Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
chicken

Watford - opening season wobble or genuine trouble?

Recommended Posts

A question to kick off with. Watford - opening season wobble or genuine trouble?

I went to the game and although I was disapointed with the loss, as I am sure most people were, I couldn''t help but pick up a few things.

Neither team played well enough to deserve to win. Whatever any Watford fan may say their goals were not well worked and all relied on a hoofball from their defence. Having said that you don''t need to score pretty goals, you just need to do it by hook or by crook. However against better defences going by that performance they will struggle to score.

The biggest issue for me is the same thing I saw last season, the failures of the 4-3-3 or diamond midfield formation. I know its meant to be a diamond midfield but with Hoolahan playing in that position you may as well class him as the third attacker.

To me all of our problems stem from the formation. It sort of frustrates me that Lambert thinks that it can work against all manner of opposition. When we have the ball it can be brilliant. When we don''t have the ball it exposes our wide areas which can lead to the defence being pulled out of shape and the full backs being doubled up on.

Watford highlighted this. People have been picking on players like R.Martin, Nelson and Ruddy but the fact of the matter is that when you look at where we lost the game it is nearly all in midfield and not through the lack of hard work put in by the main midfield three. Just simply that with Hoolahan playing you effectively forfeit a standard midfielder who tracks and tackles and actually contributes to breaking up play and winning the ball back. In most situations this gives the opposition a spare man in midfield to exploit gaps etc. Just like playing ten men, if the ball is switched quickly enough the wide men will find the most space as the three men in midfield have to shuffle across.

This happens even more so on the counter attack when our lack of width forces the full backs to try and offer some.

In effect what I am saying is that if Watford can break us down that easily with the diamond midfield formation it needs to be seriously considered if it is viable.

I would prefer to see us in a formation similar to how Leeds lined up today with a 4-2-3-1 formation.

Same back four but with Fox and Crofts sitting and holding with Hoolahan, Martin and Surman in front of them and Holt up front on his own. I know its not even a change in players but I just think it allows Martin and Surman to drop to a wider position when required an doesn''t rely on Hoolahan having to do what he doesn''t want to do or can''t do in the hard gritty leg work in midfield.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Neither team played well enough to deserve to win"

I think that''s a bit harsh on Watford to be fair...

"Whatever any Watford fan may say their goals were not well worked"

Their second goal was a nice interchange between the strikers exploiting the weakness in our defence. If it had been Holt and Martin, we would still have been waxing lyrical about it now.

Other than that I agree with most of the rest of your points and agree that a 4-2-3-1 could be effective, as it could easily switch to a 4-4-1-1 when defending (I would play Martin wider, albeit not as an out and out winger and Hoolahan centrally behind Holt).

To play the diamond you ddon''t necessarily need a destroyer at the base to be successful (Dave Stringer played a diamond a few years back with Rob Newman in the Rusty role), but you do need all of your midfielders to close down the opposition to deny them space. We didn''t do that first half, but were much better in this regard in the second half and as a result we saw more possession.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I''ve been thinking exactly the same with regards to our vulnerability to counters, and how much that is to do with the diamond constricting our midfield. However I can''t see us changing it right away, and rightfully so given the success we had with it last season. I also must say that Watford deserved their win, we looked vulnerable, but we also didn''t create enough to earn all 3 points. Also, I think Macnamee could fit very well into a 4-2-3-1 formation, and I think he is very much underestimated by our supporters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hopefully just a wobble!However, I was also a little concerned at our 1st half display & broadly agree with your opinion on the diamond midfield but this did work pretty well for us in the 1st half of last season until teams learnt how to play against us.  I am of the opinion that the diamond midfield does need a detroyer in front of the back four to make it work this is one of the things we lacked last night, I hope Lambert has not made a mistake in letting Russell leave.You only need to look at how Chelsea have played this formation in the past with the likes of Makelele, Mikel or Essien, therefore I think Lambert has to sacrafice one of the three creative midfielders (Fox, Surman or Hoolahan) the question is which one do you leave out?  For me it would have to be Fox.  Maybe Crofts could play at the base of the diamond he seems like a player who can get his foot in.  What about giving Korey Smith a go in that position once he is fit again?  Although Korey Smith does not have the build of Jon Obbie Mickel I think it is a role he could grow into he has great energy & gets stuck in.  Lambert should know about playing that in that position at a fairly young age because thats the position he played so well in Dortmund.I do however agree that if the diamond midfield is still not functioning after about half a dozen games then yes the 4-2-3-1 could work well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For me it wasn''t necessarily the formation that was the problem, just a few bad individual performances and a general lack of understanding each others intentions.

