GoalWatch vs Colchester

[RMBlade]

Thing is ,you're often facing your own goal when receiving the ball...that's why you need someone with a bit of ability to drop deep and pick a pass to set the play off.

For me if the CH's are using him as out let then a few things need to happen, either the full backs need to push on and offer him an option out wide. One of the wingers could tuck in and give him an option or Baxter could drop 5/10 yards closer and again give him an option. Failing that if the options aren't there he could just go route one (i am not a fan of this but its better than him trying to be 2 or 3 men and losing it)

I don't think he is great on the ball but what is more worrying is the movement off the ball, there is hardily any and that makes the build up play hard (hence why we have a lot of sideways passing).

 

[sheffielder]

When I think of the winner for Colchester, it needed Edgar to handball it to stop it get through from the sideline to the middle of the pitch. Unfortunately he had just been booked because Collins didn't come back and cover a long ball, meaning Edgar had to take his card then.

 

[Slim Man]

I don't think Woolford is the type of winger who can regularly fly past full backs and get crosses in. For us to create down that side he needs help and although McEveley isn't known for being a overlapping wing back, he showed quite a bit of responsibility as he really tried to contribute. In Adkins' 4-4-2 system the wingers can't be too wide, there will be too much grass to cover for the two central midfielders, but concequently this opens up some space for the full backs to run into.

Opinions are really divided about himi at the moment. When this sort of thing happens...



.. I think some will be thinking: "God, he almost cocked it up again!", and others: "That's brilliant!"

Wouldn't say they're polar oppositely divided per se. Some think he's absolutely gash and others think he's average.

Personally that was stupid, alright we got away with it but with the atmosphere there - it was toxic. He'd already got away from his man and earned some space to pass into, then he turned back into himself and lumped it, luckily Sammon was alert (for a change).

There's a time for doing fancy dan tricks, it's not 2-0 down at home to Colchester. In the context of the game while I was sat there it was ridiculous and could have put us in more trouble.

 

[Bergen Blade]

Wouldn't say they're polar oppositely divided per se. Some think he's absolutely gash and others think he's average.

Personally that was stupid, alright we got away with it but with the atmosphere there - it was toxic. He'd already got away from his man and earned some space to pass into, then he turned back into himself and lumped it, luckily Sammon was alert (for a change).

There's a time for doing fancy dan tricks, it's not 2-0 down at home to Colchester. In the context of the game while I was sat there it was ridiculous and could have put us in more trouble.

It was 0-0 at the time and the resultant move saw Sammon almost get his head to JCR's cross. On the video the zoom makes it impossible to tell if there was good passing opportunities at the first time he could have released the ball.

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

It was 0-0 at the time and the resultant move saw Sammon almost get his head to JCR's cross. On the video the zoom makes it impossible to tell if there was good passing opportunities at the first time he could have released the ball.

This encapsulates how we (and many other teams) are playing: there are risks involved, but there are also benefits.

A simple/simplistic hoof up the pitch carries its own risks.of course. Instead the defence choose to retain possession and look for a pass to a teammate.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

Bergen, thanks for the reply. Some good points and as I say, I enjoy reading your analysis. Keep up the good work. Like I’ve said in the past, these threads are, in my opinion the big advantage (content-wise) that this forum has over blades mad.

I very much enjoy the tactical side of the game. I don’t coach (young kids and an unhelpful Mrs makes it pretty much impossible) but would like to one day.

Re McEveley getting forward, I assumed that this was because Woolford was in front of him. Let’s face it, Woolford is miles away from your typical, hug the touchline, flying winger. He needs a fullback to overlap. I’ve been saying for a little while I think McEveley and Adams works down that side as it allows each to play to their strengths. McEveley sits back and takes the majority of the defensive responsibility giving Adams the freedom to roam. I think Woolford would benefit from having Harris or Freeman at LB to offer him more of an outlet (like how Williamson was only effective at RM when Lowton was overlapping).

And yes, it was Baxter that missed at Crewe but I think that’s the only one. I don’t have a problem with Billy taking pens generally, just the last one on Tuesday as I just thought it was too obvious what he was gonna do and if you keep taking pens against the same keeper in a game, they begin to suss you out.

 

[Slim Man]

It was 0-0 at the time and the resultant move saw Sammon almost get his head to JCR's cross. On the video the zoom makes it impossible to tell if there was good passing opportunities at the first time he could have released the ball.

Well it must have been even earlier in the game than I thought then. Jay started dodgy (shock) and this was a chance for him to start off a little bit of possession football after Colchesters quick start and try to knock the wind out their sails.
Trust me, plenty of options for him to pass when he first turned (he did well originally) then he turned back on himself and put us all in trouble and launched it up the channel, Sammon did very well in fairness but it was just a percentage ball. They didn't work for 95% of the game.

 

[Dnblade]

For me if the CH's are using him as out let then a few things need to happen, either the full backs need to push on and offer him an option out wide. One of the wingers could tuck in and give him an option or Baxter could drop 5/10 yards closer and again give him an option. Failing that if the options aren't there he could just go route one (i am not a fan of this but its better than him trying to be 2 or 3 men and losing it)

I don't think he is great on the ball but what is more worrying is the movement off the ball, there is hardily any and that makes the build up play hard (hence why we have a lot of sideways passing).

Thing is RM,who else have we got to play the Baxter role..sitting deep and setting up the play.The only other fit option is Reed...not ready yet,still a young player learning his trade for me..the only other options are Coutts..not fully back from injury...maybe Wallace but injured...So if Adkins wants to play a 4-4-2 with a deep lying playmaker,then Baxter is the only option unless we bring in someone like Hammond for me...or Adkins adopts a different strategy and ditches the role Baxter is being asked to play.

 

[BushBlade]

Thing is RM,who else have we got to play the Baxter role..sitting deep and setting up the play.The only other fit option is Reed...not ready yet,still a young player learning his trade for me..the only other options are Coutts..not fully back from injury...maybe Wallace but injured...So if Adkins wants to play a 4-4-2 with a deep lying playmaker,then Baxter is the only option unless we bring in someone like Hammond for me...or Adkins adopts a different strategy and ditches the role Baxter is being asked to play.

I'm struggling to think of any of the classic 442 sides that contained a deep lying playmaker. It's usually a role in a 433 type system where you use full backs to give you width. It's a really specialist role and there aren't many who can do it. Most sitting midfielders just win the ball, play a short pass to a free man, show for the return and move it on again.

In a classic 442 one player is usually more defence minded but with the ability to support the attack when required and the other more attack minded but happy to track back and put a foot in where necessary.

Examples: Carrick - deep lying playmaker.
Britton - sitting midfielder
Keane and Scholes - traditional 442 centre mid partnership.

 

[RMBlade]

Thing is RM,who else have we got to play the Baxter role..sitting deep and setting up the play.The only other fit option is Reed...not ready yet,still a young player learning his trade for me..the only other options are Coutts..not fully back from injury...maybe Wallace but injured...So if Adkins wants to play a 4-4-2 with a deep lying playmaker,then Baxter is the only option unless we bring in someone like Hammond for me...or Adkins adopts a different strategy and ditches the role Baxter is being asked to play.

I think he should ditch his tactics. I'd have Basham sitting in front of the back line giving them some protection this way freeman can push on further (not too bothered about McEverly pushing on but same applies with Harris when he is back).

Baxter has proven his none existent defensive abilities just leave him up the field with sharp and sammon. That's where he was playing when he was performing his best for us (I know he's never been amazing) and with two strikers to pick out I think he will play the best he ever has for us.