It was a good idea in theory but when it wasn't working, Pearce should have been subbed for Hall or Thomas and gone to a 4-4-2. We couldn't have done any worse at the back and maybe with Byram and White not forced into going forward as much we might have been less exposed from the wings. Also, any attacking threat we managed to muster was coming in from the wings, not the centre, so no point packing the centre of midfield. We'd have been better doubling up on the wings and giving McCormack and Somma the space to make a difference in the box.
I agree with this. We've tried it before & were absolutely clueless. I think it was probably the right tactic, but the wrong prep & the wrong players to properly execute it.
And Warnock showed his tactical ineptitude by once again refusing to change a system that wasn't working. Pearce or Tate off, Thomas or Hall on. 4-4-2, double up on the wings and give McCormack and Somma some space.
I accept what you're saying, Marko, but I suspect that they were told to pressure, but didn't. When is it ever right to allow another team to do what they like?
No team has matched us successfully this year with it. You're best doing what Nigel Pearson at Leicester did and pick a formation that picks out the flaws of the formation such as getting in behind Elmo and Brady with loads of space after a counter attack. Millwall tried matching us, they were 4-0 down at half time. Jackett came out in his interview and admitted it was an awful decision on his part. They changed formation in the 2nd half, it ended 4-1, meaning they technically won the 2nd half 1-0. The worst thing a team can do, is match the formation.
By playing three centre backs and Byram/White as wing-backs it allowed Hull to get down our flanks, and also allowed their midfield to run at our back three. Today was a lot like Grayson's days, with a defence being swamped by midfield runners and crosses. I still think Colin did this to prove a point to the money men and to get a budget increase for January. We have done well to still be in touching distance and a win against Bolton is a must. Four quality signings needed, time for GFH to prove they are serious about promotion. This division is so inconsistent right now that we still have the chance to make a run at it, but only if the team is IMPROVED rather than added to.
It's a tactical decision to stubbornly defend the way we did, instead of defending from the front. "Hold your position" so to speak. We tried to do the same against Chelsea after scoring the goal, instead of pressing forward and not allowing them space to do their thing. Of course, it's entirely possible that the players are just losing confidence away from home every time they play away, but it's more likely that the manager is selecting a negative strategy away from home in the hope of "damage control" or playing for a draw or playing for the counter attack or whatever.
What he could start doing away from home now he has the players to do it, is go with the old 4-2-3-1 that served us so well away under Grayson. Hall and Thomas on the wings, Austin and Norris in the middle with Becchio up front and McCormack in the hole. With Byram and White as full backs it'd be a positive formation that can't possibly serve us worse than what we're trying at the moment. The way I see this idea is that we should be going into away games with the assumption that we're going to lose. If you assume you're going to lose then it doesn't matter how you defend, which opens up the mind to more creative attacking. The teams that do best away from home are the teams that attack the opposition, take the game to them. This strategy saw us get some emphatic wins away from home including a 4-0 drubbing of Forest that cleared out the City Ground like a fire drill at 60 minutes.
Leeds fans were leaving at 75 mins today which made the, "Is there a fire drill?" chant make it's debut at the KC this Season Anyway, I agree with you. Teams who take the game to the home side, often come out on top. Going away and being negative, rarely works.
I understand what he was trying to do. Play White and Byram who like to get forward as wing back, to add depth, and step up to reinforce the midfield, and play with three centre backs to waterproof our defence. Seemed to me at some point that changed and Pearce moved to left back. He has played that position before, but its not his natural position (a bit like Lees at right back, he can do a job there but...) I understand we have had a lot of games recently, so why have Becchio, Thomas etc on the bench, if he had no intention of using them. If I were Drury, I'd be seriously pissed off.
Our fans are lacking belief at the moment. We're very tender and vulnerable and likely to give up quite easily. Same old ****e away from home so no surprise people left early. Didn't even threaten. But like I said, we're still struggling with negative tactics both home and away and it's tiring to put up with it.
Colin hadn't done his homework very well if he thinks we play with a lone striker, we always play 3-5-2.
I can't understand why Warnock actually still has a job. He's clearly not doing the job at Leeds at all. IMO, you were a much better side under Grayson. I couldn't understand the negativity towards him really. Under Warnock you've become a negative, dirty side with no real threat. Christ, what would happen if Becchio departs for finer pastures in January?
Fortunately he won't. If bates had still been in charge then yes Becchio would likely be the next casualty, but we've got new owners who understand that holding on to our best players is step one of getting the crowds back on side. Grayson is a better manager than Warnock solely on the fact that he plays positive football instead of negative football. You set out with a negative strategy and it can only go one way in the long run. It gets into the heads of the players and before long they're not performing particularly well for a reason nobody can pinpoint. We need some young blood and some positivity in the club and Neil Warnock is not it.
Can't understand why Warnock didn't start Becchio or Thomas. Not sure if they would have made any difference to the outcome of the game or not but when I looked at your squad list they were 2 players who I thought could cause us problems. Must admit if I was Warnock I'd be starting to worry about my job.
From what I saw your weakest area was the full back positions, if you had a weak area at all. Unfortunately Warnock is a clueless twat and played a formation that allowed you to handle our wing "threats" of Aidy White and Sam Byram with ease. I don't think you'd have faired so well if we'd have had Thomas and Green or even Hall in there as well.
That's where Leicester got at us with Knockaert and Marshall on Boxing Day. It's an area you could have got at us if like you say Warnock had set you up to do so.
Like I said, you had 2 players to deal with there, making it a bit easier. Didn't have to put up with much in terms of the central midfielders drifting out wide to help out. If we had doubled up there with players really playing on the wings, I think we'd have faired a lot better. A lot of our goals are coming from the wings and a lot of teams struggle against us in those areas. Our late goal against Forest came from the wing, when we troubled Derby it was from the wings. Warnock has failed to see this and it's bugging me. We're causing teams problems with our wing play even with Green playing on the wing. If he could realise this and put Hall out on that wing or play Byram on the wing and let them play there for a few matches, and keep Thomas playing then we'd be turning teams over.
Warnock basically told us what hewas doing with his selection and then his postmatch interview. Remember Mick McCarthy v Man United? He decided to throw this game for some reason. Its not the type of manager we need
