 correct that problem? It doesn’t. You can point out our individual errors at the back (which formation does t automatically fix btw), it’s our chance creation since Oxford away that has considerably dropped off.

Against Blackburn, Dovin was MOTM, they had the better chances in the first half and a higher xG. We hit them with a professional away performance.

As for Swansea, there were just moments that we were open to be hit on the counter but did well to snuff it out. We weren’t lucky that game but the kind of patterns of play that lead to us conceding goals (large spaces between the lines) were present in that game.

If you actually breakdown the numbers, the key determinant of our results is the scoring the first goal. If we concede first, we lose and if we score first, we tend to win. It really is as simple and that is something that needs to be addressed tactically.

Click to expand...

Evo1883 said:

I generally put blackburn and Swansea as lampards 2 best away performances

Click to expand...

clint van damme said:

I don't agree with a lot of that.
We have become too predictable and while that doesn't seem to matter too much at home it's cost us away.

I agree about the first goal though we need to find a way to be getting back into games otherwise if we concede first we may as well all go home.

Click to expand...

Mucca Mad Boys said:

If Collins was in goal, we probably go 1-0 v Blackburn and don’t win the game.

The second half, we nicked a quick 2nd goal and could sit back on a 2-0 lead to create a 3rd chance that Rudoni should’ve scored.

Blackburn had more shots than us and we really rode our luck and some good performances from Dovin to win that game.

Same with Sheff W, Dovin was MOTM until Simms scored the winner.

You can’t have it both ways. It doesn’t make sense to argue that a) we’d concede less goals playing 5-3-2 and B) Collins is causing us to concede more goals.



The last paragraph applies to this post as well because you’ve been simultaneously vocal v Collins and not playing 5-3-2.

The xG paints a picture, against Derby, Hull and Luton, it was below 1.0. We created more chances v Sheff U away. Plymouth is an outlier because we should’ve scored a 2nd.

My question, put simply, is how do you play the same personnel we would playing 4 ATB and expect to create more chances by playing Binks rather than Sakamoto?

That to me just doesn’t pass a basic logic test.

Click to expand...

Evo1883 said:

Blackburn had a few nothing efforts but we genuinely created good chances that game and i thought on balance were much the better side

Click to expand...

Mucca Mad Boys said:

If Collins was in goal, we probably go 1-0 v Blackburn and don’t win the game.

The second half, we nicked a quick 2nd goal and could sit back on a 2-0 lead to create a 3rd chance that Rudoni should’ve scored.

Blackburn had more shots than us and we really rode our luck and some good performances from Dovin to win that game.

Same with Sheff W, Dovin was MOTM until Simms scored the winner.

You can’t have it both ways. It doesn’t make sense to argue that a) we’d concede less goals playing 5-3-2 and B) Collins is causing us to concede more goals.



The last paragraph applies to this post as well because you’ve been simultaneously vocal v Collins and not playing 5-3-2.

The xG paints a picture, against Derby, Hull and Luton, it was below 1.0. We created more chances v Sheff U away. Plymouth is an outlier because we should’ve scored a 2nd.

My question, put simply, is how do you play the same personnel we would playing 4 ATB and expect to create more chances by playing Binks rather than Sakamoto?

That to me just doesn’t pass a basic logic test.

Click to expand...

Mucca Mad Boys said:

So why did Dovin get MOTM?

It’s the same with Sheff W and he scored well v Norwich and Oxford too. He’s an underrated match winner for us and his absence has been genuinely missed.

Click to expand...

clint van damme said:

You can quote all the stats you want but our tactics v Sheff and Plymouth played right into their hands. Watch the games again.
They let us have the ball and hit us on the break taking advantage of our high line.

Sheff U lost their next 3 games, they dominated possesion in all 3, we got our tactics wrong.

Click to expand...

Evo1883 said:

According to the stats he made 5 saves but prevented 0.83 goals .. we had more big chances than them , simms ironically was excellent

Click to expand...

Lamps said:

Maybe. But I see it differently.

He loves to play a high line. He is happy for our defenders to attack. But this plays into the hands of the sides that pack their side of the pitch then play the long ball over the top of our defence e.g. Plymouth. Also it doesn't work well when playing against the better sides with better players. They are good at defence splitting passes.

I suppose it could be a bit of both.

Click to expand...

Mucca Mad Boys said:

Is it tactical tweaks that are required or formation change?

