Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Rudolph Hucker

Is It The Midfield?

Recommended Posts

We supposedly have good defenders but we continue to let in too many goals.

 

We criticise our strikers but fail to provide decent final balls to them. We have scored a comparable number of goals to other top six clubs.

 

We constantly tinker with our midfield personnel, their positions and the formation. The best teams have the best midfields. A good midfield wins and more importantly holds the ball well. A good midfield gets early balls to the front players. A good midfield protects the defence.

Our midfield in a diamond leaves the flanks exposed. We don''t play with four across because we apparently lack wide players and very often the only combative player in there is Crofts.

 

Surely a returning Surman can play wide left and Lansbury wide right?  Fox hits good long passes and looks good in possession but IMO switches play better but doesn''t link play as well as Korey who is more of a persistent tackler and ball winner. Wes is out most creative player but needs to be central it seems.  Lappin works hard and runs but has become really goal shy. He does cross well and links well with Drury. The only shoe-in in our defence is Crofts but he needs to re-find his tough tackling early season form. Then there is Stephen Smith who can run with the ball and on his day look good.

 

McNamee is purely an impact player but is struggling to even make the bench.

 

All in all it seems we have an unsettled midfield that PL is struggling to mould into a cohesive unit and maybe we need to look at this area instead of the others for our problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have to agree RH that there is far too much shuffling the pack and a lot of it seems unnecessary.I watched the live stream and it looked to me that Wes totally ran the second half. IMO he must play every game if fit.It aint the midfield RH just look at the goals against column and you will see the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We only have one forward who is a real threat until some one like Jackson( ha ha), Martin or Wilbrahaum starts getting goals we are going nowhere.If you only have one threat up front you can mark that out and as against Millwall the longer you go without scoring the more you press and leave yourself exposed at back.You can not keep hoping for the midfield and backs to do the job the forwards should do!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="RUDOLPH HUCKER"]Ricardo, home goals against is shocking and for me speaks of failing to dominate games and that is why I question the midfield.[/quote]I wouldn''t say we''ve been dominated at home except by Sansea and for a spell Leesds. Most of the goals given away have been pretty poor defending and a lot of them from set pieces. Todays example was typical, we dominated the second half and they scored from a set piece out of nothing. When you play the game on the front foot home and away you must expect the other team to get chances but in far too many games this season we have conceded the first goal, leaving ourselves an uphill task.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought Millwall dominated us too, Ricardo and we looked all at sea once we conceeded to Hull and Palace. I agree with the set pieces fiasco. It is no surprise that now the two best goal differences belong to the first and second place teams and that is ominous for the rest of the season. On a positive note the top two play each other next week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="RUDOLPH HUCKER"]I thought Millwall dominated us too, Ricardo and we looked all at sea once we conceeded to Hull and Palace. I agree with the set pieces fiasco. It is no surprise that now the two best goal differences belong to the first and second place teams and that is ominous for the rest of the season. On a positive note the top two play each other next week.[/quote]You picked out something I''ve been repeating on here for several seasons. It is invarialbly the teams with the best goal differences that finish 1st and 2nd just as it is the teams with the worst that finsh 23rd and 24th.I''m still hoping for an auto but realistically we are looking at the playoffs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or defensive personnel are fine. The goals today were not the kind that we normally concede. The first would never have happened if we had a left back in the correct place but they were far too far up in the 5 3 2 formation. And the third was very poor marking by Wilbraham.

No, the real reason we concede more than many is because we play very open, attacking football. As a result we also score more than most in the league. But maybe it is a concern for PL and the coaching staff and they thought they''d try something to address it. Thing is, just as RH is saying, all this tinkering could do more harm than good.

I think, for what it''s worth, we should go with the trusty diamond with the back up to switch to 4-4-2 when needed. And as i''ve seen someone else suggest, when we can get Crofts at the base, Hooly at the top and Lansbury/Korey on the right and Surman on the left, we could get back to our best. I think that formation works best for Holt and Martin too and will get them scoring again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don''t really understand OP, the game today produced several good final balls. Surely that was obvious?

