Posh do or dogs dinner? Bolton v Peterborough Sat 23rd Sept - 3pm

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Phil Brown was covering the game on the radio and said he thinks Bolton have too many strikers and the bench ones aren’t getting enough minutes. Doesn’t think you can run a squad with 5 strikers. Also said Bodvarson is the best of the bench strikers and maybe is better than Vic and should be prioritised for minutes to get sharp as he offers qualities absent from the other players.

It’s an interesting point. Are we too heavy on strikers compared to other key positions? Are we misusing the strikers we have?

His managerial inspiration Bruce Rioch was fond of quoting the line "you can never have too many strikers"... and Bruce didn't habitually sub both his forwards after an hour of them running their legs down to the knees.

I could see Browny's point if Jerome were 27, but he's one that was brought in to merge into a career of coaching or certainly elder statesmanship. That the auld fella has been used so heavily this season wasn't, I'm sure, part of the plan. Bod was supposed to be fit and firing and Dan was supposed to be much better.

Bodvarsson will surely start on Tuesday but - apart from in yesterday's rearguard action - has rarely thus far looked like the player he can be (or maybe 'was'). Browny loves the sort of quote that keeps people talking about him (and hey look it's worked) but if Evatt had dropped Vic for Bod at any point this season it would have been decried by many. Like, for instance, the sort of people who deduct the top two strikers from an arbitrary straw-man statistic

We're allowed 22 overage outfielders, which is basically two teams and a couple of spares. Besides the "two XIs" I personally would have a spare striker and a spare centre-back while we're playing a back three. (Although I wouldn't want six "just centre-backs" - some should also be able to play wingback or def-mid, for example.)

Are we too heavy on strikers? Not IMO but it looks much worse because we are clearly light in other positions; let's not conflate those two problems, unless and until Evatt says "we couldn't afford a third wingback because we've spunked the bond money on yet another striker" – say, for instance, that lad at Posh.

Are we misusing the ones we have? I would suggest with Jerome unused yesterday they are now being used in what is currently the correct doses. If one of the "finishers" scorches the earth during his minutes on the pitch then it asks a different question. That they haven't been doing so is been precisely the problem we spent last week wailing about.

[TANGODANCER]

Are we misusing the ones we have? I would suggest with Jerome unused yesterday they are now being used in what is currently the correct doses. If one of the "finishers" scorches the earth during his minutes on the pitch then it asks a different question. That they haven't been doing so is been precisely the problem we spent last week wailing about.

This is, I admit, very No shxt Sherlock, but read on: Not to be boring or repetitive, but it isn't so much about positions and titles; it's about goals. The point is, we need the players to win games by playing well and scoring regadless of where or who they are on the chess board.. Come season end we won't be asking who has played well, but who hasn't? Get promoted, they're immortals, don't do so, auction items. How many "strikers" did Posh have yesterday?

We just have to make and take chances. "A miss is as good as a mile" is an ancient cry, but it's still relevant. Do we actually do shooting practise? Obviously not as much as Posh and co.

[BWFC_Insane]

Phil Brown was covering the game on the radio and said he thinks Bolton have too many strikers and the bench ones aren’t getting enough minutes. Doesn’t think you can run a squad with 5 strikers. Also said Bodvarson is the best of the bench strikers and maybe is better than Vic and should be prioritised for minutes to get sharp as he offers qualities absent from the other players.

It’s an interesting point. Are we too heavy on strikers compared to other key positions? Are we misusing the strikers we have?

His managerial inspiration Bruce Rioch was fond of quoting the line "you can never have too many strikers"... and Bruce didn't habitually sub both his forwards after an hour of them running their legs down to the knees.

I could see Browny's point if Jerome were 27, but he's one that was brought in to merge into a career of coaching or certainly elder statesmanship. That the auld fella has been used so heavily this season wasn't, I'm sure, part of the plan. Bod was supposed to be fit and firing and Dan was supposed to be much better.

Bodvarsson will surely start on Tuesday but - apart from in yesterday's rearguard action - has rarely thus far looked like the player he can be (or maybe 'was'). Browny loves the sort of quote that keeps people talking about him (and hey look it's worked) but if Evatt had dropped Vic for Bod at any point this season it would have been decried by many. Like, for instance, the sort of people who deduct the top two strikers from an arbitrary straw-man statistic

We're allowed 22 overage outfielders, which is basically two teams and a couple of spares. Besides the "two XIs" I personally would have a spare striker and a spare centre-back while we're playing a back three. (Although I wouldn't want six "just centre-backs" - some should also be able to play wingback or def-mid, for example.)

