Starting formation

[Tony_Munky_Canary]

I often think people get too hung up in the way we start off in matches, in terms of both formation and line-up. Lambert is clearly a student of the game, and doesn't take a genius to realise no games are won by half-time, or even after an hour and most go down to the final ten minutes with both teams still in contention. That has certainly been the case in all our games so far this season.

By the time the clock has ticked down and both sides are going for it in the final twenty minutes or so the starting formation has been thrown out of the window with at least a couple of changes being made by both managers. In the last couple of seasons we had a phenomenal ability to grab late goals and the number of points we picked up in the final throes of a match are a huge part of our success under Lambert. And how many times did we actually finish with the diamond formation? More often than not we'd have 3 or 4 up front chucking the kitchen sink at the opposition, and it reaped dividends - but of course if we started the game like that we'd have got hammered no matter who we were playing. Be interesting to know the stats of goals for/against when we've been playing the diamond and when we haven't in matches, our conversion rate when chasing the game with at least three up front is incredible.

The starting eleven's job is all about setting your stall out in the first half, hopefully getting ourselves in front and controlling the game into the second half and making the oppostion change their style and/or personnel. Then when the game opens up in the second half Lambert can then use his incredible tactical awareness to make our own changes to exploit opportunities - exactly like yesterday.

For me he got it spot on yesterday, and what game Colin was watching I don't know. The only time they got on top was when they put an extra striker on, and after ten minutes or so Lambert playerd his own hand by bring on Super Wes and Captain Marvel to smash the doors in and grab the points.

 

[1950canary]

Brilliant post Sid. As well as our own team PL also has to work out the dangers of the opposition and in that regard I feel that some people tend to forget that we are in the Premier League and PL has to try and work out how to deal with the pace of Walcott, the skill of Silva, the power of Drogba etc etc. As much as we loved Blackpool last year ultimately they paid the inevitable price. Look what happened with their all out attacking style against Arsenal and Chelsea!! There is always sound logic to the side PL puts out and the subsequent substitutions.

 

[Superman wears Grant Holt pyjamas in bed]

i don't think i was the only one to raise an eyebrow at the sight of surman, jackson and de laet taking to the field. i think i raised both! of course, lambert knows what he is doing more than i do and i trust his judgement. i think it seemed odd however to start with three people who had barely featured all season at the same time. for me it was a bit risky and i'm not entirely sure it worked. it wasn't until the changes were made that we looked comfortable. ok we won the game but qpr were pretty poor - worst team i've seen this season so far. we made very hard work of beating them but at least we did. surman grew into the game, especially once hoolahan was introduced and de laet did fine before being forced off with injury. i mentioned on another thread i felt jackson looked lacklustre but he wasn't given the service he thrives on, i.e. through balls.

 

[redruthyella]

I'm glad he tried to change it Saturday. Its a matter of judgement if you think it worked for the better but the fact is we got 3 points and QPR never looked like scoring although they themselves had several 1st choices unavailable.
In our previous 3 games we had conceded 8 goals. We haven't got the quality defensive cover and to be fair its not always defenders faults when we concede.
I think its a credit to him and good luck for us that we have a manager who has no favourites or prima donnas and by changing things, isn't afraid to admit he hasn't got it right every time.

 

[1950canary]

I accept what you say Superman but of course we do not know what would have been the outcome with a different team. Would the pace of Wright-Phillips been more effective if De Laet hadn't played? Would the left side of midfield been dominated by QPR if Surman had not been there? Did PL sense a lack of pace in the centre of the QPR defence which he hoped Jackson could exploit? The point I was trying to make is that in the lower leagues you can play the same team and the same formation every week and succeed. In the Premiership because of the quality and differing styles of the opposition you have to change your own team and formation to cope and a lot of that is trying to counter the strengths of the opposition. You also devise your own tactics and substitutions such as Morison to soften them up and Holt to finish them off but at the end of the day I am sure that PL realises that the only thing that matters is getting enough points to stay up and to do that he has to use his full squad.

 

[Superman wears Grant Holt pyjamas in bed]

I'm glad he tried to change it Saturday. Its a matter of judgement if you think it worked for the better but the fact is we got 3 points and QPR never looked like scoring although they themselves had several 1st choices unavailable.
In our previous 3 games we had conceded 8 goals. We haven't got the quality defensive cover and to be fair its not always defenders faults when we concede.
I think its a credit to him and good luck for us that we have a manager who has no favourites or prima donnas and by changing things, isn't afraid to admit he hasn't got it right every time.

in the end, qpr only had kenny out injured. barton was suspended so thats his fault. they were most certainly not struggling with injuries. i think warnock dreamed a host of injuries up before kick off to throw us off the scent a bit. agree that its good that our manager doesn't seem to have favourites - everyone is equal and if they aren't performing well enough they will be dropped.

1950, my remark that i didn't feel it worked very well was more to do with our style of play. it seemed disjointed. too many high balls and our passing wasn't crisp enough. surman is a good player going forward but qpr had some tough nuts in that midfield and i was concerned he would be too lightweight - i think he was until hoolahan came on and changed the game. de laet had next to nothing to do so difficult to judge him. i suppose the good thing is that even our fringe players look like they can do a job if we get injuries and suspensions, which we will no doubt.

 

[Tony_Munky_Canary]

for me it was a bit risky and i'm not entirely sure it worked. it wasn't until the changes were made that we looked comfortable.

Am I the only person to acknowledge the fact that when Wes and Holt came on QPR had already sacrificed a defender for another striker and therefore gave us a lot more space that we had in the first half? They only came into the game after making the change and scored pretty much straight afterwards - am I the only one aware of this? We were winning and controlling the game up until that point which tells me the starting line-up and formation was doing the trick

 

[Superman wears Grant Holt pyjamas in bed]

for me it was a bit risky and i'm not entirely sure it worked. it wasn't until the changes were made that we looked comfortable.

Am I the only person to acknowledge the fact that when Wes and Holt came on QPR had already sacrificed a defender for another striker and therefore gave us a lot more space that we had in the first half? They only came into the game after making the change and scored pretty much straight afterwards - am I the only one aware of this? We were winning and controlling the game up until that point which tells me the starting line-up and formation was doing the trick

very good point munky. this is totally true that bringing bothroyd on suddenly changed the dynamics of qpr. i thought they were bloody awful till he came on. yes we were winning and thats all that matters in the end, but did you think the balance of our team was working? i felt we were winning because the opposition were so poor rather than us playing well. when we did play well it was only for about 10 minutes after holt and hoolahan came on, which was helped by the game being more open. in the end it was a pretty comfortable, routine win, but it certainly wasn't great and i think we were disjointed for long spells of the match. in my eyes it was more a case of 'getting away with making too many changes' rather than 'the changes did the trick'

 

[Tony_Munky_Canary]

But there again is the other time-old question - did they play badly because they had an off day or did they play badly because our formation stifled them and didn't let them take control of the game?

 

[Superman wears Grant Holt pyjamas in bed]

we'll never know! maybe it was a bit of both. not that it really matters anyway - we won the game!