Match Report and MOM v Sheff Utd

cockbeard

Fans' Favourite
Eddie very rarely ever use a winger as a wing back though, to my memory is anyways been a full back except Ritchie, Pugh, or Fraser, all of whom he has also played at full back proper when we've had injuries or a shallow squad
 
I’m assuming I’m the hand wringing resident expert....

All I have said Rob is that we need to get three central midfielders onto the pitch if we are going to be able to match teams again for possession and get control of games. Even DJ is normally with me on that one.

That means 4-5-1 or 4-3-3 or if we want to persist with the three centre backs 3-5-2

It doesn’t mean 4-4-2 or 3-4-3
It doesn't mean 433 either Neil....oh I'm sorry you explained that to me before...433 becomes 451 when we defend but our 4411 can't be anything other than 442...:giggle:.....please correct me if I have that wrong.....:D
 

Neil Dawson

Fans' Favourite
It doesn't mean 433 either Neil....oh I'm sorry you explained that to me before...433 becomes 451 when we defend but our 4411 can't be anything other than 442...:giggle:.....please correct me if I have that wrong.....:D
Our 4-4-1-1 isn’t anything other than that because of who we choose to use in the withdrawn 1. Which has been King, Kermit, Pitman in the main. Forwards who can withdraw a little and play the other forward or wingers in. Kermit and Pitman could do that role because they had vision and played with their head up. King will never get it...not his fault because he is better than they were just different

Now, we have actually played this system relatively well with Eddie before (and with the existing coaches before anyone points it out) when we had Jack Wilshere in that role. We went on a fantastic run and came out of the new year in a strong league position on the back of a thumping win at Swansea.

I think we could do it with Brooks and Cook, maybe Harry but not seen him yet, Ibe has done well there. I’m hoping it was unavailability of some of them that stopped us but my fear is Eddie can’t see past King and Wilson having to play.

Back threes we never do because they just become a back five when under pressure and you never get out and when you clear the two in midfield get pounced upon and over numbered. Exactly what happened against relatively soft opposition on Saturday.
 
It doesn't mean 433 either Neil....oh I'm sorry you explained that to me before...433 becomes 451 when we defend but our 4411 can't be anything other than 442...:giggle:.....please correct me if I have that wrong.....:D
The problem with the 4411 defensively is that King doesn’t offer a lot of defensive protection. Similarly he also doesn’t really operate as an extra midfielder when in possession to help us get a grip on the game, his entire function is to pick up the ball in deep positions and run at the opposition which is fine when he has space to run into but when not he becomes pretty ineffective generally. An extra body in midfield would allow us to gain more control of games while becoming more solid. This would require either a more technically gifted number 10 (H Wilson) or box to box cm who would support attacks by getting into the opposition penalty area, I don’t think we have the latter so the former seems the only viable option!
 
I think we could do it with Brooks and Cook, maybe Harry but not seen him yet, Ibe has done well there. I’m hoping it was unavailability of some of them that stopped us but my fear is Eddie can’t see past King and Wilson having to play.
How about Solanke + one of King/Wilson? From what I've seen, he seems to have the link-up/hold-up ability and intelligence to do well in the number 10 role. Don't think you necessarily need a midfielder in there (as Kermorgant showed) and, similarly to Kermorgant, think he also has the workrate to offer something defensively.

Then allows H Wilson/Brooks to keep drifting in from the right where they're harder to pick up.
 
How about Solanke + one of King/Wilson? From what I've seen, he seems to have the link-up/hold-up ability and intelligence to do well in the number 10 role. Don't think you necessarily need a midfielder in there (as Kermorgant showed) and, similarly to Kermorgant, think he also has the workrate to offer something defensively.

Then allows H Wilson/Brooks to keep drifting in from the right where they're harder to pick up.
Solanke would definitely fit the mould better as a more technical number 10. He even dropped back into cm toward the end of the England u21 game against Germany. He has the vision and intelligence to play in that role imo.
 

Neil Dawson

Fans' Favourite
How about Solanke + one of King/Wilson? From what I've seen, he seems to have the link-up/hold-up ability and intelligence to do well in the number 10 role. Don't think you necessarily need a midfielder in there (as Kermorgant showed) and, similarly to Kermorgant, think he also has the workrate to offer something defensively.

Then allows H Wilson/Brooks to keep drifting in from the right where they're harder to pick up.
It’s worth a try. Difficult to know without seeing it. I’ve not seen much in Solanke to be honest but then equally I’ve not seen much of Solanke!
 
Whatever formation we played or should have played, the bottom line is we were out thought by Chris Wilder and his team.
I must admit, bearing in mind they wore white it reminded me of Burnley when they came out - we don't do very well against Sean Dyche either!

On Saturday it would all have changed if we'd got an early goal, the game would have opened up and I think we'd have gone on to win.

Reasons to be cheerful.
Probably Ramsdale will do OK, otherwise we'll fall back to Artur.

I think A. Smith / Kelly and Stacey will be our full backs once fully integrated into Eddies way of playing. With I think cameos from Francis, Daniels and Rico during the season.

We have enough quality CB's.

Midfield: Billings appears to be pretty good on the two times I've seen him. Lewis Cook on his return will be like a new signing.

Forwards / Wingers. Really impressed by Killkenny when I saw him. Danjuma looked really confident too. Harry Wilson - not seen him TBH but apparently good for Derby last year.
I think Solanke will come good too.

We have a really good team now compared to last year.
 
I had a tourist next to me.

I was greeted by the boiled sock and ketchup scent of his match-day-experience-lips-and-hooves-burger...

