Watford - The Verdict.

With just 6 goals in open play so far this season, creativity is clearly an issue. In total we’ve scored 13 compared to an xG of 12.71. So we can’t even argue we are missing great chances either.

Possibly a natural 10 instead of King / Solanke might help but the only available player capable of that role is Harry Wilson.

I think the underlying issue is a lack of possession. Without the ball you can’t score and Saturday aside, our possession stats have been around 40% this season. Very un-Bournemouth like. If we can get the ball to Fraser and Wilson in the final third, they will create goals and score goals for themselves and each other. If they are receiving the ball on half way or back to goal it’s far less likely.

Having this mythical no. 10 isn’t a magic wand for creativity. We just need to find a way to retain and distribute the ball better. That’s a quality Lewis Cook has. In a 3 with Lerma and Billing, we’d be able to rotate positions and advance the ball up the pitch more efficiently IMO. Having more of the ball might ease the pressure on the defence too.
 
Tinpot Club said:
With just 6 goals in open play so far this season, creativity is clearly an issue. In total we’ve scored 13 compared to an xG of 12.71. So we can’t even argue we are missing great chances either.

Possibly a natural 10 instead of King / Solanke might help but the only available player capable of that role is Harry Wilson.

I think the underlying issue is a lack of possession. Without the ball you can’t score and Saturday aside, our possession stats have been around 40% this season. Very un-Bournemouth like. If we can get the ball to Fraser and Wilson in the final third, they will create goals and score goals for themselves and each other. If they are receiving the ball on half way or back to goal it’s far less likely.

Having this mythical no. 10 isn’t a magic wand for creativity. We just need to find a way to retain and distribute the ball better. That’s a quality Lewis Cook has. In a 3 with Lerma and Billing, we’d be able to rotate positions and advance the ball up the pitch more efficiently IMO. Having more of the ball might ease the pressure on the defence too.
Click to expand...
I don't remember us being any better defensively when we did play with a 3 tbh....i do remember us having a lot more possession and doing nothing with it though even with Wilshere as one of the three.....if we were that great playing that system Eddie wouldn't have needed to change it.
 
Topfarrier said:
I don't remember us being any better defensively when we did play with a 3 tbh....i do remember us having a lot more possession and doing nothing with it though even with Wilshere as one of the three.....if we were that great playing that system Eddie wouldn't have needed to change it.
Click to expand...
I’m mainly referring to the general point that having more of the ball makes you less likely to concede than specifically playing a 3. Look at any league in the world and you’ll see the teams with most possession usually have the best defensive records.

I don’t really agree with your point about when we played a 3. The only season we played it regularly was the Wilshere season in which we had our highest finish! The other times we used it have been against Big 6 clubs where conceding was almost inevitable.

I’d also argue a midfield 3 of Billing, Lerma and Cook is a lot more dynamic than Surman, Arter and Wilshere. The latter were all left footed and despite different abilities levels, none had much forward drive. With our current 3, Cook can pick a forward pass while both Lerma and Billing have the pace and stamina to break into the final 3rd when giving the tactical freedom to do so.
 
Not an expert on tactics but as I think about this more I am starting to realize that the effectiveness of attack is dependent on everyone, not just the so-called "attacking" players.
So even making what may look like a more defensive substitution could (if it's the right choice) end up helping the attack.
I'm struggling to find the right image, and all I can think of is those big tunnel-boring machines. The attackers are like the teeth on the end of the machine. But without the motor to turn it, and the other structures to keep it from slipping backward, the teeth are useless.
In some cases, we'd be better off with fewer attackers and more people capable of controlling the ball and moving it forward.
What specific formation this is, I don't know, but I tend to agree that having Callum and Josh waiting around for balls that never come is not a good strategy.
 
Tinpot Club said:
I’m mainly referring to the general point that having more of the ball makes you less likely to concede than specifically playing a 3. Look at any league in the world and you’ll see the teams with most possession usually have the best defensive records.

I don’t really agree with your point about when we played a 3. The only season we played it regularly was the Wilshere season in which we had our highest finish! The other times we used it have been against Big 6 clubs where conceding was almost inevitable.

