Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2011 22:33:29 GMT
No problem, old chap. Will have another chance on Saturday. Managed to catch a few words with Capitalgull and Crooky while you were preocuppied with yours and Jon's youth  I didn't realise that was Crooky. No need to talk to Chelston, of course, now I'm following him on Twitter. He's a master of short, timely messages.... |
|
|
|
Post by bobbytanz on Jan 3, 2011 23:34:00 GMT
Well that was fun !!!! For the neutral of course !!!
Interesting comments from others on here some of which I agree with others I don't. We had more opportunities than Oxford, at least three or four shots narrowly missing and as said Bevan had bog all else to do bar pick the ball out of the net FOUR times !!!
I dislike Benyon as the lone striker, too many times we failed to pick up the second ball after it was hoofed up to him and only when Kee came on did we get hold of this and their defence was panicking.
Plus points for me were:
O'Kane - vision, touch and creates time, a star in the making
Benyon - clinical
Kee - a trier, bags of effort. Goals will come
Negatives
Bevan - slow, ponderous, and clearly NOT confident
Zebroski - Why is he picking the ball up in OUR half !!! Frustrating and petty
Lathrope - Can pass a ball sideways 5 yards well but thats it !!!
Ho hum on we go and fear not PB is here to stay, and so more of the 4-4-1-1 to continue !!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by chrish on Jan 4, 2011 0:40:25 GMT
In my mind, their is absolutely nothing wrong with this formation and i don't blame buckle for employing it home and away. On paper it allows us to play our BEST side and it allows us to field a midfield that can dominate and stifle the opposition with the luxury of O'kane in the hole where he can probe and create - he was excellent today (and must have Benyon close for MOTM) for this level it is rare to see a player of such talent. However, the system depends on the 2 wingers supporting the lone striker, when this happens we look as good as anything in this league......sadly today Zebroski and Hemmings were both really poor, Zeb had the kind of game where even staying on his feet looked beyond him........Hemmings' every 2nd touch was a tackle. When the sysyem isn't working then its back to 4-4-2........but i think Bucks (if he's here  ) should and will stick with it. If benyon goes as seems likely then Kee is ready to take up that role now..... Buckle's mistake in my mind, was that the switch to 4-4-2 needed to come 10 mins earlier......at 1-2. No system is going to work when you concede goals as easily as we did today..........Robertson was all over the place at the back and Ellis is still too headstrong..........we missed Branston big time today. Bevan is not inspiring a lot of confidence either at the mo. Fair play to Oxford, the heavy pitch suited their physical style........but they really are a very average side with little or no flair, i wouldn't swap any of their lot with ours. That sounds a bit like the performance away at Stockport. If Zebroski and Hemmings were as good as they were against Wycombe away then we look as good as anything in this division. If the wingers don't play well we look and play much poorer. |
|
|
|
Post by aussie on Jan 4, 2011 6:59:46 GMT
I agree with Meerkat, 4-4-1-1 was aweful against 4-3-3 and when we changed it to 4-4-2 we were absolutely killing them, 3-3 then he changed it again and took of the attacking Eunan O`kane and brought on a more defensive Oastler, what happened, they scored 3-4. Unless Eunan was injured from the clash he had previously then I can see no reason why we would change what was definately working extremely well!
|
|
|
|
Post by alunmeerkat on Jan 4, 2011 11:29:52 GMT
Zebroski was picking up the ball deep in the first half as we had no route out - we were forced to play the ball around our defence and it was easy for Oxford to pick off the ball when it came forward.
As soon as we went to 4-4-2 Zebroski looked a different player as him and Stevens were getting the ball further up the pitch.
Kee caused Oxford plenty of problems at their place - why on earth did Buckle persist with a loan striker for the first 20 minutes of the second half when we were losing?
This was a game we should have won - Oxford had about five shots and scored four goals. Midson scored the matchwinning goals but apart from that genreally never had a kick against Ellis.
|
|
greedygull
TFF member
Enter your message here...
