A switch of the (h) Ips and we're gone..Home V THE Tractor Boys Sat 11th Mar. 3-0'clock

[GhostoftheBok]

But Wycombe aren't competing with the top sides reliably. They're below us in the league. They finished 6th last season. Their promotion season they were 3rd. They don't top this league and they didn't compete in the Championship once up, they do mostly what we are currently doing, which is bumble along looking at the play offs and then try to go up that way. I understand Ainsworth plays a way you think is "proper" at this level, but it's not currently showing its hugely more effective - because we're top 6 at the minute in our second season in this division.

We clearly can play this way at this level and still perform to similar standards as the vaunted Ainsworth sides, because we're doing it right now. It's also worth noting that Wycombe's wage budget, if you go off what agents say and local reports, isn't that far behind ours. They still have a lot of the Championship squad and yet they're below us in the league. I think Ainsworth did a phenomenal job with very limited resources, but he never put out a dominant League One side. Not ever. He then couldn't cut it in the Championship.

So again. Ainsworth's style doesn't reliably get you to the top of the league. Evatt's style currently has us above Wycombe. Why would we radically shift approach? Why would Wycombe be the model to follow when they don't seem to massively outperform us over a season? The sides at the top of this division don't play like Wycombe, they play more like we do. They've just either had more money and or more time than us to build their squads.

[GhostoftheBok]

We are too fragile for me. Mentally, physically and psychologically.

I don't think many will disagree with this.

We don't have leaders on the pitch & we do lack a couple of 'in your face' competitors.

I don't disagree that most people wouldn't disagree. I think we can all agree to that.

The thing is, Morley and Dempsey haven't been a weakness in our good run, they were very much the main strength. Dempsey is very competitive. Morley is just a quality player at this level. They're not as reliable as players like Morsy and Luongo, who have been there and done that for years - but that's the budgets things again.

We could go out and get an in-your-face player and then happily lose games where we've kick lots of lads, but lacked any quality on the ball. I'm not sure that'd make us any happier.

The question for me is how to do improve the entire side and give us the edge that we definitely do need without losing what made us a genuinely dangerous side. Morley and Dempsey were key to us being as good as we were in that run, so breaking up that pairing doesn't seem the best place to start. The amount of ground they were covering in midfield and the number of times they won back the ball was obviously key to everything good we were doing.

[Worthy4England]

We always seem to end up in an either / or conversation when things like "physicality" are mentioned. It distills into beautiful game or kick the shit out of the oppo. Big units could be Billy Bremner size and be effective (not that anyone's getting away with BB tactics these days)...

I think we have too many frailties against physical teams, too often - which doesn't rule out the possibility of "good runs." There only needs to be 4/5 teams like that in the League, before you've lost too many to be top 2, if you're not careful. If those types of teams aren't in the top 2/3, then there's more difficult games to try and overcome...

We have to be able to play more than one way for me.

As an aside, my favourite sport is rugby union, so I was treated to a 53-10 humbling by France, in the biggest whupping since 1066, straight after the Ipswich game...At least I don't have manflu too. Oh.

[TANGODANCER]

Repeating what must be a boring observation, and I don't expect much agreement, but professional footballers at this level should not miss penalties. Neither should said penalties be sent in low level or along the deck. No goalkeeper on earth can reach a shot above waist level from standing still. It's a physical impossibility Almost all saves are made from low-level side foot shots (as per Charles's yesterday), placing shots were never a factor in Franny Lee's rockets. Put the xxxxxxx laces through it. I love Dion Charles but I didn't yesterday. Missing that was the crux of the result I'm sure. You may now put me in the stocks and throw tomatoes.

Amen.

[BWFC_Insane]

But Wycombe aren't competing with the top sides reliably. They're below us in the league. They finished 6th last season. Their promotion season they were 3rd. They don't top this league and they didn't compete in the Championship once up, they do mostly what we are currently doing, which is bumble along looking at the play offs and then try to go up that way. I understand Ainsworth plays a way you think is "proper" at this level, but it's not currently showing its hugely more effective - because we're top 6 at the minute in our second season in this division.