I’d also argue a midfield 3 of Billing, Lerma and Cook is a lot more dynamic than Surman, Arter and Wilshere. The latter were all left footed and despite different abilities levels, none had much forward drive. With our current 3, Cook can pick a forward pass while both Lerma and Billing have the pace and stamina to break into the final 3rd when giving the tactical freedom to do so.
Click to expand...
We had our highest finish in the wilshere season after dropping him and changing to our current system tbf.
 
Topfarrier said:
We had our highest finish in the wilshere season after dropping him and changing to our current system tbf.
Click to expand...

Except that is a complete lie. We came out of Christmas in tenth having beaten Swansea to have 24 points from our first 19 games. He got dropped after a dodgy Jan but then came back before breaking his ankle. Do we wipe those 24 points when he was outstanding because he lost form then got injured? To help suit your nonsensical argument?
 
Last edited:
Neil Dawson said:
Except that is a complete lie. We came out of Christmas in tenth having beaten Swansea to have 24 points from our first 19 games. He got dropped after a dodgy Jan but then came back before breaking his ankle. Do we wipe those 24 points when he was outstanding because he lost form then got injured? To help suit your nonsensical argument?
Click to expand...
He came back and played in a 2 Neil...honesty that selective memory of yours.
 
red_house said:
I've been sending them to

Mr N Dawson
The Ivory Tower
Bournemouth ;)

Enjoyed that podcast btw . Word's spreading about your constant moaning tactical analysis :grinning:
Click to expand...
It was lovely to be asked to do it. I’ve enjoyed listening to it for awhile and Sam does a great job putting it all together. We are lucky to have such a good podcast and YouTube channel... catches us up to some other clubs.
 
Topfarrier said:
You mean west moors answer didn't suit your argument Neil....in fairness all the teams you mentioned have a creative midfielder in a 3 ....its the only way this system works.....we don't have one....Dan Gosling is our most attack minded midfielder ffs.
Click to expand...
Harry Wilson? Or have Lerma and Cook sitting and let Billing get in the box... he has good touch and vision and should be Lampardesque on attacking crosses?
 
SlowDownDerek said:
I think we should aim for a more balanced view. Three games ago our defence was symptomatic of years of nepotism in our 'coaching staff'... park that because he's improved the defence ... now it's "we'll never score again if he doesn't rip up everything he believes in".

You'd think this was inconsistent but it isn't - he will without fail manipulate 'facts' and find a negative slant. One day we'll go down and he can pat himself on the back.
Click to expand...
It is really difficult to have a credible argument with somebody who paraphrases you incorrectly to make their own point.

I have never said we have fixed our defence. You did. I don’t think we have. I think we have just played the two bottom teams back to back Norwich and a Watford team that has scored five goals in ten games. In both games a lot of fans still thought our keeper was the best player. I still think we need a specialist defensive coach.

I also don’t think we need to rip everything up to score again. We scored six against Everton and Southampton with this formation. I think to get the best balance out of attack and defence we should play a 4-3-3 when attacking and a 4-5–1 without the ball. Like most other teams.

Maybe it helps you to misrepresent me so I’m easier to disagree with? Just seems a bit odd but I have pointed this out before.
 
Neil Dawson said:
And what about the performances and points when he played in a three. Did they not count to the best finish then?
Click to expand...
24 points from 19 games isn't exactly earth shattering is it?....we're on course for that now....you cant get away from the fact that we went on a terrible run from Jan to mid March ...when we had 26 points from 26 games ....we then dropped wilshere and went with a two for the rest of the season and finished really strongly to finish 9th....this is what happened Neil......I'll await your apology for the disgraceful lie accusation....:grinning:
 
Topfarrier said:
24 points from 19 games isn't exactly earth shattering is it?....we're on course for that now....you cant get away from the fact that we went on a terrible run from Jan to mid March ...when we had 26 points from 26 games ....we then dropped wilshere and went with a two for the rest of the season and finished really strongly to finish 9th....this is what happened Neil......I'll await your apology for the disgraceful lie accusation....:grinning:
Click to expand...
Just out of interest what is your objection to playing 3 in midfield? Is it that you think it makes us slow and predictable?

