Constantly turning the ball over.

[S64 Blade]

I notice going back to playing 1 up front is once again not suiting us unless its Bamford.

Campbell can't play that role properly not can anyone else.

It’s all to shoehorn O’Hare and Hamer in the same side. Which as I’ve said before, I don’t think we can start both in the same XI for the majority of the opposition we will play.

 

[S64 Blade]

I don't get why we have to continually pass it back to Cooper,who then goes long and we not only lose the first ball,we lose the 2nd aswell...On one occasion 2nd half,Chong got the ball in acres of space on the right,turned and played a 30 yard ball back to Cooper.
Disappointing result,shipping 5...Bamford,O'Hare and Seriki first half were the only positives for me.

Yeah I never understand this. Have possession in the final third and instead of playing a chance pass here, we play it all the way back to the goalkeeper (allowing the opposition time to settle defensively) to play a similarly uncertain pass (in the air though this time), which almost always lose. The difference being the opposition has now reset and has more bodies upfield to break then if we’d attempted this to begin with.

 

[ATL Recs]

We have a real problem of not being able to sting out of the game by constantly turning the ball over, especially in the second half of games. We just switch off, invite pressure and inevitably then go on to lose.

Until they learn to keep the ball when the game requires it we've got no chance.

Wilders instructions in it ?

 

[ATL Recs]

Agreed.....so why does Wilder keep picking him? Brooks would do a much better job in there until Peck is back. Hes athletic, puts his foot in and as a major bonus hes actually a footballer

Sometimes he’s a footballer but when he is he can be electric - like over the last month or so until he was dropped which doesn’t make sense the way he was playing

 

[John Street West Terrace]

Parky got his tactics right last night I have to say after they’d gone behind they really pushed up & were more aggressive in the press .. every time we tried to play out from the back they pressed our defence & receiving midfielders & basically forcing Cooper to hit it long . When we did Hyam ,Doyle & Sheaf mopped up as Bamford was left isolated .
I cannot understand for the fkg life of me why Wilder didn’t go two up top to occupy their centre backs & give Bamford some support .
I ant remember us winning one 50/50 after going 3-1 up & was a repeat of the Preston collapse .
No leaders whatsoever out their on the pitch night & some terrible performances amongst the others

 

[blade too long]

First half offensively was as good as we have been for ages

All of wrexhams goals were from errors og, poor marking , losing ball and leaving us outmanned 3rd and 4th , 5th poor penalty decision ,
We could have scored more , but so could they
there were far too many loose balls heaping pressure on us
Scoring at 3 a game is not a problem
like in the play off final losing the ball near the half way line is killing us

 

[Bergen Blade]

I can't believe that at half-time, we looked at what had gone before and thought "no need to change anything" particularly as we were in front. We should've been looking to make the game less chaotic at that point. I would've liked to go to a conventional 4--4-2 at that point, maybe with Campbell and Brooks replacing Chong and Gus.

Playing Chong, Gus and O'Hare away at a team who are direct and have a dangerous front 3 seemed ambitious - almost a little Selles-esque.

Regardless of tactics though, I thought only Bamford could be pleased with his performance (need to get him signed up soon).

Yes, I also thought it was a risky, maybe even naive, line up. Good for a home game where you dominate possession and it's all about finding ways to get through a deep defence. Especially as we got ahead through an early set piece goal, and then Birmingham were reduced to ten men. We didn't miss pace up front as there was no space to run into anyway. Birmingham had little to offer.

High on confidence, Wilder then spoke pre Wrexham about us wanting to control games, I assume wanting to dominate possession and press high, in most games. Thanks to Seriki's wing play and Bamford's goal nous we got two early goals. And we even got a third from McCallum's long throw.

From then on it was a very different scenario to the Brum game and it soon showed the team wasn't able to maintain the pre game tactics, nor adjust to the slightly unexpected scenario of being 3-1 ahead.

The starting line up relies on us attacking in numbers, playing on the front foot, pressing high, and creating chances when we win the ball. The team must remain compact, meaning the holding midfielders and back four must stay relatively high, and challenge aggressively if the opposition play through our first press.

