With Hindsight

This Forum is the main messageboard to discuss all things Claret and Blue and beyond
Post Reply
MT03ALG
Posts: 2050
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 10:50 pm
Been Liked: 422 times
Has Liked: 4481 times
Location: COTTON TREE

With Hindsight

Post by MT03ALG » Sun Feb 21, 2021 5:30 pm

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

Rileybobs
Posts: 16681
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:37 pm
Been Liked: 6891 times
Has Liked: 1471 times
Location: Leeds

Re: With Hindsight

Post by Rileybobs » Sun Feb 21, 2021 5:36 pm

MT03ALG wrote:
Sun Feb 21, 2021 5:30 pm
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
So you'd have played 5 defenders against 1 forward? Seems sensible.
This user liked this post: Leisure

Goody1975
Posts: 2840
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:38 am
Been Liked: 978 times
Has Liked: 264 times
Location: Burnley

Re: With Hindsight

Post by Goody1975 » Sun Feb 21, 2021 5:39 pm

MT03ALG wrote:
Sun Feb 21, 2021 5:30 pm
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
The idea is you play two central defenders against one forward allowing your full backs to push forward.

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

diamondpocket
Posts: 1367
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2016 11:18 pm
Been Liked: 254 times
Has Liked: 215 times

Re: With Hindsight

Post by diamondpocket » Sun Feb 21, 2021 5:40 pm

Full backs are clearly seen as wingers in his new formation! Seems pretty obvious.
These 2 users liked this post: DomBFC1882 MT03ALG

Rileybobs
Posts: 16681
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:37 pm
Been Liked: 6891 times
Has Liked: 1471 times
Location: Leeds

Re: With Hindsight

Post by Rileybobs » Sun Feb 21, 2021 5:43 pm

diamondpocket wrote:
Sun Feb 21, 2021 5:40 pm
Full backs are clearly seen as wingers in his new formation! Seems pretty obvious.
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.
These 2 users liked this post: bfcmik levraiclaret

Steve1956
Posts: 17178
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2016 1:57 pm
Been Liked: 6463 times
Has Liked: 2896 times
Location: Fife

Re: With Hindsight

Post by Steve1956 » Sun Feb 21, 2021 5:47 pm

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

Rumbletonk
Posts: 814
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2016 5:25 pm
Been Liked: 313 times
Has Liked: 285 times

Re: With Hindsight

Post by Rumbletonk » Sun Feb 21, 2021 5:51 pm

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.
These 3 users liked this post: Leisure levraiclaret BertiesBeehole

Stockbrokerbelt
Posts: 551
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:43 am
Been Liked: 221 times
Has Liked: 137 times

Re: With Hindsight

Post by Stockbrokerbelt » Sun Feb 21, 2021 5:53 pm

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.........

diamondpocket
Posts: 1367
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2016 11:18 pm
Been Liked: 254 times
Has Liked: 215 times

Re: With Hindsight

Post by diamondpocket » Sun Feb 21, 2021 6:02 pm

Rileybobs wrote:
Sun Feb 21, 2021 5:43 pm
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.
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.

Rileybobs
Posts: 16681
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:37 pm
Been Liked: 6891 times
Has Liked: 1471 times
Location: Leeds

Re: With Hindsight

Post by Rileybobs » Sun Feb 21, 2021 6:08 pm

diamondpocket wrote:
Sun Feb 21, 2021 6:02 pm
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.
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.
This user liked this post: levraiclaret

MACCA
Posts: 15591
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:10 am
Been Liked: 4360 times

Re: With Hindsight

Post by MACCA » Sun Feb 21, 2021 6:08 pm

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.
These 2 users liked this post: mill hill claret DomBFC1882

Burnley1989
Posts: 7345
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2018 2:19 am
Been Liked: 2272 times
Has Liked: 2153 times

Re: With Hindsight

Post by Burnley1989 » Sun Feb 21, 2021 6:13 pm

Steve1956 wrote:
Sun Feb 21, 2021 5:47 pm
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
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 :lol:

whiffa
Posts: 1349
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2016 1:58 pm
Been Liked: 504 times
Has Liked: 2560 times

