|
|
Post by gaffers on Mar 30, 2016 20:25:28 GMT
In the 90's when we won the 3rd division Francis would never drop Holloway cause the opposition had tall midfield players or play a different formation it's all come in from foreign managers and I don't agree with it, normally makes a boring game as the players aren't normally sure where they should be on the pitch and never seems to get the best out of them...
|
|
|
|
Post by spiess1 on Mar 30, 2016 20:48:31 GMT
While you were writing that I was looking at the (league) table, wondering how on earth we managed to win 6 out of 7 matches.
|
|
|
|
Post by gaffers on Mar 30, 2016 20:53:02 GMT
While you were writing that I was looking at the (league) table, wondering how on earth we managed to win 6 out of 7 matches. Yeah and I would like to see if we don't go up why fans think we didn't?? Let's hope we don't have to talk about it... |
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Mar 30, 2016 20:58:41 GMT
I get it, keeping Montano happy was more important than making sure we didn't get a hammering on Monday? Surely that's the type of thinking which led to us being relegated to the Conference? If you read properly what I wrote your see I'm saying having a team that play every week together and to their strenghs is better and more consistent than playing different systems and players every week?? I don't think that's an attitude of someone who wants a team relegated  Never mind you don't get it JW played JJOT & Parkes etc week in, week out regardless how they were performing and mostly stuck with 4-4-2 and we finished up relegated, DC treats every game as a "project" and we were 3rd on Monday, surely you must see the stats don't back up your theory? |
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Mar 30, 2016 21:02:37 GMT
While you were writing that I was looking at the (league) table, wondering how on earth we managed to win 6 out of 7 matches. Yeah and I would like to see if we don't go up why fans think we didn't?? Let's hope we don't have to talk about it... If we don't make the top 3 I think most sensible fans will feel we gave it our best shot but finishing in the Play Off's was a good achievement anyway this season. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2016 21:10:50 GMT
Most sensible...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2016 22:02:51 GMT
This is slightly understated so Look at the tablethe table looks great and im chuffed with this season but i still hate it when daniel dosnt play |
|
|
|
Post by Okebournegas on Mar 30, 2016 22:23:42 GMT
If you read properly what I wrote your see I'm saying having a team that play every week together and to their strenghs is better and more consistent than playing different systems and players every week?? I don't think that's an attitude of someone who wants a team relegated Never mind you don't get it JW played JJOT & Parkes etc week in, week out regardless how they were performing and mostly stuck with 4-4-2 and we finished up relegated, DC treats every game as a "project" and we were 3rd on Monday, surely you must see the stats don't back up your theory? Topper I agree with what you have written whole heartedly, I can't believe the amount of stick parkes has been getting on here either , I wrote an earlier post saying that I agreed with DC starting with parkes as he is stronger and a more physical presence and it would appear most don't seem to agree, every game is a different project and I believe parkes was the correct choice of centre back. We did not lose the game because leadbitter was dropped. |
|
|
|
Post by Okebournegas on Mar 30, 2016 22:29:56 GMT
This is slightly understated so Look at the tablethe table looks great and im chuffed with this season but i still hate it when daniel dosnt play Yes but sometimes leadbitters style of play doesn't suit certain formations so a change in personal is a must. I will repeat I am a huge fan of Danny but it's not always possible to play him week in week out depending on the opposition, it's frustrating at times but I can see why it's done. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2016 7:27:09 GMT
Midway through the 2055 season, Bristol Rovers were lamenting their "always play leadbitter" strategy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Mar 31, 2016 7:34:02 GMT
This is slightly understated so Look at the tablethe table looks great and im chuffed with this season but i still hate it when daniel dosnt play I think you need a bit of therapy TBH, he's only a wing back after all not the next Messi!! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2016 7:40:34 GMT
Those who support the settled team theory are living in the past. Tactics and strategy change from game to game - what is a manager for?
Certain players have certain strengths and vulnerabilities. We won a World Cup picking the best players for the task in hand, not the best players per se.
If you play the same week in, week out, you become extremely predictable. Would you prefer an opponent with one formation or two, or even three?
It's a bit like the First World War: the "walking slowly towards their machine guns" tactic didn't work.
