Player Suggestion Jess Lingaard

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

CentralQuay said:
He's on £100k a week, so likely the contribution would have to be at least £40/50k a week.

That could be used to cover salaries for a couple of players for the whole of next season.
Click to expand...
You don’t cover wage bill with incoming transfer fees, that’s how you end up in Administration like your boys and these days you get heavily punished for it.
Wage bill should be budgeted and covered within what regular and guaranteed income you have coming in during that period. Parachute payments is fine so long as the contracts don’t last longer than that, but you work out what your when bill is going to be and then fit the players wages into it.
It’s not invincible that our overall available wage bill could increase next season compared to this.
 

ancientblade said:
he did have earlier in the season but he wont play 4 at the back or 1 up front in the 4-2-3-1 set up and i just dont understand why when were getting beat every week with this 5-3-2 system i thought he had a bit more savvy than that been a big chris wilder fan but imo hes got it totally wrong by being so stubborn and not trying something different
Click to expand...

The confusing thing for me with this is that he played 4231 at Northampton when they won the league with 99 points.

I'm one of CW's biggest fans and seriously don't want him to leave but his stubbornness in changing formation is baffling to say the least unless he's already planning for next season when he probably see's it as working to a tee again. My only issue with this is if we were to come straight back up then will we have the same problems again as I'm really not sure just the loss of JOC have wrecked the effectiveness of the formation???

FWIW with the players we have available or near to fitness I'm wouldn't be upset to see us try this:

Rambo
Baldock Bash Egan Stevens
Norwood Fleck
Bogle Didzy Burke
McBurnie
 
Flatulent_Bob said:
You don’t cover wage bill with incoming transfer fees, that’s how you end up in Administration like your boys and these days you get heavily punished for it.
Wage bill should be budgeted and covered within what regular and guaranteed income you have coming in during that period. Parachute payments is fine so long as the contracts don’t last longer than that, but you work out what your when bill is going to be and then fit the players wages into it.
It’s not invincible that our overall available wage bill could increase next season compared to this.
Click to expand...

I've not talked about a transfer fee, i'm talking about wages.
Spending money on wages for pointless loans this season, is money that could be saved to spend on loans next season.
 
Upton_Blade said:
The confusing thing for me with this is that he played 4231 at Northampton when they won the league with 99 points.

I'm one of CW's biggest fans and seriously don't want him to leave but his stubbornness in changing formation is baffling to say the least unless he's already planning for next season when he probably see's it as working to a tee again. My only issue with this is if we were to come straight back up then will we have the same problems again as I'm really not sure just the loss of JOC have wrecked the effectiveness of the formation???

FWIW with the players we have available or near to fitness I'm wouldn't be upset to see us try this:

Rambo
Baldock Bash Egan Stevens
Norwood Fleck
Bogle Didzy Burke
McBurnie
Click to expand...
It shouldn’t be baffling though. I think your formation would make us even weaker than we are, as would any formation with four at the back, unless you’re talking about a very basic two banks of four sitting deep, trying to keep a clean sheet and nick a goal from a set piece or a defensive error from the opposition. I don’t see it as stubbornness, just common sense. JOC and Egan might be OK, probably would, but not Egan and Bash. If a manager starts messing around with formations that don’t look good on paper and don’t work on the pitch they’ll lose the respect of the players. Then they may as well quit.

The 3412 and 353 formations worked for us and we overachieved playing those formations which is why he’s stuck with it. It’s not working now but there isn’t a quick fix for this, just reverting to a more traditional formation is more likely to expose us even more, not improve us.

The downside has been we are now struggling to find players to fit the formation and make it work. It does need to be reviewed at the end of the season and maybe this time in the championship, when we’re not paupers, we can build a new side with four at the back, perhaps even try it when JOC is back. But it winds me up when I hear managers being criticised for being “stubborn”. You don’t get to be a manager by being indecisive, you get to be a manager by having absolute belief in yourself, by not flapping and changing your mind every five minutes as soon as things go wrong. I read the same about Hodgson being called stubborn for not playing Max Meyer. Whenever I’ve seen him play for Palace, he’s done very little, it’s not being stubborn to decide a player isn’t good enough for what you’re trying to achieve, it’s just doing your job, and Hodgson wouldn’t have been in work for forty years if he couldn’t assess players.