Posts: 40
|
Post by greedygull on Jan 4, 2011 11:36:50 GMT
the question is why did we have no route out and why did we have to play the ball around our defence putting even more pressure on them
|
|
|
|
Post by chrish on Jan 4, 2011 12:45:45 GMT
Kee caused Oxford plenty of problems at their place - why on earth did Buckle persist with a loan striker for the first 20 minutes of the second half when we were losing? Kee played upfront on his own against Oxford away. He replaced Benyon who also played up front on his own. The 4-5-1 we started with against Oxford became a 4-4-1 when Macklin was sent off. I really think you (and Aussie for that matter) need to see an away game to fully understand why we play a 4-5-1 with a lone striker. The theory behind the 4-5-1 is that we can play O'Kane in a central position. Oastler sits a bit deeper and is there to provide security for Wroe so he can have some creative freedom. The wingers (Zebroski and Hemmings) are there to provide disciplined width and support to front man whilst giving O'Kane and Wroe an extra outlet. When they don't provide the outlet we just lump it up to Benyon (like at Stockport and Crewe), who does a job he's not built for and it all looks a bit disjointed. The problem is that if we start playing 4-4-2 at home I don't think Eunan O'Kane can play in a flat 4 man midfield, I don't think he's strong enough to play there for 90 minutes. Besides it's probably not the best use of his talent for him to do the dog work in the middle of the park. I don't think you can play him on the left wing either. He can play in both positions but you're not going to get the best out of him. If you pair him and Oastler in the centre of midfield you'll lose out on Wroe's creative ability, if you drop Oastler and pair Wroe with O'Kane then you'll lose a ball winner, plus if Stevens plays on the left wing with them we start looking a bit lightweight in midfield. Our current formation reminds me a lot of the Nottingham Forest formation back in the 1993-1994 season in the old division two where they had a couple of very good wingers in Steve Stone and Ian Woan plus Stan Collymore up front on his own. But thats the problem isn't it? Collymore, back then, was a very good player who could do everything. Our lone striker needs to be a cross between Kee, Benyon and Gritton. Unfortunately we can only choose one of them or make a sacrifice somewhere else. |
|
petef
Match Room Manager
Posts: 4,626
|
Post by petef on Jan 4, 2011 17:02:12 GMT
Our lone striker needs to be a cross between Kee, Benyon and Gritton. Unfortunately we can only choose one of them or make a sacrifice somewhere else. Wonder what Stubbsy's doing these days |
|
|
|
Post by aussie on Jan 4, 2011 19:02:12 GMT
Kee caused Oxford plenty of problems at their place - why on earth did Buckle persist with a loan striker for the first 20 minutes of the second half when we were losing? Kee played upfront on his own against Oxford away. He replaced Benyon who also played up front on his own. The 4-5-1 we started with against Oxford became a 4-4-1 when Macklin was sent off. I really think you (and Aussie for that matter) need to see an away game to fully understand why we play a 4-5-1 with a lone striker. The theory behind the 4-5-1 is that we can play O'Kane in a central position. Oastler sits a bit deeper and is there to provide security for Wroe so he can have some creative freedom. The wingers (Zebroski and Hemmings) are there to provide disciplined width and support to front man whilst giving O'Kane and Wroe an extra outlet. When they don't provide the outlet we just lump it up to Benyon (like at Stockport and Crewe), who does a job he's not built for and it all looks a bit disjointed. The problem is that if we start playing 4-4-2 at home I don't think Eunan O'Kane can play in a flat 4 man midfield, I don't think he's strong enough to play there for 90 minutes. Besides it's probably not the best use of his talent for him to do the dog work in the middle of the park. I don't think you can play him on the left wing either. He can play in both positions but you're not going to get the best out of him. If you pair him and Oastler in the centre of midfield you'll lose out on Wroe's creative ability, if you drop Oastler and pair Wroe with O'Kane then you'll lose a ball winner, plus if Stevens plays on the left wing with them we start looking a bit lightweight in midfield. Our current formation reminds me a lot of the Nottingham Forest formation back in the 1993-1994 season in the old division two where they had a couple of very good wingers in Steve Stone and Ian Woan plus Stan Collymore up front on his own. But thats the problem isn't it? Collymore, back then, was a very good player who could do everything. Our lone striker needs to be a cross between Kee, Benyon and Gritton. Unfortunately we can only choose one of them or make a sacrifice somewhere else. Chris that would be fine but 4-4-1-1 was the formation not 4-5-1 and either of those is not really the formation I would select to oppose 4-3-3, if they want to play 3 up top and 3 in the middle then you should seize the opportunity to rip them to shreds which is exactly what happened when we went 4-4-2. How can you not see that? |
|
|
|
Post by chrish on Jan 4, 2011 23:38:37 GMT
