Tactics

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

User avatar
Dave Sutton's barnet
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 28435
Joined: Sun May 14, 2006 4:00 pm
Location: Hanging on in quiet desperation
Contact:

Tactics

Post by Dave Sutton's barnet » Sun Oct 24, 2021 2:18 pm

It's now taken as historical certainty that Ian Evatt's midstream horse-change last season from back three to back four is one of, if not the, major reasons Bolton got promoted. Good signings, momentum and limited opposition also helped, but the formation switch heralded immediate and very welcome improvement.

After a bright (if erratic) start to the third-tier campaign, the players' form, fitness and flitting-to-non-league have backed Wanderers into a corner, so is it time to consider the almost heretical idea of a reversion to the back three?

I know many people are dead against it, and I understand why. I'm very far from convinced about it myself. But point-beggars can't be choosers, and it some ways it feels like the personnel we have available, the ones who are up to the job, might be pointing in the direction of the back three again. Cock an ear.

First off, we appear to be dreadful at defending set pieces, so the addition of an extra centre-back might be a boon. Our other weakness, of being overturned on transitions and oppo runners swarming past MJ and straight at the heart of our defence, might also be somewhat mitigated by an extra centre-back, who could either step forward to help MJ knowing he has two men on the last line, or hold firm in a tighter triple phalanx to thwart the invader.

You could also make the case that if none of your centre-back options are quite fully rounded for the task in hand, then having an extra one is an insurance, hopefully covering for each others' deficiencies.

Drafting in Aimson to the right of Santos, with Johnston on the left, gives a back three which would combine increased central stability (hopefully!) with more forward-motion licence for the wingbacks – presumably Isgrove, who did well at right-back against Gillingham but may be way out of his depth against a good left-winger, and John, who has always seemed stronger in the opponents' half than in his own.

Those wingbacks would also form the flanks of a midfield in need of strengthening. MJ, Lee and one other - at the moment I'd be tempted to try Thomason, although I still think there's a player in Sheehan if the formation and game suits - could form a tighter midfield trio. Hopefully the extra centre-back would mean the wingbacks can come out to help MJ cover the defensive-midfield acres, which would give a touch more licence for Lee to dart forward than if we played two deep midfielders.

That leaves two spaces and for this correspondent there's only two names worth considering – Doyle and Dapo. Doyler can continue his front-running role, but this system could give Dapo more licence to roam.

At Plymouth he and Isgrove switched wings on multiple occasions; now, dear old Izzy brings a lot to the table, but being good on the left isn't any of them. Dapo, though, can pop up on either wing, asking lots of difficult questions and trying to find the space in behind whichever opposition full-back goes forward, or centre-back seems most susceptible to his dribbling.

Add to this the fact that Dapo played well at 10 for the closing period against Gillingham. He was briefly tried in that role last spring and looked a little lost, but this is a very different Dapo, brimming with confidence and threat. Running at defenders in central areas could bring some useful set-piece situations – which we may not be excellent at maximising, but that's another problem to solve...

So aye, I'd love to see Dapo in a floating role, going wherever he wants, picking on the soft lads in the oppose line-up and finding the gaps in their formation - a very Evatt ideal. I'm aware it could leave Doyler a touch isolated but that's where the team has a responsibility to fulfil another Evatt tenet, that of attacking in numbers; just hopefully with a bit more security at the back door.

And if we need to chase the game, as we so often have while playing a back four, we switch formation in one sub by removing a centre-back for a forward (Baka or Kachunga at the moment), switching to a back four with Izzy on the right (a calculated risk as we're losing) and pushing Lee, or Sheehan, on into the No.10 role. We might also, within a month, have Amaechi on for the last half-hour – but, I would suggest, he won't be starting games for six weeks yet.

I dunno. It might not work. But at the moment, for all the hope engendered by the late comeback against Gillingham (the one rendered necessary by the preceding hour of cack), we have some fundamental issues to address: the defence is too leaky and the attack is too predictable. It's worth remembering that Evatt started Barrow's title-winning season playing a back four. It might be that, for the third successive season, desperation is the father of invention.

User avatar
GhostoftheBok
Legend
Legend
Posts: 6795
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2018 12:51 pm

Re: Tactics

Post by GhostoftheBok » Sun Oct 24, 2021 2:45 pm

It might work. Changing the midfield might work. Adding Bakayoko as an out on the right might work. There's a lot that might work.

