Inverted wingers

[Champagneblade]

I understand why we had this to accommodate Brooks and Hamer.

Hamer was always going to look to come in on his right foot and he was our best player.

Brooks was good at dribbling either way.

Neither are here.

Surely the best way to get the most from Bamford is to have the winger getting to the byline and pulling it back for the centre forward running in or for the forward to hold it up and play it into an incoming midfielder?

 

[Shawy24]

I understand why we had this to accommodate Brooks and Hamer.

Hamer was always going to look to come in on his right foot and he was our best player.

Brooks was good at dribbling either way.

Neither are here.

Surely the best way to get the most from Bamford is to have the winger getting to the byline and pulling it back for the centre forward running in or for the forward to hold it up and play it into an incoming midfielder?

Too simple.

 

[3Cheers4Ramirez]

At the very least he needs to understand that some games and situations call for wingers to be on their natural side

 

[SwissBlade]

I understand why we had this to accommodate Brooks and Hamer.

Hamer was always going to look to come in on his right foot and he was our best player.

Brooks was good at dribbling either way.

Neither are here.

Surely the best way to get the most from Bamford is to have the winger getting to the byline and pulling it back for the centre forward running in or for the forward to hold it up and play it into an incoming midfielder?

Nice idea but I do think we’re struggling with midfield getting close enough to support so the attacks. It’s a cautious approach but also have a number of players still getting to full fitness.

• Playing a back 5 with attacking full backs, they need to overlap to make counters work, if we play wingers they’d have to come inside
• Sides tend to fill the box with defenders and we aren’t the most aggressive in the box at attacking the ball

We’d also need two wingers, we have Donovan

 

[Champagneblade]

Nice idea but I do think we’re struggling with midfield getting close enough to support so the attacks. It’s a cautious approach but also have a number of players still getting to full fitness.

• Playing a back 5 with attacking full backs, they need to overlap to make counters work, if we play wingers they’d have to come inside
• Sides tend to fill the box with defenders and we aren’t the most aggressive in the box at attacking the ball

We’d also need two wingers, we have Donovan

Which I suppose also poses the question why has Chris been so wedded to 4-2-3-1 and 4-4-2 when we have so few genuine wing options? Chong is down as an attacking midfielder primarily, not a winger. Oné is primarily a striker, Ayez can play wide but he’s primarily a striker. BBD is as much a striker as a winger and his best spell for us was up front alongside McBurnie.

I’d rather he just admit he’s out of new ideas and go back property to 3-4-1-2 we used when we went up in 2019/20.

At least there would be some method to fall back on. We had clear patterns of play.

We hear the coaching staff can coach 4-4-2, 4-3-3, 5 at the back…well, clearly you can’t because when we play 4-4-2, regardless of one or two anomalous results, we’ve been totally overrun.

Even when we play 3 at the back, the whole reason is we don’t play 4-2-3-1 because we don’t have a number 10. Why are we pretending Arblaster can play there? Oli can play 8 or 10 I hear Chris say. Really? Name the games he’s successfully played as a 10 as a senior pro. None.

Arblaster should be properly alongside Peck as one of two 8s with Phillips as a 6 in a midfield 3.

Play 3-4-1-2 or 3-5-1-1. I’d have Donovan as the ‘1’; not sure how he’d be but maybe Chong can play there though I’m not a huge fan. Then if a 2, then I’d like to see Oné used to rough teams up and his partner might depend on the opposition.

—————Cooper————
Tanganga-Baptiste-Kitching
Seriki-Peck-Phillips-McCallum
————-Donovan—————
—— AN Other——Oné———

At least you’d feel there might be a bit of pace and invention and future thinking there.

 

[Rufus T. Firefly]

It's all Pep's fault, just get old clips on YouTube of Woody and Colin Morris. It's harder as a defender to cope with crosses from the dead ball line.

 

[Champagneblade]

It's all Pep's fault, just get old clips on YouTube of Woody and Colin Morris. It's harder as a defender to cope with crosses from the dead ball line.

Wingers have been getting to the byline for about 150 years. No idea why this new phenomenon of having inverted wingers seems to signal the traditional approach was somehow wrong!

