Just play O'Hare

[dexter101]

If we are going to stick him out on the wing this season, we might as well sell him.

I really like him, I think he's great at getting play moving, but he isnt someone you can just play in any position. He isnt quick enough to trouble full backs

I think if he was tucked behind bamford today in the middle with someone on the left, we would have made a lot more happen

 

[FMBlade1]

Could even play Burrows and McCallum on the left then put O'Hare behind the striker.

Though perhaps I'm just a PlayStation manager

 

[Designer Blade]

Wilder said previously he wants Ohare behind the striker, clearly he thinks whilst we have no Hamer replacement it has to be Ohare.

We all know that’s a load BS, I’d play Burrows on the left, get Callum where he is meant to be.

Wilders stubbornness will cost points. Course a few loan signings later and we all forget about that borefest of a game.

 

[Blades Glory Owls Down]

I think one solution to get the best out of the current crop of players is (if we are to persist with a back 4) to play a 4-4-1-1 formation with a lone striker and O'Hare in behind him. It would still allow for the solid nature of a back 4 and also (if we ever bring a LW into the club) maintain the option of playing with wingers, giving O'Hare a bit of a free role to float between the space between the midfield and Striker as it allows him to play to his own strengths of buzzing around, playing little one-two's with the midfield and allowing them an outlet to get forward and still keep possession.
Too many times last night, we saw play break down as there was no link between midfield and attack and we became predictable by playing it around the midfield before trying to force a ball forward. The few times we looked at getting in behind them was when O'Hare came infield and created a link, allowing the forwards to turn towards goal as opposed to having to come short to try and receive the ball, as shown with O'Hare being more central to receive the ball and send Bamford through on goal.
Alternatively, if we get the elusive CB into the club (or even 2 in an ideal world, we could go to 3 at the back with wingbacks. Play 3 CMs and O'Hare advanced of them to supply a lone striker or even have a 3-4-1-2 formation with 2 CMs behind O'Hare to offer protection to the defence. This way you could have the likes of Seriki and McCallum/Burrows as the wider players, whilst also having a mind for getting back to defend when needed.

There are options. The question is, will Wilder want to consider any of them?

 

[Uganda Blade]

I think one solution to get the best out of the current crop of players is (if we are to persist with a back 4) to play a 4-4-1-1 formation with a lone striker and O'Hare in behind him. It would still allow for the solid nature of a back 4 and also (if we ever bring a LW into the club) maintain the option of playing with wingers, giving O'Hare a bit of a free role to float between the space between the midfield and Striker as it allows him to play to his own strengths of buzzing around, playing little one-two's with the midfield and allowing them an outlet to get forward and still keep possession.
Too many times last night, we saw play break down as there was no link between midfield and attack and we became predictable by playing it around the midfield before trying to force a ball forward. The few times we looked at getting in behind them was when O'Hare came infield and created a link, allowing the forwards to turn towards goal as opposed to having to come short to try and receive the ball, as shown with O'Hare being more central to receive the ball and send Bamford through on goal.
Alternatively, if we get the elusive CB into the club (or even 2 in an ideal world, we could go to 3 at the back with wingbacks. Play 3 CMs and O'Hare advanced of them to supply a lone striker or even have a 3-4-1-2 formation with 2 CMs behind O'Hare to offer protection to the defence. This way you could have the likes of Seriki and McCallum/Burrows as the wider players, whilst also having a mind for getting back to defend when needed.

There are options. The question is, will Wilder want to consider any of them?

Or 4-3-1-2?

 

[3Cheers4Ramirez]

The best option for this game was to play 2 wider CMs

Peck Riedewald Rothwell
Donovan O'Hare
Bamford

But maybe Riedewald wasn't fit, because if he was he'd surely have come on

 

[S64 Blade]

I find it baffling that for two years we played Hamer out wide to accommodate O’Hare in his best position.

We then sell Hamer and decide to change our tactics to play O’Hare in the position we were playing Hamer in, to accommodate O’Hare.

Moaning aside. We barely have any wingers anyway, why not play a 442 with a diamond in midfield?

Have Phillips/Reidewald sitting in to protect the defence.

Arblaster/Peck/Rothwell in the middle, supporting the attacking wing backs.

O’Hare in his best position as attacking midfielder.

 

[Ron_Justice]

Pretty clear that the gap left by Gus had to be, temporarily, filled by someone that has something creative about them. It didn't work especially well, CW probably suspected as much before kick off, but felt CO'H was the best fit out of what we have. When Onē came on, we immediately saw the benefit of both him AND CO'H in a central position when he threaded a defense splitting ball to Bamford for his shot on target.

Gotta say, I don't think this is CW saying 'we go with what we have' I think this was a short term fix to plug a creative hole until we bring in a left sided specialist.

Also gotta say, Onē should have started, on the left, over Cannon and CO'H should have started on the middle.

 

[DeanLearner'sCat]

It seems everybody has developed collective amnesia about this, but we played O'Hare from the left in a 4-4-2 last season and it worked well. We set up like that against Wednesday, Leicester, Stoke etc during that run last season that got us out of relegation trouble.