Just a small observation about last Saturday. I went to the game and was very impressed by Reading's ability to pull off the 3-4-3 system. Our 2 upfront couldn't put enough pressure on their back 3, they always had an out-ball and in fairness their defenders looked comfortable enough on the ball to confidently pass their way out. They matched our two in midfield, caused them problems, and denied them any foothold in the game (Swift impressed me, had Hourihane in his back pocket in the first half, not something I would say lightly). Their wingbacks were able to nullify our wingers, and which left them with three upfront against our back four, and we all know what happened there! This system, when played well, always seems to make the pitch seem huge for defenders, and somehow it always seems they have an extra player! We knew Reading were a passing team which usually requires quick closing down and pressure from the front, which we attempted to do. But the formation meant they could play around us, or hit us quick over the top, and they would have the three strikers to aim for. Nothing against our team, or our manager. We battled well and could have got something out of the game, had luck been on our side. I just thought Jaap got his tactics bang on against our 4-4-2, which has worked excellently against other sides this season. So well done to them! In the reverse fixture, might it be worth trying something new to nullify their formation?
struggled with Huddersfields formation first half as well. They seemed to have extra players on the pitch. As for pressing the opposing defence though, I think that's as much down to choice of striker as formation. Nothing against Winall, but if you want someone to press, Watkins is a better bet. Sent from my SM-G850F using Tapatalk
Thought it was more like 3-6-1 personally. They flooded midfield which meant MaCleary could stay on the touch line and take White apart.
You're not always going to win the tactical battle, so just have to put it down to experience sometimes. Had Kents shot gone in, rather than hitting the woodwork, could have changed everything. Sent from my SM-G850F using Tapatalk
I agree Watkins should have started, but they would have still passed it round him at the back if we were to press. And yes the formation changed to allow them to park the bus, but when the formation was working (before they went down to 10 men), they did the damage which we couldn't recover from. I remember when we played 3-5-2 under Flicker back in early 2013 when we went on our winning spree to stay up, and I remember thinking that other teams couldn't cope with the unorthodox formation. Let's be honest, back then, our players weren't championship standard, so it must have been the tactics that kept us up. I just think on Saturday we were on the receiving end of a similar thing. It just throws up a new set of challenges compared with playing against 4-4-2/4-2-3-1. Having said that, a bit more luck on our side (Kent's shot) and it could have been a completely different result. Just interesting to digest some tactics that seemed to play out quite effectively!