Weir's planned team vs today

[Bergen Blade]

I think David Weir was hoping this would be his settled side by now:

Long​

Westlake Maguire Collins Williams​

McGinn Doyle​

Brandy - - - - McDonald - - - - Murphy​

Taylor​

He was hoping Westlake and Williams would be attacking, overlapping full backs, running on the ball and supplying crosses. Doyle would be the tough, experienced leader in the middle of the park while McGinn would keep everything flowing, cleverly playmaking from deep. McDonald would be our attacking playmaker, using his strength to hold the ball up and his creativity to find the pacey and mobile attacking trio of Brandy, Taylor and Murphy with good through balls. Weir hoped we'd dominate games and ultimately have too much class, skill and attacking flair for teams to keep us out.


Today we lined up with:

Long​

McMahon Maguire Collins Hill​

McGinn Doyle​

Westlake - - - - Baxter - - - - Cuvelier​

Ironside​

Only three players, Maguire, Collins and Doyle, have remained constant and always available first choices.



The opening fixture was great, but since then some key departments have become dysfunctional.

Full backs: Weir eventually concluded the first choice full backs couldn't hold their own defensively, while not really working well enough offensively either. He was then resigned to play the steady, but unexciting McMahon and Hill instead, scrapping the idea of our full backs being a vital component of our attacking play.​

​

Central midfield: Weir has been unsure of his best combination. He lost faith in McGinn after the Brentford game, tried Coady instead, before recalling McGinn today. He's kept his immense faith in Doyle. The limitations of our central midfield have shown now that the full backs aren't contributing offensively.​

​

Originally Weir believed it may have been enough for them to playmake from deep, sit in front of the centre halves, while covering for the forward bombing full backs. But now the full backs rarely contribute to our attacks we suddenly have SIX holding, negative players.​

​

Front four: This would have made it difficult for any remaining four players, also the ones in the 'planned team', to create enough. But today's line up saw none of them figure. Brandy was suspended, McDonald has been sold, Murphy is injured while Ironside was picked ahead of Taylor, who hasn't managed to impress in a dysfunctional, ineffective team that has never settled.​

I think Baxter will eventually do well for us, but this formation misses McDonald's strength and ability to hold onto the ball. In the wide attacking roles we tried two players out of position today, a right back and a central midfielder, presumably to give us more defensive solidity, and it doesn't surprise me that we again failed to score.



While Weir had a reasonable plan to start with, he's partly decided, partly been forced, to change it.

Today's line up is unfortunately not close to being a balanced and well working unit. Things may improve a bit with the availability of Brandy, Murphy and Porter, and also Miller and De Girolamo. But Weir must also look for better solutions at full back and central midfield because we can't have six players contributing little to our attacking play.

 

[tyneblade]

Probably the only positive for me today, aside from a free sausage with my fish and chips, was remembering that Maguire is a tidy footballer.

Might sound daft, almost certainly is daft, but be i'd interested in what you think of using him in the McDonald role and moving Hill to centre back. He's got the strength, seems to read the game and he can pass.

 

[B.Lade]

Re 'the opening fixture was great'. In hindsight, we won 2-1 against a team who have 1 point all season, and who had 10 men for the majority of the game. Hardly great...

 

[KenMcnaughtsNuts]

Re 'the opening fixture was great'. In hindsight, we won 2-1 against a team who have 1 point all season, and who had 10 men for the majority of the game. Hardly great...

And people laughed when i said similar at the time! Obviously, not the 1 point thing. But the probably not a very good team and 10 men etc.

 

[Bergen Blade]

Re 'the opening fixture was great'. In hindsight, we won 2-1 against a team who have 1 point all season, and who had 10 men for the majority of the game. Hardly great...

Not really the main point of the post.

 

[Bergen Blade]

Probably the only positive for me today, aside from a free sausage with my fish and chips, was remembering that Maguire is a tidy footballer.

Might sound daft, almost certainly is daft, but be i'd interested in what you think of using him in the McDonald role and moving Hill to centre back. He's got the strength, seems to read the game and he can pass.

McDonald was excellent at keeping the ball even when pressed aggressively by opponents. Although I agree with you that Maguire is quite composed on the ball and very strong, I don't think he'd be able to do what McDonald did. I think Baxter will do well in that role, but we need someone to give us more power. Personally I'd look for someone in Doyle's position and a strong striker.

