Coaching Angst - ZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

2374 replies · 72,193 views Locked

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

It's what the majority on here have been telling the VERY vocal minority for weeks.

So you are telling me Bertos is intended to play behind Ifill, Daniel and greenacre in a 4-3-3? Boy, I sure haven't seen it that way. Looks more like a 4-2-3-1 to me, which goes to 4-5-1 under pressure.

Honestly I'm staggered that we play three up front and about as staggered again that the front three are Daniel, Ifill and Greenacre.

Guess I just learnt something.

Or I just moved into a parallel universe?

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

mjp2. Formations arent always as pretty and straight forward as they come across on paper. it seems to me that when we are attacking its 4-4-3,ive always said i believe that,and the chances we are creating tends to most definetly back that up (and just by watching you can see it). Yes,when we are on defence.a couple of those who are up front,track back and help out.

Flexible formations like this generally arent considered conservative or defensive or boring. It gives the likes of bertos daniel and ifill a lot of creative freedom. most people can actually see that,you cant seem to. if things were actually as bad as you say they are,believe me more people will be voicing their concerns and will be angsty (see previous seasons!). but as it stands,people can see attacking football finally,and can see the chances coming and are simply frustrated at our lack of finishing them.

Allegedly

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Tegal wrote:

mjp2 wrote:

Smithy wrote:

I was in Melbourne to witness us attacking for 90 minutes.

I was here the week before that when we went at them relentlessly for about 65 minutes, weathered a period, and then went hard at them again for 20.

And even this game just gone we went at them pretty hard for about 60 of the 90.

So I don't think the pundit is right, but he's had a go.

I actually agree with him almost completely about Greenacre, although I wouldn't have put it like that.

That suggests we are not good enough to win those games, even with the right intent. Which is why, despite protests, there's a bunch looking for what needs to change.

Give Greeny another striker to work off, leave Bertos wide, put Ifill wide and make Brown work his but off goin back and forwards till he drops and then give Caceres a go, and Daniel or Troy if one of the wide guys is tiring. Watching 1-1 draws may seem good to you guys used to the drivel I watched briefly from the Kingz, but it aint going to build a strong fan base by adding those that just want to watch good quality skillful sport.

Again,you miss the fact that things are working now

finishing CANNOT be fixed by formation. the argument that if ifill was up front then we'd have more strikers up there which would make our finishing better makes no sense whatsoever. Bertos and ifill are always either in the box or making the crosses anyway,and we never have a problem of anyone not being in the box.

it only takes one person to finish a chance,so no matter how many you put up there,it wont change things. Everyone is just frustrated by bad luck,if the chances are coming,then so will the goals.

A number of times in the last few matches I recall us breaking upfield and not having the bodies in the box, there was an instance with Greeancre out wide with the ball and having to fire a hopefull ball into the box as he was up on his own, again...

The issue still is we are not finishing chances, and while maybe a change of personnel is the issue, IF we played with 2 out and out strikers at least there is a greater chance of us having a body in the box than when our one striker is pulled out wide with nobody to play off.

Would also give the defenders something to think about, at the moment they know where the ball is going, to Greenacre, he needs someone to make space for him as well as someone to play the ball out to when he holds it up so well with his back to goal.

Am not advocating a formation change, I am suggesting that sticking to the same formation all the time is predicatable and that at times we do need 2 strikers up there.

And to flatly dismiss those with thoughts of changing formation as stupidity is blinkered thinking. And can't understand why some minds are so set in stone that perhaps changing the formation might be a good thing?

I don't see why you wouldn't consider putting a 2nd striker on when we need a goal to get a result or kill off a game, if only we had one on the bench instead of 3 midfielders...

irnbru142009-09-23 16:08:23

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Too much time on my hands so worked out (Source; Wiki) each of our midfielders goals per A-League game ratio.

Brown; 0.13

Caceras; 0.12

Daniel; 0.1

Leo; 0.09

Troy; 0.06

Diego; 0.03

Ferrante; 0.03

Lia; 0.02

On this basis, and with Daniel on paternity leave, our midfield this Sunday will be; Brown, Caceras, Leo and Troy.

P.S. Cacerses' record isn't too bad when you bear in mind it was achieved over 131 games i.e. he has 16 A-League goals to his name which is the same as all the rest put together (in 277 games).

