I really think we might be going a bit overboard on the specifics lol. I just wanted to see chances created by a variation on methods. I think the issues are decisions making and quality of ouf 'final ball'. In the last two games we have had plenty of the ball in positions to hurt the opposition, whether it be Snodgrass cutting in and crossing with his left foot or Martin crossing in from the byline. With better quality shown from both of these players we would have created chances. I just picked them out as an example but I am sure there are examples from the left hand side and also attacking through the middle of the pitch. Hopefully last weekends win will have given some of the players more confidence in their ability and we can start to make more from our attacks and when we applying pressure to teams in games. There is plenty of creative quality in the squad, a bit more sharpening up and I think everyone will be happy with the outcome.
I just wanted some relief from non-football issues and thought others might welcome it too ........ I agree that varying your tactics is a good thing. On your point about decision making and quality of final ball, it is easy to see the fault as with the player who made the decision or whose final ball is poor. Sometimes it is his fault, but quite often the fault is with others failing to make the decision easy for him, or the final ball an easier one. If you set someone the task of finding a needle in a haystack, or hitting a pin point cross from the corner, you must expect him to fail most of the time.
Sorry about the delay following up on my previous reply NorfolkBhoy. Hopefully better late than never! In saying orthodox wing play easily defended against, what I meant was that the defending is done close to the touchline and the chance of attempted crosses being blocked is relatively high. Furthermore, long crosses, even from the by-line, are more easily defended than balls cut back into the box from the by-line from much closer in. So my point was really about a different attacking strategy, one which concentrates the attacking play in-field around the penalty box. As I've often put it, the idea is to have the wide midfielders coming in-field to play WITH the central attackers, rather than having them stay wide playing TO the central attackers from the touchline. Of course, varying your attacking play is never a bad thing, so the occasional bit of orthodox wing play never comes amiss. But making it a cornerstone of one's attacking is a recipe for failure, which is why virtually no-one does nowadays. I don't know if anyone has looked at the stats from the CL game between Man City and Bayern, but Bayern, for all they relied heavily on their wide midfielders, Ribery and Robben, and made almost 700 passes in the game, crossed the ball only 16 times in all, only 4 of which were "successful" (i.e. reached a Bayern player). The only cross of the 16 which led to a shot was actually made from the by-line much closer to the penalty box than the corner flag. Re. relying on the full backs to make runs to the by-line and get a cross in, the point is that they are usually running into space created by the wide midfielder moving in and drawing the opposing defender(s) with him. So the attacking full back receives the ball in space and with more time to pick out a team mate in the box. We have created several good chances in that way in our three home games this season. So as I see it, the "inverted wingers" strategy (a) gets more players into the optimum attacking area, (b) reduces your use of attacking plays with low probabilities of success, and (c) creates better crossing opportunities (via your full back) than does "orthodox" wing play. Re. "I'd rather see RvW having chances in the box than see a midfielder shoot from 25 yards as I think that we are more likely to get a better rate of return that way", that to me is a false dichotomy. Inverted wingers come into the middle to do more than shoot; they come inside to supplement the central attackers in and around the penalty box, thereby increasing, rather than reducing, the chance of creating an opening for RvW. Properly employed the system offers maximum flexibility, but its key feature is to increase the number of attackers in the danger area, in and around the penalty box. Defenders know only too well that there is danger in letting an attacker get into the penalty box, hence the mantra that you always hear "Force him wide, force him wide".
