|
|
Post by aussie on Jan 6, 2011 18:14:07 GMT
Ah. The big city boys sticking together. Eunan, in case you haven`t noticed is improving massively and works well with 4-4-1-1, or 4-5-1 as some like to call it, and works well now in a 4-4-2. Or can`t people see that young players learn and improve with good coaching and masses of natural ability! For goodness sake we know what we saw and it would happen that most people actually believe what they saw, the difference was enormous in the game. You guys must be right though because after all we`re just niave country bumkins that couldn`t possibly have a clue, we must bow to your superiority!  I'm tempted to tell you not to be so bloody stupid, but it isn't really fair to ask you to do the impossible. Well how very rude! |
|
|
|
Post by lambethgull on Jan 6, 2011 19:30:30 GMT
I'm tempted to tell you not to be so bloody stupid, but it isn't really fair to ask you to do the impossible. Well how very rude! Yep, but who else has made - or would make - the kind of groundless accusation you have in this thread? I've no problem with being called up for what I post. I make no pretence about the fact that my view on this is based on a small number of away games. You saw the game against Oxford, you have seen more of O'Kane than I have, and you've seen us play at home all season. Your assessment may therefore have more weight than mine. None of that alters my right to post my view or to agree with someone else's point of view. If I agree with Chris (or Devon-based jmgull for that matter), then it's my right to say so. Where I live has nothing to do with it. Your infantile suggestion that my opinions are based on some sort of bizarre kinship with another poster just because of where he lives says more about you than it does about me. |
|
Dave
TFF member
Posts: 13,081
|
Post by Dave on Jan 6, 2011 19:37:46 GMT
Lambie I had a good chat with aussie this morning as I had hoped this them and us was long past us and now we just saw each other as fellow TUFC fans and TFF members , no matter where we lived, how many games we went to etc. Lets put this little hiccup behind us as we have enjoyed a trouble free forum for a good while now.
|
|
|
|
Post by lambethgull on Jan 6, 2011 19:43:49 GMT
Lambie I had a good chat with aussie this morning as I had hoped this them and us was long past us and now we just saw each other as fellow TUFC fans and TFF members , no matter where we lived, how many games we went to etc. Lets put this little hiccup behind us as we have enjoyed a trouble free forum for a good while now. Fine by me Dave. My immediate response to aussie might have been a bit rash, but I was annoyed. I also saw a certain post this morning, but chose to bite my lip  |
|
Dave
TFF member
Posts: 13,081
|
Post by Dave on Jan 6, 2011 19:49:31 GMT
Lambie I had a good chat with aussie this morning as I had hoped this them and us was long past us and now we just saw each other as fellow TUFC fans and TFF members , no matter where we lived, how many games we went to etc. Lets put this little hiccup behind us as we have enjoyed a trouble free forum for a good while now. Fine by me Dave. My immediate response to aussie might have been a bit rash, but I was annoyed. I also saw a certain post this morning, but chose to bite my lip A post I removed and the reason I phoned Aussie and another reason why I got so behind with my work today ;D I felt it was better to nip this in the bud so things did not get silly. I'm sure Aussie is more than happy to move on put this little episode behind him |
|
|
|
Post by chrish on Jan 6, 2011 21:03:28 GMT
Fine by me Dave. My immediate response to aussie might have been a bit rash, but I was annoyed. I also saw a certain post this morning, but chose to bite my lip A post I removed and the reason I phoned Aussie and another reason why I got so behind with my work today ;D I felt it was better to nip this in the bud so things did not get silly. I'm sure Aussie is more than happy to move on put this little episode behind him I won't post what I was going to post then It didn't need to have an episode though. I didn't attend the Oxford game as I said on a different thread and after reading some match reports I thought a different perspective was needed as the formation ,which can work very well away from home, was getting slated as being "absurd". I didn't think that was a particulary fair assessment. I've seen us 13 times this season (11 in the league and 2 cup games) and I attend far more away games than home games. For the record I've watched 3 matches at home, 10 away from home and in those 13 games we've won 7, drawn 4 and lost 3. For me the formation (4-4-1-1) works well with the squad of players we have and, most importantly, if it's played correctly by players being disciplined enough it gives the best opportunity for our best creative players to shine. As you, Aussie and the Meerkat do not attend away matches I was just pointing out that you might not be seeing the full picture and I don't think switching permanently to 4-4-2 is the answer at home as it doesn't get the best out of our best players. It's not about winning or losing arguments, but I believe if you can't post an opinion or a different perspective or debate certain points without resorting to accusations of denial because The Bush Tucker Man doesn't agree with me then it doesn't make for a particulary interesting forum. Neither does hearing "Buckle didn't do this", "Buckle didn't do that", "this formation is absurd" and then when questionned the normal protagonists never have any reasoned argument to back their opening words up. If people think that we should switch to 4-4-2 at home then an idea why might be quite nice to hear, especially if you're a London snob and you don't get to see as many home games as money or time will allow. But all I've heard so far is we played well when we switched to 4-4-2 for 10-15 minutes and Mr Meerkat tells me it's not rocket science. It would be nice to know how the game changed. We have played Benyon pretty much on his own up front for much of this season and since the Crewe home game last season. Last season he had Rendell supporting him more as a second striker and this season it's been O'Kane who plays a little bit deeper than Rendell. Has the difference been the lack of Rendell this season? Are we more geared up to hitting teams on the break this season? |
|
Dave
TFF member
Posts: 13,081
|
Post by Dave on Jan 6, 2011 21:16:51 GMT
Spot on Chris as it should never be about winning or losing and always about being able to express your own opinions. I actually end up so often changing my opinions after reading others view points and that is what can and does happen in any debate. It also should never be seen as people taking sides just because they may share the same view point with another poster, but sadly that is how some see it at times.