...and once that was done repeated wafts of Lynx Africa took a turn at torturing my nostrils.

Add the intermittent photo taking and my match day experience didn't equal the week's build up.

As a result I was too distracted (read as: incandescent with unreasonable rage) to notice how full the seats were...

BUT I did register how the away side's fans sang their hearts out.
Not just that but their goal celebrations were epic!
 
Our 4-4-1-1 isn’t anything other than that because of who we choose to use in the withdrawn 1. Which has been King, Kermit, Pitman in the main. Forwards who can withdraw a little and play the other forward or wingers in. Kermit and Pitman could do that role because they had vision and played with their head up. King will never get it...not his fault because he is better than they were just different

Now, we have actually played this system relatively well with Eddie before (and with the existing coaches before anyone points it out) when we had Jack Wilshere in that role. We went on a fantastic run and came out of the new year in a strong league position on the back of a thumping win at Swansea.:idea:

I think we could do it with Brooks and Cook, maybe Harry but not seen him yet, Ibe has done well there. I’m hoping it was unavailability of some of them that stopped us but my fear is Eddie can’t see past King and Wilson having to play.

Back threes we never do because they just become a back five when under pressure and you never get out and when you clear the two in midfield get pounced upon and over numbered. Exactly what happened against relatively soft opposition on Saturday.
Thanks for this Neil....although what i actually wanted to know is why you want us to play 443 when you seem intent on us playing 5 in midfield....:unsure:......you did explain that 433 becomes 451 when the two wide attacking plays drop into midfield....so i don't understand why the same wouldn't be said when an attacking player drops into midfield when we're playing 4411......you do see how confusing that is don't you Neil ?.....I'm also very surprised to hear of your criticism of 343 given that you did nothing but bang on about the virtues of it the season before last...;).....as for this great run we went on playing 5 in midfield with Wilshere.....when was this exactly?.....it couldn't have been around the Swansea game as we were struggling going into it and didn't win for 7-8 games after it!......after which Eddie dropped Wilshere and finished the season strongly with King and Afobe up front .....I mean that did happen didn't it? ....my memory can't be as bad as yours surely......:p
 

Neil Dawson

Fans' Favourite
Thanks for this Neil....although what i actually wanted to know is why you want us to play 443 when you seem intent on us playing 5 in midfield....:unsure:......you did explain that 433 becomes 451 when the two wide attacking plays drop into midfield....so i don't understand why the same wouldn't be said when an attacking player drops into midfield when we're playing 4411......you do see how confusing that is don't you Neil ?.....I'm also very surprised to hear of your criticism of 343 given that you did nothing but bang on about the virtues of it the season before last...;).....as for this great run we went on playing 5 in midfield with Wilshere.....when was this exactly?.....it couldn't have been around the Swansea game as we were struggling going into it and didn't win for 7-8 games after it!......after which Eddie dropped Wilshere and finished the season strongly with King and Afobe up front .....I mean that did happen didn't it? ....my memory can't be as bad as yours surely......:p
There is no 4-4-3 so your memory might be bad. To play this you either have to cheat and put an extra man on the pitch or play with no goalkeeper, which worrying those ours are is probably not a good option.

A three man central midfield is either 4-3-3 or 4-5-1 you are right.

My criticism of 3-4-3 isn’t of it as a system. It’s about our ability to play it. Unless you leave your full backs up you might as well realise it’s 5-2-3 with half the team stranded (sound familiar?) There are virtues to all systems of course. Raineri won league with 4-4-2 by playing on the break. Conte won it with 3-4-3. Guardiola switches between 3-4-3 and 4-3-3. Klopp is resolutely the latter.

The difference is the way they play it is well coached and understood. Man City when they play 3-4-3 stay in that shape. Even when attacked the wing-backs stay near the midfield and the wide forwards are always dropping to be available not stood with their hands in the air like ours were with Ake shouting at them.

I’ve said many times on here, while we should move away from 4-4-2 I actually, perversely, don’t want us to as we always look completely ineffective. Until we have coaches versed in other systems we always will and are better with the devil we know.
 
There is no 4-4-3 so your memory might be bad. To play this you either have to cheat and put an extra man on the pitch or play with no goalkeeper, which worrying those ours are is probably not a good option.

A three man central midfield is either 4-3-3 or 4-5-1 you are right.

My criticism of 3-4-3 isn’t of it as a system. It’s about our ability to play it. Unless you leave your full backs up you might as well realise it’s 5-2-3 with half the team stranded (sound familiar?) There are virtues to all systems of course. Raineri won league with 4-4-2 by playing on the break. Conte won it with 3-4-3. Guardiola switches between 3-4-3 and 4-3-3. Klopp is resolutely the latter.

The difference is the way they play it is well coached and understood. Man City when they play 3-4-3 stay in that shape. Even when attacked the wing-backs stay near the midfield and the wide forwards are always dropping to be available not stood with their hands in the air like ours were with Ake shouting at them.

I’ve said many times on here, while we should move away from 4-4-2 I actually, perversely, don’t want us to as we always look completely ineffective. Until we have coaches versed in other systems we always will and are better with the devil we know.
Even if we could play 443 you'd still want to play something else...:grinning:
 
Trust me. If we could coach it and play it I’d be happy to have it as our plan a.
As long as we had a plan b.;)
Plan B? easy.
Take Wilson and King off, then lob high balls into the box for Billing and Solanke to get on the end of. we might be able to scramble a goal from that set up. It seems to work against us. :wahey: