Players in the box

[Bergen Blade]

If you want to score goals from crosses you need players in the box. In the 1-1 draw against Notts County this was a problem for us.

I think our line up was too static. We started in a 4-5-1 with Doyle deep, flanked by Scougall and Baxter:

Howard
Basham McCarthy McEveley Harris
JCR Scougall Doyle Baxter Murphy
Higdon​

We struggled early doors with our main attacking player Murphy unable get on the ball much, well marked by a very quick County right back. This meant Nigel Clough switched to a 4-4-2 with no left winger:

Howard
Basham McCarthy McEveley Harris
JCR ----- Scougall Doyle--------------
---------------------------------Baxter---------------
Murphy Higdon
​

Regardless of the formation though our movement was a problem. With our central line consisting of three so immobile players as Doyle, Baxter and Higdon we became too static and easy to defend against.

Not only that, the likes of JCR and Murphy, although they have pace, are better at being creators on the ball, rather than runners off it. They want the ball to feet and take on opponents, rather than running in behind defences.

Scougall, whose off the ball movement is normally very good was limited by having to do a lot of defending, as Baxter and Murphy was given extra attacking freedom.

In sum we had too little movement into the box, and too few players in the box when the crosses came in.

Some examples:​

1 player in the box:
2 players in the box (cross went to first post):


2 players in the box (another first post cross):

1 player in the box:



Nothing came of these crosses. But later in the game we took more risks and got more players forward.



It helped, we had five players in the box when Basham had this free header saved, from a beautiful JCR cross:




And finally we are rewarded! Again we have five players in the box when Harris crosses perfectly to Murphy, who finds space between the two centre halves.:




Many fans are frustrated with the 4-5-1 formation, but I don't think it's as easy as just changing to two up front. Whatever our formation, Clough must have a look at our attacking movement, and make sure we have enough players who are good at making their way into the box. We need more movement and more goal threats, and we need to take a few more risks.

 

[boo radley]

I'm sure I've highlighted this to you in another thread. The Baxter thread. I am thankful however you are backing up my arguments and you are better than me at posting the evidence to back them up.

 

[Jonboy60]

"Make sure we have enough players who are good at making their way into the box" and who are able to track back for the counter attack. or is that what you mean by taking risks Bergen.

 

[GRUMPY BLADE]

If you want to score goals from crosses you need players in the box. In the 1-1 draw against Notts County this was a problem for us.

I think our line up was too static. We started in a 4-5-1 with Doyle deep, flanked by Scougall and Baxter:

Howard
Basham McCarthy McEveley Harris
JCR Scougall Doyle Baxter Murphy
Higdon​

We struggled early doors with our main attacking player Murphy unable get on the ball much, well marked by a very quick County right back. This meant Nigel Clough switched to a 4-4-2 with no left winger:

Howard
Basham McCarthy McEveley Harris
JCR ----- Scougall Doyle--------------
---------------------------------Baxter---------------
Murphy Higdon
​

Regardless of the formation though our movement was a problem. With our central line consisting of three so immobile players as Doyle, Baxter and Higdon we became too static and easy to defend against.

Not only that, the likes of JCR and Murphy, although they have pace, are better at being creators on the ball, rather than runners off it. They want the ball to feet and take on opponents, rather than running in behind defences.

Scougall, whose off the ball movement is normally very good was limited by having to do a lot of defending, as Baxter and Murphy was given extra attacking freedom.

In sum we had too little movement into the box, and too few players in the box when the crosses came in.

Some examples:​

1 player in the box:View attachment 9925
2 players in the box (cross went to first post):
View attachment 9926

2 players in the box (another first post cross):
View attachment 9927
1 player in the box:
View attachment 9928


Nothing came of these crosses. But later in the game we took more risks and got more players forward.



It helped, we had five players in the box when Basham had this free header saved, from a beautiful JCR cross:

View attachment 9929


And finally we are rewarded! Again we have five players in the box when Harris crosses perfectly to Murphy, who finds space between the two centre halves.:
View attachment 9930



Many fans are frustrated with the 4-5-1 formation, but I don't think it's as easy as just changing to two up front. Whatever our formation, Clough must have a look at our attacking movement, and make sure we have enough players who are good at making their way into the box. We need more movement and more goal threats, and we need to take a few more risks.

Simple is this footie lark, ger'it int box and get on end of it.

First corner/free kick should be under the bar and four of our players should put the lot in the net.

