Jim Smith 2,325 Posted November 30, 2020 I'm sure I wasn;t alone in being really surprised at how far out of position Aarons seemed to be when the crossfield ball that led to their goal was played and received by the Cov player. However, until reading Farke's comments in today's front page story I had forgotten that we had changed formation to 3 centre backs just beforehand and so presumably aarons was playing as a wing back which may explain why he had pushed up the pitch. All of which re-enforces my view that this recent penchant for changing to 3 centre backs during games (which seems to be based on little more than Zimmerman being out only fit senior pro sub) is perhaps not always the best idea. Farke himself seems to allude to the fact that our defensive players were all caught a little out of position because they were adjusting to the change. That would seem to fit with what we saw. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Alfie54 76 Posted November 30, 2020 He’s done the same previously and it appears to cause confusion Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shefcanary 2,428 Posted November 30, 2020 Agrre with all this; that's two games on the trot where it hasn't worked. We should only change formation, to change a game. Against Coventry the better approach would have been to occupy them more by putting some energetic youngsters on up front rather than confusing our defence. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Thirsty Lizard 3,169 Posted November 30, 2020 The usual Pinkun message board after timing. As Farke explained, Coventry had changed their formation and put on an extra striker and so therefore it was totally understandable that he should bring on Zimmerman. It was actually a superb cross field ball by the Coventry player and a superb first time cross. The biggest problem defensively in the goal wasn't Aarons or Zimmerman, but Hanley. He's been outstanding for us this season, but he was ambling about doing his best invisible man impression for their goal I'm afraid. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Capt. Pants 4,261 Posted November 30, 2020 Aarons was caught upfield first half. Not sure it had anything to do with moving to 3 CBs. Just hope Farke hits that idea on the head fairly quickly. It nearly cost us against Stoke like it later did on Saturday. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hogesar 9,704 Posted November 30, 2020 Fans were desperate for 5 at the back last season. Interesting after a couple of switches (where we've won with 10 men and got a point with an entire first team injured) it's now something to avoid. The decision to switch was spot on in my book, the players just needed to apply it better. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sgncfc 1,233 Posted November 30, 2020 4 hours ago, Thirsty Lizard said: The usual Pinkun message board after timing. As Farke explained, Coventry had changed their formation and put on an extra striker and so therefore it was totally understandable that he should bring on Zimmerman. It was actually a superb cross field ball by the Coventry player and a superb first time cross. The biggest problem defensively in the goal wasn't Aarons or Zimmerman, but Hanley. He's been outstanding for us this season, but he was ambling about doing his best invisible man impression for their goal I'm afraid. Disagree - Aarons shouldn't have made the challenge, he was never going to get there. He could have just stood the guy up while everyone else got back on position. Poor decision. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Thirsty Lizard 3,169 Posted November 30, 2020 46 minutes ago, sgncfc said: Disagree - Aarons shouldn't have made the challenge, he was never going to get there. He could have just stood the guy up while everyone else got back on position. Poor decision. Good grief - I despair. The Coventry player played the ball in FIRST TIME - if Aarons had stood off him he would have just done the exact same thing anyway. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shefcanary 2,428 Posted November 30, 2020 Three at the back may be worth looking at but don't change to it with only 10 minutes to go when we're winning! From the start, at half time, when we're coasting or when we're losing and have tried everything else. But please not when we're winning with only 10 minutes to go. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hogesar 9,704 Posted November 30, 2020 20 minutes ago, shefcanary said: Three at the back may be worth looking at but don't change to it with only 10 minutes to go when we're winning! From the start, at half time, when we're coasting or when we're losing and have tried everything else. But please not when we're winning with only 10 minutes to go. If the opponent changes to two up top and the only senior pro on your bench is a CB then yes, I really hope we do change it in the same circumstances again. It was the right call but just not executed particularly well in that instance. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shefcanary 2,428 Posted November 30, 2020 3 minutes ago, hogesar said: If the opponent changes to two up top and the only senior pro on your bench is a CB then yes, I really hope we do change it in the same circumstances again. It was the right call but just not executed particularly well in that instance. Sorry Hoggy, but it has just caused confusion in the last 2 games. It should only be done in a measured way. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hogesar 9,704 Posted November 30, 2020 2 minutes ago, shefcanary said: Sorry Hoggy, but it has just caused confusion in the last 2 games. It should only be done in a measured way. I think you're right, it did. But it doesn't have to. For me it's still the right play. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