Its perfect acceptable to ask for reasons why someone may think this or that formation should be played and by including that information, leads to further debate etc.
Thanks for not posting what you were going to post.
Dave
|
|
Jon
Admin
Posts: 6,912
|
Post by Jon on Jan 6, 2011 23:27:16 GMT
I don't think our formation is necessarily negative. I think of it as 4-2-3-1 rather than 4-4-1-1 and it can just easily turn into 4-2-1-3 or 4-2-4 as it can into 4-4-1-1 or 4-5-1.
O'Kane is a conundrum. We all recognise that he has exceptional talent. I don't doubt that he is working hard on strength and stamina and if he is as successful in this as Benyon has been, he will grow into an excellent central midfielder. For now, we have to either accommodate him or leave him out - I think Chris H has been through the options available.
In some ways, Eunan reminds me a little of Jason Fowler and I remember Leroy using Super Jase in a wide role after he brought in Hockers alongside Aggy. I could almost imagine Zebs and Eunan sharing the wide right and second striker roles - with maybe Zebs starting up front, but drifting out right and making space for Eunan to float inside.
I bumped into The Farmer's Friend before the Oxford game and he said it was a shame that Oxford had lost on Saturday. I knew what he meant - they would have had a bollocking and so would be sure to be "at it".
Bucks often uses the phrase "at it" referring to that little extra zip and edge you need to have to get on the front foot rather than to get rocked onto the back foot.
We've all seen games when we have been on the front foot all game, been on the back foot all game, started on the front foot and lost it or vice versa. Sometimes it just happens. Quite often the momentum changes when one side appears to have established an unassailable lead - the "losers" throwing caution to the wind and the "winners" sub-consciously settling back just a little.
If we had been really "at it" on Monday, the full backs would have pushed up into the wide midfield positions. Zebs and Hemmings would have pushed up into striking positions. O'Kane would have been weaving his magic well into enemy territory and the front three would have been thriving on the service.
We weren't really "at it" though. That doesn't mean that the formation won't work when we are.
|
|
Dave
TFF member
Posts: 13,081
|
Post by Dave on Jan 6, 2011 23:45:20 GMT
I’ll do my best to answer your question Chris and why not long after the game had finished, I wrote in my match report we should be starting with a 4-4-2 formation at home games.
Bearing in mind I have time to give the game more thought since then and have also read the views of others at the game and those who have seen the 4-4-1-1 system work so well in away games.
I found our play a bit frustrating to be honest, just content to pass it around in our half and around the halfway line and then maybe look to play a ball up to Benyon. It was one such pass where he had the ball stole of his toes with to much ease, that Oxford instantly got the ball up our end and the end result was a goal.
In my view we were not creating that much the way we were playing and at three one down, the Plainmoor crowd were very quite and the whole ground had a very flat feeling to it.
When we changed to 4-4-2 when Kee came on what really changed? Was the substitution some sort of sign to our players to start going on a frenzy attack of the Oxford goal. Who knows but suddenly all our players seemed to go into over drive and then we got a goal back. This woke the fans up and Plainmoor seemed a different place than it did ten minutes before.
The goal sure made our boys go looking for another one and maybe Oxford did sit back a lot more than they had done as teams in front so often do that and just try to catch the attacking team on the break.