Re: With Hindsight

Post by whiffa » Sun Feb 21, 2021 6:33 pm

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
This user liked this post: MT03ALG

warksclaret
Posts: 6594
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 7:13 pm
Been Liked: 1676 times
Has Liked: 754 times

Re: With Hindsight

Post by warksclaret » Sun Feb 21, 2021 6:38 pm

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

Nonayforever
Posts: 3271
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 8:15 pm
Been Liked: 690 times
Has Liked: 172 times

Re: With Hindsight

Post by Nonayforever » Sun Feb 21, 2021 6:43 pm

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.
This user liked this post: DomBFC1882

tiger76
Posts: 25697
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 9:43 pm
Been Liked: 4644 times
Has Liked: 9849 times
Location: Glasgow

Re: With Hindsight

Post by tiger76 » Sun Feb 21, 2021 6:55 pm

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.

FCBurnley
Posts: 9695
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:56 pm
Been Liked: 1967 times
Has Liked: 1132 times

Re: With Hindsight

Post by FCBurnley » Sun Feb 21, 2021 7:01 pm

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.

BOYSIE31
Posts: 2357
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:46 pm
Been Liked: 264 times
Has Liked: 1111 times

Re: With Hindsight

Post by BOYSIE31 » Sun Feb 21, 2021 7:24 pm

Sign some decent players

Papabendi
Posts: 1572
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:29 pm
Been Liked: 346 times
Has Liked: 48 times

Re: With Hindsight

Post by Papabendi » Sun Feb 21, 2021 7:31 pm

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

elwaclaret
Posts: 8922
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:57 am
Been Liked: 1983 times
Has Liked: 2872 times

Re: With Hindsight

Post by elwaclaret » Sun Feb 21, 2021 7:50 pm

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.

KlyBfc
Posts: 945
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 7:38 pm
Been Liked: 211 times
Has Liked: 126 times

Re: With Hindsight

Post by KlyBfc » Sun Feb 21, 2021 8:07 pm

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.
This user liked this post: Elizabeth

bfccrazy
Posts: 5158
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2016 1:18 pm
Been Liked: 2103 times
Has Liked: 416 times
Location: Burnley

Re: With Hindsight

Post by bfccrazy » Sun Feb 21, 2021 8:23 pm

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.

Jimmymaccer
Posts: 2129
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2016 7:18 am
Been Liked: 594 times
Has Liked: 193 times

Re: With Hindsight

Post by Jimmymaccer » 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!!!!!!

tiger76
Posts: 25697
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 9:43 pm
Been Liked: 4644 times
Has Liked: 9849 times
Location: Glasgow

Re: With Hindsight

Post by tiger76 » Sun Feb 21, 2021 8:30 pm

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!!!!!!
With hindsight don't gamble. :)

huw.Y.WattfromWare
Posts: 3393
Joined: Fri May 08, 2020 7:04 pm
Been Liked: 1004 times
Has Liked: 905 times

Re: With Hindsight

Post by huw.Y.WattfromWare » Sun Feb 21, 2021 8:41 pm

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.

BurnleyFC
Posts: 5057
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:51 am
Been Liked: 1596 times
Has Liked: 888 times

Re: With Hindsight

Post by BurnleyFC » Sun Feb 21, 2021 8:44 pm

Steve1956 wrote:
Sun Feb 21, 2021 5:47 pm
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
And Westwood and have gone 9 versus 10.

superdimitri
Posts: 4936
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 6:04 pm
Been Liked: 1005 times
Has Liked: 725 times

Re: With Hindsight

Post by superdimitri » Sun Feb 21, 2021 8:46 pm

Two factors. Not good enough players on the bench and not wanting to lose.

