With Hindsight
-
- Posts: 2084
- Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 10:50 pm
- Been Liked: 429 times
- Has Liked: 4555 times
- Location: COTTON TREE
With Hindsight
With hindsight, as soon as WBA went down to 10 men, why play 4 defenders against 1 forward ?
I would have done the following:
1. Take off Brownhill.
2. Put Long on.
3. Play 3-4-2-1
Long - Tarkowski - Mee
Lowton - Cork - Westwood - Taylor
McNeill
Vydra - Rodriguez
I would have done the following:
1. Take off Brownhill.
2. Put Long on.
3. Play 3-4-2-1
Long - Tarkowski - Mee
Lowton - Cork - Westwood - Taylor
McNeill
Vydra - Rodriguez
-
- Posts: 16844
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:37 pm
- Been Liked: 6951 times
- Has Liked: 1479 times
- Location: Leeds
Re: With Hindsight
So you'd have played 5 defenders against 1 forward? Seems sensible.MT03ALG wrote: ↑Sun Feb 21, 2021 5:30 pmWith hindsight, as soon as WBA went down to 10 men, why play 4 defenders against 1 forward ?
I would have done the following:
1. Take off Brownhill.
2. Put Long on.
3. Play 3-4-2-1
Long - Tarkowski - Mee
Lowton - Cork - Westwood - Taylor
McNeill
Vydra - Rodriguez
This user liked this post: Leisure
-
- Posts: 2899
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:38 am
- Been Liked: 987 times
- Has Liked: 264 times
- Location: Burnley
Re: With Hindsight
The idea is you play two central defenders against one forward allowing your full backs to push forward.MT03ALG wrote: ↑Sun Feb 21, 2021 5:30 pmWith hindsight, as soon as WBA went down to 10 men, why play 4 defenders against 1 forward ?
I would have done the following:
1. Take off Brownhill.
2. Put Long on.
3. Play 3-4-2-1
Long - Tarkowski - Mee
Lowton - Cork - Westwood - Taylor
McNeill
Vydra - Rodriguez
If you sub Brownhill for Long you make us far more defensive, the issue wasn't particularly personnel or formations but the inability for the eleven on the field to make simple five yard passes or play at a tempo to open WBA up.
This user liked this post: levraiclaret
-
- Posts: 1367
- Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2016 11:18 pm
- Been Liked: 254 times
- Has Liked: 215 times
Re: With Hindsight
Full backs are clearly seen as wingers in his new formation! Seems pretty obvious.
These 2 users liked this post: DomBFC1882 MT03ALG
-
- Posts: 16844
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:37 pm
- Been Liked: 6951 times
- Has Liked: 1479 times
- Location: Leeds
Re: With Hindsight
I could say we should have brought Peacock-Farrell on to play up top, it wouldn't change the fact that he's a goalkeeper.diamondpocket wrote: ↑Sun Feb 21, 2021 5:40 pmFull backs are clearly seen as wingers in his new formation! Seems pretty obvious.
These 2 users liked this post: bfcmik levraiclaret
-
- Posts: 17246
- Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2016 1:57 pm
- Been Liked: 6485 times
- Has Liked: 2910 times
- Location: Fife
Re: With Hindsight
I'd have just took Brownhill off...not bring anyone on...play 10 a side it might have been more of a spectacle with the teams evened up
-
- Posts: 814
- Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2016 5:25 pm
- Been Liked: 313 times
- Has Liked: 285 times
Re: With Hindsight
No formation changes would have done anything than lose the game. Too many players having a terrible day at the office. some of the stray passing was truly dreadful. It was an awful display from us but, as difficult as it is to watch, it happens.
We were utter crap though.
We were utter crap though.
These 3 users liked this post: Leisure levraiclaret BertiesBeehole
-
- Posts: 555
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:43 am
- Been Liked: 228 times
- Has Liked: 137 times
Re: With Hindsight
Just think in the new world of ALK we can get rid of our manager & coaching staff & leave it to all the experts on here, if Garlick had used this obvious font of football experts he could have been the owner of at least a premier league winner & champions league finalist.........
-
- Posts: 1367
- Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2016 11:18 pm
- Been Liked: 254 times
- Has Liked: 215 times
Re: With Hindsight
Yeah but you didn't mean that though did you or else you wouldn't have added the fact there was 1 striker. Therefore, it reads as them being used as defenders when they weren't, as intended in the OP, they were used as wingers.