It is easy to get carried away with the events of the last half hour or so of the game as until that point, it was not that exciting, well not for any TUFC fans. It did prove our undoing at the end as we did get caught by a breakaway goal and all our efforts to get something out of the game then went out of the window.
We would not or could not start a game at the pace we did when the switch to 4-4-2 was made, nor could we play like that for ninety minutes. I have missed a number of recent games and therefore don’t feel I can really pass a good judgement on the 4-4-1-1 system. But as someone did post, is that system getting us results? Or did we get better results when we were playing 4-4-2.?
|
|
|
|
Post by aussie on Jan 7, 2011 7:05:02 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. This is the comment that started it so can you all stop making out that I`m the feckin` villian here, I also agreed that 4-4-1-1 works away from home but I didn`t catagorically say that we should start every home game 4-4-2, that was other people, seems I`m an easy target. I don`t go to away games so therefore take Chris`s word for what occurs away but as he wasn`t at the Oxford game would it not be fair to do the same for someone that did go to it. Lambeth might have got annoyed with certain comments and said what he said but I`m apparently not allowed to get annoyed with what other people say (like the slagging off of TFF) and have to bite my lip. I find this all a bit one sided. I never said that my arguements are bullet proof and I have tried to debate properly rather than use my old style, if this is the reaction then I will reconsider whether I should bother! |
|
|
|
Post by Ditmar van Nostrilboy on Jan 7, 2011 10:24:22 GMT
If people think that we should switch to 4-4-2 at home then an idea why might be quite nice to hear, especially if you're a London snob and you don't get to see as many home games as money or time will allow. Has the difference been the lack of Rendell this season? Are we more geared up to hitting teams on the break this season? Heres an idea why Chris. Playing Benyon up front on his own at home means the visiting defence are not put under enough pressure and gives them an easy time of it. It may work well away, where we soak up the pressure and look to catch teams on the counter but at home, teams are more content to sit back and look to catch us out. You cant catch teams on the counter if they arent pushing forward. I would point to Northampton, Bradford & Morecambe where we played Benners with either Kee or Gritts up front. 3 excellent performances albeit aided by an early red card against Morecambe admittedly. Whilst we have also not won playing 4-4-2, I can certainly say that, at home, our best performances have been gained playing 4-4-2. Ive never been a fan of adapting a system to accomodate your most "skilful" players. Just watch England flop time and time again trying to do that. Managers need to pick the formation and way they want to play and then use the best players in their best position. If Bucks has decided that 4-4-1-1 is best both home and away then fine, thats his call. I dont agree with it and can see us getting more points away than at home. Loathe to agree with DTG, but winning home matches should be the main priority, as that is about the only thing that will increase attendances which we all know needs to happen. That isnt going to happen when we sit back looking to counter. I dont think its any coincidence either that the defence has looked a lot more fallible since Mansell moved out of midfield, not because he's playing at fullback but because the midfield is too lightweight and doesnt shield the defence the way it did during that clean sheet spell. Yes, the lack of Rendell has certainly made a difference to playing 4-4-2. Perhaps thats why Bucks goes with Benners on his own? He held the ball up and used it so well. I would think 35 to 40 goals this season between him and Benyon would not have been an unrealistic expectation. |
|
|
|
Post by alunmeerkat on Jan 7, 2011 10:48:14 GMT
Dave - I still cannot for the life of me understand why people are blaming the Oxford defeat on the likes of Hemmings and Zebroski underperforming. Due to the formation we played the "wingers" were having to pick the ball up in their own half most of the time or failing that were both going inside to get some support to the marooned Benyon.
No doubt they were playing to instructions.
Oxford were quite happily to sit all their players behind the ball which meant that Hemmings and Zebroski had an impossible task.
Your message is a bit nonsensical - Buckle is the manager - if he hasn't got his best players on the pitch then what the hell is he doing. I hope he doesn't want to lose games, god help us if he does!
There is a difference with having your best players on the pitch and playing to their strengths.
Zebroski and Hemmings are two more than useful wide men. Benyon is as good as anything in this division.