The reason it didn't work is it was exactly what was expected therefore the opposition created defences to suit.
It was different before when football was less professional and more one dimensional. The Francis team was in an era when there were agreed concepts in the English game and rarely did teams deviate.
Football has moved on an awful way now and I think it's far better to plan to outwit an opponent rather than assume you can create a brand of football which conquers all.
You should know who's injured and therefore what positions on the pitch are weak with kids or loans. You should know who is scoring their goals and how. You should know how they have set out in similar games. What formation they play, who has pace, who is mentally vulnerable. What weaknessss does their keeper have?
Firmly on the side of playing the right players for the right opponents. It also keeps the whole squad interested and nobody gets slung in the reserves as infinitum.
|
|
|
|
Post by Okebournegas on Mar 31, 2016 9:23:05 GMT
Those who support the settled team theory are living in the past. Tactics and strategy change from game to game - what is a manager for? Certain players have certain strengths and vulnerabilities. We won a World Cup picking the best players for the task in hand, not the best players per se. If you play the same week in, week out, you become extremely predictable. Would you prefer an opponent with one formation or two, or even three? It's a bit like the First World War: the "walking slowly towards their machine guns" tactic didn't work. The reason it didn't work is it was exactly what was expected therefore the opposition created defences to suit. It was different before when football was less professional and more one dimensional. The Francis team was in an era when there were agreed concepts in the English game and rarely did teams deviate. Football has moved on an awful way now and I think it's far better to plan to outwit an opponent rather than assume you can create a brand of football which conquers all. You should know who's injured and therefore what positions on the pitch are weak with kids or loans. You should know who is scoring their goals and how. You should know how they have set out in similar games. What formation they play, who has pace, who is mentally vulnerable. What weaknessss does their keeper have? Firmly on the side of playing the right players for the right opponents. It also keeps the whole squad interested and nobody gets slung in the reserves as infinitum. Touché ! Great post !!!! |
|
|
|
Post by roverstillidie on Mar 31, 2016 9:34:45 GMT
Those who support the settled team theory are living in the past. Tactics and strategy change from game to game - what is a manager for? Certain players have certain strengths and vulnerabilities. We won a World Cup picking the best players for the task in hand, not the best players per se. If you play the same week in, week out, you become extremely predictable. Would you prefer an opponent with one formation or two, or even three? It's a bit like the First World War: the "walking slowly towards their machine guns" tactic didn't work. The reason it didn't work is it was exactly what was expected therefore the opposition created defences to suit. It was different before when football was less professional and more one dimensional. The Francis team was in an era when there were agreed concepts in the English game and rarely did teams deviate. Football has moved on an awful way now and I think it's far better to plan to outwit an opponent rather than assume you can create a brand of football which conquers all. You should know who's injured and therefore what positions on the pitch are weak with kids or loans. You should know who is scoring their goals and how. You should know how they have set out in similar games. What formation they play, who has pace, who is mentally vulnerable. What weaknessss does their keeper have? Firmly on the side of playing the right players for the right opponents. It also keeps the whole squad interested and nobody gets slung in the reserves as infinitum. Not disagreeing with this, but imo I think this is probably more applicable at Elite level, Prem/Top Euro, where they have an abundance of talent in depth and are more able to change systems at short notice.
At present...we don't have that luxury, so firmly believe you have to play your best team whenever possible and let the opposition worry about you.....
|
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Mar 31, 2016 10:27:47 GMT
Those who support the settled team theory are living in the past. Tactics and strategy change from game to game - what is a manager for? Certain players have certain strengths and vulnerabilities. We won a World Cup picking the best players for the task in hand, not the best players per se. If you play the same week in, week out, you become extremely predictable. Would you prefer an opponent with one formation or two, or even three? It's a bit like the First World War: the "walking slowly towards their machine guns" tactic didn't work. The reason it didn't work is it was exactly what was expected therefore the opposition created defences to suit. It was different before when football was less professional and more one dimensional. The Francis team was in an era when there were agreed concepts in the English game and rarely did teams deviate. Football has moved on an awful way now and I think it's far better to plan to outwit an opponent rather than assume you can create a brand of football which conquers all. You should know who's injured and therefore what positions on the pitch are weak with kids or loans. You should know who is scoring their goals and how. You should know how they have set out in similar games. What formation they play, who has pace, who is mentally vulnerable. What weaknessss does their keeper have? Firmly on the side of playing the right players for the right opponents. It also keeps the whole squad interested and nobody gets slung in the reserves as infinitum. Not disagreeing with this, but imo I think this is probably more applicable at Elite level, Prem/Top Euro, where they have an abundance of talent in depth and are more able to change systems at short notice.
