Post history

History for el grapadura

R3 vs Western Sydney Wanderers | Sat 3rd Nov | 7:35pm | Westpac Stadium

Back to topic

Current version

Posted November 05, 2018 20:08 · last edited November 05, 2018 22:38

reg22 wrote:

Royz wrote:

I think we will come good this next game. I cant see us being as woeful as before.

I actually think we've been poor in all three games. I don't think we know how to score.

The roster is full of compromises and Rudan has decided the best thing to do is to set up with 5 players providing defensive shape and holding space: Taylor, Durante, Doyle with Rufer and Mandi in front of them. In theory, this 5 should be difficult to bypass, but the back 3 are so deep there are massive spaces behind and either side of the midfield 2 which makes keeping the opposition out very difficult.

Our formation for the first 2 games had the 5 'holders', 4 'runners' and a play maker. Like Balbi mentioned, taking the play maker out left 5 static shape holders and 5 runners. Who was going to pull the strings? None of the 5 'runners' selected possesses the ability to control the play. 

A lot is being asked of the wing backs. In a back 5, you would want your wing backs to be 2 of your best players, but instead we have a developing kid and a partially restored fiat that's just been taken off the blocks. You can use player proximity to protect weak full backs in a back 4, but wing backs in a back 5 have to do it all themselves. Neither of our wing backs have the athleticism to do the job, but I must say I admired Fenton's effort. To compensate, we drop our strikers deep and wide when we don't have the ball. This makes it so easy for the likes of Risdon and Elrich, who were able to play forward in any manner that they wanted. Ask yourself, why were we the only team who looked like we were playing into the wind?

This isn't angst btw, just my observation and it comes as no surprise to me as this is a new team with a new coach who hasn't been able to sign the players he wants.

The solutions to the problems mentioned above all create other problems. It's a balancing act that Rudan can only really solve with better players

I agree with you Reg, and I'm also surprised that a lot of people on here seem to think we had a great game against the Jets - ok, the result was good, but we were very fortunate to get it, and especially to be one up in the first half. In that game, we had big problems in the first half because Mandi and Rufer were too far in front of the back three, and the Jets were able to drift into that space and create us problems, but didn't capitalise on it (and Fenton and Libby did a decent job of helping out the back three so it didn't get too overwhelming). This got fixed in the second half for most part, though there were a handful of occasions when Rufer and Mandi got caught too high up the field and we had immediate problems. So I think that the win definitely put a gloss on that performance.

With the WSW game, the gap between the wing-backs and the back three was ruthlessly exploited, and I wonder if it will prompt a change in thinking from Rudan, because I can see quite a few other teams in the league following that tactic against us and it might not turn out to be too pretty.

Previous versions

3 versions
Unknown editor edited November 05, 2018 22:38
reg22 wrote:
Royz wrote:

I think we will come good this next game. I cant see us being as woeful as before.

I actually think we've been poor in all three games. I don't think we know how to score.

The roster is full of compromises and Rudan has decided the best thing to do is to set up with 5 players providing defensive shape and holding space: Taylor, Durante, Doyle with Rufer and Mandi in front of them. In theory, this 5 should be difficult to bypass, but the back 3 are so deep there are massive spaces behind and either side of the midfield 2 which makes keeping the opposition out very difficult.

Our formation for the first 2 games had the 5 'holders', 4 'runners' and a play maker. Like Balbi mentioned, taking the play maker out left 5 static shape holders and 5 runners. Who was going to pull the strings? None of the 5 'runners' selected possesses the ability to control the play. 

A lot is being asked of the wing backs. In a back 5, you would want your wing backs to be 2 of your best players, but instead we have a developing kid and a partially restored fiat that's just been taken off the blocks. You can use player proximity to protect weak full backs in a back 4, but wing backs in a back 5 have to do it all themselves. Neither of our wing backs have the athleticism to do the job, but I must say I admired Fenton's effort. To compensate, we drop our strikers deep and wide when we don't have the ball. This makes it so easy for the likes of Risdon and Elrich, who were able to play forward in any manner that they wanted. Ask yourself, why were we the only team who looked like we were playing into the wind?

This isn't angst btw, just my observation and it comes as no surprise to me as this is a new team with a new coach who hasn't been able to sign the players he wants.

The solutions to the problems mentioned above all create other problems. It's a balancing act that Rudan can only really solve with better players

I agree with you Reg, and I'm also surprised that a lot of people on here seem to think we had a great game against the Jets - ok, the result was good, but we were very fortunate to get it, and especially to be one up in the first half. In that game, we had big problems in the first half because Mandi and Rufer were too far in front of the back three, and the Jets were able to drift into that space and create us problems, but didn't capitalise on it (and Fenton and Libby did a decent job of helping out the back three so it didn't get too overwhelming). This got fixed in the seconf half for most part, though there were a handful of occasions when Rufer and Mandi got caught too high up the field and we had immediate problems. So I think that the win definitely put a gloss on that performance.

With the WSW game, the gap between the wing-backs and the back three was ruthlessly exploited, and I wonder if it will prompt a change in thinking from Rudan, because I can see quite a few other teams in the league following that tactic against us and it might not turn out to be too pretty.

