Seems to me that Valeriens reference to vertical football, as you've implied, is to play far more long balls and miss out midfield. Some might even deride it by calling it hoofball. The irony here being we've probably got more talent in midfield now than weve had in years. Looks to me like we're gonna become a long ball team overnight. If it brings results then fans wont complain. If it doesn't then they will. I'd prefer to see us mix it up. Possession and pressing using the long ball where the opportunity presents itself. It's going to be interesting to watch how the players adopt to the change in tactics. He seems to have instructed the front 3 to press when the opposition approach the half way line. Doesnt look like he wants them to press high up the pitch. I reckon he's trying to compact play in the midfield areas. Draw the opposition forward. Press them hard on the half way line. Win the ball and then immediately recycle. Quickly. Recycling quickly, whilst the opposition defence has been drawn forward, creates space behind them, thereby enabling a quick fire long diagonal pass to fast and speedy attackers....... .....which then leads us back to one of your central points, being that we dont have the right types of players up top to suit the system. I think he actually does want a big CF, strong in the air with the ability to hold the ball up and let advancing midfielders join the attack. Thanks for the match summary RR. Always a good read. Thought your pre match thoughts were scarily accurate. Have you got next weeks lottery numbers by any chance?!
ps......RR...... ......always interested in your opinion......what system would you play with this set of players?
I am driven by logic. I sometimes find myself ready to make a comment that is driven by emotion, and I stop. I reel myself back, and I make myself look at the thing logically, and I often make a different comment, because my logic leads me in a different direction to my emotions. Your question drew exactly that response, because emotionally my answer would be 4-4-2. However, logically very few teams play 4-4-2 these days and there are very good reasons. They want more of their players involved more of the time, and it is almost impossible to find a wide player who can beat his full back. The logical answer to your question is that most of the players were bought to play the systems favoured by Gerhard Struber, and if they were acquired to play that way, then that will be the system that most favours the players we have right now. As we know, there were problems with 3-5-2 and 4-diamond-2. Both systems require a clever No10 to make the short passes to the front two. We never solved that problem, but there were a number of players who had not been tried in that role, even up to the time of Struber's departure, so I do not categorically know that there was no-one at the club who was capable of doing it, but certainly Woodrow and Thomas weren't. Because we did not have either a strong and mobile centre forward or a very quick one, we could not use the long ball. That has not changed, although on Saturday, that is the way that we played. That meant that we had to build our attacks slowly, and along the ground. We became predictable because we could not break up our game with the occasional long pass, as well as lots of short ones. The system was not perfect because we were a couple of players short. However, in spite of what others have said in this thread, we are more than two players short if we want to play 3-4-3 effectively, and we are always going to have to play the majority of games without the ball. Other are judging Struber's performance and system as though it was the finished product. It was not, but I believe that it was headed in the right direction after the setback of selling Jacob Brown, and I think that it would eventually have been a better solution than 3-4-3.
From a personal perspective, I loved yesterday. We defended so well, we scored a great goal, went close once or twice to adding to it, and limited a Premier League outfit to no shots on target, a club with a £35,000,000 player on the pitch, and an £18,000,000 sub. I don't know how to be anything but pleased about it. They brought on that expensive sub, Andre Gray, whilst we brought on George Miller. We had to play Callum Styles at right wing-back. No Jordan Williams again, no Cauley Woodrow and then no Callum Brittain. Yet we won. 1-0. In our new coach's second game. Just days after his 3-0 debut match. Just days since he got off a plane. We haven't lost since October 3rd. We have 10 points after nine games. That's double what we had at the same stage last term. We were 19 games into last season before we reached double figures. Progress. But a long season and plenty of twists and turns ahead. I'm sure we will lose games. But we are doing okay so far.
A good politician's answer. Genuinely interested....so is the application of logic telling you 3412? If so how would we line up with the current group?