Whitby boy2009-09-23 16:09:18

He dribbles a lot and the opposition dont like it - you can see it all over their faces. (Ron Atkinson)

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

I never knew there were so many wanna be coaches in NZ..

Founder

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Blame football manager games..

Allegedly

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

I've already apologised.

How's my driving? - Whine here

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Appreciate that flexibilty of "formation" that you describe Tegal (and your reply - a somewhat diferent tack from just calling me insane, illogical or telling me that I've been told before that I'm wrong. lol)

But I don't see that we play three in front. What I see on the pitch is normally 4-2-3-1 and then push forward from there as you say in game play. I'd feel he was more accurate if he said we played four up front - bertos, ifill, daniel and greenacre. And with Ifill and Bertos (in particular) roaming. I don't subscribe to the sack ricki, we are a defensive team thinking.

Obviously I agree we end up in 3-4-3 or 3-3-4 pushing forward (i.e. 4 in or around the box), as we should. But the stats just posted suggest most of those guys pushing forward have a career record of buying a goal once in a blue moon. Take the top 4 of them and you get 0.5 of a goal a game between them. Ifill has two(?) in 7 games, ditto greenacre. So we average one a game with the current personel.

Like irnbru14 and the 'majority" I think there is a lot of good with what we have, I am just not so optimistic that we can just expect us to start finishing better. I would not necessarily start with a second striker, but I'd be more inclined to go to 4-4-2 as variation. And exactly because formation is not static I don't see putting Ifill "wide" as limiting him to that. He could be just as valuable and effective in a 442 as in the "formation we play in. And with another striker there is that additional presence from that player in the center of the park.

But hey, just my opinion. I'll leave it alone. Go the Phoenix this weekend and may all our midfielders find golden boots as the majority is hoping for. Thanks for the chat.

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

For goodness sakes, with three up front in a 4-3-3 formation, it is really only an issue of co-ordination and timing in support to deal with along with finishing. It is very difficult to fault a 4-3-3 formation as being defensive. It can only be faulted in terms of a lack of creativeness, which has been fairly adequate for us. A 4-4-2 formation has a greater possibility of being defensive than a 4-3-3. Honestly I would be happy if somehow we get 3-4-3 going in parts of the game if we are able to dominate possession.

A two strikers up front is easier to co-ordinate between each other. Three strikers up front takes more co-ordination as the 2nd and 3rd strikers are both working their timing off the first striker and this leads to conflict in terms of utilising the space without crowding each other out. As the season goes on, there is more gelling between them and a system of understanding for the co-ordination between the three up front. Naturally we do have Daniels more to the left and Ifill more to the right and Bertos or Brown supporting either of them. Bertos tends to go wide on either side with Brown more to the centre. A weak point would be not having a midfielder that can threaten to shoot anytime outside the box as well as knock a direct ball up the centre. Brown is sort of in that role but is not that suited in my opinion. Fred would be good, of course and Caerere is increasing looking to fit in in that role.

However as it is, having three upfront has been mainly hot rather than cold and it has place pressure on the opposition defence.

So it gets down to the finishing skill and increasing the timing and the space to do a cleaner job of it. We have plenty of shots on target.

BTW good on Ricki for making a statement in reply to a former national player who gives an impression of a wannabe coach.AllWhitebelievr2009-09-23 17:17:09

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

38 chances in the last 3 games? Ricki must be counting a 'chance' as every time we get within 25 yards of the opposition goal because I certainly can't recall that number of real chances in the last 3 games.

I said on an earlier post that on Sunday I could remember about 4-5 actual chances, and nobody came back to me with any others that I might've missed.

Now, in order to get by and win games with that amount of chances, we HAVE to have a number of players capable of finishing, and finishing well on limited chances - the fact is, we don't.

The people advocating a formation change and 2 up front are hoping that MORE chances are created! We've shown that we can't create enough chances if we are not scoring enough, so we obviously need even more chances to be created!

Ricki thinks Daniel and Ifill are playing up front now does he? He must be watching a different game from me and quite a few others.