At 3-1 away, these things become more difficult psychologically. The forwards' press become a little less intense. Defenders become reluctant to take risk and tend to drop deeper. When our high press didn't work, we became stretched, with gaps everywhere. Moore was tough to handle and they had many willing runners.

It may have been different with your suggested half time changes. With a threat in behind, you can be slightly less adventurous, leave some of the attacks to the forwards and maintain a more compact shape when attacks break down. Instead we did little to stop the game becoming too open. They kept going, found areas where we were vulnerable and punished us until the game had been turned completely around.

 

[cooperblade]

Yes, I also thought it was a risky, maybe even naive, line up. Good for a home game where you dominate possession and it's all about finding ways to get through a deep defence. Especially as we got ahead through an early set piece goal, and then Birmingham were reduced to ten men. We didn't miss pace up front as there was no space to run into anyway. Birmingham had little to offer.

High on confidence, Wilder then spoke pre Wrexham about us wanting to control games, I assume wanting to dominate possession and press high, in most games. Thanks to Seriki's wing play and Bamford's goal nous we got two early goals. And we even got a third from McCallum's long throw.

From then on it was a very different scenario to the Brum game and it soon showed the team wasn't able to maintain the pre game tactics, nor adjust to the slightly unexpected scenario of being 3-1 ahead.

The starting line up relies on us attacking in numbers, playing on the front foot, pressing high, and creating chances when we win the ball. The team must remain compact, meaning the holding midfielders and back four must stay relatively high, and challenge aggressively if the opposition play through our first press.

At 3-1 away, these things become more difficult psychologically. The forwards' press become a little less intense. Defenders become reluctant to take risk and tend to drop deeper. When our high press didn't work, we became stretched, with gaps everywhere. Moore was tough to handle and they had many willing runners.

It may have been different with your suggested half time changes. With a threat in behind, you can be slightly less adventurous, leave some of the attacks to the forwards and maintain a more compact shape when attacks break down. Instead we did little to stop the game becoming too open. They kept going, found areas where we were vulnerable and punished us until the game had been turned completely around.

I think Wilder may have over-reacted to a poor 2nd half at WBA. Up to then, we'd had success playing 4-4-2 (or 4-2-2-2) through a willingness to put the ball in behind the defence early, a great press and excellent set pieces.

I think this relied heavily on 2 up front, 2 athletic full backs who pushed on and were willing to gamble on jumping in to intercept forward passes, 2 wide players who would run all day and a solid base in midfield.

Through tactical and personnel changes (and injuries) we've seen a lot of that disappear but, as you said, it hasn't always cost us.

Wilder has often pointed out that Brooks doesn't train well and if that's right, I understand him being left out. However, I don't think we can play the same way with Chong on the right. Early days and he's missed games through injury so will be rusty but he looks like a luxury player who is a bit hot and cold. I'd like to see him used mostly off the bench.

Hamer is the big dilemma. He's clearly an incredibly talented player but there are things we can't do as well with him in the side. O'Hare is fundamental to us winning the ball back high up the pitch so successfully but, when he plays, I feel we need to make up for his lack of size and strength through the players we pick alongside him (so not Hamer and Chong).

Lots of imbalance in the squad, we're in a funny 'stick or twist' position and we're going to be stuck with players we'd rather move on so I think January will be difficult. I'd love to see us recruit in a way that makes us better at our 'Plan A' though rather than signing players who don't quite fit like we have done in the past.

Finally, overall, I'm a Wilder fan. I think there's loads he does well and gets right but I'm consistently disappointed by his in game changes and substitutions. I feel like, when we're behind, it's impossible to tell what formation we're playing late in games and I think that we more often see the opposition making a game-winning tweak than we do.

 

[CarlMcBlade]

We have a real problem of not being able to sting out of the game by constantly turning the ball over, especially in the second half of games. We just switch off, invite pressure and inevitably then go on to lose.

Until they learn to keep the ball when the game requires it we've got no chance.

Hammer, nail, head.