Pragmatism vs Perseverance

Where fellow sufferers gather to share the pain, longing and unrequited transfer requests that make being a Wanderer what it is...

Moderator: Zulus Thousand of em

Post Reply

How do you want to see the manager respond to iffy results?

Pragmatism
7
32%
Perseverance
15
68%
 
Total votes: 22

Prufrock
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 20958
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 11:51 pm

Re: Pragmatism vs Perseverance

Post by Prufrock » Wed Jan 06, 2021 4:13 pm

Dave Sutton's barnet wrote:
Wed Jan 06, 2021 2:39 pm
Interesting, cheers. Well, if we change, I hope you're right, although I'm still not sure you can compare Evatt's philosophy (talked more than walked) of possession with Vardy-led Leicester, who seem to thrive on the counter-attack (and thus do far better away) – not unlike Andy Johnson's Palace, whose main source of goals was penalties. Meanwhile, Arenal and City are playing football at a much higher calibre than we can – although there's nothing wrong with ambition.

And I would still worry that any 4-2-3-1, particularly one which intends to press high, will struggle with full-backs like Brockbank, Baptiste and even Jones. If we get John and keep Yoko, sorry Kioso, then maybe; but I'm also not sure they're best utilised as full-backs rather than wingbacks. And in the middle, any permutation of two from Santos, Greenidge and Baptiste looks potentially terrifying, as you say. If oppos have worked out how to play Santos in a back three, that's not a problem overcome in a back two/four – just made even worse.

Maybe we'll see more 6-3s, but more in our favour. Dunno. At this stage of a January it's so hard to tell. But whatever the formation, we need a lot of changes – and a lot of that is out of Evatt's hands, however trustworthy anybody thinks they are.
I think that's a little reductive on Leicester who are a strange beast, but I think Brendan Rodgers at least would put himself in the category of someone who wants his teams to have the ball more than not. They just also recognise that particularly against the bigger teams they are incredible on the break. He took over very much a counter attacking team and theyve managed to add to that in the likes of Maddison and Barnes whilst keeping Vardz. There was talk that Vardy might not suit how Rogers wanted to play, talk which has looked a bit ridiculous (albeit there's been give and take from both ends).

They are about twice as good away as they are at home this year, and have the second highest difference between their home possession and away (City are #1 - having all of the ball at home and 10% less than all of it away). They seem to be both stuck betweel two stool and getting the best of both worlds, somehow all at once. I don't think it's the worst parallel for how a team might play if they wanted to play with the ball but also didn;t have the quality to guarentee they could do it week in week out.

Anyway I digress. You are undoubtedly right that it's simplistic to simply point at Aguero and Vardy and say look, Doyle will be fine. But my point is simply that it isn't the case that if you're only playing one up front they need to be a lump. It depends as much on the style, and while that isn't common down here, that's what Evatt has talked about. We're then back to your point about walking vs talking and yeah...there is that :D .

I don't agree on the full backs. In a 3-5-2 they're arguably the most important position on the pitch. In a 4-2-3-1 they're important, but the skillset is different (and I'd say more akin to what you need from your overlapping centre-backs in a 3. They need to support the winger, they need to be good on the ball (in the sense they can take it under pressure, open out, play and move) they need to be able to defend. I don't think they need to be anywhere near as athletic, powerful, or properly dangerous on the ball. As wing backs they're effectively you're whole threat forwards and backwards. They're doing two jobs. If they're good, you get extras elsewhere. If they're not...well, we've all seen what happens if they're not.

On the other hand, full backs in a 4 are there in an attacking sense to create the overloads. The quality comes from the wingers. (We've won games in this league with Brocky playing LWB, I'm certain we can do it with him playing RB in a four).

Nothing is certain, of course, but provided we can sort out the centre half shitshow (and we've got 7 of the feckers - there has to be an OK pair!) I think things could be on the up!

Tango - get the rose tinters out!
In a world that has decided
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.

Prufrock
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 20958
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 11:51 pm

Re: Pragmatism vs Perseverance

Post by Prufrock » Wed Jan 06, 2021 4:17 pm

Worthy4England wrote:
Wed Jan 06, 2021 2:40 pm
Prufrock wrote:
Wed Jan 06, 2021 1:48 pm
In modern football, the fullback is your outball
Pfft - was no different back in the day. Just that "outball" back in the day was largely punt it over the stands and take a breather!
I'd say that's a ballout rather than an outball :D. What's Nicky Hunt up to these days? Maybe Brocky can learn the chip down the line.
In a world that has decided
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.

officer_dibble
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 10371
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 9:33 pm
Location: Leeds

Re: Pragmatism vs Perseverance

Post by officer_dibble » Wed Jan 06, 2021 4:22 pm

Dave Sutton's barnet wrote:
Wed Jan 06, 2021 3:53 pm
officer_dibble wrote:
Wed Jan 06, 2021 3:34 pm
Ha I loved playing as a full back, way better than centre half. Push on, stick a cross in, and drift in at the back stick when the balls on the other side.
I enjoyed the pushing on much more than the having to get back.
Making it back into the area just as the nets bulging, hands on hips blowing out of your arse, as your centre half gives you a big bollocking for leaving them 2 v 1 in the middle.