Jakubclaret
Posts: 9434
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 10:47 pm
Been Liked: 1179 times
Has Liked: 778 times

Re: With Hindsight

Post by Jakubclaret » Sun Feb 21, 2021 8:51 pm

diamondpocket wrote:
Sun Feb 21, 2021 6:02 pm
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.
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.

levraiclaret
Posts: 1566
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:40 am
Been Liked: 428 times
Has Liked: 1460 times
Location: Leicestershire
Contact:

Re: With Hindsight

Post by levraiclaret » Sun Feb 21, 2021 8:53 pm

BOYSIE31 wrote:
Sun Feb 21, 2021 7:24 pm
Sign some decent players
The window is closed.

jojomk1
Posts: 4735
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2016 11:20 am
Been Liked: 836 times
Has Liked: 574 times

Re: With Hindsight

Post by jojomk1 » Sun Feb 21, 2021 9:10 pm

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

Claret Toni
Posts: 507
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 3:44 pm
Been Liked: 156 times
Has Liked: 106 times

Re: With Hindsight

Post by Claret Toni » Sun Feb 21, 2021 9:38 pm

jojomk1 wrote:
Sun Feb 21, 2021 9:10 pm
Are people seriously suggesting that Dyche would consider changing from 4-4-2
It was good enough for Mike Bassett.

Have we been linked with Ryan Hedges yet?

MT03ALG
Posts: 2050
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 10:50 pm
Been Liked: 422 times
Has Liked: 4481 times
Location: COTTON TREE

Re: With Hindsight

Post by MT03ALG » Sun Feb 21, 2021 9:59 pm

Rileybobs wrote:
Sun Feb 21, 2021 5:36 pm
So you'd have played 5 defenders against 1 forward? Seems sensible.
The clue is in the formation: 3-4-1-2 NOT 5-2-1-2

Rileybobs
Posts: 16681
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:37 pm
Been Liked: 6891 times
Has Liked: 1471 times
Location: Leeds

Re: With Hindsight

Post by Rileybobs » Sun Feb 21, 2021 10:04 pm

MT03ALG wrote:
Sun Feb 21, 2021 9:59 pm
The clue is in the formation: 3-4-1-2 NOT 5-2-1-2
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.

MT03ALG
Posts: 2050
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 10:50 pm
Been Liked: 422 times
Has Liked: 4481 times
Location: COTTON TREE

Re: With Hindsight

Post by MT03ALG » Sun Feb 21, 2021 10:06 pm

You need to watch Lawton and Taylor play

Bosscat
Posts: 25359
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2018 9:51 am
Been Liked: 8426 times
Has Liked: 18093 times

Re: With Hindsight

Post by Bosscat » Sun Feb 21, 2021 10:20 pm

MT03ALG wrote:
Sun Feb 21, 2021 10:06 pm
You need to watch Lawton and Taylor play
Tommy Lawton 🤔

evensteadiereddie
Posts: 9585
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:45 pm
Been Liked: 3146 times
Has Liked: 10202 times
Location: Staffordshire

Re: With Hindsight

Post by evensteadiereddie » Sun Feb 21, 2021 10:20 pm

We've signed Tommy Lawton ? Dyche out !

Snap, Bossat.

diamondpocket
Posts: 1367
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2016 11:18 pm
Been Liked: 254 times
Has Liked: 215 times

Re: With Hindsight

Post by diamondpocket » Sun Feb 21, 2021 10:28 pm

Jakubclaret wrote:
Sun Feb 21, 2021 8:51 pm
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.
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.

Bosscat
Posts: 25359
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2018 9:51 am
Been Liked: 8426 times
Has Liked: 18093 times

Re: With Hindsight

Post by Bosscat » Sun Feb 21, 2021 10:29 pm

evensteadiereddie wrote:
Sun Feb 21, 2021 10:20 pm
We've signed Tommy Lawton ? Dyche out !