We clearly can play this way at this level and still perform to similar standards as the vaunted Ainsworth sides, because we're doing it right now. It's also worth noting that Wycombe's wage budget, if you go off what agents say and local reports, isn't that far behind ours. They still have a lot of the Championship squad and yet they're below us in the league. I think Ainsworth did a phenomenal job with very limited resources, but he never put out a dominant League One side. Not ever. He then couldn't cut it in the Championship.

So again. Ainsworth's style doesn't reliably get you to the top of the league. Evatt's style currently has us above Wycombe. Why would we radically shift approach? Why would Wycombe be the model to follow when they don't seem to massively outperform us over a season? The sides at the top of this division don't play like Wycombe, they play more like we do. They've just either had more money and or more time than us to build their squads.

It’s nothing to do with playing like Wycombe game in game out. It’s about being able to maximise resources. We will not be able to build a squad capable of taking on the best in this division playing out from the back consistently without either signing more established players at this level and higher who are better and competing with budgets of the top two or three possibly even exceeding them since playing like this requires better players still. OR adopting a style and method that allows us to outcompete sides with bigger budgets which is something Wycombe have found ways to do.

Wycombe who beat us and Ipswich at home for example. We haven’t beaten any top six side at home this season.

[GhostoftheBok]

We always seem to end up in an either / or conversation when things like "physicality" are mentioned. It distills into beautiful game or kick the shit out of the oppo. Big units could be Billy Bremner size and be effective (not that anyone's getting away with BB tactics these days)...

I think we have too many frailties against physical teams, too often - which doesn't rule out the possibility of "good runs." There only needs to be 4/5 teams like that in the League, before you've lost too many to be top 2, if you're not careful. If those types of teams aren't in the top 2/3, then there's more difficult games to try and overcome...

We have to be able to play more than one way for me.

Agree with all that. Again, though, it comes down to money. Who can we get that offers the complete package that other sides won't outbid us for? Or, rather, who could we have got at this stage?

It's worth saying, I think we will do that business this summer. There are 200+ Championship players out of contract and a couple of players in League One and Two who fit the bill looking for moves. Keeper and "midfield all-rounder" are two areas that are fairly target rich (also there are a couple in Germany and Chris has previous there). Who we will throw our limited cash at none of us know, but I could name half a dozen players who could do the job within our budgets and that's probably promising. That hasn't been the case so far - where it's basically been a bidding war for the one player we might be able to get. Picking the right one is Markham's job.

Same goes for a number of "types" we probably need, which is one reason I think we'll go up next time around. I'd assume we'll be sniffing around Owen Moxon, but Carlisle getting promoted might double his price and rule us out.

[GhostoftheBok]

It’s nothing to do with playing like Wycombe game in game out. It’s about being able to maximise resources. We will not be able to build a squad capable of taking on the best in this division playing out from the back consistently without either signing more established players at this level and higher who are better and competing with budgets of the top two or three possibly even exceeding them since playing like this requires better players still. OR adopting a style and method that allows us to outcompete sides with bigger budgets which is something Wycombe have found ways to do.

Wycombe who beat us and Ipswich at home for example. We haven’t beaten any top six side at home this season.

Sure, we are still a work in progress. Again, though, we have kept improving and we are above Wycombe, regardless of their ability to win some games we might not. We clearly win others they haven't been able to, because even if they win their games in hand we'll only be even on points.

I don't see a huge amount of growth in Wycombe. They've never been more than a play-off side, which in itself is great for them but which you're not happy with for us.

I'd suggest we are doing very well with the resources we have. I just really don't see why you're longing to be more like a team that's been below us all consistently. I totally get wanting to be better, we all want to be better - but we are better. This season we're in a good position to get top 6, so why would we fundamentally change?

What you're saying is "It's impossible to get any better than we are at this style of football" which I find to be an amazing statement. I mean it's clearly utter nonsense. We can adapt what we do, absolutely. But ultimately the squad process is iterative, right? You add some players, play some games, adjust what you do, add some more players etc. The idea that we're a lost cause, when we're in a trough and have still only lost 4 in 20, is utter madness.