Football management is a bit like poker in that you need skill but sometimes you just get dealt a series of shit hands and then when you get a good one, some other fucker has a better one. I doubt Wilder has done things any differently this season than in previous ones but in the last four years, everything he touched turned to gold, this season everything’s turned to shit. That’s the baffling thing and I’m not sure we’ll ever work out why, it’s the weirdness of football and that’s what keeps it interesting.
 
BushBlade said:
It shouldn’t be baffling though. I think your formation would make us even weaker than we are, as would any formation with four at the back, unless you’re talking about a very basic two banks of four sitting deep, trying to keep a clean sheet and nick a goal from a set piece or a defensive error from the opposition. I don’t see it as stubbornness, just common sense. JOC and Egan might be OK, probably would, but not Egan and Bash. If a manager starts messing around with formations that don’t look good on paper and don’t work on the pitch they’ll lose the respect of the players. Then they may as well quit.

The 3412 and 353 formations worked for us and we overachieved playing those formations which is why he’s stuck with it. It’s not working now but there isn’t a quick fix for this, just reverting to a more traditional formation is more likely to expose us even more, not improve us.

The downside has been we are now struggling to find players to fit the formation and make it work. It does need to be reviewed at the end of the season and maybe this time in the championship, when we’re not paupers, we can build a new side with four at the back, perhaps even try it when JOC is back. But it winds me up when I hear managers being criticised for being “stubborn”. You don’t get to be a manager by being indecisive, you get to be a manager by having absolute belief in yourself, by not flapping and changing your mind every five minutes as soon as things go wrong. I read the same about Hodgson being called stubborn for not playing Max Meyer. Whenever I’ve seen him play for Palace, he’s done very little, it’s not being stubborn to decide a player isn’t good enough for what you’re trying to achieve, it’s just doing your job, and Hodgson wouldn’t have been in work for forty years if he couldn’t assess players.

Football management is a bit like poker in that you need skill but sometimes you just get dealt a series of shit hands and then when you get a good one, some other fucker has a better one. I doubt Wilder has done things any differently this season than in previous ones but in the last four years, everything he touched turned to gold, this season everything’s turned to shit. That’s the baffling thing and I’m not sure we’ll ever work out why, it’s the weirdness of football and that’s what keeps it interesting.
Click to expand...
This does not change the fact that in Australia there are 48 million kangaroos and in Uruguay there are 3,457,380 inhabitants. So if the kangaroos decide to invade Uruguay, each Uruguayan will have to fight 14 kangaroos.
 
BushBlade said:
It shouldn’t be baffling though. I think your formation would make us even weaker than we are, as would any formation with four at the back, unless you’re talking about a very basic two banks of four sitting deep, trying to keep a clean sheet and nick a goal from a set piece or a defensive error from the opposition. I don’t see it as stubbornness, just common sense. JOC and Egan might be OK, probably would, but not Egan and Bash. If a manager starts messing around with formations that don’t look good on paper and don’t work on the pitch they’ll lose the respect of the players. Then they may as well quit.

The 3412 and 353 formations worked for us and we overachieved playing those formations which is why he’s stuck with it. It’s not working now but there isn’t a quick fix for this, just reverting to a more traditional formation is more likely to expose us even more, not improve us.

The downside has been we are now struggling to find players to fit the formation and make it work. It does need to be reviewed at the end of the season and maybe this time in the championship, when we’re not paupers, we can build a new side with four at the back, perhaps even try it when JOC is back. But it winds me up when I hear managers being criticised for being “stubborn”. You don’t get to be a manager by being indecisive, you get to be a manager by having absolute belief in yourself, by not flapping and changing your mind every five minutes as soon as things go wrong. I read the same about Hodgson being called stubborn for not playing Max Meyer. Whenever I’ve seen him play for Palace, he’s done very little, it’s not being stubborn to decide a player isn’t good enough for what you’re trying to achieve, it’s just doing your job, and Hodgson wouldn’t have been in work for forty years if he couldn’t assess players.