Holt at least has to make the keeper work with his effort (the one he missed) and Martin has to score one on one with the keeper. If we take our chances we win the match. Hoolahan''s pass was top draw for our goal from Holt.

3 gilt edge chances created, 1 goal = not good enough from the strikers.

Last season Holt wouldn''t have missed his first effort, he had too much time to think and didn''t do much - just lacking slightly in confidence maybe. His goal was more instinctive and reactionary, thus i think aiding him in puting it away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Still think the OP''s central point is spot on: we''re tinkering with the midfield way too much. It''s as if - for pretty much the first time since he has been here - Lambert doesn''t know what his best team is and won''t let it settle. I think his concern is that if he ditches the diamond for a 442 he can''t really accommodate Wes wide left, because that nullifies his central, drifting threat. For what it''s worth, I think he should go 442, with Surman and Lansbury in the wide roles. I think Fox and Crofts compliment each other really nicely in the centre, one dropping deep to cover when the other goes forward. Then, because, like Ricardo, I think he''s our most important player and key to any chance we have of gaining auto, I''d play Wes alongside Holt, in a drifting, free role. It''s got to be worth a go: the other strikers don''t seem to know where the goal is and we know Wes can finish. And he''d be playing in front of a tighter midfield better able to protect the defence. I think we''d still score goals and we''d be less likely to concede them. Time for a bit of good, old-fashioned stability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Hackney Canary"]Still think the OP''s central point is spot on: we''re tinkering with the midfield way too much. It''s as if - for pretty much the first time since he has been here - Lambert doesn''t know what his best team is and won''t let it settle. I think his concern is that if he ditches the diamond for a 442 he can''t really accommodate Wes wide left, because that nullifies his central, drifting threat. For what it''s worth, I think he should go 442, with Surman and Lansbury in the wide roles. I think Fox and Crofts compliment each other really nicely in the centre, one dropping deep to cover when the other goes forward. Then, because, like Ricardo, I think he''s our most important player and key to any chance we have of gaining auto, I''d play Wes alongside Holt, in a drifting, free role. It''s got to be worth a go: the other strikers don''t seem to know where the goal is and we know Wes can finish. And he''d be playing in front of a tighter midfield better able to protect the defence. I think we''d still score goals and we''d be less likely to concede them. Time for a bit of good, old-fashioned stability.[/quote]I''m seeing this more & more. It''s gotta be worth a go.I know it constitutes even more tinkering,, but it poses very little risk (since our strikers aren''t scoring anyway) & still leaves plenty of creativity. Wes would present a huge problem for defenders twisting & turning inside the penalty area. Somehow I can''t see them grabbing him round the waist & throwing him to the ground, as I''ve seen happen on the half-way line!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ordinarily I would agree with this, but when Wes picks the ball up in midfield, he has one thing in his mind, and thats to get the ball forward quickly. Too many of the other midfielders pass it sideways or take too long to decide what to do. I fear if we put Wes too far up the pitch we will lose that drive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We have a large midfield squad, but those out on loan are probably not good enough. Aside from Surman and Hooly, who are creative but not dominating presences, we have only Crofts to provide bite and real defesnive power.

A major problem, which PL has clearly identified, is the absence of effective wingers. Many teams rely on wingers to get to the by-line and pull the ball back, which makes it easier for incoming forwards to score and harder for defenders to defend. Apart from occasional forays by Martin R and Drury, usually slow enough to alloow the defenders to get back, our strikers are usually stationary and waiting fo the ball, and well marked.