-
- Posts: 16844
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:37 pm
- Been Liked: 6951 times
- Has Liked: 1479 times
- Location: Leeds
Re: With Hindsight
Our 4 defenders weren't playing in traditional defensive positions following the sending off as things were. Dyche would have got hammered for bringing on Long (a defender) for Brownhill (a midfielder), and rightly so.diamondpocket wrote: ↑Sun Feb 21, 2021 6:02 pmYeah but you didn't mean that though did you or else you wouldn't have added the fact there was 1 striker. Therefore, it reads as them being used as defenders when they weren't, as intended in the OP, they were used as wingers.
This user liked this post: levraiclaret
Re: With Hindsight
With hindsight we should have strengthened the squad in the last 2 or 3 windows..
Or like you say at least tried something different the last 30 minutes v WBA
Last 3 home games have been quite disappointing in terms of points gained, 3 relegation rivals played, and didnt look capable of beating any of them.
Or like you say at least tried something different the last 30 minutes v WBA
Last 3 home games have been quite disappointing in terms of points gained, 3 relegation rivals played, and didnt look capable of beating any of them.
These 2 users liked this post: mill hill claret DomBFC1882
-
- Posts: 7389
- Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2018 2:19 am
- Been Liked: 2293 times
- Has Liked: 2166 times
Re: With Hindsight
Exactly what I’ve been saying! Apparently it’s much harder to play against 10, perhaps we should have taken 2 off? Would make it even harder
Re: With Hindsight
I'd have taken either Westwood or Cork off for Bardsley, put Bardsley RB - pushed Lowton to RW, then put McNeill into a number 10 role and gone a rough 3 at the back - was just my thought at the time, but we obviously had very few options. Something like this with Taylor and Lowts pushing on:
------------------Jay - Vyds
-------------------McNeill
Taylor - Westwood/Cork - Brownhill - Lowton
--------------Mee - Tarky - Bardo
------------------Jay - Vyds
-------------------McNeill
Taylor - Westwood/Cork - Brownhill - Lowton
--------------Mee - Tarky - Bardo
This user liked this post: MT03ALG
-
- Posts: 6679
- Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 7:13 pm
- Been Liked: 1696 times
- Has Liked: 789 times
Re: With Hindsight
Its all academic if professionals cant to the bare basics. What does SD keep going about "getting the basics right. I am afraid 7 or 8 players had their worst game of the season, all coinciding with yesterday
-
- Posts: 3313
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 8:15 pm
- Been Liked: 699 times
- Has Liked: 174 times
Re: With Hindsight
But Dyche didn't need the help of hindsight.
Westwood needed hooking. There were plenty of options against 10 men.
If Dyche really believed that some of his players were tired, why not sub them. Jay & Vyds couldn't be tired - they have hardly played in the last 2 seasons. Taylor, Cork & Brownhill couldn't be tired - they have only just returned.
If the midfield needed help Bardsley could have stepped in & Lowton moved forward.We had plenty of options - Dyche didn't take any.
Westwood needed hooking. There were plenty of options against 10 men.
If Dyche really believed that some of his players were tired, why not sub them. Jay & Vyds couldn't be tired - they have hardly played in the last 2 seasons. Taylor, Cork & Brownhill couldn't be tired - they have only just returned.
If the midfield needed help Bardsley could have stepped in & Lowton moved forward.We had plenty of options - Dyche didn't take any.
This user liked this post: DomBFC1882
-
- Posts: 25697
- Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 9:43 pm
- Been Liked: 4644 times
- Has Liked: 9849 times
- Location: Glasgow
Re: With Hindsight
With hindsight it's a good job SD binned off the cup, just imagine how we'd cope with any more games, we're down to the bare bones as it is.
And I was one of those who wanted us to progress in the Bournemouth tie, but we're running on empty due to the glut of games and not being able to rest players when they need it.
And I was one of those who wanted us to progress in the Bournemouth tie, but we're running on empty due to the glut of games and not being able to rest players when they need it.
Re: With Hindsight
Would have played Long upfront. Might have won the odd header and given the central defenders something to think about. Fill the box and get crosses in. Will never forget Mike England terrorizing our defense when Rovers played him up front. Think they beat us like 4-1.
Re: With Hindsight
Sign some decent players
Re: With Hindsight
You generally beat ten men with width. If we’d had two players hugging each touch line ready to receive the ball, run at defenders and stretch West Brom, we may have had a better chance.
