Farke's tactics

[Samwam27 606]

Putting our "season of transition" aside, I would question Farke''s tactics this season.

Clearly this is a massive change of personnel, players and tactics, but Farke has tried to implement his style of play all season and we''ve failed to score goals, and ultimately have drawn and lost more than we''ve won.

One could argue why play, and persist with a formation that hasn''t worked all season, seemingly because we haven''t got the right players. Shouldn''t you try to adapt your tactics to the players you have got, and get the best out of their strengths, than persist with something that''s failed.

Failed is a strong word, as we''ve seen many glimpses this team can perform, but possession doesn''t win any prizes.

A striker who knows how to score would change this side dramatically

[mr footy 36]

If getting in top two or play offs then yes it has failed,but not with the squad he has got.This is mid championship squad. At best.it may take many seasons to train a squad the Germans way ie procession football 1 or no striker.But get it right and play offs will be here in a few seasons time.

[westcoastcanary 173]

[quote user="mr footy"]If getting in top two or play offs then yes it has failed ........... But get it right and play offs will be here in a few seasons time.[/quote]

Exactly. It amuses me how so much of the criticism of DF starts with the poster assuming that what he, the poster, sees as the priorities are what DF sees or ought to see as HIS priorities. This applies both to criticism of the tactics (in particular of DF''s refusal to adopt a different, more traditionally English and/or Championship-orientated approach) and to team selection. Take team selection: posts on the weekly threads on here almost invariably start with a simple assumption that the sole objective is winning the game. Likewise tactics: the almost invariable assumption seems to be that all considerations other than achieving at least a top six finish, if not promotion, are completely irrelevant. 

Just as, when it comes to evaluating progress or otherwise, it''s necessary to look past match results, so, if you want to understand DF''s decisions and actions, it''s necessary to look past your own priorities and pre-occupations to his.

[daly 551]

Frustrating part of all these scenario''s is

We had it and blew it

[7rew 0]

But we have played different formations and adapted to the players we have under Farke. It''s the big change he''s brought in compared to Neil, who played the same formation with whoever fitted into it.

We have played 4-4-1-1, 5-2-1-2, 3-5-1-1, 4-2-3-1 and lately 4-3-3. That is changing formations and we do it a lot.

What we haven''t played is a formation that doesn''t play with a midfielder at number 10. Because we have adapted to the players we have.

Specifically, James Maddison is the first outfield name on the team sheet by a mile and rightly so, he is by miles our best player. But that imposes things on how you play.

That means you find a formation with a midfielder at number 10.

You also have to have a striker in front of him, because he would be wasted leading the line.

You need two midfielders behind him, because he is wasted playing in a midfield two.

Given that you also need 2 centre halves and 2 wing backs, you have 2 players left to move around the pitch and do all the wide attacking.

It means you send a large part of your build up play through the number 10 position. It certainly means that either bypassing (route one) or shrinking (balls over the top to runners) midfield are not sensible tactics.