The issue with the three is that if Evatt plays it and we lose he will get slaughtered. We have a lot of fans who for some reason just hate anything that isn't a back four. We get all these statements about what a three at the back always has to mean (none of which are true) and every issue we have gets blamed on the formation. When we are crap in a 4 it's never the 4 that is the issue, it's always something else - usually something that involves hoofing the ball at a big lad up top and players running more.

I don't think our issues are different than they were last year, I just think we've met better sides. Our best players this season are players we had last season (and some of our better ones last term are no longer playing) and the tactical issues that are getting exploited are the same we said would be exploited over the summer. The organisers at the back are out, we don't have the pace to step up, we leave too many gaps in midfield, we lack a top striker with some physicality, we lack depth in key areas, etc. We knew we'd have issues sorting these things out this season and I feel like getting absolutely dicked by Wigan has let emotion cloud that reality.

For me, a 3 would be robbing Peter to pay Paul - but it may be that we'd pick up a few points by surprising the opposition and that may be valid as a short term twist. In the long term, I think we're just causing ourselves new issues and not fixing the ones we have. Williams might suit it better, but I'd argue Santos doesn't. We might get more from John, but I think Dapo is best off a flank. Maybe Sheehan gets more licence, but then I suspect we'd see Doyle more isolated.

I'd not moan if we tried it, though.

User avatar
Prufrock
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 23959
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 11:51 pm

Re: Tactics

Post by Prufrock » Sun Oct 24, 2021 3:00 pm

Ooh interesting.

I can see the sense of going 343 to get us to January, for reasons I've mentioned before.

352 I think would be a disaster without a change of "ethos" (i.e. caring less about possession and becoming more counterattacking) which I just don't see happening under Evatt (which may well be a weakness of his)

But I think the problem atm is simply personnel, and I agree with Ghost's robbing Peter to pay Paul comment. Everyone fit I think we're good enough to compete right at the top end, but these injuries have shown a real lack of depth.

I've dug up and posted below what I wrote at the start of January, pre-shape-change and pre-January recruitment, which I still think functions as the case for the defence :D

Not to blow my own trumpet (not too much anyway!) but I reckon I called that first paragraph pretty well :D
Prufrock wrote:
Wed Jan 06, 2021 1:48 pm
I'm buoyed by his talk of changing the system and I think we will see a much improved second half of the season if he does, sticks with it and signs the players to suit the 4231.

I've never personally been a huge fan of three at the back but 3-5-2 is certainly a system that other teams have had success with and there is no reason per se that it can't work. A large part of Wolves recent success for example has come playing that way. However (unless you're playing a team also playing 3-5-2) I don't think you can do all three of the following: a) play three at the back, b) play 2 up top, c) press the ball high up the pitch. Wolves, for example are not a high pressing team.

The modern possession + press, transitions, counter-press Klopp, Guardiola style that Evatt clearly wants to play is as much about what you do off the ball as what you do on it and it's c) IMO that has been our biggest downfall.

In modern football, the fullback is your outball, and any plan to press the other team has to involve a way to close them down quickly, otherwise for all the other work you do you'll eventually push them wide, the full back will get his head up and be able to pick a pass, even if that's just a deliberate ball in the channel for someone to chase. What you're hoping to do is press teams so they make a mistake either giving you the ball in a dangerous position or at least aimlessly get rid meaning you get it back easily and can build pressure. And to do that you need to be able to pressure on quickly and cut off out balls.

But playing 3-5-2 it's very difficult to apply pressure to the other side's fullbacks. Who goes? Does Kioso go? In which case if they play with wingers someone further up the pitch is going to be free. Does a midfielder come out? Then you leave yourself undernumbered in midfield. Do Doyle and Delf spend their lives doing shuttle runs out to the side to get popped around back into the centre-halves. In almost any other shape (other than maybe a midfiled diamond which is pretty much 352 anyway), those questions are much easier to answer. It's more obviously 1v1 and that helps with pressing.

So IMO we have spent a lot of time trying to all do 1.5 jobs off the ball, which a) tires the players and b) leads to problems in communication.

I certainly take DSB's point that the overlapping centre-halves can help create overloads, however it's by no means the only way of doing that. A reversion to a 4231 could definitely suit Crawford. As poor as he's been he's been trying to create things with only 2 runners ahead of him, or waiting for an overlap from the one wing-back we have. with one in front and winger either side we could see him being able to play those 15 yard diagonals that get you into the 3 most important areas of the pitch, the second penalty area in front of the real one, and the areas in behind fullbacks inside the box.

