Baxter's role, 4-5-1-0

[Bergen Blade]

It was interesting to see our set up against Shrewsbury with no out and out striker playing. Clough has chosen a target man up front so far, but did say that Baxter's hold up play was the best at the club.

It's correct that he can hold it up well when he gets the ball played into feet. His stocky build, good touch and balance saw him turn and shake off his markers a few times. When he's done that he's pretty adventurous with his passing and likes to play the ball out wide to forward running players. He's also a threat from long range and sometimes arrives late in the penalty area, as if he was a "normal" midfielder. His best chance on Saturday happened this way when he Flynn found him with a low pass/cross.


There are a few things that we don't get with him in a lone role up front. He never tries to get in behind defenders. As he's so slow you'd expect that won't be his strength. But even Porter managed to do it, positioning himself between a full back and a centre half and he was clean through - though (just) offside. I'm also not sure Baxter would have been in Porter's position when he finished off Maguire's centre vs Fulham at home.


There were a few times when we won the ball in good positions, started the counter attack with plenty of players running forward, but then Baxter, though our player furthest forward, decided to come short for the ball. When he does this he ruins our counter attacks. If he'd started running forward and then got the ball we'd have much more momentum.



Clough seems quite keen on Baxer and has said that they want to get him on the ball as much as possible. Although Coady had got beyond Shrewsbury's midfield and had acres of space to run into (as well as other teammates sprinting forward), he choses to pass to Baxter. Baxter has undoubted quality, but we shouldn't use him in every situation.


Another example below, Shrewsbury has plenty of men forward and we win the ball in midfield with Scougall. Now Scougall is excellent at driving forward in such situations, and ideally our striker should be stretching them even more and possibly try to run in behind them. But Baxter comes short again, and Scougall gives him the ball.



Baxter should maybe learn from Jamie Murphy (yellow circle) the importance of starting like a sprinter and bomb forward when we win the ball in good situations!

 

[Zlatan]

Another example below, Shrewsbury has plenty of men forward and we win the ball in midfield with Scougall. Now Scougall is excellent at driving forward in such situations, and ideally our striker should be stretching them even more and possibly try to run in behind them. But Baxter comes short again, and Scougall gives him the ball.

I don't see too big a problem with this one. With Baxter's good technique he could quite easily play Scougall in behind with him being a lot quicker.

I do see your overall point though.

 

[cooperblade]

Clough is clearly very keen to get both Scougall and Baxter into his starting line up. Would he be able to do that and play a pacey striker if we sign one?

 

[Silent Blade]

Now Scougall is excellent at driving forward in such situations

From what I saw of our formation last Saturday, it was more of 4-4-1 with Scougall having the free role (similar role to Cruyff in the 1974 WC) as I often saw him drop back as far as the defence line to look for spaces to run onto with the ball

 

[Esablade]

He's one of the few players with the composure on the ball to be able to faint inside and switch the play to attacking fullbacks/midfield.

We've made quite a few chances this way through Baxter.

UTB

 

[JohnDenver]

His stocky build

Cool. I've just learned the Norwegian for 'fat chuff'.

 

[Bladesway]

Good post Bergen, agree with it in principle however, perhaps clough is deliberately trying NOT to stretch teams because of our lack of pace up front. If for instance the plan is to get down the wings and get a ball into the onrushing strikers and midfield you may want to keep the game compact.

Also, our intent seems to be not to concede as much as to go on the offensive. I'm assuming Clough has a concern over us losing shape so he is keeping the team compressed and compact.

Speculation I know but its possible.

 

[Kev Gee]

It would be great if both Baxter & Scougall could effectivley swap roles during the game. Defenders wouldnt know what to do!!

 

[sheffielder]

I see it more of a 4-1-4-1 formatin once we get a quick and mobile striker.