Kee played upfront on his own against Oxford away. He replaced Benyon who also played up front on his own. The 4-5-1 we started with against Oxford became a 4-4-1 when Macklin was sent off. I really think you (and Aussie for that matter) need to see an away game to fully understand why we play a 4-5-1 with a lone striker. The theory behind the 4-5-1 is that we can play O'Kane in a central position. Oastler sits a bit deeper and is there to provide security for Wroe so he can have some creative freedom. The wingers (Zebroski and Hemmings) are there to provide disciplined width and support to front man whilst giving O'Kane and Wroe an extra outlet. When they don't provide the outlet we just lump it up to Benyon (like at Stockport and Crewe), who does a job he's not built for and it all looks a bit disjointed. The problem is that if we start playing 4-4-2 at home I don't think Eunan O'Kane can play in a flat 4 man midfield, I don't think he's strong enough to play there for 90 minutes. Besides it's probably not the best use of his talent for him to do the dog work in the middle of the park. I don't think you can play him on the left wing either. He can play in both positions but you're not going to get the best out of him. If you pair him and Oastler in the centre of midfield you'll lose out on Wroe's creative ability, if you drop Oastler and pair Wroe with O'Kane then you'll lose a ball winner, plus if Stevens plays on the left wing with them we start looking a bit lightweight in midfield. Our current formation reminds me a lot of the Nottingham Forest formation back in the 1993-1994 season in the old division two where they had a couple of very good wingers in Steve Stone and Ian Woan plus Stan Collymore up front on his own. But thats the problem isn't it? Collymore, back then, was a very good player who could do everything. Our lone striker needs to be a cross between Kee, Benyon and Gritton. Unfortunately we can only choose one of them or make a sacrifice somewhere else. Chris that would be fine but 4-4-1-1 was the formation not 4-5-1 and either of those is not really the formation I would select to oppose 4-3-3, if they want to play 3 up top and 3 in the middle then you should seize the opportunity to rip them to shreds which is exactly what happened when we went 4-4-2. How can you not see that? Sorry, I should've made that clearer. 4-5-1 with O'Kane in the support role. I guess you could call it 4-4-1-1 if you like. I don't agree with you that 4-4-2 is the only way to combat 4-3-3. If the wingers both play well and the service is good you can play 4-4-1-1 against a 4-3-3 and be just as succesful as reverting back to 4-4-2 and giving another target to hit up front. From reading the reports on here it seemed like against Oxford both wingers had shocking games and offered no width. All I'm saying is that this formation works a treat away from home when both wingers have good games and the service into Benyon is good. At Wycombe both wingers had excellent games and were the main outlets for Wroe's passing. The service into Benyon was good and O'Kane was at the centre of everything. When the wingers have poor games or one doesn't play that well then the whole system gets compromised and the ball gets knocked up to Benyon to get on the end of it which usually means a) he falls over and the ball comes straight back, b) he fouls the defender, c) he wins a foul d) he wins the ball but is so outnumbered that his options are limited. As soon as you get both wingers into the game there isn't a need for Benyon to run his bollocks off trying to get on the end of every ball knocked long and then O'Kane starts to link up with Benyon and we start playing some good stuff. I don't know whether 4-4-2 is the way forward at home given the current personnel at our disposal as it would mean leaving out O'Kane or playing him away from his best position. Playing him in the centre with Wroe might work for 10 minutes but do you really think he's strong enough to compete for 90 minutes, win good ball, track their midfield runners and still have the energy to be creative? Don't get me wrong, I love the way Eunan plays his football and I rate him very highly but I don't think 10 minutes of success automatically constitutes a new formation strategy. Having said that of course. If Benyon goes in the transfer window we're going to have to re-think our options and formation again, because I'm not sure that we could continue to play one up front given that our options are Billy Kee and Martin Gritton. I did see Gritts play upfront on his own for Chesterfield a couple of seasons ago but he did have the excellent Jack Lester playing just off him in the hole. Billy Kee is another player I rate highly, but as a lone striker? Maybe he'll blossom. He lead the line on his own against Oxford away for 20 minutes and he's certainly a lot fitter now than he was. |
|
|
|
Post by aussie on Jan 5, 2011 6:55:45 GMT
So your in total denial that when we went 4-4-2, before Eunan got taken off, we were murdering them! O.k!
|
|
|
|
Post by chrish on Jan 5, 2011 8:27:46 GMT
So your in total denial that when we went 4-4-2, before Eunan got taken off, we were murdering them! O.k! Ah. TFF. The home of reasoned debate. |
|
|
|
Post by alunmeerkat on Jan 5, 2011 11:31:32 GMT
Chris - it had nothing to do with the "wingers" as you put it having bad games. Nicholson was playing ion the wing in the first half as I stated earlier. Hemmings and Zebroski were sort of in no mans land - neither on the wing or in the middle.