Additionally, the point being ignored by a lot is that sometimes the formation needs to be changed DURING a game...i.e. the 2nd half on Sunday. First half the formation worked, 2nd half it didn't, so change it FFS!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qe_B5CzbTJo - Caceres winning penalty v Perth - footage from the Fever Zone

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

mjp2 wrote:

Yeah i think a striker on the bench is actually a fair call. maybe i got you confused with the "we play too defensively,sack riki" mob. My apologies,as that is quite an insult

I see your logic,leave things the way they are,as it is working (chances wise). But if like on the weekend,we cant finish our chances or kill the game off,then bring on a finisher who could possibly do this for us by converting those chances into goals. Problem is,i dont think we have that person. Though costa scoring 2 on tuesday seems to have raised eyebrows in this regard.

EDIT: (added quote,since others posted before me)

Tegal2009-09-23 17:05:16

Allegedly

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Steve-O,limited chances,your having a laugh arent you? Do you want more than 5 clear cut chances a game? It just doesnt happen. but we have had a lot of shots,and attacking surges. Way more than our opposition,and way more than we have in previous seasons. We are on top of teams.

EDIT: got rid of unneccesary angst,sorry steve-o

Tegal2009-09-23 17:09:59

Allegedly

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Tegal wrote:

EDIT: got rid of unneccesary angst,sorry steve-o

Yes I know, and that's the problem!

You've never seen a game with a team having more than 5 chances? You can't have watched many football matches if that is the case.

Other than perhaps Melbourne, we've dominated some teams for 45 minutes.

Sunday - Daniels miss - fair enough, GREAT chance. Brown's shot, not exactly a clear chance being a shot from outside the box, but a good effort. Ferrante's header, very good chance. And the goal. So there are 4 chances, 3 of which were pretty good, 1 of which was scored.

That is a limited number of chances I'm afraid!

And before anyone says I am not talking about Barcelona's and Manchester Utd when I say I have seen teams create MANY more chances than that in games, regularly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qe_B5CzbTJo - Caceres winning penalty v Perth - footage from the Fever Zone

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Sorry, I said I'd leave it. But pull my tit. Three STRIKERS!??

Load of twaddle. We've only ever seen one striker on the field (and even he got a hard time in the press today). And three others who play forward. Don't try and BS anybody that Danel, Ifill and Bertos are strikers. lololololol.

Gone, long gone.

Go the Phoenix.

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

I think Ifill is a striker mjp2,but yeah no one else with scoring records in there. I do see your point.

Steve-O,i think i love you. You make me so mad.

Ive watched plenty of football,and the standard to which you're holding a chance is one of a clear cut chance. And yes im quite keen to hold my stand that for a team to have more than 5 of these chances is rare,and means theyve played very well indeed.

Id like you to name some more of these chances from other teams,if they consistently get more than 5 easily,as you say should happen. And remember,shots from outside the box,no matter how free or open they are,dont really count (your words: "Brown's shot, not exactly a clear chance being a shot from outside the box, but a good effort.")

So yeah, i guess thats a nice little challenge for you. And remember,they have to be up to your standard of what a chance is,not RHs.

Allegedly

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Chance is probably something like "an opportunity to shoot on goal" rather than a shot on goal which may be what you have in mind.

I'll just have one more go at this.

The argument boils down to a pretty simple one.

I think that steady is she goes is the answer. I think we are creating enough chances to win games and that if we persevere then we will start to do that. I think radical change would be a mistake.

The other side of that coin (as put forth by Steve-O and a few others) is that because we are so woeful in front of goal (which we have been) then we must seek to create more chances because our conversion rate is not likely to improve much. I don't agree with this because I think the risks inherent in the changes Steve-O would see made are great, and the benefits he sees as a result are unlikely and far-fetched.

That's all it is folks. Two different opinions.

In my opinion, and I think there is evidence to support it, a two man central midfield is far too easy to play through for the A League. Indeed around the world the two man central midfield pairing is becoming a rarity.

If you look at the personnel we have available there is not a balanced two man pairing either. You could play Brown and McKain, who would offer you a lot defensively, but not so much going forward. You could play one of those two and any of Daniel, Leo, Caceres, or Diego, but none of that attacking four have much in the way of defensive ability, so you'd be asking too much of Browny or McKain. You could play Vinnie or Ferrante, but Vinnie is a poor man's Brown/McKain really and (although I hate to say it) Micky Ferrante can't really be said to be up to the level. He's had his chances.