Football management is a bit like poker in that you need skill but sometimes you just get dealt a series of shit hands and then when you get a good one, some other fucker has a better one. I doubt Wilder has done things any differently this season than in previous ones but in the last four years, everything he touched turned to gold, this season everything’s turned to shit. That’s the baffling thing and I’m not sure we’ll ever work out why, it’s the weirdness of football and that’s what keeps it interesting.
Click to expand...

OK so maybe stubborn wasn't the best word but I'm quite sure most on here have heard of Einstein's definition of insanity and week after week we're seeing 90 minutes of it. The only way CW is trying to differ from that is the constant changing of the team, which in itself shows our issues this season.

IMHO all the below have contributed to our decline this season:

  • No crowds.
  • Injury issues.
  • Loss of momentum during the 1st lockdown.
  • Other teams working out how to nullify us.
  • Players no longer playing above their natural level.
  • Loss of team spirit due to being unable to socialise outside of training/matches.
Now look at that list. How many can CW directly influence?

The only one is other teams working out how to nullify us and the only way to do this IMO is a change in formation as to mix things up a bit.

This doesn't have to be the formation I suggested above but just something different to keep opposition managers guessing although I'm not sure I agree with your view that switching to a back 4 would be such a bad thing. We quite regularly switch to this during games and don't get any more over run. Don't know where this info would be obtained but I'd be quite confident we have conceded more with a back 3 than a back 4. It doesn't have to be Bash and Egan, could quite easily be Egan and Ampadu.

I'm not sure what the answer is but we surely can't just continue like this until the end of the season.
 
Upton_Blade said:
OK so maybe stubborn wasn't the best word but I'm quite sure most on here have heard of Einstein's definition of insanity and week after week we're seeing 90 minutes of it. The only way CW is trying to differ from that is the constant changing of the team, which in itself shows our issues this season.

IMHO all the below have contributed to our decline this season:

  • No crowds.
  • Injury issues.
  • Loss of momentum during the 1st lockdown.
  • Other teams working out how to nullify us.
  • Players no longer playing above their natural level.
  • Loss of team spirit due to being unable to socialise outside of training/matches.
Now look at that list. How many can CW directly influence?

The only one is other teams working out how to nullify us and the only way to do this IMO is a change in formation as to mix things up a bit.

This doesn't have to be the formation I suggested above but just something different to keep opposition managers guessing although I'm not sure I agree with your view that switching to a back 4 would be such a bad thing. We quite regularly switch to this during games and don't get any more over run. Don't know where this info would be obtained but I'd be quite confident we have conceded more with a back 3 than a back 4. It doesn't have to be Bash and Egan, could quite easily be Egan and Ampadu.

I'm not sure what the answer is but we surely can't just continue like this until the end of the season.
Click to expand...
Yeah I agree with a lot of that and the things that have contributed to the decline but I’d just say, if we changed to a 4231 or a 433, teams wouldn’t have any difficulty working us out as they play against those systems most weeks. It might catch a couple out if they’re not expecting it so it would make sense to stick with the current one against the Manchester teams, as we’ll probably lose anyway and try to surprise a ‘beatable’ side.
 
Last edited:
varkanoid said:
My glass half full view is unless its not mathmatically possible there is every chance. Come back when that occurs.
Click to expand...

My guess is that non-Blades will be very much in the ‘they’re going down’ camp rather than clinging to hope that we might somehow achieve the near-impossible. That includes players we might be trying to sign.
 
BushBlade said:
It shouldn’t be baffling though. I think your formation would make us even weaker than we are, as would any formation with four at the back, unless you’re talking about a very basic two banks of four sitting deep, trying to keep a clean sheet and nick a goal from a set piece or a defensive error from the opposition. I don’t see it as stubbornness, just common sense. JOC and Egan might be OK, probably would, but not Egan and Bash. If a manager starts messing around with formations that don’t look good on paper and don’t work on the pitch they’ll lose the respect of the players. Then they may as well quit.

