Just Back

Quoted from Maringer

The idea that Wilks should have been thrown in up front alongside Vernam is a daft one, for me.

Looks like he'll be the sort of player who will be a poacher and a decent finisher, but barely touched the ball after he came on and certainly doesn't have the attributes to lead the line at present. In fact, the only thing I remember him doing was attempting the pass to Mills when I thought he should have shot instead.

My logic for that is that if you play with a target man "leading the line" as they say, it doesn't have to be a big man to sling balls up to.
For the most part, we were actually playing football on Saturday. Vernam was essentially playing as a number 10 dropping off to receive the ball - you could even call that being a target, just a different kind of target. Matt was having a massively off day and couldn't hold or protect the ball so he was completely ineffective as a target anyway.

And another option for a target is to play the ball into space, so go off Wilks' movement and if we need an out-ball, give him a diagonal ball into space to try and get onto.

Just didn't seem much need for a big lump as a target man when we weren't going direct very much.

Quoted from Mrs Doyle

Maybe right there Arry my incident was when the ref initially gave a corner when it was, in fact, their player that headed the goal-bound shot off the line.

After the outcry from the fans and players, the decision was rightly overturned probably by the third officials say so it's obvious the lino did not have a clue what he was doing.

Without doubt, if that player had ducked his head that was 2-0.

You're wrong Mrs Doyle    

If that shot hadn't hit their player's head and had gone in it would have been 1-0 to them.... and a totally different game altogether would have ensued after we had kicked off again

Nobody knows how it would have gone from there but if they had gone 1-0 up with 11 men on the field I still think Luton would still have taken the three points

Quoted from headingly_mariner

Hahaha his career will be spent playing at a higher level than Town are.

Well Siriki definitely isn't doing himself any favours at the moment, his first touch on Saturday were dreadful , gave the ball away far to often.

Quoted from Tommy

My logic for that is that if you play with a target man "leading the line" as they say, it doesn't have to be a big man to sling balls up to.
For the most part, we were actually playing football on Saturday. Vernam was essentially playing as a number 10 dropping off to receive the ball - you could even call that being a target, just a different kind of target. Matt was having a massively off day and couldn't hold or protect the ball so he was completely ineffective as a target anyway.

And another option for a target is to play the ball into space, so go off Wilks' movement and if we need an out-ball, give him a diagonal ball into space to try and get onto.

Just didn't seem much need for a big lump as a target man when we weren't going direct very much.

Everything you've posted makes total sense Tommy. You obviously know your stuff, technically and lots of us who feel we understand the game well after years of playing, watching, studying or coaching would agree. What worries me, is that our highly paid management duo seem so far behind that. Out of ideas. No imagination. No willingness to be Maverick or bold. No tactical flexibility. Not able to see weaknesses, or opportunities or a player's untapped potential doing something different. I really don't think it bodes well.

Quoted from Grimal

Well Siriki definitely isn't doing himself any favours at the moment, his first touch on Saturday were dreadful , gave the ball away far to often.

But his first touch has been quality for the rest of the season. It's his first season in the league and he's our best player. People cannot cope if he has an off day.

The counterpoint to Tommy's tactical plan is that I've not seen too many indicators this season that we have anywhere near enough ability in the team to play a pure passing game. We did better than usual with our passing against the 11 men of Luton but, once they dropped back to defend their lead, we were unable to move the ball around nearly well enough to cause many problems. We just ended up losing possession too often or were forced into aimless whacks upfield. Terrible movement in midfield, no incisive passing, lots of pointless tip-tapping between the back three.

There wasn't any space in behind for Wilks or whoever to run onto during the second half and we've seen too often this season that we don't have the players to put accurate passes over the top in any case.

With the current players at our disposal, I'm afraid I don't think we are good enough to play without a biggish bloke up front. Most lower division teams are the same which is why central defenders tend to be tall and strong as opposed to quick and athletic.

Quoted from Maringer

The counterpoint to Tommy's tactical plan is that I've not seen too many indicators this season that we have anywhere near enough ability in the team to play a pure passing game. We did better than usual with our passing against the 11 men of Luton but, once they dropped back to defend their lead, we were unable to move the ball around nearly well enough to cause many problems. We just ended up losing possession too often or were forced into aimless whacks upfield. Terrible movement in midfield, no incisive passing, lots of pointless tip-tapping between the back three.

There wasn't any space in behind for Wilks or whoever to run onto during the second half and we've seen too often this season that we don't have the players to put accurate passes over the top in any case.

With the current players at our disposal, I'm afraid I don't think we are good enough to play without a biggish bloke up front. Most lower division teams are the same which is why central defenders tend to be tall and strong as opposed to quick and athletic.