[Worthy4England]

We always seem to end up in an either / or conversation when things like "physicality" are mentioned. It distills into beautiful game or kick the shit out of the oppo. Big units could be Billy Bremner size and be effective (not that anyone's getting away with BB tactics these days)...

I think we have too many frailties against physical teams, too often - which doesn't rule out the possibility of "good runs." There only needs to be 4/5 teams like that in the League, before you've lost too many to be top 2, if you're not careful. If those types of teams aren't in the top 2/3, then there's more difficult games to try and overcome...

We have to be able to play more than one way for me.

Agree with all that. Again, though, it comes down to money. Who can we get that offers the complete package that other sides won't outbid us for? Or, rather, who could we have got at this stage?

It's worth saying, I think we will do that business this summer. There are 200+ Championship players out of contract and a couple of players in League One and Two who fit the bill looking for moves. Keeper and "midfield all-rounder" are two areas that are fairly target rich (also there are a couple in Germany and Chris has previous there). Who we will throw our limited cash at none of us know, but I could name half a dozen players who could do the job within our budgets and that's probably promising. That hasn't been the case so far - where it's basically been a bidding war for the one player we might be able to get. Picking the right one is Markham's job.

Same goes for a number of "types" we probably need, which is one reason I think we'll go up next time around. I'd assume we'll be sniffing around Owen Moxon, but Carlisle getting promoted might double his price and rule us out.

There comes a point, where you probably tell yourself that you have a decent enough baseline. I thought before a ball was kicked, ours was probably bottom end of play-offs, top end of "near miss"

I think we still have "holes" as we're playing 4 loanees who aren't quite there yet. That seems like a fair bit of shopping to do in summer to maybe stay still and then add a bit more class...

[GhostoftheBok]

There comes a point, where you probably tell yourself that you have a decent enough baseline. I thought before a ball was kicked, ours was probably bottom end of play-offs, top end of "near miss"

I think we still have "holes" as we're playing 4 loanees who aren't quite there yet. That seems like a fair bit of shopping to do in summer to maybe stay still and then add a bit more class...

Again, fair. I am casting my mind back, but I think I thought play offs was a good job and top two would take witch craft - with just missing the play-offs being disappointing but not the end of the world.

We could (will) lose key players, but like I say it's very much a buyers' market this summer and we should do well.

If we have to sell Johnston and Dempsey ends up with a custodial term then life gets more difficult, but them's the breaks.

[BWFC_Insane]

It’s nothing to do with playing like Wycombe game in game out. It’s about being able to maximise resources. We will not be able to build a squad capable of taking on the best in this division playing out from the back consistently without either signing more established players at this level and higher who are better and competing with budgets of the top two or three possibly even exceeding them since playing like this requires better players still. OR adopting a style and method that allows us to outcompete sides with bigger budgets which is something Wycombe have found ways to do.

Wycombe who beat us and Ipswich at home for example. We haven’t beaten any top six side at home this season.

Sure, we are still a work in progress. Again, though, we have kept improving and we are above Wycombe, regardless of their ability to win some games we might not. We clearly win others they haven't been able to, because even if they win their games in hand we'll only be even on points.

I don't see a huge amount of growth in Wycombe. They've never been more than a play-off side, which in itself is great for them but which you're not happy with for us.

I'd suggest we are doing very well with the resources we have. I just really don't see why you're longing to be more like a team that's been below us all consistently. I totally get wanting to be better, we all want to be better - but we are better. This season we're in a good position to get top 6, so why would we fundamentally change?

What you're saying is "It's impossible to get any better than we are at this style of football" which I find to be an amazing statement. I mean it's clearly utter nonsense. We can adapt what we do, absolutely. But ultimately the squad process is iterative, right? You add some players, play some games, adjust what you do, add some more players etc. The idea that we're a lost cause, when we're in a trough and have still only lost 4 in 20, is utter madness.

You keep making out that it’s either or. We have more resources than Wycombe. We should finish above them. But I think our lack of versatility in key games holds us back.

Wycombe maximise every scrap they have. If we did that I think we would have pushed the top two closer. I think we consistently fail to get the best out of what we have available across seasons on a consistent basis. We have good runs then poor ones. That’s natural to an extent but we are too prone to it. We need a more resilient game sometimes. Play out from the back and beat any team in the league means having a superior squad. Being able to do that sometimes but also having options to play in a different way when required is what I feel is needed.