Then the keeper will spend the rest of the game wondering if he's going to wake up in hospital.

 

[Dnblade]

Yes looked like 4141 to start with...I noticed in the second half the lack of anybody on the left wing ..it looked like Baxter did start there...he chased the right back down,but then moved inside for the rest of the time and to be fair he did make a few decent passes into Murphy and JCR,but it looked strange to have nobody out there for a lot of the 2nd half...Harris seemed reluctant to venture to far forward,but there was plenty of space to run into and..maybe he was instructed to hold his position
Also about the only time we get a cross in early with the defenders facing their own goal...we scored.Great cross by Harris,similar to the one he provided for Higdon the other week.

 

[alcoblade]

If you want to score goals from crosses you need players in the box. In the 1-1 draw against Notts County this was a problem for us.

I think our line up was too static. We started in a 4-5-1 with Doyle deep, flanked by Scougall and Baxter:

Howard
Basham McCarthy McEveley Harris
JCR Scougall Doyle Baxter Murphy
Higdon​

We struggled early doors with our main attacking player Murphy unable get on the ball much, well marked by a very quick County right back. This meant Nigel Clough switched to a 4-4-2 with no left winger:

Howard
Basham McCarthy McEveley Harris
JCR ----- Scougall Doyle--------------
---------------------------------Baxter---------------
Murphy Higdon
​

Regardless of the formation though our movement was a problem. With our central line consisting of three so immobile players as Doyle, Baxter and Higdon we became too static and easy to defend against.

Not only that, the likes of JCR and Murphy, although they have pace, are better at being creators on the ball, rather than runners off it. They want the ball to feet and take on opponents, rather than running in behind defences.

Scougall, whose off the ball movement is normally very good was limited by having to do a lot of defending, as Baxter and Murphy was given extra attacking freedom.

In sum we had too little movement into the box, and too few players in the box when the crosses came in.

Some examples:​

1 player in the box:View attachment 9925
2 players in the box (cross went to first post):
View attachment 9926

2 players in the box (another first post cross):
View attachment 9927
1 player in the box:
View attachment 9928


Nothing came of these crosses. But later in the game we took more risks and got more players forward.



It helped, we had five players in the box when Basham had this free header saved, from a beautiful JCR cross:

View attachment 9929


And finally we are rewarded! Again we have five players in the box when Harris crosses perfectly to Murphy, who finds space between the two centre halves.:
View attachment 9930



Many fans are frustrated with the 4-5-1 formation, but I don't think it's as easy as just changing to two up front. Whatever our formation, Clough must have a look at our attacking movement, and make sure we have enough players who are good at making their way into the box. We need more movement and more goal threats, and we need to take a few more risks.

Bang on. There's too much emphasis on formation (numbers on a piece of paper) compared to the actual positioning, desire and intent of the players.

UTB

 

[Foxy]

Bang on. There's too much emphasis on formation (numbers on a piece of paper) compared to the actual positioning, desire and intent of the players.

Said this for quite some time, to be told I'm wrong

 

[Woodwardfan]

Nothing to stop Bergen making his points, not everybody reads every other post on every thread , it would be a full time job!

The point about men in the box has been made by numerous posters since Friday so it just could have some validity!!!

The point he makes about their right back was spot on. It was obviously an evident problem after about 5 minutes, after all Murphy is our main/only goal threat and he was making no headway. I said to my wife after about ten minutes "we should switch him to the right, Ryce doesn't rely solely on pace and should come over left", it never happened, maybe after the experience of last Tuesday.

Scougall did play deeper and got more involved, but he was safe and sound when he should have probed and run at them more rather than across the front of them.

We can't play Baxter and Scougall together unless one pushes up or out wide. Baxter is no good at tracking back and Scougall's strengths are wasted in that role.

With our current batch of players 3-5-2 would be perfect for home games and by all means play Basham and Doyle together, though I'd prefer Reid and Doyle even if we had the luxury of two up front as well. In any case, with 4-5-1 the full backs should be pushing and pushing the wingers forward at every opportunity, taking their space and forcing them up alongside the frontrunner. If one full back gets caught upfield there are still 3 at the back plus the ever vigilant Doyle. Take Doyle off and we are soon in trouble as we saw on Friday night, thankfully with no goal conceded thanks to McEveley's "worldie" tackle.

All pie in the sky!!!