One of the other reasons I was against using our blank canvas to paint a 352 (and this isn't hindsight, I said it at the time!) is that you don't really have any options if it goes all Pablo Picasso. You don't play wingers so you obviously aren't going to sign any wingers and almost any other shape requires them.

I feel sure I read an interview with Delph where he said he preferred playing wide or off another striker, and Isgrove played 29 games wide last year for a team that went up. I think those either side of Doyle is definitely good enough to hurt teams in this league (and is what I think he will play). Beyond that we're looking at square pegs. Darcy or Kioso pushed on probs the best options. Politic next year.

This change is shape might also be a reason things have gone quiet on Lee, as you can see Crawford and Darcy being better with the change. My list of priorities would still be (depending on where Gilks is at): LB, winger, striker, second winger).

I think Mascoll will be off if poss. Jones can cover both fullbacks, as can Brocky and Baptiste a lot more comfortably in a back 4, and poss Greenidge at LB. CB will be interesting. Santos and Greenidge together would be possibly fatally entertaining. The advantage of Santos in a 3 seems to have been worked out though. Looks like pick two from...for me. Possibly the end of Taft too given he seems last choice at a long list for 3 spots never mind 2.

Some of the chat has been about whether Doyle can play as a 1 up top, and I understand a lot of the concerns; however there is a big difference playing as the 1 in Parky's system where we didn't look to keep the ball, weren't bothered about keeping it down, didn't press high and so ALF was a 1 watching balls sail over his head, and playing as the central striker in a 3 in a team that presses high and is looking to get to the byeline and cut balls back. I think he'll be fine. He is a lot busier off the ball than I expected, presses and puts himself about. As long as we're not going long that often he'll be reet. Other strikers who play as "lone" strikers and are Doyle's 5'10" or shorter: Sergio Aguero, Jamie Vardy, Alexandre Lacazette, all players playing for managers who subscribe to Evatt's "philosophy". Even further back in time Crystal Palace got promoted to and had a good go at staying in the Premier League with 5'7" almost-Wanderer Andy Johnson playing through the middle on his own (before 3 up top was almost ubiquitous - it was basically just us and Chelsea playing it).

And if we're under the cosh and it won't stick, for 10 mins you swap him with 6'1" Delf.

So, tl;dr - sign a LB, a winger and a striker, and I reckon we'll see marked upturn in the second half of the season.

(and it's a slow day)
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: 28435
Joined: Sun May 14, 2006 4:00 pm
Location: Hanging on in quiet desperation
Contact:

Re: Tactics

Post by Dave Sutton's barnet » Sun Oct 24, 2021 3:10 pm

Pru: Aye, I knew this'd tempt you in :D but I'm genuinely interested in what you and others think.

Ghost - yeah, all fair. And plenty would say, rightly, that it failed last time.

I thought out of interest I'd have a look at the last starting XI sent out in a back three - at home to Crawley. And if anyone can name the XI (without cheating obvz) including their positions, I'd be very impressed... Answers hidden below so don't quote-reply if you want to play honestly... :mrgreen:

Gilks; Brocky, Santos, Greenidge; Isgrove, Tutte, Tomo, Gethin; Sarce; Delf, Doyle.
Subs: Crellin, Baptiste, Taft, Delaney, Comley, Darcy, Crawford - none used, one of only two occasions Evatt has kept his first XI on for 90

User avatar
Prufrock
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 23959
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 11:51 pm

Re: Tactics

Post by Prufrock » Sun Oct 24, 2021 3:23 pm

I'd guess: Gilks; Baptiste, Santos, Greenidge (CB); Kioso, Brocky (WB); Comley, Thomason, Sarce (CM); Delf, Doyle (CF)
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: 28435
Joined: Sun May 14, 2006 4:00 pm
Location: Hanging on in quiet desperation
Contact:

Re: Tactics

Post by Dave Sutton's barnet » Sun Oct 24, 2021 3:29 pm

Prufrock wrote:
Sun Oct 24, 2021 3:23 pm
I'd guess: Gilks; Baptiste, Santos, Greenidge (CB); Kioso, Brocky (WB); Comley, Thomason, Sarce (CM); Delf, Doyle (CF)
8/11, but only 7 in the right positions. Have a crack at the subs too...