officer_dibble
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 10371
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 9:33 pm
Location: Leeds

Re: Pragmatism vs Perseverance

Post by officer_dibble » Wed Jan 06, 2021 4:22 pm

Prufrock wrote:
Wed Jan 06, 2021 4:17 pm
Worthy4England wrote:
Wed Jan 06, 2021 2:40 pm
Prufrock wrote:
Wed Jan 06, 2021 1:48 pm
In modern football, the fullback is your outball
Pfft - was no different back in the day. Just that "outball" back in the day was largely punt it over the stands and take a breather!
I'd say that's a ballout rather than an outball :D. What's Nicky Hunt up to these days? Maybe Brocky can learn the chip down the line.
He was in hospital with concussion after a game for Darlo last year?

User avatar
Dave Sutton's barnet
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 20218
Joined: Sun May 14, 2006 4:00 pm
Location: Hanging on in quiet desperation
Contact:

Re: Pragmatism vs Perseverance

Post by Dave Sutton's barnet » Wed Jan 06, 2021 4:48 pm

Prufrock wrote:
Wed Jan 06, 2021 4:13 pm
Dave Sutton's barnet wrote:
Wed Jan 06, 2021 2:39 pm
I would still worry that any 4-2-3-1, particularly one which intends to press high, will struggle with full-backs like Brockbank, Baptiste and even Jones. If we get John and keep Yoko, sorry Kioso, then maybe; but I'm also not sure they're best utilised as full-backs rather than wingbacks. And in the middle, any permutation of two from Santos, Greenidge and Baptiste looks potentially terrifying, as you say. If oppos have worked out how to play Santos in a back three, that's not a problem overcome in a back two/four – just made even worse.
I don't agree on the full backs. In a 3-5-2 they're arguably the most important position on the pitch. In a 4-2-3-1 they're important, but the skillset is different (and I'd say more akin to what you need from your overlapping centre-backs in a 3. They need to support the winger, they need to be good on the ball (in the sense they can take it under pressure, open out, play and move) they need to be able to defend. I don't think they need to be anywhere near as athletic, powerful, or properly dangerous on the ball. As wing backs they're effectively you're whole threat forwards and backwards. They're doing two jobs. If they're good, you get extras elsewhere. If they're not...well, we've all seen what happens if they're not.

On the other hand, full backs in a 4 are there in an attacking sense to create the overloads. The quality comes from the wingers. (We've won games in this league with Brocky playing LWB, I'm certain we can do it with him playing RB in a four).

Nothing is certain, of course, but provided we can sort out the centre half shitshow (and we've got 7 of the feckers - there has to be an OK pair!) I think things could be on the up!

Tango - get the rose tinters out!
Agreed on how important wingbacks are. That's the whole crux of it - we have to improve, in whatever system. But I still think those nominated full-backs aren't up to much as overlappers – and most importantly of all, I worry that a back four of Kioso-Santos-Greenidge-Jones, which right now would be Evatt's first choice, is a horrible combination of dozy and unpenetrative. And as for "the quality comes from the wingers" – well, if we're pinning hopes on Delfouneso and Isgrove regularly finding a man, then we're back in Dicky's meadow. I worry that each formational shift of the deckchairs reveals more holes gaping through the decking.

But! As I say, and so do you, we're not planning to play with this current mob, we're planning to change it, so let's see how the new blood works out. In truth, the formation matters little compared to the personnel. And that's the battle Evatt's got to fight this month: some might say his young career depends on it.

Prufrock
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 20958
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 11:51 pm

Re: Pragmatism vs Perseverance

Post by Prufrock » Wed Jan 06, 2021 5:08 pm

Dave Sutton's barnet wrote:
Wed Jan 06, 2021 4:48 pm
Agreed on how important wingbacks are. That's the whole crux of it - we have to improve, in whatever system. But I still think those nominated full-backs aren't up to much as overlappers – and most importantly of all, I worry that a back four of Kioso-Santos-Greenidge-Jones, which right now would be Evatt's first choice, is a horrible combination of dozy and unpenetrative. And as for "the quality comes from the wingers" – well, if we're pinning hopes on Delfouneso and Isgrove regularly finding a man, then we're back in Dicky's meadow. I worry that each formational shift of the deckchairs reveals more holes gaping through the decking.

But! As I say, and so do you, we're not planning to play with this current mob, we're planning to change it, so let's see how the new blood works out. In truth, the formation matters little compared to the personnel. And that's the battle Evatt's got to fight this month: some might say his young career depends on it.
Fair points. I half agree on the personnel v players point. Players are what matters, but playing the wrong shape can kill them. The shape has to suit the players. Usually the argument is pick the shape that suits the players and then you can try to change it over a transfer window or two. It's ther players that count, but provided they are not hamstrung by the wrong system/style.

In our case we had a blank canvas and recruited to 3-5-2 (though I'm sure there has been doubt in his mind as the Isgrove signing made no sense on a 3-5-2). My pet theory is that he in his heart wants to play 4-3-3 (I'm including either variation and I personally would play a flat 433 for us now) but he tried at Barrow, changed, had success and so is pulled between the two.

