Dougie Freedman - New Manager

[Worthy4England]

There seems to be a huge amount of detailed and well explained argument from folk who haven't seen the game. I didn't see today's game, so I'm not sure how I could really comment to the depth some folk seem able to on the basis of radio commentary. Perhaps if I set it up on Champ Man, I could run it at the same time as the actual game and be able to tell we should have been 442 not 451.

I think having no shots, never mind one on target, in 45 minutes is appalling and clearly indicative of things not clicking. Would being at the ground really make a difference? I don't think so. You simply can't play good football and not manage a single shot in half of the game.

Reading Bolton fans defend some recent performances is like listening to a thoroughly biased England fan during the Euros, when we were being outplayed by everyone. Eventually, playing sh*t, being dominated, relying on great saves and not creating anything will bite you on your arse. We didn't deserve a single point from the last two games and unless things change, when we need points in the future, we won't get that bit of luck to keep us in the game which we've had recently.

Would being at the ground really make a difference?

In terms of being able to see what's actually going on?

Probably not. We should postpone future match threads until two days after the game, to give everyone chance to read all the papers and see the goals on the football league show.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

...In terms of being able to see what's actually going on?..
.

I had my ultra long range binoculars. Player x definitely had the wrong length studs. His shin pads were too tight too.

[BWFC_Insane]

There seems to be a huge amount of detailed and well explained argument from folk who haven't seen the game. I didn't see today's game, so I'm not sure how I could really comment to the depth some folk seem able to on the basis of radio commentary. Perhaps if I set it up on Champ Man, I could run it at the same time as the actual game and be able to tell we should have been 442 not 451.

I think having no shots, never mind one on target, in 45 minutes is appalling and clearly indicative of things not clicking. Would being at the ground really make a difference? I don't think so. You simply can't play good football and not manage a single shot in half of the game.

Reading Bolton fans defend some recent performances is like listening to a thoroughly biased England fan during the Euros, when we were being outplayed by everyone. Eventually, playing sh*t, being dominated, relying on great saves and not creating anything will bite you on your arse. We didn't deserve a single point from the last two games and unless things change, when we need points in the future, we won't get that bit of luck to keep us in the game which we've had recently.

We didn't deserve anything against Burnley? So how many shots on target did they have compared to us?

[malcd1]

I get the impression that Dougie's game plan is to ensure we're still in it at half time and then push on to try to win the game with attacking substitutions. The despairing thing is that I reckon Dougie knows what will cause the opposition problems and yet he persists with a style that won't get us knocking on their door all too often.

Against Burnley we weren't very threatening up until they scored against the run of play. It took their goal for us to kick into action and really press them. Dougie brought on SKD, Craig Davies and N'Gog and completely changed the match, prior to that we had Sordell as a lone front man without any service.

Against Forest we had SKD up front on his own without much service. It was seemingly the same mentality as the Burnley game and yet Dougie changed it of his own accord today (subs came on then they scored) but after we changed we looked a lot more threatening.

Why we aren't starting with the players that provide a threat I don't know. We can only guess but I doubt he'll get an easy ride if we continue to persist with one man up front for half a match where we don't look threatening.

I think you're right and if you are, it's not a good sign about Freedman's managerial ability. Eventually, we're going to run into a side who will be far more efficient going forward and seeing as our defence isn't great, they'll put a couple past us in 30 minutes and by the time Freedman makes his changes, the game will be lost.

If we are playing for to keep things tight until half time, why not go with a defensive midfielder instead of an attacking one? Mark Davies barely touched the ball in the first half, so if the mentality is to defend, surely you'd want someone like Spearing sit in front of the defence and then have Mark Davies in central midfield? At least he wouldn't be an absolute passenger like he was today, who makes it into 10 vs. 11. And then when you go for it in the second half, move Spearing into the centre of the pitch and push Davies just behind the striker.

