Great report. Its really difficult to not have plan B in existance. HR backed and bought for 3-5-2 system. No one understood it amongst the players and for me that is the manager and coaching staff's mistake and now we are paying for it. For me next weeks game at Southampton is critical. We dont know what is coming our way , but screw up again there wnd we are facing an almighty struggle on all counts , notably in confidence. I say decison time is a matter of two gams away meaning West Ham.
Thanks Col. Agree with much of that and defo with the 4 2 3 1. Arry and any of his assistants who agree with him, played yet another 2 or 3 on your scale and I can only repeat they should have gone 6 months ago. But there were positives. Niko was huge. Henry, Traore and Phillips mostly were good and these 4 were a big part of our good fight back. That we came back twice is a big plus. Some players to build on there. And with our midfield injuries we may well have to. Think all these 4 deserve to start next game.
I take your point. We won't agree on the two of them, but I did point out that Phillips was better than of late (not difficult!). I hope he proves me wrong.
Agree witgh that swords. Like Col, I thought that Green should have claimed the ball but if Ferdinand had jumped in front of Crouch (before being leaned on) the danger would have passed. As for his flat footedness with the second goal! Isa was very much at fault but you can try to dig your team mate out of the hole. Rio = Anton. Anyone of the three centre halves that were not playing would have done far better on those two situatuions.
I think it would be very easy to make Rio the scapegoat for all our problems. Come on Tel...............if he'd jumped "early" he would have been on the way down and under the ball. No, he was pinned to the ground by a clever Crouch and had no chance. Isla allowed the cross too easily and Green could have come for the cross. Yet somehow, Rio gets the blame. Don't get me wrong, I agree that he's been at fault for too many goals already and he did lose Crouch for the 2nd goal following Isla's complete mare!! The problem now is that Onuoha needs to start at RB as he will be far better there defensively than Isla. It's not Isla's fault, he was brought in as a wing back where he's very good imo. That means Dunne or Hill in place of Rio. I maintain that any centre back pairing will struggle when Mr Dinosaur plays such a ridiculously open formation.
This is a very interesting thread. I am finding it hard to summarise my thoughts as to where we are, and why we are playing as we are. I have the impression we are improvising on tactics. Pre-season it was clear that we were to play a 3-5-2 system with three central defenders and wingbacks. The subsequent acquisitions (and clear out) of players was consistent with this, even with the great idea of the additional coaching skills in the form of Glen Hoddle. However the 3-5-2 system was abandoned,or suspended, and we are playing a more classical formation with four at the back (4-4-2 or 4-2-3-1). The root cause of our problems seems to be the defence which is not robust and is leaking goals. We have two good wingbacks who are playing badly as full backs. Add to this positional errors and by Rio and we have real defensive problems, so the rest of the team does not feel confident to go forward, so there is no support to Charlie. Thus we have this tactical inertia as a result of an unstable defence and a half hearted attack. It is easy to analyse and to complain, but more difficult to propose corrective action. Should we stick to four players at the back, I would drop Isla and Rio, who currently seem to have guaranted first team places. But the person to replace them both seems to be Onuoha. Yes, we are really missing Simpson. For the next away games I would play 4-2-3-1 but with some real width upfront created by two from Vargas, Hoillet, Tarrabt or Phillips with the objective of giving some service to Charlie. But the key issues to resolve is defensive and the back four. Is it possible the we will field four centre backs (Onuoha -Rio - Caulker -Hill) at some stage? An alternantive is to return to the wingback option. We have the players who are committed and engaged, but we must find the correct system and tactics. Our predicament is much deeper than just "gelling" This is an issue for Harry, Glen and the rest of the caoching staff to sort out. But they has better hurry as soon there may be a motivational issue if we settle and get cut adrift at the bottom of the table.
The bottom line is we all have to give this new team a chance until we are 9 games in IMO I agree with Col we have the players no doubt but its a worry Harold to his credit got us tight and keeping the ball better Henry has to start and build from there Only then can a defence grow in confidence IMO
No problem doing that when it was Dunne though. As Oddball said before, there's a lot of inconsistency here.
Maybe dunne was made a scapegoat of. He certainly was pretty awful at times. Everyone loves to pick out a player to blame. I think the entire back four have looked shaky this season and I maintain that a lot of that is down to them being left totally exposed. Old dinosaur chops couldn't have played a more open formation on Saturday if he'd tried. By all means replace Rio with whoever you like, but it won't solve the problems unless Harry changes his out dated thinking imo.