What's where I'm a little baffledabout is the way that we have gone about it. At almost no point this season have we had the personnel to play 352, once it became clear Gordon and Mascoll aren't up to it. The wing backs are so important, and we've only had one. But we've persisted with it right the way up to the point we can fix that (with rumours that John who certainly has the pedigree to sort the huge major problem position out being about to sign), and only now are we looking to change it to a system we haven't previously recruited for.

I can see an argument that to get a good tune out of this lot playing 3-5-2 you only really *need* a left wing back. Sign a Kioso on the other side and everything changes. To play 433 we need a left back and at least one winger, possibly 2.

But I still hope he does it as I don't think there is a way around the initial problem I rambled about. I think there are big problems with trying to play 352 and pressing high. Football isn't science, it's not impossible, sometime you might get a particular combination of players, sometimes you're recruitment is so good it clicks, whatever, but I think you're making it very difficult for yourself.

I'm also not sure I agree on what would be his first choice back four. I think most would agree Kioso right back and Santos one of the centre-halves. Jones would be LB if we played the game tomorrow but we're looking to sing someone (which I think is your point). The other centre-half though... Had he not got sent off I think it could've been Greenidge but he will miss the next game and possession of the shirt is a big part especially when the system changes and we lose a centre half. I don't think it will be Taft. I could see pretty equally strong arguments though for any of Baptiste (experienced head next to the wayward Santos), Delaney (he trusts him, and there less requirement to be "good on the ball" in a 2, or Brockbank (has the shirt, hasn't let us down to date.

Santos was dreadful in a 4 earlier this season, but I've seen him look all at sea in a 3 too! It might not be the system. But if he can't cut it, I would be pretty happy with a back 4 of: Kioso - Baptiste(/Brockbank) - Delaney - New signing.

Maybe even Greenidge would be OK in a 4 just not next to Reeks :D
In a world that has decided
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.

User avatar
Dave Sutton's barnet
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 20218
Joined: Sun May 14, 2006 4:00 pm
Location: Hanging on in quiet desperation
Contact:

Re: Pragmatism vs Perseverance

Post by Dave Sutton's barnet » Wed Jan 06, 2021 6:35 pm

All fair. I suspect Evatt has more confidence than consistency, if you see what I mean: whatever he believes in, he believes in it fully, but that doesn't always last - which is why I'm not so sure this back four thing is set in stone.

As you suggest, Isgrove was signed in that fortnight he switched to a back four and doesn't really fit the formation Evatt has banged on about for the vast majority of his time here - including, as you note, even after both our signings for the vital left wingback position proved so unreliable that the manager scoured the workshop floor for square pegs. I think he'd essentially given up on both Gordon and Mascoll by bonfire night – Gordon's last league start was Oldham on Oct 17, Mascoll's Grimsby the week before, each of them a long long way before the next transfer window. Intriguing, then, that he persisted for so long with make-do-and-mend wing-backs.

In the end, Mascoll and Gordon are dispensible, and perhaps so is the wingback system. Still not sure Delf works in a 4-3-3, though. While I admire his diligence in digging back, on the ball it feels like the further he is from goal the more likely he is to lose it by faffing about – and we have to be careful not to negate one of our best goalscorers by dragging him wide. Much of that's the fine detail of formations, but I'm not sure FV would like another of their key summer signings sitting on the bench.

User avatar
Abdoulaye's Twin
Legend
Legend
Posts: 8716
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:27 pm
Location: Skye high

Re: Pragmatism vs Perseverance

Post by Abdoulaye's Twin » Wed Jan 06, 2021 8:23 pm

Dave Sutton's barnet wrote:
Wed Jan 06, 2021 3:53 pm
officer_dibble wrote:
Wed Jan 06, 2021 3:34 pm
Ha I loved playing as a full back, way better than centre half. Push on, stick a cross in, and drift in at the back stick when the balls on the other side.
I enjoyed the pushing on much more than the having to get back.
I often didn't make it back :lol:

nicholaldo
Dedicated
Dedicated
Posts: 1165
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2018 8:23 pm

Re: Pragmatism vs Perseverance

Post by nicholaldo » Wed Jan 06, 2021 8:31 pm

I think I posted it in the match thread, but the change in formation after conceding on Saturday was to a 4-3-3 which was, in reality, a 4-3-2 and a winger (Isgrove) pushed high on the right.

There was an immediate sense of balance once the reshuffle happened. It was as though every player just instinctively understood the role they were playing. The midfield three in particular seemed to find their groove. Tutte was the one who dropped when necessary and Thomason and Sarce were the two who were more advanced. Another interesting consequence was that Isgrove's presence so high up the pitch prevented Doyle pulling himself wider to try and win possession. The result was that he stayed more central, where he can cause the most damage.

I admit I wanted us to change to a back four so I'm posting this with a fair degree of bias, and it's probably unwise to draw much of a conclusion from the end of a match when the play is stretched and we're chasing the game. I still think it might work for us, though.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests