Minority Report 2019-20 v Bristol City

The site you quoted says we played 3-1-4-2.

Look I am not trying to be argumentative here, but I am telling you what I saw. I am not going to suddenly say that it is not what I saw am I. I watched Danny Wilson's team play with a back 3 for 4 years. I know how that works, and if it was a back 3 with wing backs, I would expect to have seen Jacob Brown playing full back some of the time. I certainly saw that against Swansea. The only time I saw him back there was when City caught us once and he was tracking the full back. Other than that, he played the traditional wide role in a 4-3-3. That is, he tracked the full back.

I would argue with the site you quoted in a number of aspects. They say that Dougall was deepest of the midfield 5. Deeper than Brown or Cavare. They say that Chaplin played in midfield. Not just behind the forward pair, but in a midfield 4 with Brown, Mowatt and Cavare. That is simply not what I saw. I saw the front three change positions frequently. Sometimes Chaplin was deepest, sometimes it was Woodrow and occasionally it was Wilks. For corners, Chaplin was the one we left highest, for obvious reasons. I just do not accept that the site that you offer is the final arbiter on these things given that their assessment is so clearly wrong.

 

Red Rain in an unable to accept the possibility he may be wrong shocker... whatever next?

 

I watched sky last night. Interesting comparison was that Adam Murray went to three at the back to shore up the defence and LJ went to three at the back to enable them to play two up top.

That was the view of the sky team but then again what do they know....

 

Of course there is a possibility that I might be wrong. The opening paragraph of my opening post accepted that I will not always be accurate.

 

And do you believe that that is why Adam Murray went with three at the back?

 

You are being argumentative. You began your report (which I usually enjoy and usually say as much) by telling the reader that neither side played three central defenders. That is so blatantly false that it rendered the rest of your report pointless to me.
It would be like sticking a porn film on and then seeing that it's actually about a pawnbrokers and they can't spell. No tits, just tat.

Both sides played three at the back. You can argue about it all day, but you'd be wrong at the end of the day as well. Nothing wrong with being wrong. I thought we'd lose last night when they made it 2-0 but I was wrong. Happy to be so.

 

Sorry to have lost a fan in that case, but I will always say things as I see them.

 

You haven't lost anything. I will read the next report.

 

I think Adam has tried to shore the back up and the three across the back reflects the fact we do not have full backs of Championship quality. Brown and Cavare are better going forward and whether you view that as a 3 or 5 is semantics.

 

Sky had us down as 3..5...2 and make remarks that Brown at left wing back was been (or had) caught out with balls in behind him.

 

I have to say, I also thought we played 3 5 2. However, Jacob Brown often got too advanced early on, leaving space behind him which Sibbick then had to cover. This made it look like we were playing with a back 4 at times. Bristol exploited this a few times early on, and only good solid central defending kept them out.

It was noticeable, when Brownhill was having treatment, that there was an animated discussion in our dugout. It may or not have been about the back line, but after that we certainly played 3 5 2, in my opinion. Until nearer the end when we switched to a 1 10 formation.

 

I used to complain about us being too open under Stendel. I disliked the press at this level because if the press was beaten when we were so high, we did not have the pace to get back. It also took too much out of us and made us vulnerable late in games. 3-5-2 was a reaction to the vulnerabilities of the press, but it does not strengthen our back line. After all there are fewer players in 3-5-2 than there are in 4-4-2. 3-5-2 can expose us out wide, but against Swansea we compensated by being far stronger down the centre because we had 3 central defensive orientated midfield players who acted as blockers in front of the back line. Swansea played 2 of their front 3 wide and tried to expose our system's weakness for width. I was particularly interested in how Diaby and Cavare passed on responsibility for watching the wide player in the front 3. I would argue that the back three did not strengthen us because we had 3 centre backs. I would argue that it stengthened us because we dropped the press and we strengthened the midfield block in front of the back line.

Since I do not agree that we played the same system against City, I would rather not be drawn into what a SKY pundit said. Suffice to say that I disagree.

 

You see I would argue that what you say was happening was because Brown was not playing as a wing back.

This is the heart of the disagreement in this thread. I argue that Brown was being bypassed because he was not playing as a wing back, whilst others argue that Brown was being bypassed because he was badly positioned, that is he was too far forward.

 

Fairy Nuff. At least we seem to agree on the 1-10 formation towards the end

 

Except that we went to 4-4-2 briefly before we went to 1-10.

 

Red Rain
You consistently tell us that MR is just your view on things. People accept that and you dont need to keep reminding us. We know.
You also consistently tell us that you post to stimulate debate yet when others challenge your view your appetite for debate does appear to wane. Just out of interest do you ever profess to being wrong?
It's always very interesting to see how you respond to people who do challenge your view of things; especially tactics. You are right that you are not always accurate and in this particular case I would agree with you. You are not accurate in your interpretation of last night's tactics. In my opinion. I agree with Jake and I haven't even looked at the other reference points. I dont need to.
I cant understand why you find it so difficult to accept someone else's point of view.
Like you I'm really interested in how we shape up tactically and how the coach changes things. Your analysis on stuff is mostly v good and I do find myself agreeing with much of what you post.
However please dont demean an opposite view which, despite your contrary opinion, is actually correct.
The formation you posted had Jacob Brown as one of a midfield three. He wasn't. He played wide left.
Toby Sibbick did not play left back at the start but he did move there when we went 442.
You asked me to line up our formation. We started like this:
Collins
Diaby Halme Sibbick
Cavare Mowatt Dougal Brown
Chaplin
Woodrow Wilks
......and then went into a 4231 and then into a 442.
I agree with Jake and it seems like many others....but I guess that matters not to to you.
Plus ca change........

 

All that you have done in your anxiety to debate with me is tell me that I am wrong, two further times. You have not showed me how or why I was wrong, or attempted to point out my mistake and reason why I had made it. I contrast your reply to that of Stahlrost above. He has reasoned that either Jacob Brown was playing wing back and was playing too far forward, or that he was playing wide midfield and was not playing wing back at all. I can understand the reasoning in this. I can understand why the views of both sides of the argument could be merely different versions of the same facts. I can understand why I should just back off and leave it. It allows me to claim that I have reported what I have seen accurately.

I urge you to look at the logic used by Stahlrost and to try to find common ground there.

 

Red Rain, on the point about Brown and Cavare , I think I I agree with you and what supports my argument is that during the warm ups a fitness coach was working with Sibbick, Halme , Diaby and Cavare as a defensive group. Brown was not with them and had he been part of the defensive group I think he would have been. Brown did not appear to play a typical wing back role.

 

Yes I noticed that as well. However, before the start of the Swansea game, they also worked with just 4 players, but that system was definitely 3-5-2.

 

Make no wonder the players look confused