At present...we don't have that luxury, so firmly believe you have to play your best team whenever possible and let the opposition worry about you.....
Surely the fact DC changed tactics from the starting line up 4-4-2 to a very effective 4-1-2-1-2 (or similar!) on Monday contridicts that view? Although what I can't understand is why, when we were clearly the from side going into the match, we had to change tactics rather than Carlisle in order to compete with them as you would have thought they'd be struggling to contain us not the otherway around?? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2016 11:36:06 GMT
Those who support the settled team theory are living in the past. Tactics and strategy change from game to game - what is a manager for? Certain players have certain strengths and vulnerabilities. We won a World Cup picking the best players for the task in hand, not the best players per se. If you play the same week in, week out, you become extremely predictable. Would you prefer an opponent with one formation or two, or even three? It's a bit like the First World War: the "walking slowly towards their machine guns" tactic didn't work. The reason it didn't work is it was exactly what was expected therefore the opposition created defences to suit. It was different before when football was less professional and more one dimensional. The Francis team was in an era when there were agreed concepts in the English game and rarely did teams deviate. Football has moved on an awful way now and I think it's far better to plan to outwit an opponent rather than assume you can create a brand of football which conquers all. You should know who's injured and therefore what positions on the pitch are weak with kids or loans. You should know who is scoring their goals and how. You should know how they have set out in similar games. What formation they play, who has pace, who is mentally vulnerable. What weaknessss does their keeper have? Firmly on the side of playing the right players for the right opponents. It also keeps the whole squad interested and nobody gets slung in the reserves as infinitum. Ok. So if both managers adopt this method.. What are they planning against? Since they are both changing tactics, players, formations etc. How can you plan against the unknown? I can't be bothered to look but I would argue that some of the most successful sides actually change things very little. Barring injury or suspension, your strongest team is your strongest team. I do agree that healthy management is necessary and I can't complain at our progress under DC but that doesn't mean everything is completely rosey. |
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Mar 31, 2016 12:27:58 GMT
Not sure about formations but Man C seem to change their starting 11 week by week? Arsenal also change regularly its probably only Leicester who keep the same team of the top 6 Premiership sides?
I guess the bigger question is would we have been that much different starting with Leads than Clark/Parkes on Monday, as other than that move DC kept the same line up/formation but had top change it when it got over ran?
|
|
|
|
Post by supergas on Mar 31, 2016 12:54:52 GMT
I can't be bothered to look but I would argue that some of the most successful sides actually change things very little. Barring injury or suspension, your strongest team is your strongest team. I do agree that healthy management is necessary and I can't complain at our progress under DC but that doesn't mean everything is completely rosey. We can probably do this stat relatively easily. Take Northampton, currently winning this league this season at an absolute canter... You can rank both their and our players appearances on the official websites, and (for example) their player with the 11th highest appearance total is on 23, ours is on 26 (suggesting we have a more settled starting XI). Their player with the 15th highest appearances is on 18, ours is on 19....but here's where it gets interesting...they've used 17 players who have made 10 or more league appearances, we've used 16, they've had 22 players making a league appearance, we've had 18 in total. So we probably have the more settled team/squad.... |
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Mar 31, 2016 13:21:47 GMT
Doesn't the core of our team pick itself anyway Mildy, Brown, Locks, Clark, Manse/Sincs, Lines, Bodin, Taylor & Gaffers, it's only players like Leds & Montano who change week by week? if Leads was as consistent at Brown, or Smith in the past, he'd probably play week in, week out anyway?
|
|
|
|
Post by youmadethatup on Mar 31, 2016 16:37:06 GMT
Is there ever a case (away from home perhaps) to play j Clarke at full back with leadbitter in front of him as a winger who can tackle in a 442 lineup ??
|
|
Never mind you don't get it