Are we too heavy on strikers? Not IMO but it looks much worse because we are clearly light in other positions; let's not conflate those two problems, unless and until Evatt says "we couldn't afford a third wingback because we've spunked the bond money on yet another striker" – say, for instance, that lad at Posh.

Are we misusing the ones we have? I would suggest with Jerome unused yesterday they are now being used in what is currently the correct doses. If one of the "finishers" scorches the earth during his minutes on the pitch then it asks a different question. That they haven't been doing so is been precisely the problem we spent last week wailing about.

I think the answer was in response to a caller saying we’ve spent our money but the squad is too thin. Brown was saying that we look top heavy and strikers are players who need games so he felt it wasn’t bringing the best out of them having them sat on the bench and a bit of a waste.

I suppose the contention depends on whether you agree with the premise of the question that we’ve spent our budget and then examining how we’ve used resource.

I thought it was an interesting point. For me I’d rather have three with a young un but three really good ones. I do feel it feels a bit pointless having so many on the bench if they aren’t going to get going and become the main men.

Yesterday I think they made an impact but the point is we had no choice and they were used as defensive options.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

I suspect if Bod and Dan get fit and firing (stick with me) and the others recover - CMG/Mahoma etc - then Jerome won't always be in the squad.

I agree with you that I would rather our 'spare' striker (but for me fifth not fourth) be a promising kid but hey-ho.

I think we had a questionable window, including re-signing Bod and Dan, but no – I don't support the caller's central contention that having five forwards stopped us having wingbacks, etc. I think we had money but didn't spend it, and that in itself is a gamble which hasn't looked wise.

[Worthy4England]

I dunno quite where to go with this one, but we do have 2 strikers, currently joint 3rd in the league 1 scoring charts...

The problem is the other 3 currently, for me. I was away the weekend, but folks seem to be suggesting Dan and Bod looked more on it (although they didn't trouble the onion)...

[TANGODANCER]

I dunno quite where to go with this one, but we do have 2 strikers, currently joint 3rd in the league 1 scoring charts...

The problem is the other 3 currently, for me. I was away the weekend, but folks seem to be suggesting Dan and Bod looked more on it (although they didn't trouble the onion)...

They came on later when we were under seige Worthy. Up till then, ten playing eleven and injuries, suspensions etc, we'd hardly come out of the kennel. Against a decent team like Posh who were all fired up to win, we did at least ease the pressure a bit (as I understand it) and getting a draw and a point felt like winning). I'll happily listen to more knowledgeable views.

[Mar]

I dunno quite where to go with this one, but we do have 2 strikers, currently joint 3rd in the league 1 scoring charts...

The problem is the other 3 currently, for me. I was away the weekend, but folks seem to be suggesting Dan and Bod looked more on it (although they didn't trouble the onion)...

I think what happened in the last match compared to what happened previous matches is that when Nlundulu and Bodvarsson came on we looked like we could offer something going forward, whether that was creating opportunities, winning corners or getting the ball forward to ease pressure on the defense.

The previous match felt very much like we'd brought people on and put ourselves down and helped the opposition. I don't mind anyone coming on providing they help the game, if they come on and make things worse then they might aswell stay off. Repeating issues with Jerome and Nlundulu didn't bode well. Last match nlundulu looked fresh with a clear idea as to how to progress out wide and Bod made a contribution.

We know injuries will play their part. If Bod was injured and being coddled back to full fitness that's fine, but we've not heard that as a reasoning.

We got lucky on Sat, we had a dogged performance and got a point. I wonder what sort of reaction would've been had if we lost it.

[BWFC_Insane]

So - I'm thinking we need to go to a back four - at least temporarily. I think there are some significant benefits to doing so - firstly it lets us be more compact. I think we need to do this to protect the midfield from doing as much work as they do given we have 3 available first choice mids for Saturday. I also think we need to stop flogging the wing backs so much to protect them given the lack of cover.

