That's why u dont play 4-5-1

[CG Blade]

Sorry I should have said REALISTIC alternative , as in not some complete fantasy

Obviously you have got you ideas, and bollocks to everyone else, how far is your head up your arse, that far that the only performance you watched on Saturday was your internal organs getting ready for a crap.

 

[mattbianco1]

Alternative was not having two cloggers in midfield. Pushing Willo inside and getting some pace on the wings. 4-5-1 needn't be defensive if you've got the correct blend of players in there, which IMO we did have available. Just seemed we were kinda happy with a 0-0 from the start.

That's changing everything around. On the few occasions Williamson has played central this season he has been awful. Much more effective on the right.

Who would you have played on the right instead?

 

[judge]

Obviously you have got you ideas, and bollocks to everyone else, how far is your head up your arse, that far that the only performance you watched on Saturday was your internal organs getting ready for a crap.

thanks for the illuminating contribution but back to the point the threads called that's why you don't play 4-5-1 I've asked for alternatives , the only one up to now is to lose 3-0 and a few people getting abusive as if it's my fault ,can't be that hard to pick an alternative team and formation can it ? After all that's what's getting you all so irate in the first place , so let's hear it

 

[CG Blade]

However people have given an alternative but you don't want to listen, so your point is.

 

[Wards]

That's changing everything around. On the few occasions Williamson has played central this season he has been awful. Much more effective on the right.

Who would you have played on the right instead?

Personally I'd have gone for either Flynn or O'Halloran. Yes it would've meant changing things around but Saturday's performance was far too predictable given the side we put out.

 

[DazBlade88]

I also don't think he got the tactics wrong for what was available to him.

We shut Huddersfield down and stopped a striker who had scored 40 goals from being involved in the game. Had we had enough up front to be able to compete with that, I would have been disappointed with the selection but due to injury/prison sentences it was purely circumstancial.

The big loss was McDonald in the middle of the park. Cresswell or Porter didn't get enough support from the two deeper midfielders which obviously meant we had no bodies in and around the box quick enough to take advantage of any counter attacks. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but I think you'd have seen a very different game if McDonald was available because he would have been prepared to push on a bit more and support the attack.

 

[judge]

However people have given an alternative but you don't want to listen, so your point is.

How do you get that from what I've posted ? I read them and to be perfectly honest playing porter and cresswell would have left us with no fit strikers on the bench and neither are fit enough to be effective for 90 mins, play o halloran instead of monty , again swapping one player who didn't get a kick for one who never gets a kick , and moving willo into the middle - a position he has been largely in effective in when playing there before Also taking away the one strong point we had on Saturday of defensive stability and adding little or no goal threat

So I ask again what are the alternatives , what's your alternative ? Apart from asking me anatomically impossible questions have a think about it and get back to me

But you won't will you ?

 

[BerksBlade]

I think Danny's hands were largely tied.
Cresswell was one awkward fall away from having to come off, so he had to start - what if we'd used him as a sub for Porter, and he'd aggravated his injury again? Personally I would have brought Porter on much earlier though - he seemed much more of a threat when he came on.
4-5-1 seemed a reasonable choice - with the attack we had available we couldn't just rely on outscoring the opposition. The only problems were (i) we didn't convert it into 4-3-3 enough when going forward; (ii) McDonald wasn't one of the "5". I thought Flynn tried hard, but he doesn't have the pace to beat his man. Disappointed with Willo's performance (and his set-piece delivery). O'Halloran just runs around like a headless chicken.

 

[raul]

Anyone advocating a role for O Hallorhallorhalloran needs to convince me why, unless a direct replacement for Flynn, why we would benefit with two makeweights on the pitch. After 50 odd games, and for reasons beyond our control, we lost our spearhead. That's it. I'm normally as up for kicking the crap out of them as much as the next man and I thought we'd still create one or two chances and put one away but on the day we didn't.

To anyone advocating a more cavalier approach, what would have happened if we'd let them score first? What side and formation could we have used with the available players that could have then chased the game and scored twice in that heat?

