QPR The Verdict.

the bigger formation error, IMO, was playing Wilshere behind Long
other than periodically running sideways with the ball with no end product, what did Wilshere actually achieve yesterday?
 
I always find it curious when managers say they chose to match up against the opposition.

The opposition hasn't chosen to match up against us, they have decided, oh we're playing AFCB and they're in good form with a 4-4-2, we should switch...they stick to what is working for them.

You should only switch formation or system to match up if you think you can better them at it or you think their system will exploit your weaknesses if you don't tweak things.

If you're coming up against one of the in-form teams in the division playing a certain way, it's just blind arrogance to think that matching up with them...without a legitimate left-wing back... is the right change to make.
 
DJ said:
I always find it curious when managers say they chose to match up against the opposition.

The opposition hasn't chosen to match up against us, they have decided, oh we're playing AFCB and they're in good form with a 4-4-2, we should switch...they stick to what is working for them.

You should only switch formation or system to match up if you think you can better them at it or you think their system will exploit your weaknesses if you don't tweak things.

If you're coming up against one of the in-form teams in the division playing a certain way, it's just blind arrogance to think that matching up with them...without a legitimate left-wing back... is the right change to make.
Click to expand...

But to counter this, we were the better team for a lot of the game until Mepham's individual error (see Waz's match report thread for some discussion) so I think we were better at it than them. If we had won, would we not be commending JW for this tactic? It's v easy to make these calls in hindsight, and equally easy to think that we had played well in JW's previous league games because luckily we got results. That's why I prefer looking at the stats which typically are less biased by support. At half time, the QPR commentators were saying they were lucky to be level.

I'm not sure whether you are suggesting that we find our best formation and stick with it (maybe with the exception of the v best teams in the league and tweks) but when I suggested this, (see Next Manager Betting Odds post 236 and 237) you seemed less than impressed. I still think in most games starting with a constant formation to allow partnerships to grow is a good idea.
 
New Forest Cherry said:
I don't disagree, Kelly and CCV looked good, but he clearly didn't want to play Rico (he's so flaky) at left-back and with Stacy injured he had no choice but to go with the back three
It worked well in the first half with Smith getting a lot of space down our right and Stan had that early chance down the left

we didn't lose yesterday because of our formation(s) we lost due to individual errors
Click to expand...
Yes but down twice in the game, creating very little and 1 sub by the 85th minute, and still only 2 by the end, that's not great management. What happens if we lose the next 2 games which is a real possibility
 
Give the youngsters a go. Messi, Ronaldo, Charlton and George Best were all untried youngsters (with very good potential) and someone put them on the pitch to do their stuff! Have we got someone waiting for just that sort of chance?
 
tedisking said:
Not sure if it's been mentioned.... but JW must take some of the blame for breaking up the CCV and Kelly partnership in the back middle......they were playing well together with 2 clean sheets in their games together. Should of stuck with the back 4 that played against Rotherham. There is never a settled side, with the excuse of having to rotate because 2 games a week.
Click to expand...

my only thinking is that he wanted more creativity in the team and wanted wilshire included .
I don’t mind 3 at the back but it’s clear that we are a bit blunt in attack . If so we need 2 men directly up top.
Mepham made a huge mistake but we got back into it .
For me the nature in which we threw in the towel for the last 10 minutes was alarming
 
New Forest Cherry said:
I don't disagree, Kelly and CCV looked good, but he clearly didn't want to play Rico (he's so flaky) at left-back and with Stacy injured he had no choice but to go with the back three
It worked well in the first half with Smith getting a lot of space down our right and Stan had that early chance down the left

we didn't lose yesterday because of our formation(s) we lost due to individual errors
Click to expand...
Rico could have played the LWB role yesterday. Stanislas lost his man for their winner.
 
Two quotes from a while back:

I watched Sean O'Driscoll on a Nottm Forest podcast - one tiny bit was a comment on us beating them 2-0 early in the season - he said one difference between the teams was that they hoped to win, we expected to win, and getting that attitude back takes time.

Fairly early on in the promotion season, a TV commentator said most possession-based teams struggle to score, but Bournemouth don't. We didn't used to bomb forward, we played it around until the opening appeared and then sliced through teams. Clearly that isn't something easily achieved - maybe only Eddie knew how.
 
Lack of quality by billing and long not to score early chances.
Lack of quality by stanislas to make selfish decision on free kicks.
Lack of quality by the back three and begovic not to make positive passes out from the back.
Lack of concentration to not track the runner for the winning goal

All small margins.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

;