We've all come a long way: Crawley (H) Sat 2 Jan @ 3pm

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
User avatar
Dave Sutton's barnet
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 20236
Joined: Sun May 14, 2006 4:00 pm
Location: Hanging on in quiet desperation
Contact:

Re: We've all come a long way: Crawley (H) Sat 2 Jan @ 3pm

Post by Dave Sutton's barnet » Sun Jan 03, 2021 6:41 pm

So we should sign Kevin de Bruyne?

BWFC_Insane
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 27902
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm

Re: We've all come a long way: Crawley (H) Sat 2 Jan @ 3pm

Post by BWFC_Insane » Sun Jan 03, 2021 6:50 pm

Dave Sutton's barnet wrote:
Sun Jan 03, 2021 6:41 pm
So we should sign Kevin de Bruyne?
Relatively speaking we have the top goal scorer from this league last season. So I see no reason to think we don’t have the quality up front. Unusually I think you are so determined to try and not criticise that you are making a really odd argument. I’ve never heard you passionately argue that the only viable system is a 352 in the past....and having seen first hand our obvious difficulty playing it you seem to be suggesting that 4231 stifles fluidity...yet I see majority of teams playing a variant of it and looking much more fluid than we do...

Evatt himself seems to have picked up on the issue with the system so I think we will change. At the end of the day I’d say the main benefit of a 3 at the back is in theory playing two up front together but given how our front two split...I’d argue we aren’t seeing any of that benefit...

User avatar
Dave Sutton's barnet
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 20236
Joined: Sun May 14, 2006 4:00 pm
Location: Hanging on in quiet desperation
Contact:

Re: We've all come a long way: Crawley (H) Sat 2 Jan @ 3pm

Post by Dave Sutton's barnet » Sun Jan 03, 2021 7:20 pm

BWFC_Insane wrote:
Sun Jan 03, 2021 6:50 pm
Dave Sutton's barnet wrote:
Sun Jan 03, 2021 6:41 pm
So we should sign Kevin de Bruyne?
Relatively speaking we have the top goal scorer from this league last season. So I see no reason to think we don’t have the quality up front.
ALF was a good goalscorer. Didn't you argue he couldn't play up top alone? I certainly did. :?
.
BWFC_Insane wrote:
Sun Jan 03, 2021 6:50 pm
Unusually I think you are so determined to try and not criticise that you are making a really odd argument.
Curious. You may not have noticed through the rage, but I'm not determined not to criticise. I bet you a pound to a pinch of shit that I can find more criticisms of Evatt in my recent posts than I can find examples of you praising him, or for that matter ceding arguments. :D
.
BWFC_Insane wrote:
Sun Jan 03, 2021 6:50 pm
I’ve never heard you passionately argue that the only viable system is a 352 in the past....and having seen first hand our obvious difficulty playing it you seem to be suggesting that 4231 stifles fluidity...yet I see majority of teams playing a variant of it and looking much more fluid than we do...
Again, I suggest you haven't been reading very closely. Doesn't matter what formation we play if we play it badly. If we play it well, it also doesn't matter tremendously... but in the absence of *very* good central midfielders and full-backs, Evatt's preferred style of football will work best with wingbacks. Depends on signings, of course. But *theoretically* it gets him closer to his ideal than other formations. :wink:
.
BWFC_Insane wrote:
Sun Jan 03, 2021 6:50 pm
Evatt himself seems to have picked up on the issue with the system so I think we will change.
Indeed, Evatt has (among the verbal torrent) seemingly said he might change the system (again, he's already changed it once and changed it back), so I assume you'll be retracting the comments about him being wedded to a system. (I'll take silence on the matter as tacit acknowledgement.) :mrgreen:
.
BWFC_Insane wrote:
Sun Jan 03, 2021 6:50 pm
At the end of the day I’d say the main benefit of a 3 at the back is in theory playing two up front together but given how our front two split...I’d argue we aren’t seeing any of that benefit...
Three main benefits of the back three.
• More cover if someone falls over the ball. (I'm looking at Reiss, but Santos ain't above that, and Uncle Baps has had his flaps.)
• Overlapping centre-backs allowing a possession-dominant team to create overloads. You cite Sheffield United, quite correctly, as has Evatt in the past. Greenidge was driving on better than Delaney does, Brocky gives it a go, but think of Baptiste (a centre-back) joining in and crossing (can't remember the home game where he went mad). Can't really do that if there's only two centre-backs.
• Front two. But it has to be played right. Like any system, from the Conference to the Champions League. :D

