The QPR Tactics Discussion Thread

I wouldn't be completely shocked to see Amos getting a start ahead of Thomas as a Number 10. The LoftForWords preview with the Swans fans indicated they have struggled against teams that press them high up the pitch and I remember pre-injury Amos played as a 'pressing No 10' and did quite well at making life difficult for the opposition - making space for Willock and Dykes to do damage. I still like Amos a lot and think he can develop (further) into a really good player at this level.

Suppose it's nice to have selection headache in some respects. I like the idea of Willock as the advanced player in the midfield three. Perhaps easier to do that with Field being really solid defensively.

[I really enjoy this thread]

 

Risky strategy Sb, especially on a serious football thread

 

I’m sure any serious student of football tactics would immediately get the reference to the total football of Rinus Michels and his Orange clad team of Dutchmen.


Wouldn’t they?

 

To be honest, I'm only thinking one game at a time. Chair isn't available for potentially a month, so he's out of mind.

With that said, if he came back tomorrow, I would have him as second striker and Willock as the attacking midfielder, with two midfielders holding behind him. And Willock and Chair can swap from time to time, when pulled a bit out of shape or needs arise.

 

Well it's quite conceivable Morocco could be knocked out tonight, however Chair picked up a knock to add to the knock he already had ! Every time we release an injured player to play for their country they come back completely ****ed. Odds on Gray will bust a knee or something, we're the unluckiest ****ers ever .

 

I think Chair would fit in instead of Dozzell in your line up.

 

Prefer your 2nd fill the midfield one. Think I'd start with Austin though.

 

I can't see us pressing them much if Chas and Dykes both start, gotta give Thomas a chance I think has more energy than Amos

 

What does everyone think about Ball coming back into the team?

Ball in front of the back three. Field in the centre, sweeping things up, and Johansen pushing forward behind Willock and either Austin or Dykes?

 

Not for me thanks. I like him and you can't question his attitude and effort, which is all you can ask, but he's not comfortable enough on the ball for me.

 

Plus we have Field in his position, who played well again tonight amongst a sea of mediocrity.

 

Would be interested in hearing everyone's opinion on what we got wrong against Barnsley.

It's a strange one because we dominated possession and Barnsley were obviously giving us a lot of respect initially, based on how we've been this season. Therefore, it was a game we really could have stamped our authority on if we got things right. I actually don't think we played badly. But there were a few things we weren't doing effectively.

I think we can all agree that Warburton really doesn't deserve much criticism for what he's done with a shoestring budget and a bunch of misfits. But he's not a perfect manager and, occasionally, seems to get some things wrong.

Of course, he didn't have Willock, arguably his most effective player. But we cannot depend on one player and there has to be other solutions, whether it be changing the formation, tactics or asking another player to step up.

Here are my issues with our most recent game:

1) At times, it feels like the team are under specific instructions to be overly careful with the ball in the final third, not to lose possession anywhere on the park. To me, this is unrealistic. In football, you will lose possession. And it's better to lose possession trying something in the final third, rather than tarting about with it at the back or somewhere in midfield.

I say we're under specific instructions because the team do seem to have been told that they should go backwards if there isn't a nailed on, guaranteed chance of finding someone's feet. Or we still have a big lacking in confidence. It's very seldom that we send through or over a ball that is a 50/50 for one of the attacking players.

Of course, I don't want endless balls to be sent through/over all game long. But we've got to take a chance here and there, to trust attacking players when they look like they'll make a run. Doing so would make the opposition have to work and sweat. It can force them into mistakes and it keeps things focussed on their side of the pitch.

One big point about this lack of chance taking is that we end up being really slow and allow opposition teams to get back into shape all game long.

Ironically, all of the attacking through/over passes come from our back three, who are not so great with those!

2) Why two strikers against a team like Barnsley who are happy to be behind the ball and put a lot of numbers in defence to mark out our attackers? To me, this game was a game that could have been won based on how we operated the midfield. A setup with 1 striker (definitely should be Dykes in this type of match) and a middle three like Amos or Hendrick with Johansen and Field would have allowed us to put more pressure on their defence or split them up. We might have been able to create more movement and free up Chair and Dykes to harass in and around the box. There would also have been a bit more cover in midfield, so that Wallace or Adomah could feel a bit more confident pushing forward.