From where I was sitting in the Lower School End I actually enjoyed the game, there was spirit in the side to get us back on level terms twice against one of the biggest, niggly sides in the division. Harold set us up to be attack minded but over-looked the anchoring of the midfield, basically their first instinct is to push forward which is all well and good, but leaves us horribly exposed to the swift counter attack as stoke showed. It looked as if the defensive holding role was decided on the hoof which is okay if you are Germany but not us and with the defensive line playing so deep they do need additional protection. I'm assuming that the plan to be narrow in the middle was to allow Isla & Traore to get forward down the flanks, but that was increasingly difficult when Moses and Diouff dropped back to form a 5 man midfield once they went in front. Ironically Barton going off and Phillips coming on helped a bit as it allowed Nico to move further up field and gave Isla some back up although it didn't work with their 2nd goal. Also Mutch going off and Henry coming on gave us more stability. So IMO against Saints we need a holding midfielder on from the start, either Henry or Sandro, Nico to play just behind the front 2 in a fluid 4-1-3-2 formation that will give us attacking options but also a bit more defensive stability. All in all it was a point gained because we could easily have been rolled over by a side who played the classic away role, Harold needs to learne this quickly....
I think the narrow midfield was designed to allow for the full backs to get forward. This only works when you have at least one (arguably two) playing in the holding role (Sandro, Henry and even Barton if specifically asked could do this IMO). I think Barton and Ferdinand bring leadership and presence to the team which Arry puts a lot of importance to. I agree in principle with this although the same basic argument could justify Hill's inclusion - a leader AND a lefty - all other CBs are right footed and this makes it a problem area - even Rio is out of position after years of Vidic assuming the left sided role of the partnership. I agree with the OP and all of the subsequent posts (all fairly unanimous except for minor disagreements). I think Isla and Vargas will both come good in time (the latter looks a few weeks ahead in adjusting to the pace of game) and I think the team overall has plenty to offer if they can use the days leading up the each match to drill in roles and responsibilities and can be fired up in the pre-match team talk.
Before the game I would not have been happy with a draw, feel we need to get going but after I was reasonably happy. First Goal was a foul by Crouch but we keep going, we lost 2 of our starting midfielders with another one not even making the bench, so 3 down and we kept going, came back twice. Now obviously I'm not happy with the way we played and what we can do to change is the problem, for me it's 4-2-3-1, we don't have the strikers but have plenty of midfielder. However in this formation you will be scarifying either Fer or Nico both of which need to play in the middle of the 3 imo. For me stick to the formation and stop changing around, partnerships need to be formed and consistency is the key here. Against Southampton it will be really important we defend from the front.
I enjoyed your report Col, thanks. I know some individuals haven't been great to date but I think it is too early to hang them out to dry, ie. Rio and Isla. All our new players need a little bit more time to settle in. It is easy to point fingers at individuals but it is a team sport and we must win and lose as a team and not blame individuals. That is my feeling anyway. I'm not totally in the "Harry Out" brigade yet but I do have some concerns. I am not too impressed with his considerable backroom staff and I'm not too sure what the likes of Kevin Bond, Joe Jordan and Glenn Hoddle actually do. The saying "too many cooks" comes to mind. I'm a glass half full type of person so I an hoping we improve over the next few weeks. The next two games away at Saints and West Ham should present us all with a clearer picture as to whether we are good enough or not. Thanks again for a good read.
Presuming that Barton is still injured and both Sandro and Yun are fit, I'd play this away at Saints: ----------------------Macarthy---------------------- Onuoha---------Caulker---------Rio---------------Yun ---------------Sandro----------Henry---------------- Hoilett-----------------Nico-------------------Traore ---------------------Austin--------------------------
Like you Col, I still think that green should have come & collected the ball & that would have solved the problem. However, Rio could still have jumped early & that would have stopped Crouch gaining his leverage. I have seen nothing in the five games to sugest that he is any great improvement on his brother & I honestly feel that any of the other three would have coped better with Crouch. In fact, prior to the game I felt that this could be a game where playing three centre halves might have been justified. I don't think that would work at Southampton though. They have far more movement in attack than Stoke & would pull us all over the place. As you say though, if we give the defence no assistance from those in front of them, whoever plays at the back for us will struggle!