 

[Bergen Blade]

So I ask again what are the alternatives , what's your alternative ? Apart from asking me anatomically impossible questions have a think about it and get back to me

But you won't will you ?

The fact that you didn't agree with or have faith in the suggested options doesn't mean that there weren't any.

There are so many random factors that decide the outcome of a football match that nobody can say that one option would have made a difference for sure. Similarly you can't say that the suggested options would NOT have made the difference.

 

[Balham]

My thoughts on Saturday:

1. Cresswell was awful. He has this reputation as a target man but Clarke was in total control of that battle. A half decent striker would have buried the chance following Smithies' hesitance in the first half and the 3 on 2 break we had was ruined by Cresswell holding onto the ball for far too long.
   
2. Flynn isn't effective on the left. He's got no confidence in his left foot so every first touch is inside, which slows the play right down.
   
3. Quinn played well but needs to stop trying to be involved in everything. He was shattered by 70 mins and that's when the mistakes started creeping in.
   
4. Defensively, we were excellent. Simonsen had the best game I've ever seen from him (even claiming a cross!), Collins and Maguire were immense and Doyle was very effective in front of them.
   
5. Montgomery did a great job of taking up a space on the teamsheet but that was it. Given, that Wilson's tactics revolve around short passing his limitations were obvious - poor first touch and no composure. He'll do well in Neil Warnock's Leeds team next year though (fingers crossed!).
   
6. Porter did well when he came on. He won everything in the air (when Clarke stopped bearhugging him) and caused problems when he ran at the defence. It's a pity that he, like Cresswell, is woefully slow.

 

[judge]

The fact of the matter is we went into that game with our strongest available line up , any changes in personnel would have made little difference in my opinion if people really believe that playing two half fit strikers and a loanee who has had no impact at all since arriving would have made that much difference then fine your entitled to your opinion , personally I think Wilson had little choice but to go in the way we did it worked against Stevenage and was our best chance on Saturday

Wishfully thinking aside no one has. Even able to offer any real argument aside from yourself so if it seems as if I'm taking you to task it's only because you are the only poster to offer any thoughts apart from abuse and wishing we had lost 3-0 but created more

 

[super_pig]

4-5-1 is only any good when you've got no fully match fit strikers and an opponent that passes well and has a prolific goalscorer up front. Oh wait...

and you have didier drogba playing centre forward

 

[CG Blade]

How do you get that from what I've posted ? I read them and to be perfectly honest playing porter and cresswell would have left us with no fit strikers on the bench and neither are fit enough to be effective for 90 mins, play o halloran instead of monty , again swapping one player who didn't get a kick for one who never gets a kick , and moving willo into the middle - a position he has been largely in effective in when playing there before Also taking away the one strong point we had on Saturday of defensive stability and adding little or no goal threat

So I ask again what are the alternatives , what's your alternative ? Apart from asking me anatomically impossible questions have a think about it and get back to me

But you won't will you ?

If you care to check my posts you will see I have offered alternatives, perhaps not on this particular thread, but on another thread. Please go back and read them, I happen to think that with a different formation we would have put up a better fight of it, and no I don't believe we would not have lost 3-0 as you seem to imply. Going down with a fight is better than going down without a fight . However it is all about opinions, yours and mine are both valid, so you take your choice. I just think these tatics on Saturday blew it big time, only trouble is you agreed with them and we lost, I don't agree with them and if we had gone a different route we might have won...... something we will never know.

 

[DazBlade88]

I appreciate the fact that you felt we could have approached the game differently, and whilst I don't agree it's all opinions so that's not a problem.

However, I'm slightly confused at the "going down without a fight" comment. We may not have attacked as much as we would have hoped, but we definitely didn't go down without a fight. Better decisions/more bravery in the final third could have seen a better result but I thought we battled to the end regardless.