Worthy4England
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 25207
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm

Re: We've all come a long way: Crawley (H) Sat 2 Jan @ 3pm

Post by Worthy4England » Sun Jan 03, 2021 7:34 pm

7th lowest goals for, 3rd highest goals against (or there abouts), 15th in the Division, just remind us which end is displaying all these systems/formation benefits? Coz I'm missing it. :-)

User avatar
Dave Sutton's barnet
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 20236
Joined: Sun May 14, 2006 4:00 pm
Location: Hanging on in quiet desperation
Contact:

Re: We've all come a long way: Crawley (H) Sat 2 Jan @ 3pm

Post by Dave Sutton's barnet » Sun Jan 03, 2021 7:38 pm

Worthy4England wrote:
Sun Jan 03, 2021 7:34 pm
7th lowest goals for, 3rd highest goals against (or there abouts), 15th in the Division, just remind us which end is displaying all these systems/formation benefits? Coz I'm missing it. :-)
It's hiding the hole between expectation and eventuality

BWFC_Insane
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 27902
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm

Re: We've all come a long way: Crawley (H) Sat 2 Jan @ 3pm

Post by BWFC_Insane » Sun Jan 03, 2021 8:24 pm

Dave Sutton's barnet wrote:
Sun Jan 03, 2021 7:20 pm
BWFC_Insane wrote:
Sun Jan 03, 2021 6:50 pm
Dave Sutton's barnet wrote:
Sun Jan 03, 2021 6:41 pm
So we should sign Kevin de Bruyne?
Relatively speaking we have the top goal scorer from this league last season. So I see no reason to think we don’t have the quality up front.
ALF was a good goalscorer. Didn't you argue he couldn't play up top alone? I certainly did. :?
.
BWFC_Insane wrote:
Sun Jan 03, 2021 6:50 pm
Unusually I think you are so determined to try and not criticise that you are making a really odd argument.
Curious. You may not have noticed through the rage, but I'm not determined not to criticise. I bet you a pound to a pinch of shit that I can find more criticisms of Evatt in my recent posts than I can find examples of you praising him, or for that matter ceding arguments. :D
.
BWFC_Insane wrote:
Sun Jan 03, 2021 6:50 pm
I’ve never heard you passionately argue that the only viable system is a 352 in the past....and having seen first hand our obvious difficulty playing it you seem to be suggesting that 4231 stifles fluidity...yet I see majority of teams playing a variant of it and looking much more fluid than we do...
Again, I suggest you haven't been reading very closely. Doesn't matter what formation we play if we play it badly. If we play it well, it also doesn't matter tremendously... but in the absence of *very* good central midfielders and full-backs, Evatt's preferred style of football will work best with wingbacks. Depends on signings, of course. But *theoretically* it gets him closer to his ideal than other formations. :wink:
.
BWFC_Insane wrote:
Sun Jan 03, 2021 6:50 pm
Evatt himself seems to have picked up on the issue with the system so I think we will change.
Indeed, Evatt has (among the verbal torrent) seemingly said he might change the system (again, he's already changed it once and changed it back), so I assume you'll be retracting the comments about him being wedded to a system. (I'll take silence on the matter as tacit acknowledgement.) :mrgreen:
.
BWFC_Insane wrote:
Sun Jan 03, 2021 6:50 pm
At the end of the day I’d say the main benefit of a 3 at the back is in theory playing two up front together but given how our front two split...I’d argue we aren’t seeing any of that benefit...
Three main benefits of the back three.
• More cover if someone falls over the ball. (I'm looking at Reiss, but Santos ain't above that, and Uncle Baps has had his flaps.)
• Overlapping centre-backs allowing a possession-dominant team to create overloads. You cite Sheffield United, quite correctly, as has Evatt in the past. Greenidge was driving on better than Delaney does, Brocky gives it a go, but think of Baptiste (a centre-back) joining in and crossing (can't remember the home game where he went mad). Can't really do that if there's only two centre-backs.
• Front two. But it has to be played right. Like any system, from the Conference to the Champions League. :D
Well, again you are taking formation as an absolute rather than a sum of players you have. The team with Le Fondre was Beevers, Wheater and Taylor at LB none of which could do much more than get rid, a workmanlike midfield and we used Ameobi and Clough outwide early doors to create for Madine. Worked a treat. Second half we went 3 at the back mainly because we lost the two wide players I’d say more than anything else.