But beyond that I also think we need to think about our shape and the players we have available and to me we looked more comfortable defensively with a back four even down to ten men than we did with the back three with 11. I think Iredale and Jones are struggling to play the wide centre half role and the wingbacks as good as they are simply aren't able to offer the same - up and down protection Bradley did and its dragging the midfield too wide at times leaving us open. Its not a 'one game' issue either - Fleetwood showed how we can be pulled apart despite us winning.

I'd like to see a back four Saturday with this team....

Baxter
JDC Forrester Toal Iredale

Sheehan Morley Dempsey

Nlundulu Charles Williams


The exact shape can be a 4231 or a 4123 or a hybrid 433/442 even.

I think that Nlundulu offered an outlet on the right. And we should use that. When we are pressed get the ball up to him, play off it as we did last half hour Saturday. Williams offers the delivery from the left but this role cuts out the more defensive side where he is absolutely exposed at times. The other thing is as Evatt says you can very easily flip into a 352 with these players as noted down. So its not like its always a 4. But what I like about this is it gets Nlundulu a chance to be an outlet out of the middle of the pitch, utilises his strength and running. And lets us play a bit more simply. I'd go a little more compact, still can squeeze up the pitch but hopefully reduce the workload on the midfield.

I could almost make a case to play Vic over Charles and rest Charles' shoulder and use him for the last 20 minutes if we need a goal. On Saturday at least.

The dangers with this system are whether your wide players drop too deep and you end up without an outlet. But for me the space between our wing backs and wide centre backs has become too great and those channels are a gold mine for teams looking to play against us. Wigan exploited them, Peterborough exploited them and I fear that its just an obvious way to play us. Soak it up and then go at that space against Jones and Iredale its dangerous. And whilst Forrester looks like he'll cope there I'd love to see him and Toal together in a pairing.....

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Interesting idea. As you say those personnel can flick to a 352 – I doubt JDC will sit back. But a big call to drop Saturday's goalscorer.

[BWFC_Insane]

Interesting idea. As you say those personnel can flick to a 352 – I doubt JDC will sit back. But a big call to drop Saturday's goalscorer.

As I say - you could even rest Charles - and introduce him later and start with Vic. (I suspect he would have more impact off the bench that way round and were we in the lead you could bring Bod on instead). An equally big call to leave Dion out of course.

I think that the more I think about it the more I think temporarily its absolutely worth a try. The way I see it is that for all the pressing we do. we're not really reaping much benefit. We're effecting some turnovers but then not making much out of them.

I'd suggest that in doing that we're running people a bit into the ground without an obvious pay off. Yes we had to ride our luck second half and easily had two of those gone in we'd be having a different conversation now. And the danger with this switch is allowing teams to have too much space to load balls into our box - we saw that on Saturday at times second half. Equally one has to acknowledge we were down to 10 and Adeboyejo was dead second half - could barely run so for a period I think we more or less played with 9.

I don't think personally we're seeing massive advantage from our front two starting but I do of course acknowledge they are scoring goals and performing very well statistically. But as a team to me we don't look massively comfortable in the shape we're playing. And I'm not convinced we're getting the best out of the front two outside of goals in the box (and ultimately if that continues who cares right?).

Fully fit squad and its a different story but with what's available I think its worth a look at least.

[Worthy4England]

I've just had a peek at Port Vale on whoscored - I'm trying to work out why they're so high up the league...coz there's nothing to point to it! Obviously they're doing great at the one stat that matters - points - but why?

[BWFC_Insane]

I've just had a peek at Port Vale on whoscored - I'm trying to work out why they're so high up the league...coz there's nothing to point to it! Obviously they're doing great at the one stat that matters - points - but why?

They lost their opening game 7-0. Since then in 8 games they've conceded only another 7.

I'd suggest any team who over a run of games is conceding under a goal a game - they'll do well in this league.

Since our opening game in 7 we've conceded 10.

[Worthy4England]

I think you could spin that either way - take their 7-0 out and they're at 7 conceded in 8. Take our bad day at the office out, we're at 6 in 7. Only works if you take their disaster out and leave ours in, which feels like an imbalanced view. They've also concede 2 or more once more than we have.

On the flip, they have 4 clean sheets to 2, three of which they've turned into 1-0 wins.

The things I expected to maybe see, was they had a high foul count, or lots of yellows etc. none of which seemed to be apparent. So dunno. Feels like we need to score a couple, rather than try a 1-0 lockout...