 

[Bergen Blade]

The fact of the matter is we went into that game with our strongest available line up , any changes in personnel would have made little difference in my opinion if people really believe that playing two half fit strikers and a loanee who has had no impact at all since arriving would have made that much difference then fine your entitled to your opinion , personally I think Wilson had little choice but to go in the way we did it worked against Stevenage and was our best chance on Saturday

Wishfully thinking aside no one has. Even able to offer any real argument aside from yourself so if it seems as if I'm taking you to task it's only because you are the only poster to offer any thoughts apart from abuse and wishing we had lost 3-0 but created more

Football is so unpredictable that we should be very careful of making harsh statements. I am by no means sure that my suggested line up would have made us beat Huddersfield. It's about taking a selection of factors into consideration and trying to come up with something that you think will give your team the best chance. That's the same for managers and us, when we discuss what we'd have done.

I've seen O'Halloran disappoint and look clueless. I've also been frustrated at seeing Williamson being unable to do what McDonald does in central midfield. But you don't pick line ups only on merit - you pick them primarily on what you think they can achieve in the match ahead. Each match has a life of it's own.

A little better distribution in central midfield may have seen our forward players get the ball in better positions. At times even Flynn looked to have the beating of their right back, and maybe, given the right balls on that big pitch, O'Halloran could have exploited that a little more? Cresswell looks finished for me, and if he was fit I think Porter would have been a bigger threat. I don't know, but it's what I'd have liked to see. Certainly in hindsight.

 

[CG Blade]

I appreciate the fact that you felt we could have approached the game differently, and whilst I don't agree it's all opinions so that's not a problem.

However, I'm slightly confused at the "going down without a fight" comment. We may not have attacked as much as we would have hoped, but we definitely didn't go down without a fight. Better decisions/more bravery in the final third could have seen a better result but I thought we battled to the end regardless.

I accept that going down with out a fight maybe not the correct term, however we were toothless in the final third, and I am still utterly convinved that if we had played 4 4 2 then we would have had more capabilities of putting pressue on what I thought was a very nervous Huddersfield back 4 and goalkeeper, who got stronger when they realised we were posing them hardly any problems.

 

[DazBlade88]

I accept that going down with out a fight maybe not the correct term, however we were toothless in the final third, and I am still utterly convinved that if we had played 4 4 2 then we would have had more capabilities of putting pressue on what I thought was a very nervous Huddersfield back 4 and goalkeeper, who got stronger when they realised we were posing them hardly any problems.

That's fair enough then

I would like to agree but I don't think it mattered how many strikers we played to be honest, the system was fine but we didn't have enough support from midfield. Even if we'd played 4-4-2 we would have had Monty and Doyle in the middle of the park, and neither of them are prepared to get into an advanced position often enough.

 

[CG Blade]

That's fair enough then

I would like to agree but I don't think it mattered how many strikers we played to be honest, the system was fine but we didn't have enough support from midfield. Even if we'd played 4-4-2 we would have had Monty and Doyle in the middle of the park, and neither of them are prepared to get into an advanced position often enough.

That is right, but 4 4 2 would have given us more options, in my opinion of course

 

[Princess Annes Dog]

However, I'm slightly confused at the "going down without a fight" comment. We may not have attacked as much as we would have hoped, but we definitely didn't go down without a fight.

Williamson springs to mind here, he strolled about in the heat as though his mind was elsewhere. If you're looking at players who didn't fight, he'd top the list.

My two penneth? I'd have gone Porter and Cresswell up front, Quinn in midfield instead of Monty with Doyle in the hole. Quinny covers some ground and would at least have given us an attacking option from midfield. Porter was excellent against Stevenage, he caused problems on Saturday but no, the manager always has his favourites and no matter what, their names are always first on the team sheet.

Next season needs a manager with some balls. Balls enough to change things when we're losing, stop playing has beens and go for it a bit more. Who knows, if we hadn't laid down and died (or showed some more fight as the phrase goes) at the sty we might have got automatic promotion.

 

[United Aren't Back.]