The conceding goals is an issue, that’s taken the headlines by the likes of yourself, Stupot and Fernando but the lack of chance creation has seemingly gone under the radar. Again, I just struggle to see how 5-3-2 fixes that, the increased conceded goals. Particularly if the GK is to blame for multiple goals all at the same time.

Sheff U game, we went 1-0 down to a 25 yard free kick… there isn’t much you can do about that tactically. In my view and even the commentators on the day agreed that we didn’t play badly at all. 2 of the games they lost were away too (Oxford and Plymouth, ironically).

To me, you and others are oversimplifying things by saying 5 ATB would’ve got more positive results from the games.

Click to expand...

Evo1883 said:

Blackburn had a few nothing efforts but we genuinely created good chances that game and i thought on balance were much the better side

Click to expand...

clint van damme said:

We played 5 at the back and had our best spell of the season.
You're actually trying to downplay how good that run was by arguing some good performances were lucky!

And I'm not saying we should go back to 5 at the back and stick to it, I'm saying there are certain games where we should and Sheff U was one of them.
And from very early it was clear to see how they were going to set up and how it was going to go and we did nothing to counter that.

Click to expand...

Mucca Mad Boys said:

It’s not downplaying that run by pointing out that there moments during this spell where we rode our luck. It was those away games that Dovin put his hat in the ring for POTS.

Co’mon, you’ve definitely been advocating 5 ATB for a while now. My critique has been tactical rather than formation because we’ve struggled against the bottom half teams on the road and not found a way to win from losing positions.

People can talk about the tactical approach to the Sheff U game, we went 1-0 down to a long range free kick. The game was pretty even up to that point and from that goal we needed to chase a goal.

Click to expand...

clint van damme said:

Yes, I said we shouldn't move away from 5 at the back.
But we did, and we were doing fine with a 4.
But since then teams have found away to play against it, and while that isn't too much of an issue at home it definitely is away and we havent addressed it so I think it's something we should have revisited.

And you keep going on about Sheff U opening the scoring with a free kick but watch the game.

They really should have been ahead before then because they created 2 really good situations, (I wont call them chances because 1 of them they some how never managed to get a shot on goal, think Diaz screwed up) by sitting, letting us pass the ball around and then pouncing as soon as we make an error.

That's the blue print for playing us at home.

If its not going to be 5 at the back we at least need to ditch the high line, it's not working.

Click to expand...

Captain Dart said:

I think it points to the fact the squad hasn't got adequate strength in depth.

Click to expand...

clint van damme said:

Yes, I said we shouldn't move away from 5 at the back.
But we did, and we were doing fine with a 4.
But since then teams have found away to play against it, and while that isn't too much of an issue at home it definitely is away and we havent addressed it so I think it's something we should have revisited.

And you keep going on about Sheff U opening the scoring with a free kick but watch the game.

They really should have been ahead before then because they created 2 really good situations, (I wont call them chances because 1 of them they some how never managed to get a shot on goal, think Diaz screwed up) by sitting, letting us pass the ball around and then pouncing as soon as we make an error.

That's the blue print for playing us at home.

If its not going to be 5 at the back we at least need to ditch the high line, it's not working.

Click to expand...

Mucca Mad Boys said:

You still haven’t addressed the points about the personnel being different when we played 5-3-2 because this is just as important as the tactical plan.

We both watched the game v Sheff U, we created a ‘threat’ before the goal so it cuts both ways. Overall, we were arguably the better team in the second half. Using the example of a Top 2/3 team is rather flawed because we were completely outplayed by Leeds when we played 5-3-2. We tried to sit back and they pulled us apart.

In the games v Hull and Plymouth in particular, the frustrating was that in possession, we took too many easy options and both Lampard and Robins picked up on this year. It will definitely be a priority for the recruitment team to pick up 1-2 wingers with the profile of taking players on and getting the byline for crosses.

Defensively, I’d like to see us tactically setup something between what we seen in the Hull and Luton games. We defended v well against Luton for most of the game and controlled the game comfortably v Hull.

Click to expand...

clint van damme said:

You say using the example of playing against a top 3 side is flawed but then go on to use Luton as an example of good defending when we were backs to the wall with 10 men and had no choice!

As for Hull, high line cost us again.

And Plymouth did to us exactly what Sheff U did so its not just top 3 sides. Like I said, there's a blue print.
And your saying you'd like to see this or that, great. But wait till next season.

We should have used what's tried and tested away from home on this run in. Not doing so has cost us.

Click to expand...