The trouble with centre backs overloading is what I’ve seen teams are happy for us to do it and let them do something with the space because they aren’t very good. What you are doing is freeing up your least adept players to be the spare men. As opposed to a 4231 where a full back might be the spare man and who might be more useful at using the space than a lumbering centre half....

I’m not at all convinced that we are close to playing 352 and as for Evatt’s style...I’d love you to tell me what we are doing, where is the high press he supposedly subscribes to? The possession football where we rarely surrender the ball? I don’t see any style.

Worthy4England
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 25207
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm

Re: We've all come a long way: Crawley (H) Sat 2 Jan @ 3pm

Post by Worthy4England » Sun Jan 03, 2021 8:31 pm

Dave Sutton's barnet wrote:
Sun Jan 03, 2021 7:38 pm
Worthy4England wrote:
Sun Jan 03, 2021 7:34 pm
7th lowest goals for, 3rd highest goals against (or there abouts), 15th in the Division, just remind us which end is displaying all these systems/formation benefits? Coz I'm missing it. :-)
It's hiding the hole between expectation and eventuality
That probably puts us top at hide n seek!

User avatar
Dave Sutton's barnet
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 20236
Joined: Sun May 14, 2006 4:00 pm
Location: Hanging on in quiet desperation
Contact:

Re: We've all come a long way: Crawley (H) Sat 2 Jan @ 3pm

Post by Dave Sutton's barnet » Mon Jan 04, 2021 10:29 am

BWFC_Insane wrote:
Sun Jan 03, 2021 8:24 pm
Well, again you are taking formation as an absolute rather than a sum of players you have. The team with Le Fondre was Beevers, Wheater and Taylor at LB none of which could do much more than get rid, a workmanlike midfield and we used Ameobi and Clough outwide early doors to create for Madine. Worked a treat. Second half we went 3 at the back mainly because we lost the two wide players I’d say more than anything else.
And again, you fail to acknowledge the bit where I note it depends on the players available. But on that Parky team, with respect, you've got your timings wrong. The 4-2-3-1 predated Le Fondre, who arrived on 31 Jan. Parky then found he had Madine and Le Fondre (and not Clough/Ameobi) and that 4-2-3-1 didn't suit them both (Madine suited both formations but ALF needed a sidekick). After a few wobbles, during which certain TW denizens were utterly convinced we wouldn't go up, Parky switched to a back three (and thus front two) and we went up.

My relevant-to-now question to you is: do you think Doyle is more like Madine or Le Fondre? It's a straight question with, to my mind, a straight answer; if yours is different to mine then, with love, we're both wasting our time here.
BWFC_Insane wrote:
Sun Jan 03, 2021 8:24 pm
I’m not at all convinced that we are close to playing 352 and as for Evatt’s style...I’d love you to tell me what we are doing, where is the high press he supposedly subscribes to? The possession football where we rarely surrender the ball? I don’t see any style.
The high press needs to be much better (see several previous mentions). The possession is getting there - we've had majority possession in 17 of the 22 non-FLT games so far (no figures available for FLT). Possession is very far from being "everything" but after almost a decade of us constantly surrendering the ball, either wilfully by trying to "control the game without the ball" or through being a fairly awful team under Lennon and two-thirds of Parkinson, I find it a pleasant change not to see us reactively cowering on the edge of our box. I'll say again, there is a huge way to go, and I'm not sure Evatt will get there. But the idea was to make watching Wanderers a pleasure again rather than a war of attrition. That will take time, the sort of time which many people, you included, were calling for. You're allowed to change your mind. I'd rather FV didn't – just yet.