The 3412 and 353 formations worked for us and we overachieved playing those formations which is why he’s stuck with it. It’s not working now but there isn’t a quick fix for this, just reverting to a more traditional formation is more likely to expose us even more, not improve us.

The downside has been we are now struggling to find players to fit the formation and make it work. It does need to be reviewed at the end of the season and maybe this time in the championship, when we’re not paupers, we can build a new side with four at the back, perhaps even try it when JOC is back. But it winds me up when I hear managers being criticised for being “stubborn”. You don’t get to be a manager by being indecisive, you get to be a manager by having absolute belief in yourself, by not flapping and changing your mind every five minutes as soon as things go wrong. I read the same about Hodgson being called stubborn for not playing Max Meyer. Whenever I’ve seen him play for Palace, he’s done very little, it’s not being stubborn to decide a player isn’t good enough for what you’re trying to achieve, it’s just doing your job, and Hodgson wouldn’t have been in work for forty years if he couldn’t assess players.

Football management is a bit like poker in that you need skill but sometimes you just get dealt a series of shit hands and then when you get a good one, some other fucker has a better one. I doubt Wilder has done things any differently this season than in previous ones but in the last four years, everything he touched turned to gold, this season everything’s turned to shit. That’s the baffling thing and I’m not sure we’ll ever work out why, it’s the weirdness of football and that’s what keeps it interesting.
Click to expand...
sorry totally disagree with your argument weve been losing week in week out with this system and its not been 352 all season weve played 532 95% of managers would have tried something different nobody knows for certain it wouldnt have made any difference we could have played 4 at the back with berge and fleck as the 2 pivots we couldnt possibly have done any worse imo
 
Upton_Blade said:
OK so maybe stubborn wasn't the best word but I'm quite sure most on here have heard of Einstein's definition of insanity and week after week we're seeing 90 minutes of it. The only way CW is trying to differ from that is the constant changing of the team, which in itself shows our issues this season.

IMHO all the below have contributed to our decline this season:

  • No crowds.
  • Injury issues.
  • Loss of momentum during the 1st lockdown.
  • Other teams working out how to nullify us.
  • Players no longer playing above their natural level.
  • Loss of team spirit due to being unable to socialise outside of training/matches.
Now look at that list. How many can CW directly influence?

The only one is other teams working out how to nullify us and the only way to do this IMO is a change in formation as to mix things up a bit.

This doesn't have to be the formation I suggested above but just something different to keep opposition managers guessing although I'm not sure I agree with your view that switching to a back 4 would be such a bad thing. We quite regularly switch to this during games and don't get any more over run. Don't know where this info would be obtained but I'd be quite confident we have conceded more with a back 3 than a back 4. It doesn't have to be Bash and Egan, could quite easily be Egan and Ampadu.

I'm not sure what the answer is but we surely can't just continue like this until the end of the season.
Click to expand...
Without wanting to sound too corporate, we have to be careful around radical changes to the system because this has been our 'competitive advantage'. If we reenter the Championship looking for an identity this is going to further compound the issue.

If we go to a 4-4-2, a 4-2-3-1, a 4-3-3 and end up matching up other teams who play these formations then we are going to be far worse off. Playing the same way as your opponent, knowing you have potentially less capable players isn't a recipe for success.

I think the issue has been the unwillingness to tweak that which has been compromised.

If the midfield have become so unreliable and we need goals then 3-4-1-2 should have been given more of a go. It's within the range of our current formation without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Given our 1 in 2 scoring rate at present I'd definitely have been looking at McGoldrick behind Sharp and Burke for a while.

If we really couldn't get that third centre half of a high enough quality, then we should have been looking at 4-3-1-2. Again get two strikers with Didzy behind. Didzy drops off so much anyway, it would hardly make any difference.

