Tactics home (1 Viewer)

[Mucca Mad Boys]

I didn't get to go today, work took the mick, really annoyed but, it seems to me, after another home game where we have dropped points at home v a weak side, it makes me think, should we change our tactics for home games? No need to change away game tactics as we are really good away (sounds good saying that).

Should we change tactics or keep them? What would you change it to?

I'd go 4-2-3-1.

 

---

[Grendel]

I didn't get to go today, work took the mick, really annoyed but, it seems to me, after another home game where we have dropped points at home v a weak side, it makes me think, should we change our tactics for home games? No need to change away game tactics as we are really good away (sounds good saying that).

Should we change tactics or keep them? What would you change it to?

I'd go 4-2-3-1.

You've been playing too many computer games. It has nothing to do with formation when it comes down to the last few minutes -- it is down to concentration and mental strength.

 

[wingy]

I didn't get to go today, work took the mick, really annoyed but, it seems to me, after another home game where we have dropped points at home v a weak side, it makes me think, should we change our tactics for home games? No need to change away game tactics as we are really good away (sounds good saying that).

Should we change tactics or keep them? What would you change it to?

I'd go 4-2-3-1.

We played that Today you Plank

MR said in the telegraph formations don't count .

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

You've been playing too many computer games. It has nothing to do with formation when it comes down to the last few minutes -- it is down to concentration and mental strength.

I disagree, it was unfortunate we conceded in stoppage time, where concentration and mental strength are key, but tactics play apart, counter attacking/just go for it tacticss (Sunderland v WBA today on MOTD for WBA's 4th) but we've blown away Hartlepool and Colchester, and at home, we draw v Pompey, lost v Scunny, and we are nowhere near as good at home as we are away which suggests to me, tactics need tweaking for home games, whether a change in formation or style of play is needed.

We played that Today you Plank

MR said in the telegraph formations don't count .

Whoops, as I said I didn't go because of work and my mate who watched the game said we were playing 4-4-2 and considering it was unchanged from Colchester and Hartlepool, I didn't expect a change in formation.

That's MR's opinion, but formations clearly do matter. The right formation for a team makes all the difference.

 

[stupot07]

We're already playing 4231

----------------------Murphy

Christie ----Wood ----edge -----hussey

----------Bailey-----------Jennings

Baker-----------Moussa---------McSheffrey

-------------------McGoldrick

Sometimes Moussa plays left/sheff central, and sometimes Moussa's central and sheff is wide.

We need to try and fit 2 strikers in at home.

 

[Grendel]

I disagree, it was unfortunate we conceded in stoppage time, where concentration and mental strength are key, but tactics play apart, counter attacking/just go for it tacticss (Sunderland v WBA today on MOTD for WBA's 4th) but we've blown away Hartlepool and Colchester, and at home, we draw v Pompey, lost v Scunny, and we are nowhere near as good at home as we are away which suggests to me, tactics need tweaking for home games, whether a change in formation or style of play is needed.

Well I hate to break it to you but we did play 4-2-3-1 and it didn't work well. Conceding goals in the last few minutes is nothing to do with formation.

 

[Grendel]

We're already playing 4231

----------------------Murphy

Christie ----Wood ----edge -----hussey

----------Bailey-----------Jennings

Baker-----------Moussa---------McSheffrey

-------------------McGoldrick

Sometimes Moussa plays left/sheff central, and sometimes Moussa's central and sheff is wide.

We need to try and fit 2 strikers in at home.

I was disappointed we only played one up front -- it didn't work well but I suspect Robins thinks the one is the only one worth playing.

 

[stupot07]

I was disappointed we only played one up front -- it didn't work well but I suspect Robins thinks the one is the only one worth playing.

I don't particularly rate any of the back strikers either but 1 striker at home is very negative....

 

[Grendel]

I don't particularly rate any of the back strikers either but 1 striker at home is very negative....

