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

[Sheff de party]

*puts on tin hat*

This is what i meant in earlier posts that going 4-5-1 was so risky. i appreciate the validity of what others were saying in that we wud be hard to beat, tight defensively.

but, we created nothing for 2 hours. watching Cresswell then Porter up top on their own was painful. it is a system that only works if u have any talent out wide. WIllo was poor (unusual for him) and Flynn is too scared to play properly. hes too scared to go past anyone.we are playing a team we're better than, we shud be going out there to beat them.

we could have played til Tuesday and not scored. as for Hudds, it was nothing short of a miracle that we drew. we werent under siege but they hit the bar and had 2 off the line that cud easily have gone in. and 1 would have been enough for them to win it.

we were just like we were against Stevenage, created very little and could easily have shipped one on the break. 4-5-1 is a formation u need the right players for and we dont have them. uv done ever so well DW, but u got it completely wrong yesterday IMHO. and if we'd won on pens, he'd still have got it wrong. it doesnt change the fact we were lucky to get to pens.

 

[Worksop II]

I think Danny did the best he could with what we had available, though funnily enough last time at Wembley we ran out of Strikers, and ended up with two loanees up front.

 

[Sheff de party]

I think Danny did the best he could with what we had available, though funnily enough last time at Wembley we ran out of Strikers, and ended up with two loanees up front.

what i dont understand though is we had 2 fit strikers on the bench and only started 1. Porter actually did quite well when he came on. if Cressy couldnt last 90, he shud have started him and Porter/OH and hooked him for a midfielder/the other striker i think.

 

[Foxy]

what i dont understand though is we had 2 fit strikers on the bench and only started 1. Porter actually did quite well when he came on. if Cressy couldnt last 90, he shud have started him and Porter/OH and hooked him for a midfielder/the other striker i think.

Porter wasn't exactly fit and Cresswell's been patched up for months. Which left us with O'Halloran.

 

[Worksop II]

what i dont understand though is we had 2 fit strikers on the bench and only started 1. Porter actually did quite well when he came on. if Cressy couldnt last 90, he shud have started him and Porter/OH and hooked him for a midfielder/the other striker i think.

I expected him to start Porter, and use Cressy in the Last 20 mins, but I suspect it would have been case of 2 threes and a 6 ...

 

[Sheff de party]

Porter wasn't exactly fit and Cresswell's been patched up for months. Which left us with O'Halloran.

Cressie played 85 mins and Porter looked fine to me (altho may not have been). to me, it wouldnt have mattered who was up there, we should be going to win. im sure those 2 could have started and we could have reverted to 4-5-1 if anything went wrong.

 

[Bish_Is_God]

Don't think he had enough options on the day.

 

[judge]

This thread is genius , I'm waiting for the this is why you should have more shots / score penaltys /save penaltys /be betterer threads to follow

 

[essexblade87]

No moans from me, thought it was the only way we could line up. 2 Main strikers not fully fit, and a winger in O'Halloran.

 

[Sheff de party]

This thread is genius , I'm waiting for the this is why you should have more shots / score penaltys /save penaltys /be betterer threads to follow

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.

 

[sheffielder]

I expected him to start Porter, and use Cressy in the Last 20 mins, but I suspect it would have been case of 2 threes and a 6 ...

Cresswell was a bad fall away from being taken off, how he was fit to play I don't know. If he had come on then got injured later, Wilson would have hammered.

I have to say the one thing I have found frustrating about Wilson, has been his subsitutes, either too late or not at all.

 

[Latters]

Well I thought DW got it spot on with the tactics. It's just a shame we didn't have a fit enough forward to capitalise on the scraps they got. As I've said elsewhere, we kept the league's highest scorer extremely quiet and that deserves credit.

There were only two things I would have done different.

I'd have started with Porter to build on his second half v. Stevenage and I'd have took Flynn off after about 65-70 minuted because he looked knackered and brought O'Halloraranornanan on because they struggled with our balls over the top and some pace might have exploited this.

No qualms at all with the formation though.

 

[geekblade]

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...

 

[Highbury_Blade]

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.

 

[grafikhaus]

Willo was poor (unusual for him)

Willo was 'targetted' after 5 minutes and played on injured. The same Huddersfield player repeated the offence soon after with another United player but the ref. - who, along with his lineman - turned a blind eye to these and other incidents.

 

[CG Blade]

Sorry but the tatics were awful, and Wilson takes the blame (by the way I am not a Wilson knocker normally)
I understood the tatic away at Stevenage, I accepted it at home against stevenage, and it worked just. On Saturday there was no way when he went with the same tatics we were going to win. It was a one off game, we had scored more goals than then this season ( I know the arguements about we didn't have Evans). We finished third. Huddersfield should have been more concerned about us, no we were more concerned in stopping them playing. It was obvious in the first 15 minutes there goalkepper and there defence were vunerable, did Wilson do anything to change it no. Did we look like scoring all afternoon No. He should have switched tatics earlier, but still when he changed it he still went the same.. Why didn't he switch Flynn to playing doen the middle with Cresswell, and put Quinn where he does more damage down the left, we would have created more, Rhodes didn't have a look in all game, and it wasn't because we went 5 across Midfield, it is because Harry had him tied up. Sorry but the tatics were completly wrong, and Wilson has to take the blame.

