Matt Stevenson
First Team
Hi all,
My disclaimer is that I acknowledge I have neither any insight into the workings of training a team nor have been involved at any level, so my views have little weight. I'd imagine this applies to a lot of us, who may be good in our real jobs, but our real jobs aren't football-related.
One consistency we appear to have as a forum is to criticise when things went wrong. 3-5-2 (not attacking enough against weaker sides, not incorporating our attacking firepower) 4-3-3 (we're being overrun in midfield, too lightweight, dependent of flair players performing) etc.
I think it would be interesting to have a marker down for individuals so that we can be accountable when the manager plays their formation and we lose - it could tone down the criticism. Tindall may not have been the right man for the job, but I don't think he could do much about Mepham's pass last night.
Personally I preferred the 3-5-2 if we can work out how to stop it becoming 5-3-2, although a flaw is that I'm not sure if there is room for Brooks and Danjuma, which is leaving out two of our most talented players. Potentially even Stan too, depending on how we set up. We looked hard to beat under that formation and had cover in every position. Last night we were far too lightweight.
I'm looking forward to hearing views, obviously subs and formation changes would be as needed throughout the game. There are certainly a lot of people on this forum who have seen more games than me, and understand tactics better, but I also suspect that there are a small number of knee-jerkers who want to change the formation with every bad result.
I just hope that whoever the new manager is would choose a formation (whatever that is) and stick to it.
UTCIAD.
Matt
My disclaimer is that I acknowledge I have neither any insight into the workings of training a team nor have been involved at any level, so my views have little weight. I'd imagine this applies to a lot of us, who may be good in our real jobs, but our real jobs aren't football-related.
One consistency we appear to have as a forum is to criticise when things went wrong. 3-5-2 (not attacking enough against weaker sides, not incorporating our attacking firepower) 4-3-3 (we're being overrun in midfield, too lightweight, dependent of flair players performing) etc.
I think it would be interesting to have a marker down for individuals so that we can be accountable when the manager plays their formation and we lose - it could tone down the criticism. Tindall may not have been the right man for the job, but I don't think he could do much about Mepham's pass last night.
Personally I preferred the 3-5-2 if we can work out how to stop it becoming 5-3-2, although a flaw is that I'm not sure if there is room for Brooks and Danjuma, which is leaving out two of our most talented players. Potentially even Stan too, depending on how we set up. We looked hard to beat under that formation and had cover in every position. Last night we were far too lightweight.
I'm looking forward to hearing views, obviously subs and formation changes would be as needed throughout the game. There are certainly a lot of people on this forum who have seen more games than me, and understand tactics better, but I also suspect that there are a small number of knee-jerkers who want to change the formation with every bad result.
I just hope that whoever the new manager is would choose a formation (whatever that is) and stick to it.
UTCIAD.
Matt