Jose Baxter

[MBoreman]

Obviously one of, if not our biggest signing and clearly a talented player. He will have been signed to play in the hole in this formation which may be one reason why Weir is reluctant to change the system as he wants to play his better players in their best positions. The same applies to Diego, another who plays behind the striker. So what compromise could be reached where Baxter can play there but we change the formation? Or does Baxter just have to adjust?

 

[sitwell]

Baxter played well when we went 4-4-2 ish ,he is lost in a 5 man midfield which is too crowded with no one to pass to up front. He initialised the goal with a pass to Brandy. If our stubborn fucking manager got his head out f his arse he might see this. One up front will not work at this level.

 

[Kentblade]

Baxter played well when we went 4-4-2 ish ,he is lost in a 5 man midfield which is too crowded with no one to pass to up front. He initialised the goal with a pass to Brandy. If our stubborn fucking manager got his head out f his arse he might see this. One up front will not work at this level.

Totally agree.Looking at the highlights we were better when we had two up.You cannot get results in this division with tapping it about .If Weir changed his views we might get somewhere but if not it would be better to change the manager.This is the old third division.UTB

 

[JohnDenver]

One up front will not work at this level.

I think it can work, but not without constantly getting quick midfielders beyond the striker. The way we play we have zero threat in behind the opposition defence. Opponents can play a high line and press us all over the pitch, or simply choose to hold station and watch our build-up unfold in front of them. It's so easy for them.

At this level, you don't find many quick centre halves, so pace up front and runs in behind are key. And that is easier to do with two up front. I think a more pragmatic manager than Weir could see us fly up the league.

 

[KenMcnaughtsNuts]

Best Mexican-Scot we've ever had.

 

[Patrick Suffaux]

I think the fact that Baxter is playing in his preferred position is irrelevant at the moment. I know he's a good player but last night he looked another like another victim of our poor play. He was doing nothing more than occupying space for most of the game and seemed a bit lost.....which was not his fault IMO. He's there to be a creative influence, almost a luxury player if you like and sadly we aren't good enough to accommodate that type of player.

We've brought in some really good players in Baxter, Cuvelier, Brandy et al but they're performing at a very small percentage of their capabilities at present.

 

[judge]

I think the fact that Baxter is playing in his preferred position is irrelevant at the moment. I know he's a good player but last night he looked another like another victim of our poor play. He was doing nothing more than occupying space for most of the game and seemed a bit lost.....which was not his fault IMO. He's there to be a creative influence, almost a luxury player if you like and sadly we aren't good enough to accommodate that type of player.

We've brought in some really good players in Baxter, Cuvelier, Brandy et al but they're performing at a very small percentage of their capabilities at present.

I see the we masturbate over hoof brigade are out in full force tonight

 

[Patrick Suffaux]

I see the we masturbate over hoof brigade are out in full force tonight

That doesn't even make sense.

 

[sheffielder]

Baxter is the player who should be playing closer to King. He has the passing range and vision. As I said in the other thread, we are killing a few young careers already

 

[judge]

That doesn't even make sense.

You rape hoof

 

[Foxy]

Baxter is the player who should be playing closer to King. He has the passing range and vision. As I said in the other thread, we are killing a few young careers already

He'll kill his own if he insists on hiding and/or bollocking one of his fellow midfielders instead of taking responsibility himself to move into space.

 

[Brisca Blade]

Its much easier to blame those around you than take responsibility yourself and try and influence the game

 

[MBoreman]

I've said before our best chance of getting goals this year will be getting the ball to Baxter to slip in King and the wingers/shoot himself.

 

[Jehovah]

For all the excitement of signing him, He has still het to impress me.

 

[Harry's Game]

I've see him have one good half for us so far during his first game against MKD apart from that zilch. Hope he is not going to be another Brian Howard or Jamie Murphy, they looked good until they started playing for us.

 

[Eskimo]

I like Baxter, and Brandy and Mc Ginn, quite like McGinty and Johns too and I recognise King is a good player. The experiment I'd like to see is what Danny Wilson or virtually ant experienced manager would do with this talent and a 442 formation. That's 4 - 4 - 2 Weir

 

[Patrick Suffaux]

I still maintain that the formation isn't the problem. It's how the players are being asked to play within it. Other aspects of our game concern me far more than the shape. People get far too hung up on formations when they're not really that critical. As long as you're covering all areas of the pitch sufficiently then it's more about how you move the ball and the runs you're making with and without the ball.

I know some supporters will point to the fact that we scored after putting a second striker on but Weir has done that late in games a few times and it has only come off once. The reason we scored is because someone finally had the bottle to pick their head up and play the difficult pass to a striker who is experienced enough to use his noggin and make the right run.

 

[highpeakblade]

I have to disagree Patrick mate, I think the formation is a huge part of the problem. The way we are set out and styled to play is very deep and defensively minded and were not even doing that properly. It's all good and well throwing the bodies into the middle of the park but two instant problems are apparent, the first is that for some unknown reason our players at the minute seem to be nesh and unable to challenge and win the ball and secondly when we have that ball in midfield the outlets going forward haven't been there which is in my opinion down to having 1 up front. The sole striker will find himself man marked and Brandy and co are too deep to get forward and make the additional attacking options.