Some good teams lack speedy winmgers as such, and play 4-3-3 like us, but they have players with pace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Downloads"]Ordinarily I would agree with this, but when Wes picks the ball up in midfield, he has one thing in his mind, and thats to get the ball forward quickly. Too many of the other midfielders pass it sideways or take too long to decide what to do. I fear if we put Wes too far up the pitch we will lose that drive.[/quote]

But I reckon Wes could still drop deep and get the ball. Additonally, with Lansbury and Surman, we have players who are direct, can pick a pass and come in from the flanks. I don''t think we''re a busted flush just yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="ron obvious"][quote user="Hackney Canary"]Still think the OP''s central point is spot on: we''re tinkering with the midfield way too much. It''s as if - for pretty much the first time since he has been here - Lambert doesn''t know what his best team is and won''t let it settle. I think his concern is that if he ditches the diamond for a 442 he can''t really accommodate Wes wide left, because that nullifies his central, drifting threat. For what it''s worth, I think he should go 442, with Surman and Lansbury in the wide roles. I think Fox and Crofts compliment each other really nicely in the centre, one dropping deep to cover when the other goes forward. Then, because, like Ricardo, I think he''s our most important player and key to any chance we have of gaining auto, I''d play Wes alongside Holt, in a drifting, free role. It''s got to be worth a go: the other strikers don''t seem to know where the goal is and we know Wes can finish. And he''d be playing in front of a tighter midfield better able to protect the defence. I think we''d still score goals and we''d be less likely to concede them. Time for a bit of good, old-fashioned stability.[/quote]I''m seeing this more & more. It''s gotta be worth a go.I know it constitutes even more tinkering,, but it poses very little risk (since our strikers aren''t scoring anyway) & still leaves plenty of creativity. Wes would present a huge problem for defenders twisting & turning inside the penalty area. Somehow I can''t see them grabbing him round the waist & throwing him to the ground, as I''ve seen happen on the half-way line![/quote]IMO if Wes alongside Holt, in a drifting, free role we would end up with no one in the box when we attack as Holt drifts all the time as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Harry"]IMO if Wes alongside Holt, in a drifting, free role we would end up with no one in the box when we attack as Holt drifts all the time as well.[/quote]He drifts when we''re counter-attacking. I''m thinking of the situation when we''re passing around in front of a packed defence & getting nowhere. Wes in the box in those conditions could be deadly - as long as we''ve got the players (Surman & Lansbury) to get the ball to him. When you see the way he can trick his way past 2 or 3 defenders in zero space in midfield, then it does make you want to see him closer to goal where the defenders don''t have the option of fouling him. He has the end product too.I''m convinced it''s worth a try. But if Lambert thinks it''s not, then I''ll go with that every time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="ron obvious"][quote user="Harry"]

IMO if Wes alongside Holt, in a drifting, free role we would end up with no one in the box when we attack as Holt drifts all the time as well.
[/quote]

He drifts when we''re counter-attacking. I''m thinking of the situation when we''re passing around in front of a packed defence & getting nowhere. Wes in the box in those conditions could be deadly - as long as we''ve got the players (Surman & Lansbury) to get the ball to him. When you see the way he can trick his way past 2 or 3 defenders in zero space in midfield, then it does make you want to see him closer to goal where the defenders don''t have the option of fouling him. He has the end product too.

I''m convinced it''s worth a try. But if Lambert thinks it''s not, then I''ll go with that every time.


[/quote]

Now this is more of a convincing argument. The thought of Wes taking on defenders in the box does excite. Shame we don''t have 2 of him! One to get the ball up the pitch quickly and another to take on the defenders...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would have to agree to an extent here.

Play a 4-4-1-1. Let wes totally loose on the opposition. Let him go where he wants. Tell the wide men to try and help support Holt if there is the chance and Hoolahan to fill in if nessisary.

For me this would best work currently with: Surman, Crofts, Fox and Lansbury playing in midfield.

When Fox doesn''t play we seem to loose the sharp passing in there. Hoolahan is great but he doesn''t always release quickly - not a bad thing but I would rather have him in or around the area doing that than on the half-way line and pick a poor pass which he has done a couple of times of late.

I do feel sorry for Martin, and agree with Neil Adams when he says one goal would make a world of difference and probably get him going again.

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...