Unknown editor edited November 05, 2018 21:16
reg22 wrote:
Royz wrote:

I think we will come good this next game. I cant see us being as woeful as before.

I actually think we've been poor in all three games. I don't think we know how to score.

The roster is full of compromises and Rudan has decided the best thing to do is to set up with 5 players providing defensive shape and holding space: Taylor, Durante, Doyle with Rufer and Mandi in front of them. In theory, this 5 should be difficult to bypass, but the back 3 are so deep there are massive spaces behind and either side of the midfield 2 which makes keeping the opposition out very difficult.

Our formation for the first 2 games had the 5 'holders', 4 'runners' and a play maker. Like Balbi mentioned, taking the play maker out left 5 static shape holders and 5 runners. Who was going to pull the strings? None of the 5 'runners' selected possesses the ability to control the play. 

A lot is being asked of the wing backs. In a back 5, you would want your wing backs to be 2 of your best players, but instead we have a developing kid and a partially restored fiat that's just been taken off the blocks. You can use player proximity to protect weak full backs in a back 4, but wing backs in a back 5 have to do it all themselves. Neither of our wing backs have the athleticism to do the job, but I must say I admired Fenton's effort. To compensate, we drop our strikers deep and wide when we don't have the ball. This makes it so easy for the likes of Risdon and Elrich, who were able to play forward in any manner that they wanted. Ask yourself, why were we the only team who looked like we were playing into the wind?

This isn't angst btw, just my observation and it comes as no surprise to me as this is a new team with a new coach who hasn't been able to sign the players he wants.

The solutions to the problems mentioned above all create other problems. It's a balancing act that Rudan can only really solve with better players

I agree with you Reg, and I'm also surprised that a lot of people on here seem to think we had a great game against the Jets - ok, the result was good, but we were very fortunate to get it, and especially to be one up in the first half. In that game, we had big problems in the first half because Mandi and Rufer were too far in front of the back three, and the Jets were able to drift into that space and create us problems, but didn't capitalise on it (and Fenton and Libby did a decent job of helping out the back three so it didn't get too overwhelming). This got fixed in the seconf half for most part, though there were a handful of occasions when Rufer and Mandi got caught too high up the field and we had immediate problems. So I think that the win definitely put a gloss on that performance.

With the WSW game, the gap between the wing-backs and the back three was ruthlessly exploited, and I wonder if it will prompt a change in thinking from Rudan, because I can see quite a few other teams in the league following that tactic against and it might not turn out to be too pretty.

Unknown editor edited November 05, 2018 21:15
reg22 wrote:
Royz wrote:

I think we will come good this next game. I cant see us being as woeful as before.

I actually think we've been poor in all three games. I don't think we know how to score.

The roster is full of compromises and Rudan has decided the best thing to do is to set up with 5 players providing defensive shape and holding space: Taylor, Durante, Doyle with Rufer and Mandi in front of them. In theory, this 5 should be difficult to bypass, but the back 3 are so deep there are massive spaces behind and either side of the midfield 2 which makes keeping the opposition out very difficult.

Our formation for the first 2 games had the 5 'holders', 4 'runners' and a play maker. Like Balbi mentioned, taking the play maker out left 5 static shape holders and 5 runners. Who was going to pull the strings? None of the 5 'runners' selected possesses the ability to control the play. 

A lot is being asked of the wing backs. In a back 5, you would want your wing backs to be 2 of your best players, but instead we have a developing kid and a partially restored fiat that's just been taken off the blocks. You can use player proximity to protect weak full backs in a back 4, but wing backs in a back 5 have to do it all themselves. Neither of our wing backs have the athleticism to do the job, but I must say I admired Fenton's effort. To compensate, we drop our strikers deep and wide when we don't have the ball. This makes it so easy for the likes of Risdon and Elrich, who were able to play forward in any manner that they wanted. Ask yourself, why were we the only team who looked like we were playing into the wind?

This isn't angst btw, just my observation and it comes as no surprise to me as this is a new team with a new coach who hasn't been able to sign the players he wants.

The solutions to the problems mentioned above all create other problems. It's a balancing act that Rudan can only really solve with better players

I agree with you Reg, and I'm also surprised that a lot of people on here seem to think we had a great game against the Jets - ok, the result was good, but we were very fortunate to get it, and especially to be one up in the first half. In that game, we had big problems in the first half because Mandi and Rufer were too far in front of the back three, and the Jets were able to drift into that space and create us problems, but didn't capitalise on it (and Fenton and Libby did a decent job of helping out the back three so it didn't get too overwhelming). This got fixed in the seconf half for most part, though there were a handful of occasions when Rufer and Mandi got caught too high up the field and we had immediate problems. So I think that the win definitely put a gloss on that performance.

With the WSW game, the gap between the wing-backs and the back was ruthlessly exploited, and I wonder if it will prompt a change in thinking from Rudan, because I can see quite a few other teams in the league following that tactic against and it might not turn out to be too pretty.