Do you find Man City, Liverpool and Leicester slow and predictable? Or is it only AFCB who are incapable of playing a 3? And if that is the case, why are AFCB not able to play this system when so many sides all round the world can?

I’ve been quite clear that I don’t think 4-3-3, 4-2-3-1 or a “proper no. 10” is the holy grail. I just get frustrated that our club’s DNA is so opposed to what the majority of clubs are doing. I’m not suggesting we should blindly copy other managers. I also think 4-4-2 has its place, especially if counter attacking is going to be effective. But we also need to recognise the vast majority of players under 28 are no longer comfortable in a 4-4-2.
 
Neil Dawson said:
It was lovely to be asked to do it. I’ve enjoyed listening to it for awhile and Sam does a great job putting it all together. We are lucky to have such a good podcast and YouTube channel... catches us up to some other clubs.
Click to expand...
Well done Neil! Listened to the podcast yesterday and it's great to be able to put a voice to the name. Not sure what I was expecting, but I think your poolside image threw me off somehow!
You've just about got me convinced that 4-3-3 is the way to go!
 
Tinpot Club said:
Just out of interest what is your objection to playing 3 in midfield? Is it that you think it makes us slow and predictable?

Do you find Man City, Liverpool and Leicester slow and predictable? Or is it only AFCB who are incapable of playing a 3? And if that is the case, why are AFCB not able to play this system when so many sides all round the world can?

I’ve been quite clear that I don’t think 4-3-3, 4-2-3-1 or a “proper no. 10” is the holy grail. I just get frustrated that our club’s DNA is so opposed to what the majority of clubs are doing. I’m not suggesting we should blindly copy other managers. I also think 4-4-2 has its place, especially if counter attacking is going to be effective. But we also need to recognise the vast majority of players under 28 are no longer comfortable in a 4-4-2.
Click to expand...
I've no objection...other than us not having a creative midfielder to make it work ....something the teams you mentioned all have.
 
Tinpot Club said:
Just out of interest what is your objection to playing 3 in midfield? Is it that you think it makes us slow and predictable?

Do you find Man City, Liverpool and Leicester slow and predictable? Or is it only AFCB who are incapable of playing a 3? And if that is the case, why are AFCB not able to play this system when so many sides all round the world can?

I’ve been quite clear that I don’t think 4-3-3, 4-2-3-1 or a “proper no. 10” is the holy grail. I just get frustrated that our club’s DNA is so opposed to what the majority of clubs are doing. I’m not suggesting we should blindly copy other managers. I also think 4-4-2 has its place, especially if counter attacking is going to be effective. But we also need to recognise the vast majority of players under 28 are no longer comfortable in a 4-4-2.
Click to expand...
All good points. I certainly wouldn’t play 4-3-3 every game even though it would be my preferred system for most. Give the opposing teams food for thought and make them tell their players ‘we are not sure how they will line up’.
We should also use different systems within games... something Eddie has done in stages, notably the season where we had the most comebacks... but has recently stopped again.

Contrary to what people may think I certainly don’t think there is a magic system out there but variety would be nice, particularly when we can see we are not getting the best out of our squad. Even including Tables request to shove Billing up there if we need a goal. Why not? We have done it before with Cookie. Better than drawing 0-0 with the two bottom teams isn’t it?
 
Neil Dawson said:
All good points. I certainly wouldn’t play 4-3-3 every game even though it would be my preferred system for most. Give the opposing teams food for thought and make them tell their players ‘we are not sure how they will line up’.
We should also use different systems within games... something Eddie has done in stages, notably the season where we had the most comebacks... but has recently stopped again.

Contrary to what people may think I certainly don’t think there is a magic system out there but variety would be nice, particularly when we can see we are not getting the best out of our squad. Even including Tables request to shove Billing up there if we need a goal. Why not? We have done it before with Cookie. Better than drawing 0-0 with the two bottom teams isn’t it?
Click to expand...
if we did start with 433 or 532 or 541 the players are well drilled to switch to a 442 at any point which gives us a plan b, personally I dont think we have the creative player yet to play a good 5 man midfield the closest might be billing ( untill l cook gets up to speed or Brooks comes back)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

;