Didn't think he had much choice in the matter to be honest.

I suppose he could have started with two strikers to try and nick an early one, and then hold out, but since neither creswell or porter are prolific then that's a bit of a risky option. Biggest failure for me was that neither of our full backs pushed on more.

Porter n Cress up front, Monty out.
Couldn`t have reduced midfield effectiveness as Monty hid for the entire fiasco.

 

[United Aren't Back.]

The other thing about playing two upfront is that it left no-one in reserve. We'd have had no strikers on the bench unless you count O'Halloran. In that heat, with two strikers who have been patched up, it would have been madness to start them both. After 70 minutes when they're both knackered we'd have absolutely no scope to change it. Say we were chasing an equaliser and had just a shattered Chris Porter and O'Halloran up top, Wilson's tactics would have taken just as much of a hammering.

True. Fact is, the players at the club are frankly not up to the task, so no change in formation can make up for that.
But Wilson has an obligation to the paying public to try to entertain. And since evans went, that has simply not been the case. So Wilson made a hash of it. Again.

 

[Highbury_Blade]

Porter n Cress up front, Monty out.
Couldn`t have reduced midfield effectiveness as Monty hid for the entire fiasco.

Guesty said it all on this. I think there was a case for bringing williamson in the middle, or even playing Mcallister from the start so we didn't need to play Monty, but i think the choice to start up front with just one striker was the correct one given the resources available.

 

[oldblade]

the point i was making is lots of people argued with me n said 4-5-1 is the best way to go. surely no one can be happy with that performance? we got beat by an inferior team because we were scared to go for it. i dont mind losing but i want to see us go out and play. we went out n played for penalties.

We got beaten because we were short of fit strikers. If we'd played a genuine 4-4-2 with what we'd got there wouldn't have been any extra time because we'd have been beaten comfortably.

 

[Sheff de party]

fair enough, we disagree. i think if you're the better team you should pick 2 strikers and go for it because holding on so rarely works. we should have been beaten before pens arrived.

i would happily have gone 2 up top with OH and Porter/Cresswell. yes OH hasnt done much but at least he'd be up there to make something happen. MOnty was a waste of space in midfield and has been for most of the last 10 yrs, we knew what we were getting. hes also barely played in the last few months.

we were scared of losing in my opinion, rather than trying to win it.

 

[Sheff de party]

My thoughts on Saturday:

1. Cresswell was awful. He has this reputation as a target man but Clarke was in total control of that battle. A half decent striker would have buried the chance following Smithies' hesitance in the first half and the 3 on 2 break we had was ruined by Cresswell holding onto the ball for far too long.
2. Flynn isn't effective on the left. He's got no confidence in his left foot so every first touch is inside, which slows the play right down.
3. Quinn played well but needs to stop trying to be involved in everything. He was shattered by 70 mins and that's when the mistakes started creeping in.
4. Defensively, we were excellent. Simonsen had the best game I've ever seen from him (even claiming a cross!), Collins and Maguire were immense and Doyle was very effective in front of them.
5. Montgomery did a great job of taking up a space on the teamsheet but that was it. Given, that Wilson's tactics revolve around short passing his limitations were obvious - poor first touch and no composure. He'll do well in Neil Warnock's Leeds team next year though (fingers crossed!).
6. Porter did well when he came on. He won everything in the air (when Clarke stopped bearhugging him) and caused problems when he ran at the defence. It's a pity that he, like Cresswell, is woefully slow.

i agree with all 6 of those, particularly 2 and 5. Flynn, on the few occasions iv seen him has been shocking. hes scared of taking people on. fine if ur a keeper, bit of a problem if ur a winger. im sure he'll get better, but on that day he was a passenger.

 

[themaninblack]

The only fact in all this is that we managed what, two shots on goal in 120 minutes? Yet again in a big game we didnt get a result and yet again the performance was unacceptable. We blew promotion when it was in our hands and then went into a defensive shell, scoring only one goal in the three play off games. Basically in the last six games we bottled it.