 

[Patrick Suffaux]

To my mind we need to recruit in four positions. As follows:-

Long
Vacancy Maguire Collins Vacancy
McGinn Vacancy
Brandy Baxter Cuvelier
Vacancy

We lack pace, balance and quality in the full back positions which is imperative when playing in this shape IMO. Both Doyle and Coady have failed to convince me so far and only McGinn seems to ever attempt a progressive pass. I think the shortcomings up top are apparent to everyone.....can't hold the ball, can't link up the play, can't turn the defender. Nothing wrong with playing one up front, can and will work but with the right man and right men around him.

 

[mattbianco1]

Great OP Bergen Blade !! Think yo nailed it. I've been saying for weeks that this formation needs good attacking wing backs in the Walker, Lowton, Naughton mould. We also need wingers that come central and feed off the striker - think Chelsea, they've played this system years.

And before people say "we're not Chelsea they've got players like Lampard and Mata".... It's all relative

 

[Wobbly Blade]

Spot on Bergen, the only question is do we change a) personnel b) system or c) manager. A) takes time and money and we are limited with the window closed, c) is quick but throws everything we have done so far away and we need a viable alternative. Answers on a postcard to 'patience of a prince' S2.

 

[Bergen Blade]

Spot on Bergen, the only question is do we change a) personnel b) system or c) manager. A) takes time and money and we are limited with the window closed, c) is quick but throws everything we have done so far away and we need a viable alternative. Answers on a postcard to 'patience of a prince' S2.

I think Weir may be willing to tweak things. After all he has tried to change the line up quite a bit, but been unable to find the right balance.

If the formation remains the same I would like to see him try something like this:

Long​

Westlake Maguire Collins McFadzean​

McGinn Cuvelier​

Brandy - - - Baxter - - - Murphy​

Porter​

This would give more movement and attacking attributes in some key positions, and may see us regain some of the freshness that showed in the first game. I would look for loan/free transfer options in these positions:

• attack minded full back (left or right)
• tall and strong defensive midfielder
• aggressive and strong striker

Playing style, need to go forward quicker, and aim to play more of the football in the final third. More aggression and more determination to win back possession when we lose it.

It will be some time before Weir would be able to play the above (poor performances may continue), but if he's thinking along those lines it would be interesting to see if our form picked up, meaning we could save ourselves from a possibly unnecessary, rash sacking.

 

[OllyBlade]

Doyle has to be dropped. He is so one-footed it is unreal. Yesterday, he was often the first player receiving the ball, with his back to the opposition goal, from our centre halves. If he couldn't get it onto his left foot, he would just pass it back to the centre halves again. There was one instance in the second half where we were attacking with intent, and he had a simple pass along the floor to a more advanced player with his right foot. Instead, he contorted his whole body to make the pass with his left foot, and it cannoned into an opposition player. He is too limited to be the player he is being asked to be. If you can, Bergen, you should try and find it on the match if you watch it back - I think it was just before they scored, as from the breakaway they won a freekick which then went out for a corner.

 

[Bergen Blade]

Doyle has to be dropped. He is so one-footed it is unreal. Yesterday, he was often the first player receiving the ball, with his back to the opposition goal, from our centre halves. If he couldn't get it onto his left foot, he would just pass it back to the centre halves again. There was one instance in the second half where we were attacking with intent, and he had a simple pass along the floor to a more advanced player with his right foot. Instead, he contorted his whole body to make the pass with his left foot, and it cannoned into an opposition player. He is too limited to be the player he is being asked to be. If you can, Bergen, you should try and find it on the match if you watch it back - I think it was just before they scored, as from the breakaway they won a freekick which then went out for a corner.

I don't think they'll show the full match on BP, they try to spare me from the worst ones!

 

[Toronto Blade]

Scratch Porter and Murphy out of that lineup, he left them behind in Sheffield along with Flynn.

 

[Rudders]

None of those line ups are as effective as playing 4-4-2. It would be better to play players out of position than stick to this nonsense.

 

[alcoblade]

Great OP Bergen Blade !! Think yo nailed it. I've been saying for weeks that this formation needs good attacking wing backs in the Walker, Lowton, Naughton mould. We also need wingers that come central and feed off the striker - think Chelsea, they've played this system years.