Now if we had very athletic up-and-back-style wing players then we could perhaps play a four man midfield and expect those wingers to get very narrow quickly and defend. But again you look at the available players and the only one who might do that with any regularity is Ifill. The others (Costa, Leo, Daniel, Our Troy etc etc) are all very much "front of the pitch" players. Their strengths lie in attacking areas. They'll close a man down, sure, but they're not going to be very effective going up and back all day and wading in with the odd Brown-style bobsled. It's just not in their skill set.

So taking those two things as "fact" then, how do you pick your team? Well, you say: I know Browny/McKain can't do the job alone, so I'll put someone else in there to help them (Vinnie the other one of the pair). Then, I can't rely on them to be creative, so I need a creative outlet in the middle. Bingo, I need a three man midfield.

And the rest falls into place from there.

The other advantage of playing 4-3-3 is that it takes advantage of the attacking threat we can sometimes get out of Lochhead and Musky Mancat a lot better than a 4-3-3. Sometimes Locky can deliver a cross, which is a nice addition to the go forward arsenal.

I do have some sympathy for what you're saying though. I'm not convinced about Greenacre's ability to lead the line alone either. I wonder about playing Ifill like United played Rooney when they had Tevez and Ronaldo in the side. Nobody really leading the line (although nominally it was Rooney he was always peeling off into pockets to get the ball like a second striker). Greenacre would end up on the bench then though, and I'm not sure we're ready for that either.

I also see your point about getting people into the box who can finish (Greenacre and Ifiil in your scenario) and I would agree more but for the rest of it.

I think if you played 4-4-2 as you've described then one of Greenacre or Ifill would have to track deep so often that you'd end up genuinely playing one up front.

Lastly, Steve-O, I think you'll find that the reason everyone thinks you're a bit of a twat is the way you set your stall out. It is very confrontational. The tone of your posts (and sometimes the actual post itself) suggests we are all numpties for not seeing things through your eyes, which we aren't.

Your view has some undeniable truth to it. We must score more to win. We must find a way not to get pushed back into our own half. We must put teams away earlier in the game. But, try harder not to be a cock.

Incredible stamina. No shame. Yellow Fever.

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

I'm used to forums where I could just keep my mouth shut and give a "thumbs up" to a post. Can't do that here - so;

Nice post Smithy. Clarifies for me more where you guys are coming from. I'm just not sure staying the same will mean it will all fall into place and the wins will come. I give a bit more credit to the opposition and recognise our own limitations. But hopefully I'm being a bit too critical and it's just luck that has meant we are not proving better than the sides we have been drawing against.

P.S I'll say neutral on your comments on Steve-O. Wouldn't be the same without him.

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Smithy wrote:

...... That's all it is folks. Two different opinions.

Compliments on the post Smithy, well thought through and communicated. I agree we need to line-up based on the abilities and limitations we have in the squad and also agree major surgery is not required but I do think some fine tuning is required. Not so sure about Caceres's implied defensive limitations as haven't seen him play enough. I think the debate has all but run its course so not looking for a response or to prolong the debate - just my view.

With respect to Steve-O's posts - love the passion and long may it continue - with the odd rough edge knocked off maybe.

Whitby boy2009-09-23 18:15:54

He dribbles a lot and the opposition dont like it - you can see it all over their faces. (Ron Atkinson)

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

This is doing my head in, what I watched on the weekend was 4-2-3-1 with Ifill, Daniel and Bertos getting forward to support Greenacre during the first half and less so in the second half. Once Ifill went off what I was watching was a 4-5-1 with the runs to support Greenacre few and far between.

To be fair we still created a couple of good chances in the second half but I thought Fury were there for the taking and for whatever reason we were very deep and the support wasn't getting to Greenacre in the same way it was in the first half when we were dominant.

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Steve-O wrote:

Yes, Ricki is incorrect according the A-League stats. We have had 37 attempts on goal in the last 3 games and our opponents have had 31 attempts at our goal. We are creating chances, some might be a bit speculative but it does show we do go out generally with an attacking intent.

I must say that our side is very balanced at the moment, neither favouring defence or attack. Just being let down by lapses in concentration/application at both ends of the field perfectly highlighted in the last game - Daniel's/Ferrante's miss and conceding the late goal.

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Hard News wrote:

You mean the article that is under news and discussion ?

This forum software won't let me merge topics - stupid software - so if it's more than four or five posts it would just be closed.