Although the diamond can make us vulnerable down the flanks I don''t think Watford ever really looked like exploiting us there. Their first goal was a poorly defended free kick, their 2nd was a counter through the middle exposing our lack of pace at CB and their third was through the centre and only happened because our guys had stopped for the 2 fouls that weren''t given (not that thats an excuse play to the whistle boys!)

If we are going to play the diamond without a bruiser we need to keep possession more. Watford played a very quick game which seemed to surprise us and we responded by playing quicker than seemed natural to us. We have enough skillful players to keep possession under pressure and we should not be trying to force a quicker game. Our front 6 all look to be attacking threats so we should be pulling and stretching teams around the pitch, but apart from our first goal we rarely even seemed to be trying to do this. I think most of the blame for this can be put on the back 4, why bother will 4 passing midfielders if we are just going to hump it up the field so our 5ft 8 striker can try and challenge their 6ft 4 CB for a header?

It would be interesting to see use lineup in a 4-2-3-1 but I think our problems lie in how we played our formation not the formation itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No leave the panic button alone for a while yet, I saw what happened too, so did Lambert, he is in a better position to put things right, which I''m sure He will, And starting on Tuesday night, yes the Gills are league 2 but a good win for us will put the ghost to bed, remember this time last season, we will be fine     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could not agree more with the OP. I think our diamond worked well in a lower league when we were actually playing a diamond i.e. Russell actually sitting in front of the defence and mopping up, and I think against the lower level of teams, any problems were never found out.

When I watched the game on Friday all I could think of was our formation and the fact it wasn''t working. With a flat midfield three and Hoolahoop up front we were too narrow and Martin and Jackson are hardly battering rams. All Watford had to do was pull a man out wide which either stretched our midfield or dragged a full-back out or both and there would be gaping holes through the centre of the pitch. I always think that at any point in the game you should be able to see exactly which formation the team is playing in (corners and penalties not counting!) and I just couldn''t see it. Was Fox a holding midfielder or what? In the second half it almost appeared that Hoolahoop started playing on the right wing just to get a touch of the ball which left us with a 4-4-2 which somehow still managed to have no-one on the left wing.

Hopefully after a run of games, the players will get used to the formation and how to work it. As many others have said, it really looks like it should be Crofts who should be playing the Russell position. I did say before the start of the season that I worried Hoolahoop would be bullied around by Championship defences and I think so it proved. You stop him playing and you stop Norwich; particularly with Jackson and Martin up front who are both out-and-out finishers.

With regards to the Watford goals, two of the three took big deflections to beat Ruddy. Their second was very well worked but did essentially come from a long punt downfield

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Back after the break"]

"Neither team played well enough to deserve to win"

I think that''s a bit harsh on Watford to be fair...

"Whatever any Watford fan may say their goals were not well worked"

Their second goal was a nice interchange between the strikers exploiting the weakness in our defence. If it had been Holt and Martin, we would still have been waxing lyrical about it now.

Other than that I agree with most of the rest of your points and agree that a 4-2-3-1 could be effective, as it could easily switch to a 4-4-1-1 when defending (I would play Martin wider, albeit not as an out and out winger and Hoolahan centrally behind Holt).

To play the diamond you ddon''t necessarily need a destroyer at the base to be successful (Dave Stringer played a diamond a few years back with Rob Newman in the Rusty role), but you do need all of your midfielders to close down the opposition to deny them space. We didn''t do that first half, but were much better in this regard in the second half and as a result we saw more possession.

