I mentioned this topic on another thread a couple of days ago, but did anybody else think we needed a plan B last night? I'm fully aware of the fact that we scored from two crosses, but for the majority of that game, it was clear that Trencin had worked out how we were going to attack. Now, had we been playing a Premier League team, I really don't think we'd have got the breakthrough we got last night. If we play with wingers then sure, we're going to get a lot of crosses into the box, but does every single attack have to be the same? I don't think we had a single attack down the middle last night; what's wrong with wingers cutting inside and becoming playmakers, or working their way into the box from the wide areas? We only saw this once or twice when Tom Ince came on and even then it was usually played back to Elmo to smash into the box. With all respect to AS Trencin's manager (loving the lecturers jacket by the way), I don't think he has the tactical nous that some of the other Premier League managers have and if he managed to work us out, aren't the others going to do the same? Last season we saw it all too often, where we just lumped balls into the box, only for the average PL defenders to say "oh, another one? Thanks very much" (Sunderland at the KC being a prime example!). I wouldn't mind if we did both, or even more wing play than through the middle, but surely relying solely on crosses as an attacking method isn't the right way to go about it? Last night it felt like we were just waiting for Trencin to get tired before we delivered the killing blow. Even after we went 4-4-2, we still resorted to crossing the ball rather than trying a few runs into the area. I just think we need another tactic if things aren't going our way, not just relying on one and the individual ability of players.
no elmo and no attacks or is it no elmo and different attacks? but the way bruce sets us out to play, elmo is our most pivotal player, hence why he made the most appearances lastseason
We played way too wide last night and largely it didn't work. We defiantly needed to go more central more often. Brady was awful last night and constantly gave away possession and looked unfit. Without Elmohamady we would have been almost toothless. Problem is that because we played so wide we left massive gaps in the centre of midfield and got overrun in midfield and they kept finding gaps between midfield and defence. This is where Livermore and Huddlestone should have done a job but it was too much work for them to do alone and I couldn't help but think we would have had a much better game yesterday if we had Meyler playing. We need to play more compact to reduce the space for the opposition and then break out wide. Had we played like that against a passing team like Arsenal then we would have been ripped apart.
Have a look at the first graph in this article - it tells you a hell of a lot about our one dimensionality http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fancy-stats/wp/2014/08/06/the-unappealing-moneyball-of-crystal-palace-and-hull-city/
I read in Four Four Two last night that we only made 9 through balls during the whole of last season (how they decide what a through ball is compared to a hoof or any other type of pass is I don't know) - it then said that that wouldn't be considered loads for one match let alone a full season. We definitely need a different plan of attack, as soon as Livermore or Huddlestone get the ball their first movements are sideways rather than looking for a quick pass to Long/Sagbo's feet. edit: Plus, if that's the only way we're going to attack then why sign Shane Long instead of say Peter Crouch who'd be much more of an aerial threat from the endless crosses we provide.
That article tells you nothing at all, it's a right load of nonsense. I think we have a couple of issues with our current formation. Firstly, Bruce is nowhere near good enough to be in the middle of a back three, if we're going to play 3-5-2 we need a new first choice central defender. Secondly, if we're to stick with 3-5-2, we better hope that Robertson can fill the LWB role, or Brady needs to get match sharp very quickly. The return of Jelavic for league games should improve the amount of crosses that we actually manage to get on the end of, but we never seem to have a man waiting for the ball being cleared if it doesn't come to one of ours. Snodgrass and Ince are both players who can play wide and cut inside, but they haven't had much chance to show it yet, in time I think they will but that's more likely to come when we're playing 4-4-2. It's a little early to gauge, but I think Snodgrass definitely looks better out wide, whereas I think Ince is probably someone who can play wide or behind a striker equally well. From what we've seen so far, it's a little hard to tell what Bruce's thinking is, no doubt it will become clearer over the next few games.
We need a magician in central midfield, a Koren or Geovanni type who can just float about with mobility and slot a sweetly weighted ball through on the floor. I was hoping we'd sign someone like that this summer to give us a different dimension, Snodgrass could be that man but history tells us that he's ****e whenever he's not on the right wing. Sagbo has good ability with the ball, maybe he could be tried playing a little deeper.
I agree with your point to some extent. We need a plan A, B and C. Truth is though getting to the deadball line is the worst nightmare for defenders. Next trick is to pick the right pass. Elmo aint too good at that.