............ ...McGinn
Flynn Baxter Scougall Murphy
................QaMS

The team is starting to evolve and hopefully once we can get rid of some dead wood in the summer we can improve further

 

[itsinyerblood]

What I find pleasing is that we're actually discussing tactical possibilities? It wasn't that long ago that we were bereft of the options we now possess. Include Brayford into that mix and we're not far off having real attacking threat. Brayford's eye for an opportunity is such a potent weapon, and he can play a good ball into the area, pity we don't have the forward(s) to capitalise on his potential, but I'm sure that will come.

I can't recall a manager who has bought so well in such a short space of time. Baxter looked as if playing that lone role up front was something he could easily do. It was certainly unusual, and as the team was announced I had my doubts, but what do I know? Yes, we could have done with a forward with electric pace, but for part of the game this combination worked well. It's not the answer of course, but with the players we have it had the desired effect. Well done Blades.

 

[cooperblade]

I see it more of a 4-1-4-1 formatin once we get a quick and mobile striker.

............ ...McGinn
Flynn Baxter Scougall Murphy
................QaMS

The team is starting to evolve and hopefully once we can get rid of some dead wood in the summer we can improve further

That looks a great attacking line up if the quick and mobile striker is good at holding it up. I think, given our position and available resources, we're unlikely to end up with someone who is good at a few different things.

A 2014 version of Brian Deane would be nice.

Maybe we'll return to a David Weir formation and go

-----Doyle McGinn-----
Flynn Baxter Scougall
--------QaMS-------

 

[Bergen Blade]

Clough is clearly very keen to get both Scougall and Baxter into his starting line up. Would he be able to do that and play a pacey striker if we sign one?

It was a bit surprising that Clough put Scougall in the holding role when McGinn went off on Saturday. He's got too good going forward to play that role permanently though.

A big striker with some pace would be ideal for us.

 

[Bergen Blade]

I don't see too big a problem with this one. With Baxter's good technique he could quite easily play Scougall in behind with him being a lot quicker.

I do see your overall point though.

There's no time to waste at all at counter attacks though. In that situation, Baxter turned, carried the ball for a bit and allowed the opposition midfielders to get back behind the ball. He then rolled it sideways to our full back.

 

[Silent Blade]

It was a bit surprising that Clough put Scougall in the holding role when McGinn went off on Saturday. He's got too good going forward to play that role permanently though.

A big striker with some pace would be ideal for us.

As I have said before Scougall was playing in a free role throughout the game so when you saw him near the defence line (he did that many times in the 1st half) after McGinn had gone, that was because he was confident that he would pick up a loose ball

 

[Bergen Blade]

Good post Bergen, agree with it in principle however, perhaps clough is deliberately trying NOT to stretch teams because of our lack of pace up front. If for instance the plan is to get down the wings and get a ball into the onrushing strikers and midfield you may want to keep the game compact.

Also, our intent seems to be not to concede as much as to go on the offensive. I'm assuming Clough has a concern over us losing shape so he is keeping the team compressed and compact.

Speculation I know but its possible.

Clough is no doubt trying to do his best with what he's got, and so far I think he's had to go for some temporary solutions. You may well be right that for now, he's sacrificed the intention to get in behind teams, and instead trying to make us create enough by other methods. If we're winning it'll be ok, but some choices may not work in the long run.

Hopefully after the summer, we'll see more players brought in to fill specific positions/roles in the team. It will be very interesting to see what type of strikers he'll bring in.

 

[Lane Ender]

I see it more of a 4-1-4-1 formatin once we get a quick and mobile striker.

............ ...McGinn
Flynn Baxter Scougall Murphy
................QaMS

The team is starting to evolve and hopefully once we can get rid of some dead wood in the summer we can improve further

Just wondering what you mean by a quick mobile striker.

Withthe goal opportunities at the moment coming from the midfield surely with our wide men now performing a striker with arial presence would be a priority.

 

[Bergen Blade]

As I have said before Scougall was playing in a free role throughout the game so when you saw him near the defence line (he did that many times in the 1st half) after McGinn had gone, that was because he was confident that he would pick up a loose ball

I saw it as a pretty standard central midfield trio with McGinn holding and both Scougall (to his left) and Coady (to his right) given freedom to go forward. But, we can't agree on everything Silent!