I assume the idea was to get McSheffrey and Baker in to support the striker but other than the goal it didn't work at all.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Well I hate to break it to you but we did play 4-2-3-1 and it didn't work well. Conceding goals in the last few minutes is nothing to do with formation.

Your reply to my post replied to nothing I said in my post :facepalm: and I said tactics, not formation, as well as concentration and mental strength lead to conceding late goals...

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Disappointed to see Moussa not on the LW, he's done really well last 2 games there so this move puzzled me somewhat, Barton would've been a good option at AMC IMO as he has been in good form lately.

 

[Grendel]

Your reply to my post replied to nothing I said in my post :facepalm: and I said tactics, not formation, as well as concentration and mental strength lead to conceding late goals...

Your OP said your preferred formation at home. This was the formation we played and it didn't work well.

 

[Grendel]

Disappointed to see Moussa not on the LW, he's done really well last 2 games there so this move puzzled me somewhat, Barton would've been a good option at AMC IMO as he has been in good form lately.

Sadly we were not 4-0 up so Barton couldn't show his "good form" -- he had to compete and other than one good run he failed to impress.

Moussa considers himself a central midfielder. He will get other offers in January. Also he played pretty well.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Your OP said your preferred formation at home. This was the formation we played and it didn't work well.

So why didn't you say that in reply to my OP? And I think 4-2-3-1 would be a good choice, Moussa LW and Barton AMC, he scored today, but I don't rate Sheff. I think our only striker at the min who is worth playing upfront is McG, and we have good midfield options sitting on the bench so it's a logical formation, might not be the best practically though, I must concede.

Sadly we were not 4-0 up so Barton couldn't show his "good form" -- he had to compete and other than one good run he failed to impress.

Moussa considers himself a central midfielder. He will get other offers in January. Also he played pretty well.

Moussa considers him a CM but hasn't played well when he has played there (whenever I have seen him) and his best games have been on LM (where he score 2 and ripped an Arsenal RB to shreds). I can't imagine he'll get many offers outside of L1, he's most likely going to stay with CCFC IMO.

Barton has done well both times he's come off the bench, good goal and assist, don't take that away from him. He's done well.

 

[Otis]

Yeah, Moussa did okay.

 

[stupot07]

Disappointed to see Moussa not on the LW, he's done really well last 2 games there so this move puzzled me somewhat, Barton would've been a good option at AMC IMO as he has been in good form lately.

Actually he most effective in the last two away games when he played central, not wide.

 

[Sutty]

I wouldn't say 1 up front is inherently negative. Most of the best teams in the world play with 1 up front.

It is to do with the mindset of the players though. If you've got 2 or 3 midfielders prepared to go and support the striker it can be a good, positive set-up. If everyone's sitting a bit deeper then the striker looks isolated and it does become negative.

 

[Astute]

Your reply to my post replied to nothing I said in my post :facepalm: and I said tactics, not formation, as well as concentration and mental strength lead to conceding late goals...

The formation is part of the tactics

If we play a defensive formation near the end of games our tactics are defensive. We will have more goals against us than we will score.

 

[wingy]

Disappointed to see Moussa not on the LW, he's done really well last 2 games there so this move puzzled me somewhat, Barton would've been a good option at AMC IMO as he has been in good form lately.

He never played wide in the previous two games

 

[SkyBlue_Bear83]

I'd go 4-2-3-1.

Disappointed to see Moussa not on the LW, he's done really well last 2 games there so this move puzzled me somewhat, Barton would've been a good option at AMC IMO as he has been in good form lately.

Whoops, as I said I didn't go because of work and my mate who watched the game said we were playing 4-4-2 and considering it was unchanged from Colchester and Hartlepool, I didn't expect a change in formation.

You're making a right tit of yourself here. To break it down, we played with a 5 man midfield today, Colchester and Hartlepool. No 442

Moussa played on the left for the start of the Hartlepool game but then moved centrally at HT I believe, he played central vs Colchester also

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

We played 5 in midfield today, 4-4-2 2 games before that?