As soon as we reverted to 4-4-2 Zebroski was more effective because he wasn't getting the ball in his own half with four defenders in front of him.
It had nothing to do with the players it was the wrong system.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrish on Jan 5, 2011 15:56:03 GMT
It had nothing to do with the players it was the wrong system. I completely disagree with that. It's a case of players not being disciplined enough to play in the required positions. This was your match report. To me this had liitle to do with the defence but basically was down to the absurd formation that we played for three quarters of the game. In Elliott Benyon we have probably the best striker in this division. Why on earth then does the manager persist in playing him up front by himself with no support. This formation never ever looks like it is going to work at home and with Lathrope playing so dceep he might as well have been at centre half, and with Zebroski and Hemmings forced to play god knows where. We were chasing the game for most of the time - in truth Oxfords defence looked there for the taking, and with the introduction of Kee and 4-4-2 with support for Benyon (why did it take so long Buckle) we looked as though we would score at will and we did. There only looked likely to be one winner (us) and the breakaway winner was completely against the run of play. Unfortunately on this occasion the person responsible for this defeat was the manager - hope Bristol Rovers realise what they are getting. So basically you're saying that Lathrope (who replaced Oastler, who is used to playing in this system) dropped too deep, so Zebroski and Hemmings had to drop inside and help out Wroe? Or did Wroe need the help even with Lathrope there? What was the service into O'Kane and Benyon like? Benyon does play up front on his own but he is supposed to be supported by O'Kane and the two wingers. Ok so if you, Dave and that Australian fellow say we need to start playing 4-4-2 at home. Where are you proposing to play Eunan O'Kane exactly? Don't forget that playing 4-4-2 eliminates the free role Eunan O'Kane has been filling so well. Having said that of course PB described O'Kane as a "striker" in his latest article on dot com. Is he (O'Kane) on steroids? If you are advocating that we change the formation a bit quicker at home when the "absurd" 4-4-1-1 or 4-5-1 isn't working then fair enough, you should always try and mix it up a little bit. But to change the whole formation at home to a 4-4-2 on the strength of ten decent minutes is a bit knee-jerk isn't it? |
|
Dave
TFF member
Posts: 13,081
|
Post by Dave on Jan 5, 2011 16:31:10 GMT
Ok so if you, Dave and that Australian fellow say we need to start playing 4-4-2 at home. Where are you proposing to play Eunan O'Kane exactly? Don't forget that playing 4-4-2 eliminates the free role Eunan O'Kane has been filling so well. Having said that of course PB described O'Kane as a "striker" in his latest article on dot com. Is he (O'Kane) on steroids? If you are advocating that we change the formation a bit quicker at home when the "absurd" 4-4-1-1 or 4-5-1 isn't working then fair enough, you should always try and mix it up a little bit. But to change the whole formation at home to a 4-4-2 on the strength of ten decent minutes is a bit knee-jerk isn't it? My view is that you need to start with the formation that will give you the very best chance of winning the match. As soon as its clear its not working, or due to where the dangers may be coming from on the team you are playing, its time to change it. Do we line up our own way, or do we line up knowing how the opposition are going to line up? its an interesting question and one that every manager must put thought into depending on the team we are playing. We did look so much better and far more dangerous and likely to score when we switched to 4-4-2. The switch should have been made much earlier in my view and not left until we were three one down. I would never disagree that when the 4-4-1-1 system( or what ever it is) works its effective,but for that to happen the wingers really do need to be doing their job, it does suits the players Bucks wants to start with. I don't think that system is ever going to create as many chances to score as a 4-4-2 system will and that is proven by the number of attempts we have had on goal when it has been used. Why did it need to be changed against Oxford? I could not believe Zeb's was always standing out-wide on the halfway line facing his own goal to receive the ball. As soon as it was passed to him he was not only facing the wrong way, but found he had two men on him to try and get past. One Oxford goal came about because he took the ball facing his own goal, tried to turn and lost the ball and within seconds the ball was in the back of our net. I want the winger to be receiving the ball going the other way, the left or right back playing the ball down the line to him, or knocking it to a midfield player who is then going to deliver the ball into the path of the winger running down the wing. Why did Zeb's play the way he did? was that what he was instructed to do? I don't know the answer, I only know it was not working and needed to be changed. |
|
) should and will stick with it. 