I thought that when we were 11 v 11 on Saturday, our midfield three were matching up well with Luton. Their manager, when the red card was shown, changed their shape and our players, all eleven, didn't have a clue what to do. They came out 2nd half with a plan to nick a goal and survive - we didn't need 3 centre backs, we needed pace to get round them.

Quoted from Maringer

The counterpoint to Tommy's tactical plan is that I've not seen too many indicators this season that we have anywhere near enough ability in the team to play a pure passing game. We did better than usual with our passing against the 11 men of Luton but, once they dropped back to defend their lead, we were unable to move the ball around nearly well enough to cause many problems. We just ended up losing possession too often or were forced into aimless whacks upfield. Terrible movement in midfield, no incisive passing, lots of pointless tip-tapping between the back three.

There wasn't any space in behind for Wilks or whoever to run onto during the second half and we've seen too often this season that we don't have the players to put accurate passes over the top in any case.

With the current players at our disposal, I'm afraid I don't think we are good enough to play without a biggish bloke up front. Most lower division teams are the same which is why central defenders tend to be tall and strong as opposed to quick and athletic.

And yet there are very, very few L1/L2 teams playing direct/long ball/percentages football. Most teams, especially those doing well, are trying to pass/play and can vary it.

Oh, I agree it was ridiculous that all 3 centre halves were still on the pitch at the end of the game.

However, even with the new arrivals, we still don't have much in the way of pace and, against a team defending in depth, you need to be better at moving the ball around to create the opportunities to get behind them.

Let's also not forget that Luton are apparently the best team in the division by some distance this season and have one of the best defences. Matt didn't achieve a huge amount against them on the day, but then neither do most strikers. The idea that he somehow should have been dropped in favour of a young loanee with a handful of first team starts who had only joined 24 hours earlier seems a bit bizarre to me.

Vernam looks a decent young player and Wilks is obviously highly rated, but both are extremely inexperienced. Luton's defence would have eaten them alive if they had been up front together without a more experienced player/physical presence.

Quoted from Maringer

The counterpoint to Tommy's tactical plan is that I've not seen too many indicators this season that we have anywhere near enough ability in the team to play a pure passing game. We did better than usual with our passing against the 11 men of Luton but, once they dropped back to defend their lead, we were unable to move the ball around nearly well enough to cause many problems. We just ended up losing possession too often or were forced into aimless whacks upfield. Terrible movement in midfield, no incisive passing, lots of pointless tip-tapping between the back three.

There wasn't any space in behind for Wilks or whoever to run onto during the second half and we've seen too often this season that we don't have the players to put accurate passes over the top in any case.

With the current players at our disposal, I'm afraid I don't think we are good enough to play without a biggish bloke up front. Most lower division teams are the same which is why central defenders tend to be tall and strong as opposed to quick and athletic.

Happy to disagree with what we'd have done if we were manager Maringer, I'd have gone for something a bit different but that's football isn't it, there's reason and logic behind both of our ideas but different people would choose either.

The bits in bold above that you've highlighted is where major problems lied on Saturday. Inability to move the ball quick enough. Not just taking 1/2 touches instead of 3/4, but in terms of zipping passes along the ground with some zip on them. Fizzed across the ground with a bit of power. If you roll your passes sideways slowly and lethargically, the opposition can slide across as a unit and be set in their compact shape on the other side by the time the player receiving the pass actually gets the ball out of his feet and gets his head up. So he's left with the mirror image of what the guy across the other side had before he passed him the ball.

The whole point of moving the ball across the pitch and changing the point of attack is to create and expose gaps in the opposition. Either you can switch it pretty quickly and you might get a wide player 1v1 with a full back (or even 2v1 if it's a premeditated tactic). Or as you move the ball across quickly, the opposition slide across but as they do so there might be a gap to play through as they do it.

We were too slow moving the ball 2nd half. Against 11 it wasn't so bad and our early decent spell came through sharp passing. But at 11v10, and Luton sitting back 2nd half, maybe the players psychologically (subconsciously) lose a bit of intensity in their "in possession" stuff because they know they're not being put under pressure? So they were just slowly rolling the ball across the back three. At the risk of sounding like I'm Luke Summerfield's Dad, he moves the ball with purpose and usually passes it firmly/quickly, which is what's needed, particularly against a low-block like Luton had in the 2nd half.

What I don't think some of the crowd helped with was the constant shouts of "get it forward" and moaning every time the ball went backwards. Yeah there are times when I wish some midfielders would look to play forward instead of going safe and back out to the full-back, but it cannot go forward every time. Sometimes we need to go back to either go across or just try and go forward again. What it does need though is some movement ahead of the ball or a bit of rotation somewhere rather than people stood in their positions/areas. I think some of the hopeful punts our defenders played forward towards the end could've been partly due to them just realising we weren't able to play through midfield, but could've been partly influenced by the pressure from the stands to "get it forward". I don't know.