But if you want some bad news, Critchley’s history with limited teams (which is clearly what we have, especially when Willock is so woefully out of form and Chair seems to be following him) is 4-4-2 with a double 6. Not pretty in any way. Might be hampered by the fact that we don’t have 2 strikers.[/QUOTE] 4-4-2 doesn't need to be negative, at the least it means 2 are up front, if not 2 or 3 additional midfielders. We tend to have 1 upfront with the next nearest 40 yards away.
That's the frustrating thing, so many crosses but you've got Roberts waiting on the edge of the box waiting for the ball to come to him. It's a shame Amos wasn't playing, he had the knack of arriving late in the box last season for a few goals.
https://www.westlondonsport.com/qpr...c&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=socialnetwork For me, the quote that jumped out as worrying to me is; “I wanted to bring some energy and life at the top end of the pitch and I felt we did that." Really?
When I saw last night's line-up, I posted something about there being a lot of pressure on Field because I thought we'd be playing something like a 4-1-4-1. Of course, what transpired was that Iroegbunam was completely wasted as a second holding midfielder alongside Field. When he finally got on the ball after about 25 minutes I said to my son that I'd forgotten he was playing. On three occasions in the first half we got to the by-line and pulled low crosses back to the penalty spot crying out for someone running on from midfield but there was nobody to be seen, with Tim back on the halfway line scratching his arse. If you play two defensive midfield players, one must have license to get forward when you're attacking.
Only one team showed any energy last night and it wasn't us. I'm already beginning to feel he's out of his depth judging by his selections and set-up. Trouble is we've gone for a Poundshop manager and you usually get what you pay for...
Absolutely bang on. Fella who sits a few down from me asked me of I'd seen the line up. He said we had no mid-field and predicted a 3 nil home defeat. Yet NC, paid large sums, could not see that. Something wrong there. Furthermore, thus far I've steered clear.of criticising the hierarchy from SLF upwards but if we keep changing manager and players and we're not seeing success, perhaps the fault lies elsewhere? I hope not but it does make one at least ask the question.
To be fair, you've said the same as most about the line up, formation etc. I agree that it's too early to write Critchley off, but it was obvious before kick off that he'd got it wrong imo. If he has to switch to 4-4-2 we will need totally different personnel imo, apart from Field and Steff, if he's ever fit. He could possibly play Chair off the forward in a similar position that Roberts was in. Maybe Chair won't fit into his way of thinking? Tim would be completely wasted as a 6 imo. For all their differing faults, at least we tried to play some decent stuff under Beale and Warburton.
Trouble is, most teams play 3 in midfield and Field would be over run. That's the biggest problem with 4-4-2 and why it went out of fashion.
Agree, no defence of yesterdays performance. The shape was horrible, wingers pinned to the sidelines, Roberts wandering around adding to his close control highlights reel and nothing else. He was the one who was supposed to get in the box and add numbers I think, but he clearly thought this level of commitment was beneath him yesterday, unless it was for a set piece. Richards looked much sharper and more interested when he came on and he actually got to the byline and put in an excellent cross for Dykes and Albert to miss. It’s beyond me why he doesn’t get a kick and Roberts does, under Beale as well. For Blackpool Critchley played two holding midfielders (‘double six’) although it wasn’t his formation of choice at the start.
Bang on Col. It's not the formation as such (my age old arguement) but the players playing within that formation. A 4-4-2 would most likely see Chair and Willock as wingers, we would obviously have to get another of those thingys, what do you call them?......strikers. Some of our best play, as with most teams, starts from the full back position. Ours would be better utilised further forwards, playing 3 centre backs. This set up, I believe, gets the best from Willock and Chair as they have the freedom of the pitch rather than being limited to either the left or the right. We look too rigid, too predictable with little to no movement in the last 3rd. A more mobile striker would be great in the team so I don't have to see it lumped up to Dykes anymore. I've had it with him, despite him being relatively starved of service. When the chances do pop up he doesn't bang them away like Morris did last night.
I've always liked the look of Richards and I too can't work out why he doesn't get starts. Presumably a fitness thing?
Playing two holding midfielders in front of a back four - effectively six defenders - is an ultra-defensive nonsense if you ask me.
A decent first 10 minutes... and then Luton remembered how inept QPR are at playing against a high press and never looked back. The modern cookie-cutter coaching method of slow patient build-up is failing us very badly. Without a fully fit Johansen we have no one to provide a link from front to back and no one with the vision to play balls in behind. Field in particular is a huge disappointment in this respect. Given his style at Blackpool I'm sure Critchly will want to change this but he just doesn't have the players. I expect a major overhaul in January but we may not like it.
Field's job is purely defensive and he does it brilliantly. Iroegbunam should have been providing the link from back to front last night but he was restricted from doing so.
Our midfield gets over run now because they have nothing in front of them, opposition have time and can push forward knowing theres no threat behind them.
Field is one of the few players that I don't have an issue with. He does exactly what he needs to and does it well.
Day after the night before and it doesn't get any better........ Some random thoughts...... If you're going to play a winger like Shodipo on the right you're effectively negating Laird as a full back/wing back as they are operating in the same space....... Same with Chair and Paal on the left..... If as he did a couple of times, Shodipo beats his man and pulls the ball back there has to be runners from midfield, but with Tim 5vowels and Field loitering around the half way line and Chair wide left that only left Roberts to fill that role, but he was too busy occupying the inside right channel, that's all your goal scoring threat doing other things which left Dykes to take on 3 or 4 Orange shirts on his own........ and we wonder why we don't score........
Going against two of the contributors I respect most on here but... We lost 3-0 in case anyone hasn't noticed, with two of the goals coming from players not closed down on the edge of the area, so if that's your sitting midfielder doing well then I'd hate to see him having a bad game. But my main beef is with the lack of options Field provides when trying to play out from the back and with the way he believes his off the ball job is to point out the next square ball in huge sequences of negative minded passes to those around him. Agreed that Tim also had a shocker and looked bewildered by the job he was presumably asked to do but faced with a high press you need all midfield players trying to play around it rather than directing the way back to the goalkeeper for 90 minutes.