I think Evatt believes that too. But I just think that those options haven’t really worked yet so we are stuck with one plan.

[GhostoftheBok]

You keep making out that it’s either or. We have more resources than Wycombe. We should finish above them.

It is either or. There's a limited amount of time on the training pitch. It is literally impossible to coach a team to be Barcelona one week and Atletico Madrid the next.

"Why can't we just be a completely different side in different games?" Because football doesn't work that way.

We don't have more resources than Wycombe. Wycombe were in the Championship recently and had the investment resultant from that. We've come out of league two. Their squad still benefits from that investment. It might be that this season we have a slightly larger wage budget than them (it's very close), but seasons do not exist in isolation. Over the next couple of seasons, if they don't go up this season, you'd expect the gap between the two sides to grow as they have to start cutting their cloth a bit again. Wycombe are a team at the end of a development cycle under Ainsworth, we are still in the first stages of one under Evatt.

Football is largely about time and money. Wycombe have had more of both and they're still below us.

[Worthy4England]

There comes a point, where you probably tell yourself that you have a decent enough baseline. I thought before a ball was kicked, ours was probably bottom end of play-offs, top end of "near miss"

I think we still have "holes" as we're playing 4 loanees who aren't quite there yet. That seems like a fair bit of shopping to do in summer to maybe stay still and then add a bit more class...

Again, fair. I am casting my mind back, but I think I thought play offs was a good job and top two would take witch craft - with just missing the play-offs being disappointing but not the end of the world.

We could (will) lose key players, but like I say it's very much a buyers' market this summer and we should do well.

If we have to sell Johnston and Dempsey ends up with a custodial term then life gets more difficult, but them's the breaks.

Isn't part of the "sustainable" plan, that we will rely on selling "assets?" Or was the cunning plan that we'd have more than enough that losing a couple wouldn't make a difference?

[GhostoftheBok]

Isn't part of the "sustainable" plan, that we will rely on selling "assets?" Or was the cunning plan that we'd have more than enough that losing a couple wouldn't make a difference?

I think we'd rather be selling lads with more than one year left on their deal. If Johnston won't sign on we'll have to sell him and clubs will know we have to. Offers will reflect our need.

As you say, we do need to sell players and I've no issue doing so - it just makes it trickier when you're not getting maximum value for the asset you then need to replace.

I think we'd have hoped to have more resale value in the squad at this stage, yes. We were, for example, hoping to have two options on that right side of centre back, rather than just Toal. We wanted to have Iredale in the mix if Johnston had to go. We'd planned to have settled cover in those positions, giving us time to bed in the replacements.

[Worthy4England]

You keep making out that it’s either or. We have more resources than Wycombe. We should finish above them.

It is either or. There's a limited amount of time on the training pitch. It is literally impossible to coach a team to be Barcelona one week and Atletico Madrid the next.

"Why can't we just be a completely different side in different games?" Because football doesn't work that way.

We don't have more resources than Wycombe. Wycombe were in the Championship recently and had the investment resultant from that. We've come out of league two. Their squad still benefits from that investment. It might be that this season we have a slightly larger wage budget than them (it's very close), but seasons do not exist in isolation. Over the next couple of seasons, if they don't go up this season, you'd expect the gap between the two sides to grow as they have to start cutting their cloth a bit again. Wycombe are a team at the end of a development cycle under Ainsworth, we are still in the first stages of one under Evatt.

Football is largely about time and money. Wycombe have had more of both and they're still below us.

I'm not 100% sure that most are suggesting we bin off "plan Evatt" in favour of "plan Ainsworth" (I'm not anyhow). Just that we have a bit more balance in the squad. Maybe in the MF, it feels a little less like a cookie cutter clone factory, full of players, most of whom aren't toe to toe types that we come up against on occasion in other teams. I like the players we have, they all seem to be genuine hard working types, but it feels on too many occasions, that the oppo can find a way that more than neutralises whatever the perceived technical benefit we're getting.