 

[SwissBlade]

Which I suppose also poses the question why has Chris been so wedded to 4-2-3-1 and 4-4-2 when we have so few genuine wing options? Chong is down as an attacking midfielder primarily, not a winger. Oné is primarily a striker, Ayez can play wide but he’s primarily a striker. BBD is as much a striker as a winger and his best spell for us was up front alongside McBurnie.

I’d rather he just admit he’s out of new ideas and go back property to 3-4-1-2 we used when we went up in 2019/20.

At least there would be some method to fall back on. We had clear patterns of play.

We hear the coaching staff can coach 4-4-2, 4-3-3, 5 at the back…well, clearly you can’t because when we play 4-4-2, regardless of one or two anomalous results, we’ve been totally overrun.

Even when we play 3 at the back, the whole reason is we don’t play 4-2-3-1 because we don’t have a number 10. Why are we pretending Arblaster can play there? Oli can play 8 or 10 I hear Chris say. Really? Name the games he’s successfully played as a 10 as a senior pro. None.

Arblaster should be properly alongside Peck as one of two 8s with Phillips as a 6 in a midfield 3.

Play 3-4-1-2 or 3-5-1-1. I’d have Donovan as the ‘1’; not sure how he’d be but maybe Chong can play there though I’m not a huge fan. Then if a 2, then I’d like to see Oné used to rough teams up and his partner might depend on the opposition.

—————Cooper————
Tanganga-Baptiste-Kitching
Seriki-Peck-Phillips-McCallum
————-Donovan—————
—— AN Other——Oné———

At least you’d feel there might be a bit of pace and invention and future thinking there.

We've played a back 3 / 5 the last two league games which can also adapt to a 4 if we need to.

I don't really get this obsession with formations.

 

[Bergen Blade]

Wingers have been getting to the byline for about 150 years. No idea why this new phenomenon of having inverted wingers seems to signal the traditional approach was somehow wrong!

Football is continually evolving and certain things come and go. 3-5-2 became popular in the 90s, but then football reacted to that and what started as a good idea gradually got "found out" and therefore became less effective. Now 3-5-2, in various shapes, is returning quite a bit. 4-3-3 and 4-2-3-1 remain popular, but there are different tweaks being tried. More fluent switches in formations, depending on the team being in or out of possession, pressing high or defending deep, full backs stepping into midfield, forwards dropping deep, etc. Even we are trying some of these tweaks.

It's all about staying one step ahead of the other teams, so that the team's good qualities are becoming effective and decisive, while you also try to identify and punish the opposition's weaknesses.

Regarding wide play and wingers. I think the demise of the traditional speedy right footed right winger was due to a lot of things, and here are just some:

• Left backs one on one defending becoming better. Matching their speed, pushing them out wide, blocking their crosses.
• Traditional wingers were pushed out wide more effectively, causing them to score fewer goals.
• The norm switching to one central striker, rather than two, halved the natural targets in the box.
• The old school big target man who hung around in the box waiting for crosses is no longer something all teams have.
• Centre backs becoming better at defending the box. They're bigger and better at marking, and challenging the crosses coming in.
• Stats showed a decline in the number of goals coming from traditional crosses from the byline.

When the left footed wingers popped up on the right wing, they'd often cut inside and score goals. Helped by other passing angles they would also contribute more to possession and various wide play (rather than just running down the wing). If they were backed up by an attacking right footed right back they kept some of the threat/crossing on the outside. We had this with the excellent combination of Seriki and Brooks.


Having said this, I wouldn't write off traditional wingers returning in some form at some stage. Football will keep evolving.

 

[Sir Nick Montgomery]

I’d actually try something completely different. Donovon & One (when fit) playing as split strikers with Bamford playing a bit like a 9 and a half where he can drop off and link play plus give us an extra man in midfield. This would also hinge on Seriki and Burrows/McCallum being fit to give us width. We still have the security of 3 central midfielders to allow the full backs to bomb on.
Bit to advanced for Wilder to get his head around though

 

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Also Bergen I think it's a bit like fashion trends, they come and go then return again for a new generation to discover. Players now may find a difference in handling old style wing play. 352 may work better against certain teams than others depending on how they set up or have a weakness in certain areas that can be seen to exploit. That's where homework and stats come in as well as a plan B. I think one of the reasons why "dinosaur" Parkinson has done well is that other teams haven't handled his more throwback style of play. Football now isn't all about possession.