What's Gone Wrong, and What Needs to Change 2: Lost in The Championship

[mendieta420 1,006]

It wasn't really a typical 442.. it was vardy upfront alone, okazaki dropped off fighting for the ball and 2 defensive banks of 4.

 

we started the season fine, with a few smarter decisions infront of goal we'd have won many more games, then vs preston monk seemed to lose his head and start panicking. we've gone from needing to gel to cycling through multiple formations.

[richmfc 41]

I think Burnley have all but proved 4-4-2 can work, certainly in this division. The real question for me with it is how comfortable are players with it nowadays? 4-2-3-1 appears to be the standard and what most teams play.

 

Any system can work with decent players.  But playing two forwards against Fulham just meant they dominated the ball

 

Aslong as we dominate the scoreline I dont realy care if they have 90% of the ball

 

Leicester won PL without having more ball a single game (or very few anyway)

 

But we didn't beat Fulham And Leicester have been found out now As I said with the right players you can use any system. Systems don't win games players do. But choosing the wrong system can make it harder.

And two things are for certain. You can't score if you don't have the ball and neither can the opposition

[ladyspite 385]

No thats true, but it also depends where you have the ball, if its mostly on your half it can also be dangerous, as defenders tend to do make mistakes

[wilsoncgp 9,283]

I think Burnley have all but proved 4-4-2 can work, certainly in this division. The real question for me with it is how comfortable are players with it nowadays? 4-2-3-1 appears to be the standard and what most teams play.

 

Any system can work with decent players.  But playing two forwards against Fulham just meant they dominated the ball

 

Aslong as we dominate the scoreline I dont realy care if they have 90% of the ball

 

Leicester won PL without having more ball a single game (or very few anyway)

 

But we didn't beat Fulham   And Leicester have been found out now   As I said with the right players you can use any system. Systems don't win games players do. But choosing the wrong system can make it harder.  

And two things are for certain. You can't score if you don't have the ball and neither can the opposition

 

You are right for sure, but the idea of going to a 4-4-2 is not to find that system as one that works. It's getting the players to work together better and ensuring the system is one less thing they have to think about to get up to speed quicker. Because what player doesn't know how to play it? Once that's out of the way you can start to introduce new systems and philosophies. It's just getting the basics right first before changing too much per game that confuses players, especially when playing badly.

[richmfc 41]

I think Burnley have all but proved 4-4-2 can work, certainly in this division. The real question for me with it is how comfortable are players with it nowadays? 4-2-3-1 appears to be the standard and what most teams play.

 

Any system can work with decent players.  But playing two forwards against Fulham just meant they dominated the ball

 

Aslong as we dominate the scoreline I dont realy care if they have 90% of the ball

 

Leicester won PL without having more ball a single game (or very few anyway)

 

But we didn't beat Fulham   And Leicester have been found out now   As I said with the right players you can use any system. Systems don't win games players do. But choosing the wrong system can make it harder.  

And two things are for certain. You can't score if you don't have the ball and neither can the opposition

 

You are right for sure, but the idea of going to a 4-4-2 is not to find that system as one that works. It's getting the players to work together better and ensuring the system is one less thing they have to think about to get up to speed quicker. Because what player doesn't know how to play it? Once that's out of the way you can start to introduce new systems and philosophies. It's just getting the basics right first before changing too much per game that confuses players, especially when playing badly.

 

I agree about the getting the team solid and playing well and then moving on. But the players around now have possibly never played 442. It's not like when I came through and everyone played it. If you look at youth teams from u11 up very very few play with 2 forwards most teams play 451

[wilsoncgp 9,283]

Indeed, that's pretty much what I said in my original comment in that chain. If 4-4-2 isn't the way to go and 4-5-1 is, that's fine. It's just about going back to the basics and what you should know as a pro footballer without needing to be told. Our squad should be strong enough to do that and still pick up points.

[Boro Badger 87]

Leeds friend of mine called Monk a 'tinkerman'.

 

Even when they were winning last year, he still tinkered.

 

So, we can look forward to that.

[richmfc 41]

Leeds friend of mine called Monk a 'tinkerman'.

 

Even when they were winning last year, he still tinkered.

 

So, we can look forward to that.

 

But before he arrived they claimed he had no plan B. Is it possible to tinker and have no plan B

[ladyspite 385]

Leeds friend of mine called Monk a 'tinkerman'.

 

Even when they were winning last year, he still tinkered.

 

So, we can look forward to that.

 

But before he arrived they claimed he had no plan B.  Is it possible to tinker and have no plan B

 

Well to be honest he dont seem to have a plan A so how can he have a plan B?  :P  Maybe thats what they meant?

[wilsoncgp 9,283]

Leeds friend of mine called Monk a 'tinkerman'.

 

Even when they were winning last year, he still tinkered.

 

So, we can look forward to that.

 

But before he arrived they claimed he had no plan B.  Is it possible to tinker and have no plan B

 

Pretty much what I thought. 'No Plan B' does kind of imply there is a Plan A and he sticks at it. That's precisely what we used to say about Aitor. So which is it?

[Boro Badger 87]

Leeds friend of mine called Monk a 'tinkerman'.

 

Even when they were winning last year, he still tinkered.

 

So, we can look forward to that.

 

But before he arrived they claimed he had no plan B.  Is it possible to tinker and have no plan B

 

Pretty much what I thought. 'No Plan B' does kind of imply there is a Plan A and he sticks at it. That's precisely what we used to say about Aitor. So which is it?

 

Yes, not mutually exclusive to both have a Plan A and be able to 'tinker' with a Plan B!

 

Plan A is the best 11 in their best formation.

Plan B is when Plan A isn't working for whatever reason against the opposition (i.e. switch to three at the back or add more protection in midfield or go two up top or throw on big Rudy).

 

I'd have hoped we'd have a plan A by now. We haven't seem to get any continuation between performance to performance. I still think it will come. Braithwaite coming back is like the season starting again, so we have some ground to make up.

[wilsoncgp 9,283]

I wouldn't call someone with a set in stone Plan A a 'tinkerman', though. I don't think it's uncommon for managers to tinker with things when a Plan A isn't working. You make player, formation and philosophy changes to adapt to the game right in front of you. If it's just a Plan A and a Plan B then you're not doing that, for better or for worse.

[Neverbefore 10,940]

This is going to seem like a pro karanka post but it's really not intended that way.

 

Is anyone else a little concerned that our players just aren't as good as we think they are, and that ak got the absolute best out of them? The only reason I ask that is that the likes of friend, Clayton, Gibson, Forshaw, bamford, Fabio, ayala etc all looked rather average before karanka and looked like the best players in their positions at this level during karankas era but have completely regressed since his departure.

 

Again, this is not a discussion about karanka vs monk or any other manager for that matter, more a question of if our players are as good as we think they are.

[BillyWoofs_shinpad 1,884]

I’m inclined to agree with you, NB. I think AK was very good at recognising players strengths and working on them.

 

He made players like Friend, Gibson and Clayton, even Gaston to a certain extent, raise their game. I don’t think it’s any coincidence that Those first three players are struggling for form this season.

[Prowler 197]

I'd say that Clayton and Friend were pretty damn good before Karanka :P

 

Clayton was a damn good midfielder, more open to roaming forward before he signed for us. Got a fair few goals too.

 

Friend was just Friend but in Donny shirt. He's also well known for his slow starts.