I'm fine with us being a defensive minded team but it has to be effective. In the last two games, we've been dominated for around 110 minutes of those games, played useless, created nothing and got into a losing position, and then when we have changed and gone more attacking, it's worked and we've played much better, got goals and been fine defensively. When will the penny drop before we start with the team which is proven to be far more effective?

For me, the defensive style we've seen at the starts of games just doesn't work. We invite pressure, start to panic and concede goals which shouldn't happen but that's exactly what happens when you allow teams to dominate you. I think we're far better off putting our opponents on the backfoot, using attack as our form of defence.

On Tuesday, I hope we'll play 4-4-2 and put them on the backfoot from the off but I fear we'll go 4-5-1, be ineffective going forward and defending, and then we'll see something better in the second half. I just hope we are still in with a shout of winning when those changes happen.

I can only think he knows how crap our defence is so he is keeping it tight so that we are not out of the game by half time. Hopefully we will play more positive when we get our injured and new players fit but I will not hold my breath.

While we still have an outside chance of sneaking into the play-offs we need to go for it. We would need at least 2 points per game for the rest of the season and so we have to be more positive than we are at the moment.

[BWFC_Insane]

I get the impression that Dougie's game plan is to ensure we're still in it at half time and then push on to try to win the game with attacking substitutions. The despairing thing is that I reckon Dougie knows what will cause the opposition problems and yet he persists with a style that won't get us knocking on their door all too often.

Against Burnley we weren't very threatening up until they scored against the run of play. It took their goal for us to kick into action and really press them. Dougie brought on SKD, Craig Davies and N'Gog and completely changed the match, prior to that we had Sordell as a lone front man without any service.

Against Forest we had SKD up front on his own without much service. It was seemingly the same mentality as the Burnley game and yet Dougie changed it of his own accord today (subs came on then they scored) but after we changed we looked a lot more threatening.

Why we aren't starting with the players that provide a threat I don't know. We can only guess but I doubt he'll get an easy ride if we continue to persist with one man up front for half a match where we don't look threatening.

I think you're right and if you are, it's not a good sign about Freedman's managerial ability. Eventually, we're going to run into a side who will be far more efficient going forward and seeing as our defence isn't great, they'll put a couple past us in 30 minutes and by the time Freedman makes his changes, the game will be lost.

If we are playing for to keep things tight until half time, why not go with a defensive midfielder instead of an attacking one? Mark Davies barely touched the ball in the first half, so if the mentality is to defend, surely you'd want someone like Spearing sit in front of the defence and then have Mark Davies in central midfield? At least he wouldn't be an absolute passenger like he was today, who makes it into 10 vs. 11. And then when you go for it in the second half, move Spearing into the centre of the pitch and push Davies just behind the striker.

I'm fine with us being a defensive minded team but it has to be effective. In the last two games, we've been dominated for around 110 minutes of those games, played useless, created nothing and got into a losing position, and then when we have changed and gone more attacking, it's worked and we've played much better, got goals and been fine defensively. When will the penny drop before we start with the team which is proven to be far more effective?

For me, the defensive style we've seen at the starts of games just doesn't work. We invite pressure, start to panic and concede goals which shouldn't happen but that's exactly what happens when you allow teams to dominate you. I think we're far better off putting our opponents on the backfoot, using attack as our form of defence.

On Tuesday, I hope we'll play 4-4-2 and put them on the backfoot from the off but I fear we'll go 4-5-1, be ineffective going forward and defending, and then we'll see something better in the second half. I just hope we are still in with a shout of winning when those changes happen.

What the hell are you on about? We are playing Spearing and Pratley in holding positions and Mark Davies as the attacking midfield player.

It's that, very popular now, 4-2-3-1.

We aren't strong enough to carry 4-4-2, not from the start of games. It's really quite basic. Until we have a stronger central midfield we just need the extra man. We've seen more than enough evidence of that this season and last. More than enough.