[/quote]As you say, you don''t necessarily need a destroyer if you have 4 closing down players. The problem is, if we play Wes at the front of the diamond we leave ourselves with only 3 to close down, as he doesn''t really track back and defend. In that situation I think we really do need at least 1 and preferably 2 destroyers. Last season we had Russell and Smith, and the formation could easily switch from a diamond to a 4-2-x-x, if playing opponents with a strong cenral midfield.With Russell gone I don''t think we have that option any more unless one of the new boys can convert to a destroyer role.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not panicking yet. I think if we were to go to a 4-2-3-1 I would actually play Martin up front on his own.

-----------------Martin--------------

----Surman----Hoolahan----Holt----

I think Holt would be more effective there than Martin and would still be able to get just as many goals. He spends a lot more of his time out on the wings anyway so this would just be playing an adaption of the diamond with players still playing where they''re used to being.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Neither a wobble or genuine trouble.

With six new players in the line up making their debut under the lights in front of an expectant crowd on Sky TV we were always going to look a little disjointed.

The midfield is the most crucial part of a team and NONE of them had played a single competitive game together before! Unlike Watford whoes entire starting eleven played side by side last season.

We need to be patient and supportive but also realistic. Safety is the ONLY objective this season ... remember where we were at this point year ago?

Finally ... I can''t agree with your assessment of Watford!!! Hoofball doesn''t mean just any ball in the air. Their first goal was a fine cross and an even better chest down and shot. Their second goal was a beautifully worked interchange and expert finish.

We deserved to lose - no question. But, in time we will get stronger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wouldn''t be surprised if Lambert''s plan was to play Crofts in the holding role all the long but with Korey''s injury he has had to shuffle the pack a little bit. I can see the idea behind playing Fox at the base of the diamond in a playmaker role, but he will be beaten in the air more often than Russell. This will cause one of our centre backs to come out to win headers, allowing attackers to get in behind the defence.I would say of the goals conceded on Friday there were individual errors in all of them, something a manager can''t really plan against. We all thought the world was going to end after the first game of the season last year, and it didn''t. Also I would suggest if this defeat had happened around Christmas time we wouldn''t really batter an eyelid and say "it''s one of those things", because it was first game of the season and being on TV allowed many more people to see and dissect in great detail we are all going off the deep end a little. It''s always the same, in pre-season everyone says "don''t judge until we have played 5 - 10 games" but then after 45 minutes determine we are useless and will be relegated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lambert appeard very down after the game, so maybe its not just a wobble.

I''d still play 4-4-2, but hey, I aint fit to even clean PL''s boots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="First Wizard"]

Lambert appeard very down after the game, so maybe its not just a wobble.

I''d still play 4-4-2, but hey, I aint fit to even clean PL''s boots.

[/quote]Doesnt matter what formation you play if the keeper and back four are not good enough.If you look at stats on shots etc not much to choose between sides. Basic defensive mistakes cost us not the midfield. Ward and Nelson are too similar as central backs ie tall not fast. If you look atthe pairing of good central defenders always one who is tall and tough good header clearer and one who is smaller but quick and more skilful with ball, like when we had Mackay and Fleming.This simply usually matches the oppo forwards who more often have one tall tough guy not so skillfuland one smaller quick skilfulI believe Nelson and Askou is the answer pity manager doesnt!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="CJ"][quote user="First Wizard"]

Lambert appeard very down after the game, so maybe its not just a wobble.

I''d still play 4-4-2, but hey, I aint fit to even clean PL''s boots.

[/quote]

Doesnt matter what formation you play if the keeper and back four are not good enough.
If you look at stats on shots etc not much to choose between sides.

Basic defensive mistakes cost us not the midfield. Ward and Nelson are too similar as central backs ie tall not fast. If you look at
the pairing of good central defenders always one who is tall and tough good header clearer and one who
is smaller but quick and more skilful with ball, like when we had Mackay and Fleming.
This simply usually matches the oppo forwards who more often have one tall tough guy not so skillful
and one smaller quick skilful
I believe Nelson and Askou is the answer pity manager doesnt!
[/quote]

only five players in your team then

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably a bit of both - Ward seems not quite match fit, and Holty certainly isn''t. Even Jackson is short of match fitness, probably.

So we can expect a little more from these, and with Askou, Whitbread, Korey and Steven Smith to come into the reckoning, our defence could get tighter and our strike force more effective.