Only my opinion but i couldnt care less how we play if were winning, as stated above, that somewhat changes in defeat. Yesterday was an amazing win all things equal, we had no right to win that game on paper but battled so well. Credit to everyone involved. Surely our aim after 6 games was simply to stop up and tbh winning at home to a highly fancied, expensively assembled team wasnt really part of that plan, it was a free hit, not our bread and butter. But win we did, things are starting to look up, were a striker and a full back (now) short of a decent team, with what looks to be a decent manager. COYR
Let me first of all state what I think our best formation is in 3-4-3 Walton Sollbauer, Helik, Andersen Brittain, James, Mowatt, J Williams Frieser, Woodrow, Chaplin and in 3-4-1-2 Walton Sollbauer, Helik, Andersen Brittain, James, Mowatt, J Williams Styles (or Kane) Woodrow, Chaplin My guess is that you will point out how little those two teams differ, because they would both also play a defensive press using the front players. Basically, I have Styles or Kane rather than Frieser. The difference is not the individual players though. It is where they play, and how they play. 3-4-1-2 appears to sacrifice a forward, but I would rather concentrate on the addition of a midfield player. If we look at how it works with the ball, we already know that our forwards are unlikely to win the long pass because we have no-one strong enough or mobile enough, or indeed quick enough amongst our forward players. Given that, the additional forward is wasted, except in the defensive press. When that player is deployed further back, as the link between midfield and forwards, he is able to take a full part in most aspects of the game, and particularly, the short passing game that we are bound to utilise because our forwards are not suited to the long game. I am sure that you will point out that neither Styles nor Kane have been tried at No10, and you would of course be correct, but at least our front players stand a better chance of becoming involved in play than they are if they are just watching long balls sail over their heads, or past them at pace and ending up either out of play, or in the opposition keeper's hands. As a mere spectator, I found that almost impossibly frustrating to watch yesterday. If you are player focused in your outlook, you expect the players to shoulder the blame when the team does not play well. I am different, and perhaps in the minority. Sometimes the personal performance of a player is not up to standard, and them he should quite rightly shoulder part of the blame. However, yesterday our forwards failed to function for long periods, and much of the reason was not in their control, as the ball was so far away that they could not possibly get involved. I blamed the system, because the system and the long ball game are interdependent.
Good shout ...Styles at 10. I do feel he is our best in form player at present and he could well be suited to that role. He has the energy and trickery. Don't think that Valerien will utilise the 343 however. I do agree with you re the long ball and our current set of forwards.
I disagree, the press is an offensive ploy. It allows us to get the ball high up the pitch with their defence in disarray. That's why we won on Saturday, we didn't work many chances when playing out from the back, but we were able to score from breaking up their play.
You are right. Our goal came from an intercepted pass that happened because of the pressing of the players in front of Mowatt. In that minute, it could be argued that the press was an attacking tool. However, in the rest of the game, the press did not result in a goal. Indeed, Mowatt could have missed, and then there would have been no goals scored and no goals conceded either. Would the press have been an attacking/offensive ploy then. I would suggest not. The press is simply designed to provide a framework in which the ball can be won back. Scoring the goal is what happen after it was won back, but most of the time, it is not what happens. I have argued at length in this thread that we have stopped playing football from the back as the long ball kicking possession back to our opponents has become the norm. That is why we had just 34% possession to Watford's 66%.
Mowatt scores,stop seeing all the negatives and enjoy the win against a team who will be there or there abouts come end of season.
Simple game made hard,2 clean sheets 2 wins,missing our best centre forward and lose our signing of the season at half time.Some people are only happy when they are unhappy or making others unhappy.
Won plenty of second balls from our long balls plus the wind was a factor yesterday. Possession across the back four/three, dropping deep at goal kicks to receive a pass behind the keeper is top entertainment and then when we start feckin up playin out from the back we play vertical balls. For me he has just cut out the crap of putting ourselves under pressure.