[jaffka]

We are not getting into the play offs this season, mid table will be at best where we finish.

[BL3]

Throughout the rest of the side however we look 10x the side under Coyle and one clearly on the up. Dougie has stopped us leaking goals at an alarming rate

Hardly. We've conceded 13 goals in the last ten games, only three fewer than we conceded in the first ten league games when Coyle was in charge and we've taken 12 points from the last ten games, only one more point than we took from the first ten.

[SmokinFrazier]

I'll repost this next season same time when we are chugging along mid table watching players who 'know' and suit this league.

Some of our fans love to churn this baseless argument out, but look at some of the other teams in the league.

Watford are currently 3rd in the Championship on 56 points and their team is built around foreign mercenaries. They've got 10 players on loan from foreign leagues, and only one of them have ever played in England before, never mind the Championship, which some of our fans will argue needs adapting to. Look at players like Marco Casetti or Matej Vydra. These players don't 'know' the Championship, and yet they're performing because their managers have got the best out of them.

The argument that you need to bring players in who "know the league" is nonsense. You clearly don't. Replace Watford's foreigners with hard working English players, who have little technical ability, and I bet they wouldn't be 3rd in the league. Similarly, if we had a manager capable of getting the best out of a Premier League squad, which neither Coyle or Freedman have done, we'd be higher than 16th too.

7 of Watford's starting 11 yesterday are on loan from foreign clubs. Their keeper is a flappy Spaniard who found the Premier League too physical. They don't know the league and they probably don't even know the language. The reason they won 4-0 and we struggled to a 1-1 draw is not because their side is inherently more suited to the Championship, it's because they've got a better manager who knows how to get the best out of his team. If we had Zola, or a manager as good as he is, I'm confident we'd be in the play-off spots right now.

[SmokinFrazier]

What the hell are you on about? We are playing Spearing and Pratley in holding positions and Mark Davies as the attacking midfield player.

It's that, very popular now, 4-2-3-1.

We aren't strong enough to carry 4-4-2, not from the start of games. It's really quite basic. Until we have a stronger central midfield we just need the extra man. We've seen more than enough evidence of that this season and last. More than enough.

I know what it was, and you've missed my comment about Spearing sitting in front of the defence. Yesterday, we played this:

Mears - Knight - Dawson - Alonso
--------Spearing - Pratley-------
--CYL ----- Davies ---- De Ridder

That is an ineffective formation for us because we don't have enough defensive capabilities there, nor do we keep the ball well enough to structure attacks through Davies. That's his role in the team. He is a floating midfielder who lurks between midfield and attack, whose main job is to create things for the striker. Evidently, that didn't happen.

What I'm suggesting is a more defensive 4-5-1, such as:

Mears - Knight - Dawson - Alonso
-----------Spearing-------------
CYL - Davies - Pratley - De Ridder

This formation is far stronger defensively because of the deeper role Spearing has. It's still 4-5-1, but instead of an attacking midfielder, who is useless, you have a more solid four in midfield and you have more cover defensively because Spearing is in a deeper role.

The 4-5-1 that we have been playing is an attacking one, which makes us of wingers pushing high up the pitch and an attacking midfielder. Now, if we're playing attacking football, that's fine, but if the strategy is to defend, we should play a defensive 4-5-1 instead. It'd be far easier to keep clean sheets that way. Going forward, there is nothing more ineffective than the attacking 4-5-1 we played yesterday because in 45 minutes, we didn't have a single shot, so a defensive 4-5-1 couldn't be any worse.

Like I said yesterday, 4-4-2 is far better for us. It has got far better results and anyone who can't see that is deluding themselves.

[thebish]

Throughout the rest of the side however we look 10x the side under Coyle and one clearly on the up.

hmmm... marginally on the up at best (and not in terms of league position!!)

and - TEN times better???

[BWFC_Insane]

What the hell are you on about? We are playing Spearing and Pratley in holding positions and Mark Davies as the attacking midfield player.

