| The change from wingbacks 17:47 - Jan 23 with 1867 views | FrimleyBlue |
It'd been discussed but I can't see anyone pinpointing the game where we suddenly stopped playing it - can anyone figure it out?
What have we gained by doing so? Is there something we are doing well now we weren't doing when we were playing with wingbacks
Would be interesting to see the differences which may have gone unnoticed. |  |
| |  |
| The change from wingbacks on 20:21 - Jan 23 with 1749 views | itfcjoe |
It changed with about 4 or 5 games left last season but no one really seemed to notice, and whenever we announce the team we still do it as a 3 at the back on the graphic |  |
| |
| The change from wingbacks on 20:40 - Jan 23 with 1703 views | Horsham |
I have to admit I do think in my humble not having worked with the players as a watcher that 3 at the back might suit us better. I think the dynamic of the 3 behind the forward sometimes looks a bit wonky with the 2 number 10’s and Burns sticking wide. I wonder if that contributes to sometimes being a bit open with Davis having the whole left flank to cover. Last season the team sort of pivoted on its axis and it was hard to see if it was a 3 or 4 or often it seemed to be both at once. This season less so. I think 3 might be more solid and give more defined roles and also allow for Chaplin and/or Broadhead to get get closer to the number 9, sort of flit between 3-4-2-1 and 3-4-1-2 depending on what’s working best and the opposing tactics. |  | | |
| The change from wingbacks on 21:12 - Jan 23 with 1662 views | PhilTWTD |
| The change from wingbacks on 20:21 - Jan 23 by itfcjoe |
It changed with about 4 or 5 games left last season but no one really seemed to notice, and whenever we announce the team we still do it as a 3 at the back on the graphic |
I think the shape has certainly changed, or perhaps developed is the right way to put it, but it's still not really a back four as such in a traditional sense in the same way as we weren't really an out-and-out back three for much of last season.
JD's position isn't really a right-back in the sense that Leif Davis's role is left-back. I asked Wes Burns when he did press the other day whether he thought his role was further forward this season than last year, it was something we'd talked about on Life's a Pitch a few weeks back, that his starting positions are further forward, and he didn't think so.
I think it's still an asymmetric system, which KMc hasn't really wanted to outline in terms of a formation whenever he's been asked.
This post has been edited by an administrator |  | | |
| The change from wingbacks on 21:35 - Jan 23 with 1554 views | WicklowBlue |
| The change from wingbacks on 21:12 - Jan 23 by PhilTWTD |
I think the shape has certainly changed, or perhaps developed is the right way to put it, but it's still not really a back four as such in a traditional sense in the same way as we weren't really an out-and-out back three for much of last season.
JD's position isn't really a right-back in the sense that Leif Davis's role is left-back. I asked Wes Burns when he did press the other day whether he thought his role was further forward this season than last year, it was something we'd talked about on Life's a Pitch a few weeks back, that his starting positions are further forward, and he didn't think so.
I think it's still an asymmetric system, which KMc hasn't really wanted to outline in terms of a formation whenever he's been asked.
This post has been edited by an administrator |
Hopefully the addition of Broadhead will strengthen the left side and avoid the opposition thinking they can just negate us down the right? |  | | |
| The change from wingbacks on 09:27 - Jan 24 with 1279 views | CityBlue |
One key difference is that George Edmonson was encouraged to push forward on driving runs (knowing Wolfy would fill in) and that hasn't happened since he stood aside for Burgess. We lost the middle threat when we opted for aerial superiority - based on on willingness to concede back post goals.
On occasions Wolfy has set off but not to the same degree.
Solution 1, bring back Fridge and rotate the back three as before into a back four.
Solution 2, Bring in Keogh to shore up back line and allow Wolfy the freedom to push forward.
Of course like everything in a well oiled high performance engine you need to watch for the third order of effect.
For me the only changes we should be concerned about are ones that lead to an unhappy changing room. I hope Freddy has matured since his days at the Millers and the others were alreayd content with a squad rotation role (jackson et al). |  |
| |
| The change from wingbacks on 10:38 - Jan 24 with 1196 views | JakeITFC |
I think Davis coming in cemented it, but we've effectively played an asymmetric shape for a lot of McKenna's time here (with a RB/RW on the right, and a LWB only on the left).
Allows you to get good triangles out there with overlaps and one of the inside forwards getting involved, and I second the idea floated above that we miss Edmundson allowing us to do the same on the left (or carrying the ball and being the spare man).
We have definitely switched between a flat back four and wing-backs with a three within games depending on situation though (not just in transition). |  | | |
| The change from wingbacks on 10:45 - Jan 24 with 1162 views | RobTheMonk |
| The change from wingbacks on 09:27 - Jan 24 by CityBlue |
One key difference is that George Edmonson was encouraged to push forward on driving runs (knowing Wolfy would fill in) and that hasn't happened since he stood aside for Burgess. We lost the middle threat when we opted for aerial superiority - based on on willingness to concede back post goals.
On occasions Wolfy has set off but not to the same degree.
Solution 1, bring back Fridge and rotate the back three as before into a back four.
Solution 2, Bring in Keogh to shore up back line and allow Wolfy the freedom to push forward.
Of course like everything in a well oiled high performance engine you need to watch for the third order of effect.
For me the only changes we should be concerned about are ones that lead to an unhappy changing room. I hope Freddy has matured since his days at the Millers and the others were alreayd content with a squad rotation role (jackson et al). |
The issue with brining Keogh in to sure things up is that we've tried that experiment in numerous games and end up conceding.
Wolfie is the number one CB at present. If Fridge was left footed, he would be starting too. |  | | |
| The change from wingbacks on 07:28 - Jan 25 with 881 views | CityBlue |
| The change from wingbacks on 09:27 - Jan 24 by CityBlue |
One key difference is that George Edmonson was encouraged to push forward on driving runs (knowing Wolfy would fill in) and that hasn't happened since he stood aside for Burgess. We lost the middle threat when we opted for aerial superiority - based on on willingness to concede back post goals.
On occasions Wolfy has set off but not to the same degree.
Solution 1, bring back Fridge and rotate the back three as before into a back four.
Solution 2, Bring in Keogh to shore up back line and allow Wolfy the freedom to push forward.
Of course like everything in a well oiled high performance engine you need to watch for the third order of effect.
For me the only changes we should be concerned about are ones that lead to an unhappy changing room. I hope Freddy has matured since his days at the Millers and the others were alreayd content with a squad rotation role (jackson et al). |
Well seems K McK read my advice but opting for the Fridge over Wolfy. I think Keigh helped tu stabilise the back line today and allowed K McK to finally cement the 4231 he has so wanted to play.
It worked so well for us first half and with the added youth and pace that Clarke brings has reinvigorated Burns. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| The change from wingbacks on 09:37 - Jan 25 with 716 views | itfcjoe |
| The change from wingbacks on 07:28 - Jan 25 by CityBlue |
Well seems K McK read my advice but opting for the Fridge over Wolfy. I think Keigh helped tu stabilise the back line today and allowed K McK to finally cement the 4231 he has so wanted to play.
It worked so well for us first half and with the added youth and pace that Clarke brings has reinvigorated Burns. |
It wasn't Fridge over Woolfy though as Keogh played that role | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