 

[sitwell]

Yes looked like 4141 to start with...I noticed in the second half the lack of anybody on the left wing ..it looked like Baxter did start there...he chased the right back down,but then moved inside for the rest of the time and to be fair he did make a few decent passes into Murphy and JCR,but it looked strange to have nobody out there for a lot of the 2nd half...Harris seemed reluctant to venture to far forward,but there was plenty of space to run into and..maybe he was instructed to hold his position
Also about the only time we get a cross in early with the defenders facing their own goal...we scored.Great cross by Harris,similar to the one he provided for Higdon the other week.

Harris stopped going forward as much when Doyle went off ,he didn't have the reassurance of Doyle covering for him and with no winger tracking back it was to much of a risk. Harris and Murphy is a great partnership and shouldn't be broken I don't think.

 

[Foxy]

Harris stopped going forward as much when Doyle went off ,he didn't have the reassurance of Doyle covering for him and with no winger tracking back it was to much of a risk. Harris and Murphy is a great partnership and shouldn't be broken I don't think.

Murphy is markedly better going forwards when Harris plays, just as Flynn was with Brayford.

I also think Harris is under-rated by a lot of Blades fans.

 

[boo radley]

Bang on. There's too much emphasis on formation (numbers on a piece of paper) compared to the actual positioning, desire and intent of the players.

UTB

Which points to a lack of confidence in the players making runs forward about the coverage and back up they will receive from behind them.

We can't play Baxter and Scougall together unless one pushes up or out wide. Baxter is no good at tracking back and Scougall's strengths are wasted in that role.

suggest you look at the Charlton game last year, as well as the semi final. Baxter Scougall and Murphey should all be able to cover each other espeially with the back up of Harris and the fact that Doyle sits deeper than ever. Apart from Harris who's sence of play and positioning seems best at the moment they are all too rigid.

 

[Hodgyman]

Having defenders in the box applies when we are defending too. Nott's goal was from a totally unmarked man at the back post having a free header. Failure to having players at both posts from a corner and having them stay there until the ball is adequately cleared is costing us goals

 

[Pedro Verde]

With our current batch of players 3-5-2 would be perfect for home games and by all means play Basham and Doyle together, though I'd prefer Reid and Doyle even if we had the luxury of two up front as well. In any case, with 4-5-1 the full backs should be pushing and pushing the wingers forward at every opportunity, taking their space and forcing them up alongside the frontrunner. If one full back gets caught upfield there are still 3 at the back plus the ever vigilant Doyle. Take Doyle off and we are soon in trouble as we saw on Friday night, thankfully with no goal conceded thanks to McEveley's "worldie" tackle.

All pie in the sky!!!

 

[Pedro Verde]

We dont have the full / wing backs to play a 3-5-2 unless you play Flynn and Harris in those roles which I wouldnt be confident in doing I wouldnt be comfortable with McCarthy in that line up either

 

[Revolution]

[Many fans are frustrated with the 4-5-1 formation, but I don't think it's as easy as just changing to two up front. Whatever our formation, Clough must have a look at our attacking movement, and make sure we have enough players who are good at making their way into the box. We need more movement and more goal threats, and we need to take a few more risks.

I agree that 4-4-2 is not a cure all, but it is definitely going to help get more players in the box, for the simple reason that one more player will be further advanced most of the time.

I understand that part of the problem is personnel, as scrappy midgets do not do well in a 4-4-2 formation. But the likes of Reed and Basham and Doyle are simply either not going to get into the box as we need them to or (in the case of Basham and possibly the others) can't finish when they do. Scougall is probably the best at it but he has missed some chances this season and his goalscoring record last year did not suggest he's going to go all Michael Brown on us any time soon.

This to me is the fundamental problem with this formation - it demands the midfield 3 to score goals, and our midfield 3 doesn't.

Wallace could still be the answer to all of this, but I've just about given up on him.

 

[Blade56]

If you want to score goals from crosses you need players in the box. In the 1-1 draw against Notts County this was a problem for us.

I think our line up was too static. We started in a 4-5-1 with Doyle deep, flanked by Scougall and Baxter:

Howard
Basham McCarthy McEveley Harris
JCR Scougall Doyle Baxter Murphy
Higdon​

We struggled early doors with our main attacking player Murphy unable get on the ball much, well marked by a very quick County right back. This meant Nigel Clough switched to a 4-4-2 with no left winger:

Howard
Basham McCarthy McEveley Harris
JCR ----- Scougall Doyle--------------
---------------------------------Baxter---------------
Murphy Higdon
​

Regardless of the formation though our movement was a problem. With our central line consisting of three so immobile players as Doyle, Baxter and Higdon we became too static and easy to defend against.