User avatar
BWFC_Insane
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 36006
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm

Re: Tactics

Post by BWFC_Insane » Sun Oct 24, 2021 3:41 pm

The fundamental problem with a 3-5-2 is firstly adding an extra centre half in doesn’t make you more compact it stretches you out unless you go to a back 5. It’s very much a system that relies entirely on wingbacks and whilst you can see the logic of Isgrove and John it’s more work for them to do and with no width higher up the field can leave you exposed.

So much of our play is the wide forwards tucking inside and picking it up and playing from there. In a 352 I don’t see it. And a 343 weakens midfield and frankly I don’t think we have a forward line capable of making the most of that system.

I see the logic of 3 at the back in some areas BUT I think unless we sit a bit deeper and allow teams onto us it’s a system that struggles with the options we have.

343 is probably the most difficult system to counter IF you can play it but I think you need exceptional players and bags of pace to make it work.

User avatar
Prufrock
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 23959
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 11:51 pm

Re: Tactics

Post by Prufrock » Sun Oct 24, 2021 3:42 pm

Oh god! Having looked at the actual XI

Crellin, Baptiste, Taft, White, Comley, Arthur Miller (lol)
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: 28435
Joined: Sun May 14, 2006 4:00 pm
Location: Hanging on in quiet desperation
Contact:

Re: Tactics

Post by Dave Sutton's barnet » Sun Oct 24, 2021 3:49 pm

Prufrock wrote:
Sun Oct 24, 2021 3:42 pm
Oh god! Having looked at the actual XI
4/7, not bad

User avatar
officer_dibble
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 13818
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 9:33 pm
Location: Leeds

Re: Tactics

Post by officer_dibble » Mon Oct 25, 2021 4:16 pm

I had 352 (or 362 with Dapo behind Doyle) in my head on Saturday night as the XI to limp us through to January. Be surprised if we don’t play it at some point.

User avatar
Dave Sutton's barnet
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 28435
Joined: Sun May 14, 2006 4:00 pm
Location: Hanging on in quiet desperation
Contact:

Re: Tactics

Post by Dave Sutton's barnet » Tue Oct 26, 2021 9:50 pm

Evatt on Dapo: “I think Dapo could be an excellent number 10 and it’s something that we’ve spoken about a lot.

“I think the six and two eights has been positive for us, but if we need to go to the double pivot and a 10 then Dapo is an excellent number 10.

“The way that Dapo plays out wide is that he’s always drifting inside into pockets of space into half spaces and then looking to thread passes or dribble and drive and shoot, so as a number 10, he can really affect the game from that position.

“Obviously defensively sometimes you need someone, a third midfield player, to have that responsibility but the way the game was (against Gillingham), I thought it worked really well.”

https://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/19 ... -position/

User avatar
Dave Sutton's barnet
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 28435
Joined: Sun May 14, 2006 4:00 pm
Location: Hanging on in quiet desperation
Contact:

Re: Tactics

Post by Dave Sutton's barnet » Fri Oct 29, 2021 12:16 pm

Here's our boy Brommers analysing BWFC defending set-pieces. If you don't glean new information from this well-researched piece, then I doff my cap to you (and I beg you post more).

https://bwfcanalysis.wordpress.com/2021 ... et-pieces/

Trigger warning: mentions xG early on, but non-believers can skip that part if they want.

User avatar
brommers95
Reliable
Reliable
Posts: 862
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2018 3:10 pm

Re: Tactics

Post by brommers95 » Fri Oct 29, 2021 12:26 pm

Dave Sutton's barnet wrote:
Fri Oct 29, 2021 12:16 pm
Here's our boy Brommers analysing BWFC defending set-pieces. If you don't glean new information from this well-researched piece, then I doff my cap to you (and I beg you post more).

https://bwfcanalysis.wordpress.com/2021 ... et-pieces/

Trigger warning: mentions xG early on, but non-believers can skip that part if they want.
:lol: yes feel free to skip to the pictures and videos if xG isn't your thing.

In summary, we're actually not bad at defending set pieces, could do better though - if we worked on them more we could be brilliant.

I can't find the clip that surfaced on Twitter recently , but Evatt was a guest on (I think) the EFL podcast and said how he doesn't like working on set-pieces. I understand it's not the most glamorous aspect of the game but it is a vital one, with seemingly every other team having a long-throw specialist and relying on set-pieces for goal-scoring opportunities.

A bit like the thing of when revising for an exam, only studying the topics you're good at because it makes you feel good about yourself, but at the expense of the things you actually need to revise.