 

I didn't see the game, but from the line-up it looks like we DID play a midfield three of Field, Hendrick and Chair.
To only play one striker we'd have had to push Chair and another to two tens, leaving us with the conundrum of only two in midfield (Warb's preferred method).
In your scenario, one forward with three midfielders, there's a space for another player?!
Chair isn't at his best in a set midfield imo, so I'd have probably gone for Dykes on his own, with Chair and Amos (not his biggest fan) as two tens.
But then we're left with only two in midfield. This can work as long as the two tens work as midfielders, which Chair and Willock aren't great at, or you have top, top class players as you're two midfielders, like Calvin Phillips and Kante for example.
Alternatively, I'd have had Chair floating as a second striker in the 3-5-2.

You're right about too much slow negative passing.
We're at our best when we move the ball quickly, which as you say, carries an element of risk and play long diagonals to the wing backs as a switch of play.
Whenever I've seen us play well this is what we've done.

 

Think ive said enough on the match day thread and would only be repeating myself. Every formation has its pros and cons, depending on the selection of personel. For arguements sake, it wouldnt matter too much what formation we set up with against Man City or Liverpool. The better standard of players will usually come out on top. So saying that, i believe you pick the formation that best suits the players at your disposal. We often look open when we start with 1 up top, but we also tend to play with more possession in the final 3rd, due to having two no.10s in willock and chair, who have that freedom to play just about anywhere. Thats often a luxury for one player, nevermind 2. This seems to work for us though. With our wing backs in the correct positions, our midfield 2 of Field and Johanson, in theory can be made a 4. Its all training ground stuff. Theres little time during a championship season to get it perfect.

 

Just to be clear, I am counting Willock and Chair as attackers. So, when I say three in midfield, I'm meaning central/holding/defensive midfielders.

So I'm thinking we play with the usual 3 central defenders and two wingback, then a defensive midfielder (Field), with two centrals (johansen and Hendrick or Amos, etc.) with Dykes up front and a no10 or second striker in the form of either Willock or Chair.

Alternatively, Field and Johansen in midfield with both Chair and Willock, with those two switching responsibilities from time to time, so Willock sometimes holding a bit whilst Chair presses, and vice versa.

 

Ah, didn't realise you were suggesting possibly leaving Chair or Willock out.

 

Warburton deserves a lot of credit but I can't see any other explanation for our dip in form aside from his leadership and tactics.

We've got a good squad with good character. But the team look like they've banging their heads against a brick wall lately, and their confidence looks ridiculously low for a team in 4th position.

I can't help myself thinking a better manager would be getting more from this squad. Which doesn't mean I want to dump Warburton now. He should definitely stay. But I wouldn't have him as manager if we manage to get promoted. And if we don't get promoted, I'd be looking out for a better to manager (though would only pull the trigger if the manager was definitely better beyond all doubt).

Warburton has taken us to a new level, but I don't think he can take us any further. However, the QPR executives should keep him if they're happy to hold a decent consistent place in the top half of the Championship for a few seasons.

Back on the subject of tactics and squad, I really like Dozzell. For me, he unlocks quite a lot with his zipped passes to attackers' feet. He sees and makes passes that other players either didn't see or were too anxious to try and make. I'm not a fan of Johansen this season... he just hasn't brought much to the table and has had enough good games for me to count on one hand.

 

Isn't it what Warburton did at Brentford ? He couldn't take them to that next level. I think he's an excellent coach but has his limitations regarding management

 

I thought todays tactics of not trying, waste each opportunity and achieve sweet FA, was successfully achieved.

 

I know we are not quite at Man City level yet!, however what about playing with a false nine. For example:
Dieng
Dickie Dunne Barbet
Odubajo Field Dozzell McCallum
Willock Amos Chair

Dozzell interchcanging with front 3 where applicable!
Surely worth a go, can't be any worse than watching an out of sorts Dykes, Austin for me is a last 20 minute man, and Gray I don't think has ever been overly bothered