This user liked this post: MT03ALG
-
- Posts: 8985
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:57 am
- Been Liked: 2009 times
- Has Liked: 2904 times
Re: With Hindsight
I know I’m going into the firing line for the DMc fan club to go ballistic but if I had decided to chase the three points I think I’d have subbed McNiell for Bardsley, pushed Brownhill into a strict attacking midfield in front of Westwood and Cork and pushed Lawton up the left. The high balls into the area were negated by the wind and fat Sam knowing our main tactic and getting it right. We could have kept running the channels but would have the instant support in the centre, ready for Westwood and Cork to catch up. Brownhill offers a range threat and a third body in the box and something completely different than what FatSam had prepared them to face.
We were off the pace and West Brom really bought into FSA’s game plan and we ESCAPED with a point that is far more use to us than currently to our opponents, so ended a Pyrrhic victory for SD and Burnley at best, but a win is a win.
We were off the pace and West Brom really bought into FSA’s game plan and we ESCAPED with a point that is far more use to us than currently to our opponents, so ended a Pyrrhic victory for SD and Burnley at best, but a win is a win.
Re: With Hindsight
I’m not convinced there was anything that was going to change that performance yesterday barring the availability of 3 decent subs (which we didn’t have), putting others out of position wouldn’t have helped, it was just a rank performance.
I do find the identification of Brownhill performance alone strange though. He was the only player who played a defence splitting pass when he fed Taylor for the ball across the box which Jay just missed and he was at least the one who drove forward with the ball a few times (winning us at least one free kick and nearly a possible penalty). Whilst he wasn’t great he was certainly far from the the worst player in claret and blue on that pitch and offered more than a few.
I do find the identification of Brownhill performance alone strange though. He was the only player who played a defence splitting pass when he fed Taylor for the ball across the box which Jay just missed and he was at least the one who drove forward with the ball a few times (winning us at least one free kick and nearly a possible penalty). Whilst he wasn’t great he was certainly far from the the worst player in claret and blue on that pitch and offered more than a few.
This user liked this post: Elizabeth
-
- Posts: 5163
- Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2016 1:18 pm
- Been Liked: 2104 times
- Has Liked: 416 times
- Location: Burnley
Re: With Hindsight
So you don’t want 4 defenders against 1 attacker .... so you combat this by having 5 defenders on the pitch against 1 attacker.
Then play a 3-4-2-1 system with 2 up top.
Tell me more about your tactical genius.
Then play a 3-4-2-1 system with 2 up top.
Tell me more about your tactical genius.
-
- Posts: 2135
- Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2016 7:18 am
- Been Liked: 597 times
- Has Liked: 194 times
Re: With Hindsight
.......I can’t believe I was thinking it was my lucky day when at lunchtime I put £20 on a 3-1 win......to find I’d hit the wrong button on the machine in the bookies.....and had put 3-1 with Vyds to get the first goal........125-1....when it would be a Barnes JayRod combo starter....when I saw Vyds starting.........couldn’t believe my luck......
With hindsight I should have known what was about to be served up!!!!!!
With hindsight I should have known what was about to be served up!!!!!!
-
- Posts: 25697
- Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 9:43 pm
- Been Liked: 4644 times
- Has Liked: 9849 times
- Location: Glasgow
Re: With Hindsight
With hindsight don't gamble.Jimmymaccer wrote: ↑Sun Feb 21, 2021 8:28 pm.......I can’t believe I was thinking it was my lucky day when at lunchtime I put £20 on a 3-1 win......to find I’d hit the wrong button on the machine in the bookies.....and had put 3-1 with Vyds to get the first goal........125-1....when it would be a Barnes JayRod combo starter....when I saw Vyds starting.........couldn’t believe my luck......
With hindsight I should have known what was about to be served up!!!!!!
-
- Posts: 3393
- Joined: Fri May 08, 2020 7:04 pm
- Been Liked: 1004 times
- Has Liked: 905 times
Re: With Hindsight
It only needed one change. Dwight to stay on his wing and attack his FB.
Any team down to 10 needs stretching. Dwight infield played right into their hands.
In our club I can only guess this comes from SD but after he was average for so long he came back totally refreshed and back to his best after his injury break. Whilst not playing poorly he has slid infield and he has no impact from there.
Any team down to 10 needs stretching. Dwight infield played right into their hands.