It looks like JOC will be back shortly. I hope this gives us a shot in the arm defensively but it isn't going to improve the conversion up front. I think we need to go Didzy behind two forwards. The risk reward would seem more justifiable.
 

Champagneblade said:
Without wanting to sound too corporate, we have to be careful around radical changes to the system because this has been our 'competitive advantage'. If we reenter the Championship looking for an identity this is going to further compound the issue.

If we go to a 4-4-2, a 4-2-3-1, a 4-3-3 and end up matching up other teams who play these formations then we are going to be far worse off. Playing the same way as your opponent, knowing you have potentially less capable players isn't a recipe for success.

I think the issue has been the unwillingness to tweak that which has been compromised.

If the midfield have become so unreliable and we need goals then 3-4-1-2 should have been given more of a go. It's within the range of our current formation without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Given our 1 in 2 scoring rate at present I'd definitely have been looking at McGoldrick behind Sharp and Burke for a while.

If we really couldn't get that third centre half of a high enough quality, then we should have been looking at 4-3-1-2. Again get two strikers with Didzy behind. Didzy drops off so much anyway, it would hardly make any difference.

It looks like JOC will be back shortly. I hope this gives us a shot in the arm defensively but it isn't going to improve the conversion up front. I think we need to go Didzy behind two forwards. The risk reward would seem more justifiable.
Click to expand...
If players perform to the best of their abilities most of the time then it matters little what formation they are being asked to use.
No formation will work if the players cannot control the ball and/or pass it to a teammate
 
looks to me like chris wants to give lingaard the duffy role and if thats the case im all for it im fed up of watching this 532 system lets at least go down by having a go
 
ancientblade said:
looks to me like chris wants to give lingaard the duffy role and if thats the case im all for it im fed up of watching this 532 system lets at least go down by having a go
Click to expand...
If that’s the case then Lundstram is definitely done here. Playing the right of a three suits him when he played in a two in the champ he was shocking.
 
bertieblade said:
He has a contract
We are short of midfield players
He always puts a shift in
Is possibly the best of what is currently a bad bunch

be stupid to let him go unless we can make some money from his sale which is very unlikely
Click to expand...
always puts a shift in are you having a laugh hes looked totally disinterested from the first game against wolves
 
Upton_Blade said:
OK so maybe stubborn wasn't the best word but I'm quite sure most on here have heard of Einstein's definition of insanity and week after week we're seeing 90 minutes of it. The only way CW is trying to differ from that is the constant changing of the team, which in itself shows our issues this season.

IMHO all the below have contributed to our decline this season:

  • No crowds.
  • Injury issues.
  • Loss of momentum during the 1st lockdown.
  • Other teams working out how to nullify us.
  • Players no longer playing above their natural level.
  • Loss of team spirit due to being unable to socialise outside of training/matches.
Now look at that list. How many can CW directly influence?

The only one is other teams working out how to nullify us and the only way to do this IMO is a change in formation as to mix things up a bit.

This doesn't have to be the formation I suggested above but just something different to keep opposition managers guessing although I'm not sure I agree with your view that switching to a back 4 would be such a bad thing. We quite regularly switch to this during games and don't get any more over run. Don't know where this info would be obtained but I'd be quite confident we have conceded more with a back 3 than a back 4. It doesn't have to be Bash and Egan, could quite easily be Egan and Ampadu.

I'm not sure what the answer is but we surely can't just continue like this until the end of the season.
Click to expand...
None of those things are unique to us though are they? But other teams have coped better. Why is that????
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
Player Suggestion Will Lankshear
Replies
27
Views
3K
EddieColquhoun
EddieColquhoun
Overthehills
Project europe...
2
Replies
31
Views
5K
Ainsley Harriott
Ainsley Harriott
E
Loans for next season
2
Replies
56
Views
4K
Bladezz
B
forte
Outgoing? Coulibaly out on loan
3 4 5
Replies
143
Views
28K
Berkshire Blade
B
mattbianco1
Player Suggestion Lewis Hall
Replies
8
Views
2K
Bladesman
Bladesman

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Back
Top Bottom