Thanx for that clarifcation Hard News..I hadnt quite realsied where the reply button took me as well. I will read Topic next time.

Good discussion since I dropped off and did some work

Like a fellow whitby-ite and others Im staggered at the "we play 4-3-3"...I view it as more 4-5-1 with Daniel and Ifill dropping deep. Some good summaries which Im comfortable with so will let sleeping dogs lie..and hope we actually try a 4-4-2 with Costa or Chen at least for 45min.

I dont think we need Fred..Id rather a striker came.

Cmon Nix.

A small town in Europe........looking to bounce straight back up....well that aint going to happen

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Frankie Mac wrote:

but surely there is a middle ground that doesn't get everyone all antsy. I am a firm believer that mid table is a successful season for us. We do not have the money the other clubs do, it is harder for us to attract the players that other clubs can, and therefore I do not think that our squad is as good as the other teams in the league. Due to the salary cap, there is not much of a difference, but I do not think that Lia would be starting in centre midfield for pretty much any of the other teams that we have to play. That is not a criticism of Vinnie, who I think is a good player, but just a belief that I have.

I would love us to win the league, but being pragmatic I think we have been successful this season if we finish between 6th and 8th. With the history NZ football has had in Aussie competitions, slow and steady progression and improvement is so much better for us than aiming for the stars and f**king it up. All of this "if you are happy with mediocrity, you have a small-time attitude" is wrong. I want the club to grow, develop and progress to the point where it has a strong base before it starts really trying to push on.

As for this whole "I pay my money, I am entitled to say what I want" attitude, it is one that I cannot really get my head around. Steve-o - you come from Scotland and are obviously a Hibs fan, who will always be the team that you really care about (your first love so to speak). Since you have moved to NZ, you now have access to games at a decent level, so you think that this would make you a little bit happy, but it doesn't. You complain with such passion that I think what goes on really upsets you - I can picture you absoluting steaming mad at some games, so why do you continue to go? To support the Phoenix? I am not sure you really do "support" them - you pay your money and you probably cheer the players on the pitch, but this constant negetivity you have rubs off on others, who then start to rub off on others, etc. Pretty soon you have a part time fan talking to a season ticket holder who is going on about how sh*t Herbert and the players are, and they think "I'm not going to bother going to that". This drop in crowds is justified by these whingers with a "told you the team was sh*t - people don't even come to watch anymore".

Anyway, my advice is carry on coming to the stadium (you want your live football, and we need the money) but supprt the opposition every week. Sit in the away end and complain about Herbert's tactics all you want, call Ferrante a c**t at the top of your voice, and even give it the big "WAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH" to the fever zone everytime the opposition score. You will still have Hibs, so it is not like you will not have any team to really support so there will still be some message boards to go on to speak about how your club is being ruined by sub-standard corner routines, or whatever has your back up that day.

That all ended up a bit longer than I expected it to be

Grumpy old bastard alert

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Smithy wrote:

So I'm the confrontational one, but it's you, and others, that resort to name calling...how does that work?

Perhaps if I come across that way it's because from the first post on this thread, which was an expression of opinion, I felt that about 95% of the board rounded on me and backed me into a corner by expressing complete exasperation that anyone could possibly have that opinion?

You say that the tone of my posts suggested that you were all numpties? I would suggest the complete opposite to be honest - the tone of A LOT of the posts on this thread seemed to suggest that I was a numpty for not seeing it how you guys do, but I am not either.

If there had been more reasoned posts, like your very own that I am quoting, rather than, to paraphrase slightly, "this thread is rubbish / nonsense / totally OTT / angsty crap / thread should be closed" "Steve-O f**k off / commit suicide / grumpy", then maybe I wouldn't have felt like I constantly had to defend myself, and in doing that I have just been trying to put across my argument and explain my reasons for it. If it came across as aggressive or whatever, then it wasn't meant and I was only responding to what I felt was a confrontational tone on posts addressed at me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qe_B5CzbTJo - Caceres winning penalty v Perth - footage from the Fever Zone

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Smithy wrote:

but Vinnie is a poor man's Brown/McKain really and (although I hate to say it)

The one bit I really disagree with, I'd have Lia as first choice in that sitting central midfield, he puts in a good shift, closes down well, tackles and keeps the ball moving as he is a good passer of the ball and we need someone in there to do the old watercarrier role.