In our club I can only guess this comes from SD but after he was average for so long he came back totally refreshed and back to his best after his injury break. Whilst not playing poorly he has slid infield and he has no impact from there.
-
- Posts: 4955
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 6:04 pm
- Been Liked: 1007 times
- Has Liked: 725 times
Re: With Hindsight
Two factors. Not good enough players on the bench and not wanting to lose.
-
- Posts: 9459
- Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 10:47 pm
- Been Liked: 1183 times
- Has Liked: 778 times
Re: With Hindsight
He didn’t factor in the formation change, you might play with 5 defenders but not necessarily position them there, it’s easy to distort interpretations to your own liking.diamondpocket wrote: ↑Sun Feb 21, 2021 6:02 pmYeah but you didn't mean that though did you or else you wouldn't have added the fact there was 1 striker. Therefore, it reads as them being used as defenders when they weren't, as intended in the OP, they were used as wingers.
-
- Posts: 1566
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:40 am
- Been Liked: 428 times
- Has Liked: 1460 times
- Location: Leicestershire
- Contact:
Re: With Hindsight
Are people seriously suggesting that Dyche would consider changing from 4-4-2
We play the same formation every season away at Man City and lose 5-0 each time !
But Sean sticks to his Plan A - it's the future
We play the same formation every season away at Man City and lose 5-0 each time !
But Sean sticks to his Plan A - it's the future
-
- Posts: 512
- Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 3:44 pm
- Been Liked: 156 times
- Has Liked: 107 times
-
- Posts: 16844
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:37 pm
- Been Liked: 6951 times
- Has Liked: 1479 times
- Location: Leeds
Re: With Hindsight
I understand the formation, the lesser spotted 3-4-1-2 - something I’m sure the lads have worked tirelessly on in training. But your suggestion is to take off a more offensive player for a more defensive player. Which would leave defenders accounting for half of our outfield players.
Barmy suggestion.
-
- Posts: 2084
- Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 10:50 pm
- Been Liked: 429 times
- Has Liked: 4555 times
- Location: COTTON TREE
Re: With Hindsight
You need to watch Lawton and Taylor play
-
- Posts: 9599
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:45 pm
- Been Liked: 3148 times
- Has Liked: 10237 times
- Location: Staffordshire
Re: With Hindsight
We've signed Tommy Lawton ? Dyche out !
Snap, Bossat.
Snap, Bossat.
-
- Posts: 1367
- Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2016 11:18 pm
- Been Liked: 254 times
- Has Liked: 215 times
Re: With Hindsight
It wasn't an interpretation. The formation is laid out for all to see in the OP, the 2 full backs are intended as midfielders. If he had suggested there were 5 defenders on the pitch then he wouldn't have added the comment about 5 defenders + 1 ATTACKER.Jakubclaret wrote: ↑Sun Feb 21, 2021 8:51 pmHe didn’t factor in the formation change, you might play with 5 defenders but not necessarily position them there, it’s easy to distort interpretations to your own liking.
Re: With Hindsight
evensteadiereddie wrote: ↑Sun Feb 21, 2021 10:20 pmWe've signed Tommy Lawton ? Dyche out !
Snap, Bossat.
-
- Posts: 16844
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:37 pm
- Been Liked: 6951 times
- Has Liked: 1479 times
- Location: Leeds
Re: With Hindsight
If Tarkowski, Mee, Long, Lowton and Taylor were playing then we would have 5 defenders on the pitch. That’s just a fact.diamondpocket wrote: ↑Sun Feb 21, 2021 10:28 pmIt wasn't an interpretation. The formation is laid out for all to see in the OP, the 2 full backs are intended as midfielders. If he had suggested there were 5 defenders on the pitch then he wouldn't have added the comment about 5 defenders + 1 ATTACKER.
-
- Posts: 25697
- Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 9:43 pm
- Been Liked: 4644 times
- Has Liked: 9849 times
- Location: Glasgow
Re: With Hindsight
Why not we've already got Josh Benson, so why not go the whole hog.Claret Toni wrote: ↑Sun Feb 21, 2021 9:38 pmIt was good enough for Mike Bassett.
Have we been linked with Ryan Hedges yet?
-
- Posts: 1367
- Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2016 11:18 pm
- Been Liked: 254 times
- Has Liked: 215 times
Re: With Hindsight
We are not discussing this FACT. And you know it. Read our previous comments before we start repeating the same conversation. It would not have been 5 defenders defending against 1 attacker!!!