Not only that, the likes of JCR and Murphy, although they have pace, are better at being creators on the ball, rather than runners off it. They want the ball to feet and take on opponents, rather than running in behind defences.

Scougall, whose off the ball movement is normally very good was limited by having to do a lot of defending, as Baxter and Murphy was given extra attacking freedom.

In sum we had too little movement into the box, and too few players in the box when the crosses came in.

Some examples:​

1 player in the box:View attachment 9925
2 players in the box (cross went to first post):
View attachment 9926

2 players in the box (another first post cross):
View attachment 9927
1 player in the box:
View attachment 9928


Nothing came of these crosses. But later in the game we took more risks and got more players forward.



It helped, we had five players in the box when Basham had this free header saved, from a beautiful JCR cross:

View attachment 9929


And finally we are rewarded! Again we have five players in the box when Harris crosses perfectly to Murphy, who finds space between the two centre halves.:
View attachment 9930



Many fans are frustrated with the 4-5-1 formation, but I don't think it's as easy as just changing to two up front. Whatever our formation, Clough must have a look at our attacking movement, and make sure we have enough players who are good at making their way into the box. We need more movement and more goal threats, and we need to take a few more risks.

Spot on post Mr B. Every match I sit there screaming first at the match then at the radio when NC criticises his players for not getting enough crosses in but missing the fact that there's no one on the end of them!

Additionally, it's not all about the formation 442, 451 etc is about mobility, players defending in numbers when necessary and breaking out in numbers to ATTACK whilst setting up a rearguard just in case.

 

[Bergen Blade]

"Make sure we have enough players who are good at making their way into the box" and who are able to track back for the counter attack. or is that what you mean by taking risks Bergen.

Yes, the players we push into the box to get on the end of crosses won't be the same players who stop the immediate counter attack if the cross is cleared. Clough also commented after the game that they need to find the right balance between keeping defensive solidity and having enough attacking threat.

Clough hates conceding first half goals, but no matter how few risks you take, most often the opposition will get a chance or two, sometimes from a set piece like on Friday. So you have to aim at scoring goals yourself, and it's difficult without taking risks, i.e. pushing people forward.

 

[Bergen Blade]

suggest you look at the Charlton game last year, as well as the semi final. Baxter Scougall and Murphey should all be able to cover each other espeially with the back up of Harris and the fact that Doyle sits deeper than ever. Apart from Harris who's sence of play and positioning seems best at the moment they are all too rigid.

Baxter was up front in those games though, like Woodwardfan said. Against Charlton Murphy swapped positions with Baxter (2nd half).

 

[curtisblades]

Is it worth pointing out that Notts County were parking the bus for the majority of the game and we limited them to very few chances. In each of the pictures they have around 5/6 players in the box with a bank of 4 players in front of them. They were very well organised so therefore they were a hard team to break down. They are in the play off spots so it clearly shows they obviously aren't a bad team and they know what they're doing. However I do still think we need to get more players in the box and in order to get the best out of Higdon we should play 4-4-2.

 

[boo radley]

Baxter was up front in those games though, like Woodwardfan said. Against Charlton Murphy swapped positions with Baxter (2nd half).

And that's the point I am making. They can play together if they forget the shackles and become more mobile and stop worrying about coverage.

 

[Bergen Blade]

Having defenders in the box applies when we are defending too. Nott's goal was from a totally unmarked man at the back post having a free header. Failure to having players at both posts from a corner and having them stay there until the ball is adequately cleared is costing us goals

I think we usually have men on the posts, not sure why we changed that? The scorer was originally marked by Doyle, but lost him. McEveley marked a player on the back post, but went with him (to 1st post) as the ball came in.

 

[Hodgyman]

I think we usually have men on the posts, not sure why we changed that? The scorer was originally marked by Doyle, but lost him. McEveley marked a player on the back post, but went with him (to 1st post) as the ball came in.

Hence my comment about staying put until danger is cleared. Players leaving their post too early has cost us a few goals, most notably when Baxter left early for Hull to score in the semi-final

 

[SouthEssexBlade]

Bergen Blade gives a good illustration as to the issue. I've said before (and so has he) that formations (4-5-1, 4-4-2 or whatever) are more to do with when you don't have the ball, than when you do. I'm not convinced 4-4-2 would get us any more people in the box or pushing forward onto the end of crosses than 4-5-1 or it's variations. In fact midfielders tend to sit back and leave it to the two up front rather than trying to add to the numbers.