It's that, very popular now, 4-2-3-1.

We aren't strong enough to carry 4-4-2, not from the start of games. It's really quite basic. Until we have a stronger central midfield we just need the extra man. We've seen more than enough evidence of that this season and last. More than enough.

I know what it was, and you've missed my comment about Spearing sitting in front of the defence. Yesterday, we played this:

Mears - Knight - Dawson - Alonso
--------Spearing - Pratley-------
--CYL ----- Davies ---- De Ridder

That is an ineffective formation for us because we don't have enough defensive capabilities there, nor do we keep the ball well enough to structure attacks through Davies. That's his role in the team. He is a floating midfielder who lurks between midfield and attack, whose main job is to create things for the striker. Evidently, that didn't happen.

What I'm suggesting is a more defensive 4-5-1, such as:

Mears - Knight - Dawson - Alonso
-----------Spearing-------------
CYL - Davies - Pratley - De Ridder

This formation is far stronger defensively because of the deeper role Spearing has. It's still 4-5-1, but instead of an attacking midfielder, who is useless, you have a more solid four in midfield and you have more cover defensively because Spearing is in a deeper role.

The 4-5-1 that we have been playing is an attacking one, which makes us of wingers pushing high up the pitch and an attacking midfielder. Now, if we're playing attacking football, that's fine, but if the strategy is to defend, we should play a defensive 4-5-1 instead. It'd be far easier to keep clean sheets that way. Going forward, there is nothing more ineffective than the attacking 4-5-1 we played yesterday because in 45 minutes, we didn't have a single shot, so a defensive 4-5-1 couldn't be any worse.

Like I said yesterday, 4-4-2 is far better for us. It has got far better results and anyone who can't see that is deluding themselves.

Sorry I'm going to have to file you in the 'plays football manager so thinks he's a tactical wizard' box.

We're effectively playing with TWO holding midfield players in Spearing and Pratley.

Whether you choose to 'draw' that as being different substantially to the system you're advocating or not, the reality is, that it isn't.

We are offering the defence protection in the form of Spearing and Pratley and asking Mark Davies to do the role of getting close to the striker when we're in possession and drop deeper when we're not to fill gaps.

This distinction you are trying to make is non existent other than on paper and in some sort of football management game.

Mind you think Ream is good.

So I rest my case.

[thebish]

Sorry I'm going to have to file you in the 'plays football manager so thinks he's a tactical wizard' box.

you've spent several pages in the past branding those who disagree with as know-nowts or idiots in a similar patronising tone... but then radically and completely changed your mind...

'tis a dangerous game... beware!

[BWFC_Insane]

Sorry I'm going to have to file you in the 'plays football manager so thinks he's a tactical wizard' box.

you've spent several pages in the past branding those who disagree with as know-nowts or idiots in a similar patronising tone... but then radically and completely changed your mind...

'tis a dangerous game... beware!

But remember, smokinfrazier is just pointing out 'basic stuff that those with any knowledge of football will understand' and if we don't we are 'deluding ourselves'.

[thebish]

Sorry I'm going to have to file you in the 'plays football manager so thinks he's a tactical wizard' box.

you've spent several pages in the past branding those who disagree with as know-nowts or idiots in a similar patronising tone... but then radically and completely changed your mind...

'tis a dangerous game... beware!

But remember, smokinfrazier is just pointing out 'basic stuff that those with any knowledge of football will understand' and if we don't we are 'deluding ourselves'.

in that case you are both playing a dangerous game! isn't it possible that you both know SOMETHING about the game but that neither of you is omniscient??

[SmokinFrazier]

Sorry I'm going to have to file you in the 'plays football manager so thinks he's a tactical wizard' box.

We're effectively playing with TWO holding midfield players in Spearing and Pratley.

Whether you choose to 'draw' that as being different substantially to the system you're advocating or not, the reality is, that it isn't.