But as many have noticed, there is a big question mark against Russell Martin defensively. It may prove to have been a big mistake to get rid of Spillane.

I hope that correction of errors in defence and a fully fit strike force may be enough, but I have to say what looks pretty strong on paper has to play a lott better if we are to be anything more than lower mid-table next May. I have certainly revised my forecast down slightly. I think that we may play more defensively away fom home, 4-4-2, and keep the diamond for home matches, if we can find a way of blocking the space down the wings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully a wobble but two factors made us lose the game -

 

We struggled up front until Holt came on.

 

The 2 central defenders were a liability.

 

So simply if Holt isn''t playing we are likely to struggle up front and messrs Nelson and Ward have to improve!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Positives are - Jackson had a better all round game than I expected. He is not just a pace merchant as was shown when he set up the crofts goal. We look a threat going forward and I''m sure we will score goals this season which is always the most difficult part to change. Watford came to mainly defend and worked hard to restrict space - more expansive sides could be more susceptable to Hoolahan et al.

Negatives, defence looked too slow and nobody picked up the runners. Should be fixable though. In aprticular I thought Ward looked poor and he was one of the signings that does have Championship experience. Worrying. I''m not convinced about the diamond - and this is not a reflection of the match as Watford also played pretty narrow. But when we have a couple of decent wingers one on one with full backs who are far from the best in the division it could get messy. Hope we don''t need a thumping to learn - our management team have no Championship experience which also concerns me. It also takes Lambert a half to get us playing and /or suss the oppo. We forget he is still very much learning his trade especially at this level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By our standards the 2nd goal was excellent play as was your 1st.

Maybe shouldn''t let Eustace have a free shot but still he took it well and how many times do you see the 3rd goal we scored where defenders stand off letting about have a go.

I wouldn''t worry anyway...

Just need more time to gel and in this league there is every chance you''d bea one of the more fancied sides than us!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Mark"]

By our standards the 2nd goal was excellent play as was your 1st.

Maybe shouldn''t let Eustace have a free shot but still he took it well and how many times do you see the 3rd goal we scored where defenders stand off letting the player have a go.

I wouldn''t worry anyway...

Just need more time to gel and in this league there is every chance you''d bea one of the more fancied sides than us!

 

 

[/quote]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wouldnt say theres anything worth panicking about but I do admit to having a genuine concern about midfield.

Going forward we looked good but defensively we were extremely poor. This left the back 4 v. exposed. I dont blame any of the midfielders in particular. The midfield as a unit needs to tighten up.

I have full confidence that Lambo is going to work his ass off this week fixing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="chicken"]

A question to kick off with. Watford - opening season wobble or genuine trouble?

I went to the game and although I was disapointed with the loss, as I am sure most people were, I couldn''t help but pick up a few things.

Neither team played well enough to deserve to win. Whatever any Watford fan may say their goals were not well worked and all relied on a hoofball from their defence. Having said that you don''t need to score pretty goals, you just need to do it by hook or by crook. However against better defences going by that performance they will struggle to score.

The biggest issue for me is the same thing I saw last season, the failures of the 4-3-3 or diamond midfield formation. I know its meant to be a diamond midfield but with Hoolahan playing in that position you may as well class him as the third attacker.

To me all of our problems stem from the formation. It sort of frustrates me that Lambert thinks that it can work against all manner of opposition. When we have the ball it can be brilliant. When we don''t have the ball it exposes our wide areas which can lead to the defence being pulled out of shape and the full backs being doubled up on.

Watford highlighted this. People have been picking on players like R.Martin, Nelson and Ruddy but the fact of the matter is that when you look at where we lost the game it is nearly all in midfield and not through the lack of hard work put in by the main midfield three. Just simply that with Hoolahan playing you effectively forfeit a standard midfielder who tracks and tackles and actually contributes to breaking up play and winning the ball back. In most situations this gives the opposition a spare man in midfield to exploit gaps etc. Just like playing ten men, if the ball is switched quickly enough the wide men will find the most space as the three men in midfield have to shuffle across.

This happens even more so on the counter attack when our lack of width forces the full backs to try and offer some.

In effect what I am saying is that if Watford can break us down that easily with the diamond midfield formation it needs to be seriously considered if it is viable.