Snap, Bossat.
👍🤣👍

Rileybobs
Posts: 16681
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:37 pm
Been Liked: 6891 times
Has Liked: 1471 times
Location: Leeds

Re: With Hindsight

Post by Rileybobs » Sun Feb 21, 2021 10:32 pm

diamondpocket wrote:
Sun Feb 21, 2021 10:28 pm
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.
If Tarkowski, Mee, Long, Lowton and Taylor were playing then we would have 5 defenders on the pitch. That’s just a fact.

tiger76
Posts: 25697
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 9:43 pm
Been Liked: 4644 times
Has Liked: 9849 times
Location: Glasgow

Re: With Hindsight

Post by tiger76 » Sun Feb 21, 2021 10:34 pm

Claret Toni wrote:
Sun Feb 21, 2021 9:38 pm
It was good enough for Mike Bassett.

Have we been linked with Ryan Hedges yet?
Why not we've already got Josh Benson, so why not go the whole hog. :)

diamondpocket
Posts: 1367
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2016 11:18 pm
Been Liked: 254 times
Has Liked: 215 times

Re: With Hindsight

Post by diamondpocket » Sun Feb 21, 2021 10:37 pm

Rileybobs wrote:
Sun Feb 21, 2021 10:32 pm
If Tarkowski, Mee, Long, Lowton and Taylor were playing then we would have 5 defenders on the pitch. That’s just a fact.
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!!!

Bosscat
Posts: 25359
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2018 9:51 am
Been Liked: 8426 times
Has Liked: 18093 times

Re: With Hindsight

Post by Bosscat » Sun Feb 21, 2021 10:38 pm

tiger76 wrote:
Sun Feb 21, 2021 10:34 pm
Why not we've already got Josh Benson, so why not go the whole hog. :)
We have 11 "Players" on the pitch 🤔

Rileybobs
Posts: 16681
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:37 pm
Been Liked: 6891 times
Has Liked: 1471 times
Location: Leeds

Re: With Hindsight

Post by Rileybobs » Sun Feb 21, 2021 10:40 pm

diamondpocket wrote:
Sun Feb 21, 2021 10:37 pm
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!!!
In which case it wasn’t 4 defenders defending against 1 attacker in the first place. So what’s your point?

diamondpocket
Posts: 1367
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2016 11:18 pm
Been Liked: 254 times
Has Liked: 215 times

Re: With Hindsight

Post by diamondpocket » Sun Feb 21, 2021 10:40 pm

Rileybobs wrote:
Sun Feb 21, 2021 6:08 pm
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.
Not if we had won!

diamondpocket
Posts: 1367
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2016 11:18 pm
Been Liked: 254 times
Has Liked: 215 times

Re: With Hindsight

Post by diamondpocket » Sun Feb 21, 2021 10:49 pm

Rileybobs wrote:
Sun Feb 21, 2021 10:40 pm
In which case it wasn’t 4 defenders defending against 1 attacker in the first place. So what’s your point?
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

Rileybobs
Posts: 16681
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:37 pm
Been Liked: 6891 times
Has Liked: 1471 times
Location: Leeds

Re: With Hindsight

Post by Rileybobs » Sun Feb 21, 2021 10:55 pm

diamondpocket wrote:
Sun Feb 21, 2021 10:49 pm
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 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.

Jakubclaret
Posts: 9434
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 10:47 pm
Been Liked: 1179 times
Has Liked: 778 times

Re: With Hindsight

Post by Jakubclaret » Sun Feb 21, 2021 11:02 pm

Rileybobs wrote:
Sun Feb 21, 2021 10:32 pm
If Tarkowski, Mee, Long, Lowton and Taylor were playing then we would have 5 defenders on the pitch. That’s just a fact.
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.

Rileybobs
Posts: 16681
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:37 pm
Been Liked: 6891 times
Has Liked: 1471 times
Location: Leeds

Re: With Hindsight

Post by Rileybobs » Sun Feb 21, 2021 11:08 pm

I feel like Jack Nicholson‘s character in One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest.
This user liked this post: Swizzlestick

Jakubclaret
Posts: 9434
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 10:47 pm
Been Liked: 1179 times
Has Liked: 778 times

Re: With Hindsight

Post by Jakubclaret » Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:26 am

diamondpocket wrote:
Sun Feb 21, 2021 10:28 pm
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.
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.
This user liked this post: MT03ALG

Post Reply