We are offering the defence protection in the form of Spearing and Pratley and asking Mark Davies to do the role of getting close to the striker when we're in possession and drop deeper when we're not to fill gaps.

This distinction you are trying to make is non existent other than on paper and in some sort of football management game.

Mind you think Ream is good.

So I rest my case.

I'm probably one of the few members on here who has experience within football. If you disagree with me, that's fine, but please don't insult my intelligence because you have such a limited perception of the game. You seem to think that all 4-2-3-1 formations have to be the same, and continuously repeat the banal, childish argument that because Coyle couldn't get us playing 4-4-2, it can't work for Freedman.

Spearing and Pratley are playing nothing like holding midfielders, and nobody who has seen them play could argue otherwise. Watch someone like Makelele, Mascherano or De Jong. These are players who never get forward. They sit extremely deep, which is what I'm proposing, and if you think Spearing and Pratley do that, you are absolutely clueless.

Furthermore, teams never, ever play two holding midfielders. It simply doesn't happen. I guarantee you can't name a single example in football history of a team regularly playing with two holding midfielders, like Busquets or Obi Mikel. I watch hours and hours of football every week and I have never once seen it, so you are obviously talking out of your arse here.

And Ream does have the potential to be a good player. You rated him last year, and thought he was good enough for mid table Premier League sides, so you obviously see something in him. The problem you have is that your mind changes on a whim. A player plays poor one week, he's useless. He plays great the next, you love him. That's why you are constantly pulled up on the contradictions you make.

I should point out that I don't dislike you or anything. I just think you are very naive where football is concerned, so if my post comes across as harsh, it's never personal.

[BWFC_Insane]

Sorry I'm going to have to file you in the 'plays football manager so thinks he's a tactical wizard' box.

We're effectively playing with TWO holding midfield players in Spearing and Pratley.

Whether you choose to 'draw' that as being different substantially to the system you're advocating or not, the reality is, that it isn't.

We are offering the defence protection in the form of Spearing and Pratley and asking Mark Davies to do the role of getting close to the striker when we're in possession and drop deeper when we're not to fill gaps.

This distinction you are trying to make is non existent other than on paper and in some sort of football management game.

Mind you think Ream is good.

So I rest my case.

I'm probably one of the few members on here who has experience within football. If you disagree with me, that's fine, but please don't insult my intelligence because you have such a limited perception of the game. You seem to think that all 4-2-3-1 formations have to be the same, and continuously repeat the banal, childish argument that because Coyle couldn't get us playing 4-4-2, it can't work for Freedman.

Spearing and Pratley are playing nothing like holding midfielders, and nobody who has seen them play could argue otherwise. Watch someone like Makelele, Mascherano or De Jong. These are players who never get forward. They sit extremely deep, which is what I'm proposing, and if you think Spearing and Pratley do that, you are absolutely clueless.

Furthermore, teams never, ever play two holding midfielders. It simply doesn't happen. I guarantee you can't name a single example in football history of a team regularly playing with two holding midfielders, like Busquets or Obi Mikel. I watch hours and hours of football every week and I have never once seen it, so you are obviously talking out of your arse here.

And Ream does have the potential to be a good player. You rated him last year, and thought he was good enough for mid table Premier League sides, so you obviously see something in him. The problem you have is that your mind changes on a whim. A player plays poor one week, he's useless. He plays great the next, you love him. That's why you are constantly pulled up on the contradictions you make.

I should point out that I don't dislike you or anything. I just think you are very naive where football is concerned, so if my post comes across as harsh, it's never personal.

The last 3 league games that we started with a 4-4-2 were Millwall, Ipswich and Sheffield Wednesday at home.

Perhaps you could tell me how many points we managed out of them, Mr Tactical Guru?

Must be at least 6 or 7, given, how tactically that system suits us so well.

[SmokinFrazier]

The last 3 league games that we started with a 4-4-2 were Millwall, Ipswich and Sheffield Wednesday at home.