So Moussa must've have played LM then because Jennings and Bailey were are CMs and Baker on the right, with McG and Sheff upfront, that or the formation changed to 4-2-3-1 in the middle of the game? (Making Moussa changing position)

 

[Astute]

We played 5 in midfield today, 4-4-2 2 games before that?

So Moussa must've have played LM then because Jennings and Bailey were are CMs and Baker on the right, with McG and Sheff upfront, that or the formation changed to 4-2-3-1 in the middle of the game? (Making Moussa changing position)

Why do you keep telling people that were at the game that they are wrong about the formation and tactics. You have already said you were not there

 

[Lord_Nampil]

After winning 2 games in a row playing a certain way Robins had the right to keep the same team! We played well in the 1st half Blair Adams and Christie getting forward a lot and really we should have been 2 or 3 up at half time! Second half Portsmouth changed there formation restricting the full backs getting forward, which was the main part of our play! I think we should have gone 2 up top early in the second half. You could say it was negative, but we got forward a lot had efforts on goal and a lot of Corners! Mcgoldrick for the 2nd game in a row clears a header off the line fromm the Edge, but seems very unlucky not to have got the goal he scored! All in all we have 3 more home games we need to get up and running at home in these games!

 

[percy]

i thought we looked more 4411 yesterday with moussa free role behind mcgoldrick, sheff LM baker RM jennings and bailey CM

 

[SkyBlue_Bear83]

We played 5 in midfield today, 4-4-2 2 games before that?

So Moussa must've have played LM then because Jennings and Bailey were are CMs and Baker on the right, with McG and Sheff upfront, that or the formation changed to 4-2-3-1 in the middle of the game? (Making Moussa changing position)

This is what we have played for the last 3 games, a 5 man midfield with Baker, Sheff and Moussa supporting the striker in a 4-4-1-1/4-2-3-1 which ever way you want to look at it

-------Murphy
Christie-Edge--Wood--Adams
Baker---Bailey--Jennings--Sheff
------------Moussa
------------Mcgoldrick

Moussa and Sheff started the Hartlepool game in swapped positions but changed at HT to put Moussa central when we went on to score 5 goals. We then continued with this yesterday and at Colchester

You understand now :facepalm: which part are you finding difficult to grasp?

 

[wingy]

thought the tempo dropped second half ,don't know if that was related to the conditions ,but it was difficult out there ,we were trying to keep it on the deck but but the weight of pass was hard to predict especially down the flanks.

I think what cost us overall was our loss of composure ,again when there has been some contentious referreeing ,I also for the first time think MR was a little off with use of Subs.

 

[SkyBlue_Bear83]

thought the tempo dropped second half ,don't know if that was related to the conditions ,but it was difficult out there ,we were trying to keep it on the deck but but the weight of pass was hard to predict especially down the flanks.

I think what cost us overall was our loss of composure ,again when there has been some contentious referreeing ,I also for the first time think MR was a little off with use of Subs.

Very difficult conditions, I would have liked to see the subs being used more also. Maybe Ball for Goldie and maybe change Christie/Adams for Clarke/Reckord

 

[dongonzalos]

Liked the fact Murphy played everything out to the defence. No hoofball

 

[wingy]

I've just watched the goal again on FL show 6 or 7 times froze it at different points and at the point that Mcleod is just getting on the ball it does make you think Murphy should have come out but up to that point its Woods ball all the way,Yes Murphy could have come 12 yds off his line to claim but it was Woods to deal with.

 

[Sky Blue Kid]

Our biggest problem, not only at home, but away as well, is lack of fitness. We just can't seem to last more than 65-70 mins without running out of steam. All teams have "Purple patches" in a game, but our opposition seem to have theirs in the last 20-25 mins of a game. The dropping of 22 points from a winning position, tends to back this up.

 

[SkyBlueScottie]

Mcleod switching to the flank caused us a couple of problems between Wood and Christie, there were a couple of occassions before the goal when both of them left the ball to each other. Its a position McShef exposes very well when on top of his game.