So why not give the bloke a bit of support in the form of another striker alongside him - and play the two wide men further up the pitch where they will cause more problems?
|
|
petef
Match Room Manager
Posts: 4,626
|
Post by petef on Jan 7, 2011 12:16:31 GMT
Dave - I still cannot for the life of me understand why people are blaming the Oxford defeat on the likes of Hemmings and Zebroski underperforming. Due to the formation we played the "wingers" were having to pick the ball up in their own half most of the time or failing that were both going inside to get some support to the marooned Benyon. No doubt they were playing to instructions. Oxford were quite happily to sit all their players behind the ball which meant that Hemmings and Zebroski had an impossible task. Your message is a bit nonsensical - Buckle is the manager - if he hasn't got his best players on the pitch then what the hell is he doing. I hope he doesn't want to lose games, god help us if he does! There is a difference with having your best players on the pitch and playing to their strengths. Zebroski and Hemmings are two more than useful wide men. Benyon is as good as anything in this division. So why not give the bloke a bit of support in the form of another striker alongside him - and play the two wide men further up the pitch where they will cause more problems? I tend to agree. Hemmings and Zebroski are the easy target for crticism basically because that is where most of our success has come from this season. If the oposition give them time and room they will cause havoc, Oxford simply were swtched on to that threat, nulified it and snuffed it out from the off. With the midfield and defence continually stroking the ball across the park in our own half and effectively getting nowhere, we became a bit impotent and they gained a lot of encouragement from that. With no target man there was little option so I dint blame the manager for that tactic. Kee and Danny Stevens arrived on the scene when defenders were tiring - a good tactical move that came off to a point. What did for us was our gun ho attack at every opportunity approach when legs were tired and defenders couldn't get back. We seem to perform so much better away from home when the opposition is more open and attack minded which will always give our wide men more time and space. In effect Oxford did to us what we have been doing to home teams for a good while now the worry is that we haven't found a formula to do consistently well at home. |
|
|
|
Post by Ditmar van Nostrilboy on Jan 7, 2011 12:38:02 GMT
Indeed Pete. Hemmings was pretty much man marked out of the game by their RB. Zebs was double teamed every time he got the ball.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrish on Jan 7, 2011 14:30:27 GMT
Ah. TFF. The home of reasoned debate. This is the comment that started it so can you all stop making out that I`m the feckin` villian here, I also agreed that 4-4-1-1 works away from home but I didn`t catagorically say that we should start every home game 4-4-2, that was other people, seems I`m an easy target. I don`t go to away games so therefore take Chris`s word for what occurs away but as he wasn`t at the Oxford game would it not be fair to do the same for someone that did go to it. Lambeth might have got annoyed with certain comments and said what he said but I`m apparently not allowed to get annoyed with what other people say (like the slagging off of TFF) and have to bite my lip. I find this all a bit one sided. I never said that my arguements are bullet proof and I have tried to debate properly rather than use my old style, if this is the reaction then I will reconsider whether I should bother! Don't be daft. I don't think anyone's a villian to be honest with you. It's not slagging off the TFF, otherwise why would I continue to post my ramblings on here? I was trying to provoke a bit of proper debate for a change, not win any arguments. I'm not sure if I can actually start to lose an argument if you don't make a counter argument in the first place? It doesn't make sense. I don't know where this inferiority complex you have comes from though. It's not my fault our cricket team is better than yours at the moment? ;D PeteF, The Meerkat - Yes I fully understand your points, thank you for making them. The question is I guess do we pair Benyon with Gritton (for his height and heading ability) or do we play Benyon with Kee? I wasn't blaming the wingers for the defeat, I was pointing that we don't play well with that formation when the wingers are either compromised or don't play well. I can remember that big Stevenage left back had Zebroski in his pocket and we didn't look that dangerous although we were very comfortable. To some extent the same went for the Stockport away game. But from what you said Lathrope was dropping too deep in midfield as well. Ditmar - I don't know if you can compare our situation to the England one as the last few england managers have picked a system to play a formation that accomodates as many big names as possible regardless of whether they can play together or not. Another factor might be the current financial constraints. If he's trying to develop players like O'Kane with a view to selling them on then he needs to play as many games as possible. Obviously it's not that simplistic in reality but it could be a factor. I would be surprised if scouts detailed to watch Benyon haven't been also impressed with O'Kane with view to making a decent offer. I think he's a fantastic footballer with a touch, vision and awareness that we haven't seen at Torquay since Alex Russell and Jason Fowler but he's still developing and I'm not sure he's cut out to last the whole game in the middle with Wroe or Oastler in a 4-4-2. Winning matches should be any team's priority but we've been here before with Ian Atkins and how divided the fans were about his ability or inability to couple results with a decent brand of football. It's an interesting point you make though about the winning games. I wonder if our 1,000 stayaways go for the football on offer or for the 3 points? A while back in the BSP we were getting slated for "hoofball" and a reliance on 4-4-2. |
|