 

[Silent Blade]

I saw it as a pretty standard central midfield trio with McGinn holding and both Scougall (to his left) and Coady (to his right) given freedom to go forward. But, we can't agree on everything Silent!

The player I watched the most last Saturday was Scougall, he was everywhere, supporting the defence, supporting both flanks and supporting Baxter making it hard for him to be man-marked, also pointing his finger to where the ball should be

 

[Bergen Blade]

The player I watched the most last Saturday was Scougall, he was everywhere, supporting the defence, supporting both flanks and supporting Baxter making it hard for him to be man-marked, also pointing his finger to where the ball should be

Agree with that, but a formation is most commonly determined by looking at how players line up with all players behind the ball when the opposition have possession/start building an attack.

Wouldn't you agree that Scougall generally kept a little to McGinn's left, Coady generally a little to his right, with McGinn sitting slightly deeper when they started building attacks from deep? Within that setup Scougall had a lot of freedom to go forward on and off the ball to help us create things.

 

[Silent Blade]

Agree with that, but a formation is most commonly determined by looking at how players line up with all players behind the ball when the opposition have possession/start building an attack.

Wouldn't you agree that Scougall generally kept a little to McGinn's left, Coady generally a little to his right, with McGinn sitting slightly deeper when they started building attacks from deep? Within that setup Scougall had a lot of freedom to go forward on and off the ball to help us create things.

Yes your formation is correct when the opposition has the ball (also for when Howard takes the goalkick, no one is supporting Baxter, the 5 midfielders are in their positions about 15 yards behind Baxter expecting the Shrews CB's to head the ball back to the centre). In your two pictures at the start of this thread it shows that we have possession of the ball so I was saying that Scougall is in a free role and this makes the opposition find it difficult to anticipate where he is going

 

[Woodwardfan]

NC,s selection on Saturday was a shock but in its way a welcome one. For a while after he arrived he looked intent on 4-4-2 at all costs with Porter the best available "big lad" upfront. As a fan who likes to watch pace,skill and mobility I was worried.

As the weeks have unfolded NC has been more flexible with different players on board and will play one up front when appropriate. To choose Baxte therer in front of Paynter and Porter was a shock. I'll bet Paynter was bemused.

As long as Baxter gets in the team I'll live with that but surely his best position is "in the hole" and my worry was that position is difficult to accommodate in 4-4-2.

Murphy is another candidate for lone striker as was Taylor!

With full backs pushing up, Murphy and Flynn on the flanks and Scougall and Baxter forward midfield who needs a big man anyway? I suppose it boils down to the whether you want to play like West Ham or Liverpool and Chelsea.

Personally I love 3-5-2 but that is a lot to hope for.

3-5-2, 4-2-3-1, 4-3-2-1,whatever, let's do without the big lad and I'll be happy. Skill, mobility and pace please with Baxter pulling the strings at a canter.

 

[Woodwardfan]

There's a certain young Italian lad to fit into the team soon! If we hope to keep him we'll have to play him.

 

[Sirius]

There's a certain young Italian lad to fit into the team soon! If we hope to keep him we'll have to play him.

Has he recovered from that dreadful injury. Is he fit ? Strange that he has been overtaken by others. So what am I missing guys?

 

[Sharpestblade]

Great post Bergen, I think you've got it spot on. We got to 2-0 and then looked to counter attack but we had nobody on the shoulder of the last man so we could play the ball forward and into space. Instead we lost possession in a congested midfield.

On Saturday I would have taken Baxter off for Miller so that we had a player running into space for passes on the break and also to get someone in the box. You are also right to say that sometimes Baxter slows the game down, and sometimes too much. Whilst Baxter is a talented player I can see Scougall replacing Baxter as the 5th midfielder playing behind a mobile striker who can also hold the ball up. We'll see!