I think he is more suited to the role than McKain who always looks like a centreback playing out of position in there to me, esepcailly when he crosses the halfway line (mind you better than Dodd who was doing tha role for a bit last season!), while I think Brown should be pushed on a bit further and encouraged to get forward and support the forwards.

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Steve-O wrote:

Smithy wrote:

So I'm the confrontational one, but it's you, and others, that resort to name calling...how does that work?

Least nobody called you a Yam...yet

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Tegal wrote:

I think Ifill is a striker mjp2,but yeah no one else with scoring records in there. I do see your point.

Steve-O,i think i love you. You make me so mad.

So yeah, i guess thats a nice little challenge for you. And remember,they have to be up to your standard of what a chance is,not RHs.

Look, my definition of a clear cut chance is probably inside the box, keeper to beat, whether it be a header or a shot.

I would say shots from outside the box are no more than half chances (unless maybe you've been put clean through on the keeper and decide to finish from outside the box) because obviously the further away you are, the more difficult it is to score.

I just wouldn't count a shot that goes about a mile wide from 30 yards out as a 'chance' although the stats will count it as a shot off target and I dare say a lot of these 'chances' that Ricki is quoting are from this type of thing.

I just think we are capable of creating more chances than we did, for instance, in the 2nd half on Sunday, and I think we should've pushed on and done that. As I have said, I think we only really created 3 opportunities maximum in that 2nd half, only 1 of which I would define as 'clear cut' but we all know whose head that one landed on

Steve-O2009-09-23 20:10:26

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qe_B5CzbTJo - Caceres winning penalty v Perth - footage from the Fever Zone

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Smithy wrote:

Chance is probably something like "an opportunity to shoot on goal" rather than a shot on goal which may be what you have in mind.

I'll just have one more go at this.

The argument boils down to a pretty simple one.

I think that steady is she goes is the answer. I think we are creating enough chances to win games and that if we persevere then we will start to do that. I think radical change would be a mistake.

That's all it is folks. Two different opinions.

And the rest falls into place from there.

I also see your point about getting people into the box who can finish (Greenacre and Ifiil in your scenario) and I would agree more but for the rest of it.

I think if you played 4-4-2 as you've described then one of Greenacre or Ifill would have to track deep so often that you'd end up genuinely playing one up front.

The best post I think I have ever read in this forum from top to bottom. Logical, thought out, balanced and unemotional.

Well played sir

Grumpy old bastard alert

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

In reply to Smithy - what would you make of a 3-5-2 formation?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qe_B5CzbTJo - Caceres winning penalty v Perth - footage from the Fever Zone

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Don't know what Smithy thinks about that one, but for me, we don't have the personnel for 3-5-2.

Not that I'm a big fan of that formation anyway.el grapadura2009-09-23 20:24:10

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

well, i spent all my energy posting in different thread. but, i will say i think you guys are too tough on Steve-O and too forgiving. our results over a long period of time havent been good enough and we havent scored enough goals. Some of that is a recruitment issue, some of that comes down to how we play. Both are Herbert's responsibility. We've not got the mix right recruitment wise (we lack strikepower and we lack a quality midfielder) and we've played too conservatively, particularly away from home. I dont think we should be any less ambitious than any other fanbase or have any lesser expectations of our team, not in our third year, not with a salary cap, not with new clubs on the scene, not with some clubs being in financial trouble.

still think we are good enough to finish top half, and it wouldnt suprise me

Marius Lacatus2009-09-23 20:33:32

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

el grapadura wrote:

Don't know what Smithy thinks about that one, but for me, we don't have the personnel for 3-5-2.

Not that I'm a big fan of that formation anyway.

Potentially, off the top of my head, it could be...

Muscat Sigmund Durante

Bertos McKain Brown Lia Daniel / Lochhead

Ifill Greenacre

Obviously you can switch different people around but that's just an idea.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qe_B5CzbTJo - Caceres winning penalty v Perth - footage from the Fever Zone

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Smithy, taking what you have said about a 3 man midfield, I can understand why we would play 2 sitting midfielders when playing away from home, but at home a small tweak to the system would give us more of an attacking edge.