-
- Posts: 16844
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:37 pm
- Been Liked: 6951 times
- Has Liked: 1479 times
- Location: Leeds
Re: With Hindsight
In which case it wasn’t 4 defenders defending against 1 attacker in the first place. So what’s your point?diamondpocket wrote: ↑Sun Feb 21, 2021 10:37 pmWe are not discussing this FACT. And you know it. Read our previous comments before we start repeating the same conversation. It would not have been 5 defenders defending against 1 attacker!!!
-
- Posts: 1367
- Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2016 11:18 pm
- Been Liked: 254 times
- Has Liked: 215 times
-
- Posts: 1367
- Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2016 11:18 pm
- Been Liked: 254 times
- Has Liked: 215 times
Re: With Hindsight
There isn't a point. I was initially commenting on your 5 defenders against 1 attacker comment but as could be seen from the OP it wouldn't have been like that. It would have been 3 central defenders against the 1 attacker. Obviously, if in this hypothetical system there had been play from WBA, Lowts & Taylor would have probably helped out defensively like our wingers usually do but they would have been wingers principally and probably the 2 central midfielders would have been held responsible for opposition midfield runners and counter attacks as well as the 3 central defenders so the wingers would be left freer and not has as much defensive responsibility. The OP seemed to be suggesting more width was needed to open up WBA's defence a bit more and offered this solution with the players we had available.
I'm not saying the idea is a good one. I just thought it was obvious the OP was showing them as wingers, not defenders in that system, which you wanted to point out was a silly idea having 5 defenders against 1 attacker on the pitch in that way. I just didn't see it that way. Nothing more, nothing sinister.
This user liked this post: MT03ALG
-
- Posts: 16844
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:37 pm
- Been Liked: 6951 times
- Has Liked: 1479 times
- Location: Leeds
Re: With Hindsight
This is totally pointless. The OP asked why did we play 4 defenders against 1 forward and as an alternative suggested playing 5 defenders against 1 forward. I pointed out the lack of logic. That’s pretty much all there is to this.diamondpocket wrote: ↑Sun Feb 21, 2021 10:49 pmThere isn't a point. I was initially commenting on your 5 defenders against 1 attacker comment but as could be seen from the OP it wouldn't have been like that. It would have been 3 central defenders against the 1 attacker. Obviously, if in this hypothetical system there had been play from WBA, Lowts & Taylor would have probably helped out defensively like our wingers usually do but they would have been wingers principally and probably the 2 central midfielders would have been held responsible for opposition midfield runners and counter attacks as well as the 3 central defenders so the wingers would be left freer and not has as much defensive responsibility. The OP seemed to be suggesting more width was needed to open up WBA's defence a bit more and offered this solution with the players we had available.
I'm not saying the idea is a good one. I just thought it was obvious the OP was showing them as wingers, not defenders in that system, which you wanted to point out was a silly idea having 5 defenders against 1 attacker on the pitch in that way. I just didn't see it that way. Nothing more, nothing sinister.
-
- Posts: 9459
- Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 10:47 pm
- Been Liked: 1183 times
- Has Liked: 778 times
Re: With Hindsight
Yes but you have interpreted the formation changing to accommodate the 5 defenders, 3 defenders & also took 2 defenders being shuttled onto the flank providing overlaps, despite the position of the players (2) the 2 would have been deployed further up the pitch to provide more attacking impetus, try to disregard the players natural positions & place them somewhere else in the suggested formation & you’ll probably understand the idea.
-
- Posts: 16844
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:37 pm
- Been Liked: 6951 times
- Has Liked: 1479 times
- Location: Leeds
Re: With Hindsight
I feel like Jack Nicholson‘s character in One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest.
This user liked this post: Swizzlestick
-
- Posts: 9459
- Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 10:47 pm
- Been Liked: 1183 times
- Has Liked: 778 times
Re: With Hindsight
True, it should have been self explanatory with the suggested formation being the clincher, we’ve both tried to explain the concept there’s nothing more I can do if it can’t be grasped.diamondpocket wrote: ↑Sun Feb 21, 2021 10:28 pmIt wasn't an interpretation. The formation is laid out for all to see in the OP, the 2 full backs are intended as midfielders. If he had suggested there were 5 defenders on the pitch then he wouldn't have added the comment about 5 defenders + 1 ATTACKER.
This user liked this post: MT03ALG