I would prefer to see us in a formation similar to how Leeds lined up today with a 4-2-3-1 formation.

Same back four but with Fox and Crofts sitting and holding with Hoolahan, Martin and Surman in front of them and Holt up front on his own. I know its not even a change in players but I just think it allows Martin and Surman to drop to a wider position when required an doesn''t rely on Hoolahan having to do what he doesn''t want to do or can''t do in the hard gritty leg work in midfield.

[/quote]I think you have it spot on IMO, and think that could work very well. As you rightly said due to our lack of width Our full backs were doubled up on and when we attacked especially in the first half we played it through the middle Watford just got bodies back and deep and we couldn''t get through them. When we did have some width in the second half we looked dangerous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it was a wobble. To be honest I thought we deserved at least a draw, ref robbed us although players should play to the whistle so the 3rd goal despite being a free kick was the Norwich players fault as they should have focused on the ball.I thought that Crofts and Fox both looked very good on friday night.

Crofts goal was a peach but Jackson''s back heel had me lit up before

Crofts even went near it, he ( Jackson) reminded me a lot of Cody though

!Felt bad for Jackson as he tried hard yet was to small to make an impact.Defence looked shoddy,  R. Martin worried me and the chap next to me was quick to slate Ward every few minutes although he seemed alright. If I had blinked a few times Nelson could have been Ginger Pele and im yet to decide if this is a good or bad thing.All in all I think the defence was pretty poor, watching how Watford broke against our strikers it was often 3 vs 5 and we seemed to forget about closing down.

2nd Half looked promising so Im hoping Lambert will get on peoples backs and ensure the next game is better.Despite this, I have to admit I had a great friday night and really enjoyed the game.+ remember, we have NOT won an  opening game for 7 years ;) And just remember how you felt this time last year :) :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good OP and considered discussion here. My reservations about the 4-2-3-1 is that Crofts won''t get forward as much and with 2 goals in 2 matches, he looks to be the midfielder most likely to score at the moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you look at both of Crofts goals, they were well timed runs from deep. I think he could have the same effect playing from deep as long as he is allowed the freedom to make those clever runs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
remember this when we lost the first game, we then went on to get promotion. Just because things don''t come together to start off with, lets not light the torches just yet.

we were poor today, but we''re always poor on the first game of the season, it about seeing if adams can learn from it in the next game, or he''s obviously out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oddly enough I started reading this and thought the OP had got his Ws confused, it rings true on the whole with today''s match. Both teams were poor, neither really deserved the win. All of these people banging on about 1 shot on target, well wolves only had 3, all of which came after the sending off. Molineaux is a hard ground to go to, freshly promoted teams are hard matches early doors and we were both televised and first match of the season, to be honest I''m amazed it took us going down to 10 to lose it!

The season is another 45 games, we were poor but can only get better (though Adams may be the wrong man to inspire that, jury still out on that one)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Thank goodness the last two posts have some perspective.

Sam, I live in Cornwall also and now realise why I left Norwich.

Its just full of scaredy cats running around panicking like Corporal Jones but in reality being kippers (Aussie for two faced and no back bone).

We were really awful today. No excuses. Even the maybe harsh sending off can''t disguise the very poor tactics, performances and inspiration of the first half. We got what we deserved. All concerned need to aknowledge it and put it right.

Do all of the pathetic people screaming for sackings etc think it was going to be a stroll? Arrogance in the extreme. And the agenda by many that says they don''t want Adams to succeed is disgusting.

We have taken a beating today and now we have to regroup and get on with the next game and that is the management teams job to do that not a bunch of squealing posters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agree first games of the season aren''t necessarily an indicator of what is to come and we should make a more balanced judgement in the next few weeks.

Major differences between then and know however was that we had a core of a team that were motivated and knew how to win, led by a manager who had shown his teeth and won a promotion the season before.

The worrying thing from pre season and today''s game is that we don''t seem to have addressed the issues of last year, have a losing mentality, have no leaders on the pitch, and have unnecessarily taken a gamble on a novice manager.

I just like most people on here want NA to be successful but to do that he needs to address the clear failings of last year and too date he has not done that - come on Neil show us you can...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...