BWFC_Insane
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 27902
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm

Re: We've all come a long way: Crawley (H) Sat 2 Jan @ 3pm

Post by BWFC_Insane » Mon Jan 04, 2021 11:06 am

Dave Sutton's barnet wrote:
Mon Jan 04, 2021 10:29 am
BWFC_Insane wrote:
Sun Jan 03, 2021 8:24 pm
Well, again you are taking formation as an absolute rather than a sum of players you have. The team with Le Fondre was Beevers, Wheater and Taylor at LB none of which could do much more than get rid, a workmanlike midfield and we used Ameobi and Clough outwide early doors to create for Madine. Worked a treat. Second half we went 3 at the back mainly because we lost the two wide players I’d say more than anything else.
And again, you fail to acknowledge the bit where I note it depends on the players available. But on that Parky team, with respect, you've got your timings wrong. The 4-2-3-1 predated Le Fondre, who arrived on 31 Jan. Parky then found he had Madine and Le Fondre (and not Clough/Ameobi) and that 4-2-3-1 didn't suit them both (Madine suited both formations but ALF needed a sidekick). After a few wobbles, during which certain TW denizens were utterly convinced we wouldn't go up, Parky switched to a back three (and thus front two) and we went up.

My relevant-to-now question to you is: do you think Doyle is more like Madine or Le Fondre? It's a straight question with, to my mind, a straight answer; if yours is different to mine then, with love, we're both wasting our time here.
BWFC_Insane wrote:
Sun Jan 03, 2021 8:24 pm
I’m not at all convinced that we are close to playing 352 and as for Evatt’s style...I’d love you to tell me what we are doing, where is the high press he supposedly subscribes to? The possession football where we rarely surrender the ball? I don’t see any style.
The high press needs to be much better (see several previous mentions). The possession is getting there - we've had majority possession in 17 of the 22 non-FLT games so far (no figures available for FLT). Possession is very far from being "everything" but after almost a decade of us constantly surrendering the ball, either wilfully by trying to "control the game without the ball" or through being a fairly awful team under Lennon and two-thirds of Parkinson, I find it a pleasant change not to see us reactively cowering on the edge of our box. I'll say again, there is a huge way to go, and I'm not sure Evatt will get there. But the idea was to make watching Wanderers a pleasure again rather than a war of attrition. That will take time, the sort of time which many people, you included, were calling for. You're allowed to change your mind. I'd rather FV didn't – just yet.
To answer the question - Doyle is obcviously not a target man like Madine. But a 4231 doesn't mean you have to lump the ball to a target striker - in fact I'd say the majority of teams play that sort of system and aren't reliant on a target man spearheading it. That was my point we have centre backs who can pass into midfield now - and midfield players who are supposedly adept and making the play. That was not the case with the rather more robust but limited lot that sat behind a Madine or a Le Fondre and consequently why we definitely did far better with Madine because it suited the more limited players.

I'd argue that we might keep possession but we rarely if ever look in control of games. You see a pattern of we start ok, keep the ball well but usually little comes of it the opposition grow into the game realise there are some big spaces down the channels to exploit and from there it goes downhill. We have possession but don't know what to do with it and frankly I think we often have possession because teams know we're at our weakest when they drop off to the halfway line and make us do something with little space. I could live with Evatt if either he'd achieved some significantly better results and transitioned us more slowly - OR there was some evidence, any evidence that over time things were getting better. Instead he's telling us we need an overhaul because the players we've got aren't good enough. That may be true (though I think they've been woefully mismanaged) but its now blind hope he knows what he's doing there isn't a single piece of evidence (to my eyes) to suggest he does and blind hope could apply to hundreds of thousands of ex players who fancy a go at management. A handful might be good. I wanted to desperately see Evatt do well, but every week things get worse in my view. The rays of hope seem to be snuffed out very quickly and the same problems reoccur week in week out. And aren't solved. What happens if after January the same things continue? Hope he solves them in the summer? I'm all for building something but its hard to believe in it when the manager having built a squad he was saying should win the league and stating he wanted to win the league cup too...and all the summer pronouncements is now saying are useless and he needs to change it...what evidence can you offer me that he's up to the job? Because I cannot for the life of me see anything tangible.

User avatar
Dave Sutton's barnet
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 20236
Joined: Sun May 14, 2006 4:00 pm
Location: Hanging on in quiet desperation
Contact:

Re: We've all come a long way: Crawley (H) Sat 2 Jan @ 3pm

Post by Dave Sutton's barnet » Mon Jan 04, 2021 12:53 pm

That's fair enough. Guess we'll see.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 56 guests