We generally don't perform well when pressed across our defence and they give us little room to breathe in MF, by what you might call big physical teams. It feels to me like we need to be able to counter that style (rather than necessarily re-write our own) and constantly grumble for fouls against the poor luvvies. Because that seems to be our best response, currently.

[GhostoftheBok]

I'm not 100% sure that most are suggesting we bin off "plan Evatt" in favour of "plan Ainsworth" (I'm not anyhow). Just that we have a bit more balance in the squad. Maybe in the MF, it feels a little less like a cookie cutter clone factory, full of players, most of whom aren't toe to toe types that we come up against on occasion in other teams. I like the players we have, they all seem to be genuine hard working types, but it feels on too many occasions, that the oppo can find a way that more than neutralises whatever the perceived technical benefit we're getting.

We generally don't perform well when pressed across our defence and they give us little room to breathe in MF, by what you might call big physical teams. It feels to me like we need to be able to counter that style (rather than necessarily re-write our own) and constantly grumble for fouls against the poor luvvies. Because that seems to be our best response, currently.

What many are asking for is that we play this compact, more direct style one game and the possession and press style in another. It's literally impossible to coach both to a proper level at the same time. It can't be done.

You can absolutely tweak things. Play in certain different areas, shift where your runs are made to offer more direct options, etc. The fundamentals have to be the same every game, though - because you coach those for hours every week.

I think most agree that we need a bit more grit, running and physicality in the middle - just in order to make this style of football work better. That's why we signed Dempsey and wanted to sign Butcher. It's why Evatt loves Thomason and has worked on that side of the game with Morley - who now runs his arse off. It's why we lads we sign this summer probably won't look like Sheehan, they'll look more like Butcher who we missed out on, or Camara who we also wanted.

We can't not play these passing patterns, though. They're one of the main reasons we keep clean sheets when we do keep them. We can't sit off and not press, because that's a totally different kind of training ground work and we don't have time to do both.

Ultimately, if people want to play a very different style in certain games they are asking for a change of manager. They might not think they are, but they are.

[GhostoftheBok]

If we want this system to work *perfectly* we need various things - a ball winning mid is certainly one of them. Owen Moxon with his average of about 200 (3.4) tackles per game would be a good start.

We also need a reliable 10, some pace in attack, wing backs who can beat a man and put a ball in, wide centre backs who are fast and comfortable on the ball, a goalkeeper who can sweep...I mean, I'm not asking for much in the summer; but all that for a start and then we can talk.

[Bertie Wooster]

I'd like to know why we continue with this slow fecking about at the back, sideways pass x 3, 4 or 5 then back to Trafford who then nice people it long, normally to an opposition player or out for a throw in. It achieves absolutely nothing, for this to work the passing needs to be much quicker & their needs to be movement in midfield to receive the ball - we have neither, no wonder the fans get frustrated yet Evatt carries on with it every game whether its working or not. He either needs to coach it better or get better players in who are comfortable doing so, at the moment it just hand the initiative back to opposition but yet we still carry on doing it - its bloody madness doing the same thing time & time again if its not working.

[Bertie Wooster]

If we want this system to work *perfectly* we need various things - a ball winning mid is certainly one of them. Owen Moxon with his average of about 200 (3.4) tackles per game would be a good start.

We also need a reliable 10, some pace in attack, wing backs who can beat a man and put a ball in, wide centre backs who are fast and comfortable on the ball, a goalkeeper who can sweep...I mean, I'm not asking for much in the summer; but all that for a start and then we can talk.

That's basically a new team !

[GhostoftheBok]

That's basically a new team !

I was joking, but yeah we'll need plenty of new players. We have about 13 first team players contracted beyond this season.

[Worthy4England]

I'm less about the style and more about the substance. I really don't care much whether we go 442 direct or carry on heading in the direction we are travelling. But whichever it is, has to be able to adapt to what's in front of it on the pitch. If the argument is it can't, then it's not much use to us and I don't think that's what your saying.

To appease the rank and file (me in this group), we need to be able to show how "our plan" combats "big, physical, more direct" because if it can't, the fans will call "time" and point to the new clothes on Emperor Evatt.