I couldn't give an actual figure, but we seem to be conceding most of our goals from set pieces. Again this is nothing to do with formations but plain old defending and doing your role as required. A bit more solidity from corners and free kicks will cut out most of the stuff we're conceding.

 

[Revolution]

As I said, it is not a panacea, but I am 100% convinced that if the 2nd forward is reasonably mobile that will give us an extra option in the box on a cross at least 50% of the time, as opposed to a 4-5-1 situation, for the simple reason that the second forward is starting his run from a position a bit further forward than a midfielder.

Obviously, there are other variables (how fast your strikers are etc) but this must be right, mustn't it?

 

[bartman]

Many fans are frustrated with the 4-5-1 formation, but I don't think it's as easy as just changing to two up front. Whatever our formation, Clough must have a look at our attacking movement, and make sure we have enough players who are good at making their way into the box. We need more movement and more goal threats, and we need to take a few more risks.

Agree totally. The bit you have missed, in my opinion,is the lack of pace when passing. i.e if we pass the ball quickly (instead of taking two or three touches then looking around then passing it) the emphasis will be on movement. Whilst Higdon was poor on Friday, he wasn't helped by the pedestrian nature of our passing then the lack of support/players going 'beyond' when he eventually controlled it.

 

[Flatulent_Bob]

Posted this in another thread, but it's relevant here.

Higdon really wasn't awful, the service to him was though. You put COG in the same team and give him the same service and you'll see no improvement.
I thought the boo's and jeers when he went off were just ridiculous.
Within 5 minutes of him going off we actually put two crosses into the box he would have loved, and Murph score from one of them.

You can't play Higdon and not put in any crosses, or keep beating your man, standing him up again, and then trying to beat him again. He's got nothing to go on, and then the crowd get on his back and it's a vicious circle. I actually made a point of watching him and the amount of time he creates space for himself to not be given the ball is ridiculous.He moves early to good position but the ball isn't delivered, normally we've decide to go backwards or just not put a good ball in.
The players just do not seem intelligent enough or capable of seeing it. It must be incredibly frustrating to see our midfield unable to deliver a decent cross or take all the pace out of the move by holding onto the ball too long and having to go back.
Our biggest problem is that we are lacking the player who will change our tempo up when it needs. I'm all in favor of possession football, keeping hold of the ball and going back to the defence when required but you need that player, normally in the middle of the park who can suddenly quicken the movement by either beating a man, or pass and go and therefore create the changes. That is what works teams down if you are playing that way, but without Wallace currently no one seems able to do it, which is why I'd like Reed in there for Doyle more often and Basham at Centre Half.

Our number one problem is tempo, and players who can dictate it. While I'd agree that when playing Higdon you need balls into the box, which we were simply not doing, when you have 5 in midfield and playing possession football you need to someone who can quicken up the tempo suddenly by beating a man or quick one twos to move us 10 yards up the pitch and onto the front foot. This is why I like the pairing of Wallace and Reed if fit because they both have this in their capabilities.

 

[bartman]

Having defenders in the box applies when we are defending too. Nott's goal was from a totally unmarked man at the back post having a free header. Failure to having players at both posts from a corner and having them stay there until the ball is adequately cleared is costing us goals

I know what you are saying re marking at set pieces but ultimately ,the goal was Howard's fault. If the keeper calls and comes for the ball, he has to collect.

In open play thou,we defend excellently although it will be a hard test tomorrow

 

[Small Mendonca]

The title to be taken literally.

 

[Worksop_Blade]

It's becoming a joke that Clough is going out of his way to try and shoehorn Baxter into the XI.

I can't tell whether he's a luxury player who swans around and gets involved when he can create something or whether he's just grossly overweight and unable to get himself involved in the game because he's so off the pace.

Either way, the team can't afford to carry another fat scouser.

 

[Woodwardfan]

And that's the point I am making. They can play together if they forget the shackles and become more mobile and stop worrying about coverage.

I should explain more clearly what I mean.

If we play Scougall and Baxter together in midfield then we are likely to be a bit short giving protection to the back 4.

Even in a 5 man midfield, if we assume we play two wide men that leaves three to share the midfield defensive duties. If two of those are B & S we will be a bit light. Wallace is a more all round player and play either of them with him and we'd be fine.

In any case, if Clough chooses to play Basham with Doyle as I think he will tomorrow, there's only room for one of them.