[BWFC_Insane]

I think you could spin that either way - take their 7-0 out and they're at 7 conceded in 8. Take our bad day at the office out, we're at 6 in 7. Only works if you take their disaster out and leave ours in, which feels like an imbalanced view. They've also concede 2 or more once more than we have.

On the flip, they have 4 clean sheets to 2, three of which they've turned into 1-0 wins.

The things I expected to maybe see, was they had a high foul count, or lots of yellows etc. none of which seemed to be apparent. So dunno. Feels like we need to score a couple, rather than try a 1-0 lockout...

The contrast with us was less important than their last 8 games - they've only conceded 7. I'd say given they lost their first game that ratio probably explains for the most part why they are doing well - since then.

Winning marginal games in this league comes down (almost always) to being hard to score against and their clean sheets have converted in narrow 1-0's as you say....

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Maybe they're being inspired by memories of Dennis Politic.

Yeah, they're a tough team to beat but you'd say that not many promoted teams only score 1.2 per game.

Their goalkeeper is Connor Ripley - Stuart's lad, who saved more penalties than anyone last season - and last midweek he conceded 3 from 3 accurate shots as they lost at home to Burton. In that opening hammering at Barnsley, the Tykes scored 7 from 8 accurate efforts. Perhaps there were reasons for all 10 of those goals, but it's also possible he's... erratic.

[Prufrock]

I was hopeful when Johnstone got injured that it might turn into an excuse to go back to a back 4.

I've wanged on enough about the issues with trying to press high in a 352. We've done well getting around it by running the front two into the ground but I'd not be against it in principle. My main worry would be that it's CMG it's made for and he's out at the moment, and I don't want it going away for another two years if it doesn't work

I think you'd want Randy off the right and Vic (or maybe Dan) off the left until CMG came back.

[BWFC_Insane]

I was hopeful when Johnstone got injured that it might turn into an excuse to go back to a back 4.

I've wanged on enough about the issues with trying to press high in a 352. We've done well getting around it by running the front two into the ground but I'd not be against it in principle. My main worry would be that it's CMG it's made for and he's out at the moment, and I don't want it going away for another two years if it doesn't work

I think you'd want Randy off the right and Vic (or maybe Dan) off the left until CMG came back.

Victor is playing in the middle or not at all. Lad is slow. Strong. But slow. Dan did ok off the right but could equally play off the left with Randy the other side.

I agree - its tailor made for Gomes and I think the system would also suit Maghoma more and frankly we don't have the pieces yet to consider a back four a permanent option but for now I think it would help. My main issue is the 352 works based on the strikers and then Dempsey and another in midfield running all over the place. When a decent teams plays us that leaves gaps and creates issues as the game goes on, especially if we aren't in the lead. I can't be the only one who notices the pattern that we are this season looking worse as games go on. That's not just the bench - I think we're having to do too much running as a team.

[Tails07]

3-5-2 was always to get the best out of Santos and perhaps Jones and Iredale (with them being more fullbacks than traditional centrebacks) with Santos out, Jones out. 4-3-3 is an option, but with the current fit players, I can't see a strong candidate for right wing (Williams is perfectly capable on the left).

Teams in the past we had Isgrove, Kachunga, Dapo and Sadlier that could excel in this role, but these days is a harder transition.

[Prufrock]

Williams would play off the right not the left. We're not going to change and suddenly go wingers hit the byline and wang in crosses to 5'10 Dion. You'd still be looking at overlapping full backs.

I wouldn't be thrilled about Vic playing there but he has before, and a better bet then Dan having had a good half an hour as an out ball.

I don't think he'll change yet, but if we havent had a big improvement by the time CMG is back then maybe.

In that Markham interview he said "actually my favourite formation is 433" which sounds a bit like something a 9 year old would say but you'd think it's on the cards absent a big uptick.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

A problem with 433 - and for clarity I'm not against it, I've long wanted us to be versatile - is that we're currently strongest at CB & CF. So if you only play two centre-backs and one striker, you're strangling your squad strength.

That said, two of our six CBs (Geth and Iredale) are arguably stronger as full back, Vic has played a lot of his football wide in a 3, and Dan has to fit somewhere (well he doesn't have to but we can hope). Less sure about Bod wide but at his best he's a savvy player.