User avatar
Dave Sutton's barnet
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 28435
Joined: Sun May 14, 2006 4:00 pm
Location: Hanging on in quiet desperation
Contact:

Re: Tactics

Post by Dave Sutton's barnet » Fri Oct 29, 2021 12:33 pm

brommers95 wrote:
Fri Oct 29, 2021 12:26 pm
A bit like the thing of when revising for an exam, only studying the topics you're good at because it makes you feel good about yourself, but at the expense of the things you actually need to revise.
Ha, this is very true. Or me, as a freelance journalist, being utterly cack at filing invoices. :?

Most surprising fact in your piece is that Cheltenham have conceded most from set pieces. They seemed to me last season to be entirely built on set pieces - specifically Ben Tozer constantly Delaping it in from anywhere in the oppo half - which is part of what made it so lovely when we scored that late headed equaliser at theirs. Maybe that was confirmation bias on my part (did they top the L2 SP list last season?) but it also suggests that even those who build their tactics around SPs can struggle to adapt to the higher level, where defenders aren't so daft.

User avatar
Harry Genshaw
Legend
Legend
Posts: 9097
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2005 10:47 pm
Location: Half dead in Panama

Re: Tactics

Post by Harry Genshaw » Fri Oct 29, 2021 12:48 pm

Did we not win 1-0 at Cheltenham last season? A late goal poked in by Delaney?
"Get your feet off the furniture you Oxbridge tw*t. You're not on a feckin punt now you know"

User avatar
Harry Genshaw
Legend
Legend
Posts: 9097
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2005 10:47 pm
Location: Half dead in Panama

Re: Tactics

Post by Harry Genshaw » Fri Oct 29, 2021 12:49 pm

Or was it Sarc? 🤔
"Get your feet off the furniture you Oxbridge tw*t. You're not on a feckin punt now you know"

User avatar
Dave Sutton's barnet
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 28435
Joined: Sun May 14, 2006 4:00 pm
Location: Hanging on in quiet desperation
Contact:

Re: Tactics

Post by Dave Sutton's barnet » Fri Oct 29, 2021 12:54 pm

Harry Genshaw wrote:
Fri Oct 29, 2021 12:48 pm
Did we not win 1-0 at Cheltenham last season? A late goal poked in by Delaney?
Yes! (Delaney)

User avatar
Harry Genshaw
Legend
Legend
Posts: 9097
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2005 10:47 pm
Location: Half dead in Panama

Re: Tactics

Post by Harry Genshaw » Fri Oct 29, 2021 12:56 pm

Dave Sutton's barnet wrote:
Fri Oct 29, 2021 12:54 pm
Harry Genshaw wrote:
Fri Oct 29, 2021 12:48 pm
Did we not win 1-0 at Cheltenham last season? A late goal poked in by Delaney?
Yes! (Delaney)
Ta! That would have bugged me for the rest of the day!
"Get your feet off the furniture you Oxbridge tw*t. You're not on a feckin punt now you know"

User avatar
GhostoftheBok
Legend
Legend
Posts: 6795
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2018 12:51 pm

Re: Tactics

Post by GhostoftheBok » Fri Oct 29, 2021 12:58 pm

I'd be interested in seeing the stats on how often Williams is in the cover shadow this year compared to last. It feels like Santos and Johnston lose him as an out far more often. This seems to really affect Johnston.

User avatar
brommers95
Reliable
Reliable
Posts: 862
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2018 3:10 pm

Re: Tactics

Post by brommers95 » Fri Oct 29, 2021 1:19 pm

Dave Sutton's barnet wrote:
Fri Oct 29, 2021 12:33 pm
brommers95 wrote:
Fri Oct 29, 2021 12:26 pm
A bit like the thing of when revising for an exam, only studying the topics you're good at because it makes you feel good about yourself, but at the expense of the things you actually need to revise.
Ha, this is very true. Or me, as a freelance journalist, being utterly cack at filing invoices. :?

Most surprising fact in your piece is that Cheltenham have conceded most from set pieces. They seemed to me last season to be entirely built on set pieces - specifically Ben Tozer constantly Delaping it in from anywhere in the oppo half - which is part of what made it so lovely when we scored that late headed equaliser at theirs. Maybe that was confirmation bias on my part (did they top the L2 SP list last season?) but it also suggests that even those who build their tactics around SPs can struggle to adapt to the higher level, where defenders aren't so daft.
Haven't watched any of Cheltenham this season so can't say exactly, but they did sell Tozer to moneybags Wrexham in the summer so that probably has something to do with it and then like you say, it might be a case of struggling to cope with the step up in ability.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot] and 94 guests