 

[judge]

What should he have done then ?, I'm all ears

 

[Bergen Blade]

What should he have done then ?, I'm all ears

I don't think the 4-4-1-1 formation was the problem. Cresswell and Porter up front is a poor combination, and there's no guarantee we would have created anything more. It's unfair to say that Wilson didn't pick the team that he thought would give us the best chance of a win.

Having said that he could have used that formation and still given us a slightly more attacking look, with something like this:

Simonsen​

Lowton Maguire Collins Hill​

Flynn Williamson Doyle O'Halloran​

Quinn​

Porter​

 

[mattbianco1]

Reading some of the drivel on here and listening to fans on the radio since is nothing short of baffling !

I'd like people to enlighten us all as to what they would've done. What formation would they have played if they were Danny Wilson. Before people say "play Cresswell & Porter together" i'd like to stop you there. That's not a valid argument.

If we'd played 4-4-2 we would've been a lot more open and subject to Huddersfield counter attacks. What would plan B have been if we had gone behind if both crocked strikers were already on the pitch??

If we had conceded the other day playing 4-5-1 at least we had a crocked striker to bring on.

Danny Wilson played the best hand he possibly could've played.

 

[judge]

I don't think the 4-4-1-1 formation was the problem. Cresswell and Porter up front is a poor combination, and there's no guarantee we would have created anything more. It's unfair to say that Wilson didn't pick the team that he thought would give us the best chance of a win.

Having said that he could have used that formation and still given us a slightly more attacking look, with something like this:

Simonsen​

Lowton Maguire Collins Hill​

Flynn Williamson Doyle O'Halloran​

Quinn​

Porter​

No disrespect but even in hindsight that is pretty much like for like , so in effect proving we had no option but to play the team we did . If o halloran had shown even a glimpse of football ability or intelligence he would have started but he hasn't I we basically swapped monty for another player who wouldn't have touched the ball and porter for cressy is probably right but not much in it really

 

[Guesty]

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.

 

[Wards]

Personally I'd have loved to have seen that team that Bergen suggested. O'Halloran, for all his faults, would've offered another dimension and bringing Willo inside could've given us that creativity we so badly missed.

Fed up of us going into these big finals and going out with a whimper. I'd have rather us get smashed by 2 or 3 and have a go than the turgid nonsense we served up the other day.

 

[FleaPitBlade]

I'm sure you asked him, I'm willing to bet £1000 that DW would say he'd have gone 4-4-2 if he felt he could have done. We've been victims of circumstance. Again.

 

[CG Blade]

Reading some of the drivel on here and listening to fans on the radio since is nothing short of baffling !

I'd like people to enlighten us all as to what they would've done. What formation would they have played if they were Danny Wilson. Before people say "play Cresswell & Porter together" i'd like to stop you there. That's not a valid argument.

If we'd played 4-4-2 we would've been a lot more open and subject to Huddersfield counter attacks. What would plan B have been if we had gone behind if both crocked strikers were already on the pitch??

If we had conceded the other day playing 4-5-1 at least we had a crocked striker to bring on.

Danny Wilson played the best hand he possibly could've played.

It is opinions, I still think it was better with Cresswell/Flynn as a front two, and the replaced with Porter/O haloran, why were we scared of Huddersfield, why be negative against Huddersfield, should not they have been wary of us. Why should we be scared about their counter attacks, where was Huddersfield's pace. There counter attacks are long ball, and Maquire/Collins were capable of taking care of that. Wilson was negative in his tatics, and it cost us.....

 

[Revolution]

I am stunned that people have forked out all that cash for the second time in 4 seasons to see us once again fail to score against an inferior team whilst playing a negative formation and are fine with it, despite the fact that on this occasion there were other options available.

No doubt in 2015 when we are outfoxed by Southend in the league 2 playoff final you'll all be equally relaxed.

 

[Wards]

Nail.On.Head.

Like a tortoise popping it's head back into its shell.

 

[Sheff de party]

No disrespect but even in hindsight that is pretty much like for like , so in effect proving we had no option but to play the team we did . If o halloran had shown even a glimpse of football ability or intelligence he would have started but he hasn't I we basically swapped monty for another player who wouldn't have touched the ball and porter for cressy is probably right but not much in it really

 

[judge]

Still not seeing any alternatives from anyone unless you count getting smashed 3-0 as a more acceptable result

 

[Wards]

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.

 

[judge]

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.

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