Perhaps you could tell me how many points we managed out of them, Mr Tactical Guru?

Must be at least 6 or 7, given, how tactically that system suits us so well.

How many times do I have to say this to you? You've directly asked me the same question a few times, and I keep answering it.

4-4-2 under Coyle is not the same as 4-4-2 under Freedman. 4-5-1 under Coyle is not the same as 4-5-1 under Freedman.

Is that simple enough? I said to you the other day that when Coyle was in charge, I was adamant he was wrong to persist with the 4-4-2 because it wasn't working. We were far better in a 4-5-1 formation. Similarly, in our last two games, we've been utterly dominated when playing 4-5-1 and when switching to 4-4-2, it has actually worked.

We may play 4-4-2 from the start against Derby and still play awful. There's no guarantee it will work, and I'm not suggesting it will but I do think it's a better alternative than going with 4-5-1, which isn't working at the moment with the players we have. I think that when we get Holden back and Medo is in the team, 4-5-1 will work but right now, it doesn't. I also think the formation was much better when the midfield partnership was Andrews and Spearing, but even though Pratley isn't a terrible player, he can't play in that position like Andrews can.

Football has to be fluid. Different managers try different things, and different players play different ways. You can't be absolutely stubborn with anything, including formation and player selection. If 4-4-2 works as it has done in the last couple of games, great, lets keep it and if it doesn't, that's fine, change it again. It's far better to keep mixing things up until you find a winning formula than to persist with something which only results in dire performances.

Watch us play 4-4-2 and get hammered now

[BWFC_Insane]

The last 3 league games that we started with a 4-4-2 were Millwall, Ipswich and Sheffield Wednesday at home.

Perhaps you could tell me how many points we managed out of them, Mr Tactical Guru?

Must be at least 6 or 7, given, how tactically that system suits us so well.

How many times do I have to say this to you? You've directly asked me the same question a few times, and I keep answering it.

4-4-2 under Coyle is not the same as 4-4-2 under Freedman. 4-5-1 under Coyle is not the same as 4-5-1 under Freedman.

Is that simple enough? I said to you the other day that when Coyle was in charge, I was adamant he was wrong to persist with the 4-4-2 because it wasn't working. We were far better in a 4-5-1 formation. Similarly, in our last two games, we've been utterly dominated when playing 4-5-1 and when switching to 4-4-2, it has actually worked.

We may play 4-4-2 from the start against Derby and still play awful. There's no guarantee it will work, and I'm not suggesting it will but I do think it's a better alternative than going with 4-5-1, which isn't working at the moment with the players we have. I think that when we get Holden back and Medo is in the team, 4-5-1 will work but right now, it doesn't. I also think the formation was much better when the midfield partnership was Andrews and Spearing, but even though Pratley isn't a terrible player, he can't play in that position like Andrews can.

Football has to be fluid. Different managers try different things, and different players play different ways. You can't be absolutely stubborn with anything, including formation and player selection. If 4-4-2 works as it has done in the last couple of games, great, lets keep it and if it doesn't, that's fine, change it again. It's far better to keep mixing things up until you find a winning formula than to persist with something which only results in dire performances.

Watch us play 4-4-2 and get hammered now

The three matches I refer to, where 4-4-2 was played, Freedman was in charge.

[thebish]

Perhaps you could tell me how many points we managed out of them, Mr Tactical Guru?

I did try and say this politely... but it is this stuff that just makes you sound like a bit of a dick (in my humble opinion)...

[BWFC_Insane]

Perhaps you could tell me how many points we managed out of them, Mr Tactical Guru?

I did try and say this politely... but it is this stuff that just makes you sound like a bit of a dick (in my humble opinion)...

Right and the fact that you only pick on certain posters does exactly the same for you.

In my humble opinion of course.

SF was hardly being humble in his posts now was he? I don't see you pointing that out to him.

People in glass houses and all...