Suggest swapping from two defensive players and one offensive to one defensive and two mor offensive, would still allow Muscat and Lochhead to get forward knowing that there was a midfielder dropping deep to cover for them, say:

Paston

Muscat SIgmund Durante Lochhead

Lia

Brown Caceres

Daniel Ifill

Greenacre

Would allow us to get that other body into the box from midfield to hopefully convert the chances we are creating.

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

With some of the teams in the A-League, I think we would be tempting fate going down this line. I base that on how many times 1 of our back 4 (usually Lochhead) get caught out of position. Go to a 3 man back line and you only magnify the hole if one man is caught out. The amount of times I've seen Lochhead dragged out of position then give up the chase...

Also to play this, you need genuine touchline huggers that get up and down the pitch with pace. We don't have that. Our midfielders tend to be 1 dimensional type (attacking or defensive but not either) or we don't have any genuine wingers and if people think we do, do they have any defensive tendancies in their playing style? I think you'll find not

Grumpy old bastard alert

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Steve-O wrote:

el grapadura wrote:

Don't know what Smithy thinks about that one, but for me, we don't have the personnel for 3-5-2.

Not that I'm a big fan of that formation anyway.

Potentially, off the top of my head, it could be...

Muscat Sigmund Durante

Bertos McKain Brown Lia Daniel / Lochhead

Ifill Greenacre

Obviously you can switch different people around but that's just an idea.

banstick

Founder

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

irnbru14 wrote:

Paston

Muscat SIgmund Durante Lochhead

Lia

Brown Caceres

Daniel Ifill

Greenacre

Would allow us to get that other body into the box from midfield to hopefully convert the chances we are creating.

Since when has Brown been an offensive minded midfielder?
You also advocate leaving out McKain and Bertos?

Dude.....

Grumpy old bastard alert

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Steve-O wrote:

el grapadura wrote:

Don't know what Smithy thinks about that one, but for me, we don't have the personnel for 3-5-2.

Not that I'm a big fan of that formation anyway.

Potentially, off the top of my head, it could be...

Muscat Sigmund Durante

Bertos McKain Brown Lia Daniel / Lochhead

Ifill Greenacre

Obviously you can switch different people around but that's just an idea.

How is that team going to score more goals? And this may be a stupid thing to say but it's never stopped people on this thread, but surely even if they play 3-5-2 they may play long ball crap and be defensive.

www.kiwifromthecouch.blogspot.com

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Steve-O wrote:

el grapadura wrote:

Don't know what Smithy thinks about that one, but for me, we don't have the personnel for 3-5-2.

Not that I'm a big fan of that formation anyway.

Potentially, off the top of my head, it could be...

Muscat Sigmund Durante

Bertos McKain Brown Lia Daniel / Lochhead

Ifill Greenacre

Obviously you can switch different people around but that's just an idea.

I thought you were talking about creating more chances? Having Daniel and Bertos hugging the touch lines and you'll get nothing from them and the middle 3 couldn't create a 3 card draw from a pack of 52

Edit: And yes Daniel and Bertos will have to hug the touchline because the middle and up front will be too clogged with bodies. The difference between these middle 3 on this formation vs a 4-5-1 is that you are asking the middle 3 to move forward to create (which they can't)
Jeff Vader2009-09-23 20:44:24

Grumpy old bastard alert

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

...not to mention taking by FAR our best creative attacking player away from a role where he creates and runs at players to pop him up front to stand waiting for the ball to fly in.

How's my driving? - Whine here

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Why would we suddenly start playing long ball stuff with the formation I suggested? Not entirely sure where that idea comes from?

I think Bertos is better out wide also and he is being wasted in the middle at the moment.

I just thought 5 across the midfield might give us more width to get crosses in, and with 2 up front in the 'proper' sense of being up front, there might be more chance of one of 2 strikers actually getting on the end of something.

As I say, was just off the top of my head and that line up is just the first players that came to mind as I was writing it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qe_B5CzbTJo - Caceres winning penalty v Perth - footage from the Fever Zone

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Hard News wrote:

...not to mention taking by FAR our best creative attacking player away from a role where he creates and runs at players to pop him up front to stand waiting for the ball to fly in.

As stated in my other post, positions are not necessarily set in stone in my head - move Ifill to wide right, play him in the 'hole' behind the 2 strikers, whatever, but I would still like 2 strikers RIGHT up front.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qe_B5CzbTJo - Caceres winning penalty v Perth - footage from the Fever Zone

Permalink

This topic is locked.