How many times have we seen full backs get up the wings and either deliver a ball into an empty box or alternatively have to turn back on themselves and go all the way back to build again? This formation isn't an attacking formation, it could be if Midfielders were asked to get into the box in numbers to give us options but instead I think it's designed more to put numbers into the middle of the park and boss that area which leaves attacking to be desired.

4-4-2 Would guarantee that second man in the danger zone, It would give us more to aim at from out wide and overall would give us a great deal more shape. I feel we actually have a very decent squad to play 4-4-2 as well and knock Doyle as much as we want but I think him tidying up in the middle of the park would give Baxter a good bit more freedom to hit the edge of the 18 yard box or alternatively to spread the ball out wide to get the cross in.

I agree to an extent that the players do have questions to answer because the basics just arent there however it's blatantly obviously that they are being asked to play out of comfort zones in unfamiliar systems with defensive roles that they might not usually play.

 

[Patrick Suffaux]

You're fully entitled to disagree highpeakblade, but with the greatest respect I think some of your points contradict your argument. It seems that you're placing a lot of emphasis on how far we press up the pitch. This has little to do with the formation. I agree our attacking/defensive balance has been a problem at times because if we're going to try a short, patient passing game then we do need to push higher up in order to contain the opposition. Alternatively we need to be able to break quickly and incisively if we're going to play deeper but we can't and we're not.

Basically we're doing neither (or a mixture of both) by playing deep enough not to leave space in behind but being far too sluggish and unprogressive in our build up. As a result the opposition just form up and wait for their chance to pinch it. Lots of teams play with 1 striker nowadays and make it work because they have a combination of the right balance and approach. It doesn't matter if the striker is man marked or not. If he is then a good team will take advantage of the one or two players that are taken out of equation by marking him.

I do however completely agree with some of your observations about the players and what they're being asked to do.

 

[Angef1Blade]

That doesn't even make sense.

Only because the punctuation is missing

 

[Bergen Blade]

Basically we're doing neither (or a mixture of both) by playing deep enough not to leave space in behind but being far too sluggish and unprogressive in our build up. As a result the opposition just form up and wait for their chance to pinch it.

Well observed. For most of the goals we have conceded this season we've had the chance to avoid it, but I think our organisation gives up too much room for the opposition, especially between our midfield and defence.

With the defence I suspect they defend too deep and don't push up quickly enough when they should. I think these can be the reasons:

• They all lack pace back there and are therefore afraid of having players running in behind them.
• We are still pretty intent on building slowly from the back, and also like to play it bacwards to keep possession, rather than making risky forward passes. This means that our defenders, keep a deep position in order to be available. The opposition don't bother marking them when they hang around back there.

But this means that we give up a lot of space in front of our defence, and we get in trouble when we lose the ball in midfield. I think the percentage of long shots we've conceded this season is a lot higher than the average. Our defenders back off, and our midfield are chasing shadows.

An "ideal" distance between our defence and a midfield is 15 meters and it should be constant, i.e. the defence and midfield should be pushing up and dropping deep at the same time. If we are a little bit sloppy doing this the opposition will find space and can play forward passes to forward running players. The fact that our wingers are being allowed to be a bit less defence minded, means that Doyle and Cuvelier have a lot of space to cover.


Have you noticed that when we play we only find passing options where our players have their back to goal? This isn't just the target man, it's everybody, and it especially makes it difficult for our attacking players, most of whom are at their best when they can run at people (Brandy, Baxter, Murphy, Hall) or run in behind (Taylor).

 

[Come from away]

Seems what is missing is the pressing defence that Carsley promised, in too much of a hurry to get back and defend, we are giving too much time to teams who need time to organise - there is no Arsenal in our division.

 

[Patrick Suffaux]

Have you noticed that when we play we only find passing options where our players have their back to goal? This isn't just the target man, it's everybody, and it especially makes it difficult for our attacking players, most of whom are at their best when they can run at people (Brandy, Baxter, Murphy, Hall) or run in behind (Taylor).

This is the biggest problem of the lot for me and is something I commented on during the Crawley game. More in the respect of attacking players being unwilling to gamble and make the run or being unwilling to pick their head up and turn. It may be the way they're told to play or perhaps a lack of confidence or even both!

The one and only time we did it in the game we scored.

 

[Kenilworth]

This is the biggest problem of the lot for me and is something I commented on during the Crawley game. More in the respect of attacking players being unwilling to gamble and make the run or being unwilling to pick their head up and turn.

I suspect it's because the pass does not come in when they make that sort of run as the ball goes back to "rebuild" if the opportunity is not perfect, consequently they stop making the runs, consequently the midfield goes backwards again to "rebuild," consequently we play all our football in our own half and around the half way line and if we lose it we offer a chance to the opposition who more often than not convert it, consequently we are yet again chasing the game but as we keep on having to turn back and rebuild we create nothing up top for a striker to get on the end of, consequently we are shit.