And before people say "we're not Chelsea they've got players like Lampard and Mata".... It's all relative

Lots of people don't have a problem with the system in principle, they just question (and evidence confirms it) that we don't have the players to play it.

The mystifying bit is why we persevere, until the players are acquired. I've heard it argued that we have to get used to a new style, but when you subsequently have to replace 80% of the squad, it's not clear who's left to benefit from the experience. What is clear is that we are in the relegation zone to England's FOURTH division.

UTB

 

[Bergen Blade]

Scratch Porter and Murphy out of that lineup, he left them behind in Sheffield along with Flynn.

I know they were spotted in town Friday night, but were they not injured?

 

[Bergen Blade]

None of those line ups are as effective as playing 4-4-2. It would be better to play players out of position than stick to this nonsense.

Saturday's line up had six "holding" players, while the last suggestion has three, surely it could make a difference?

 

[cooperblade]

For those suggesting a return to 4-4-2, who would you play as the midfield 4?

 

[SBSP]

If we are going to continue with this system and can't recruit some attacking full backs on loan I'd make one main change.

As we almost hav a flat back 4 we only need 1 defensive holding midfielder (assume Doyle from DW choices so far) so the other CM can be a lot more attack minded. This would effectively make it more of a 4-1-4-1 hopefully giving us another player in the final third and helping us to keep more advanced possesion and pressure on them.

Fingers crossed with an extra man firther forward we might even score.

Not a big change but surely a simple tweak that could help a lot.

 

[Rudders]

Team
Long
RB = McMahon
LB = Hill
CB = Maguire
CB = Collins
LM = Flynn
RM = Brandy or McFadzean
CM = Doyle
CM = Cuvelier
CF = Baxter
CF = Murphy or Taylor

Easy - much more likely to score, maybe a bit lightweight in midfield though

 

[Dnblade]

Long
Westlake Maguire Collins McFadzean
McGinn Cuvelier
Brandy - - - Baxter - - - Murphy
Porter

That would be more or less my team aswell Bergs,although now McFadzean is injured.
My only question would to be whether to play Coady or Mcginn with Cuvelier,and whether to play Taylor in place of Porter,or even try him in Murphy's position.
But yes,attacking Full Backs,a deep laying midfielder in Cuvelier who can get forward and support the attack.
From what I've seen of Cuvelier..especially while he was at Walsall,he has the ability to run with the ball and go past his marker...I think this would be effective from a deep position in order to get us up the pitch quicker,especially when we turnover possession around our own box and can get forward quickly with the opposition facing their own goal.

 

[Bergen Blade]

If we are going to continue with this system and can't recruit some attacking full backs on loan I'd make one main change.

As we almost hav a flat back 4 we only need 1 defensive holding midfielder (assume Doyle from DW choices so far) so the other CM can be a lot more attack minded. This would effectively make it more of a 4-1-4-1 hopefully giving us another player in the final third and helping us to keep more advanced possesion and pressure on them.

Fingers crossed with an extra man firther forward we might even score.

Not a big change but surely a simple tweak that could help a lot.

According to reports, that's how we lined up at Carlisle.

 

[stannyblade]

Long
Westlake Maguire Collins McFadzean
McGinn Cuvelier
Brandy - - - Baxter - - - Murphy
Porter

That would be more or less my team aswell Bergs,although now McFadzean is injured.
My only question would to be whether to play Coady or Mcginn with Cuvelier,and whether to play Taylor in place of Porter,or even try him in Murphy's position.
But yes,attacking Full Backs,a deep laying midfielder in Cuvelier who can get forward and support the attack.
From what I've seen of Cuvelier..especially while he was at Walsall,he has the ability to run with the ball and go past his marker...I think this would be effective from a deep position in order to get us up the pitch quicker,especially when we turnover possession around our own box and can get forward quickly with the opposition facing their own goal.

King for Porter. He wont drop mrs Doyle though

 

[MBoreman]

For those calling for 4-4-2, I can't see Weir giving up on his plan so quickly, and now McDonalds gone I don't think we have any genuinely attacking cm's (this may be cuvelier but I haven't seen enough of him to make a proper judgement). A compromise could be a 4-1-2-1-2 with hoepfully Coady deep and Baxter/Cuvelier in the hole. Although, like others have said I think new full backs would make a huge difference, and hopefully King has the quality to be the lone striker Weir enjoys using.

 

[Dnblade]

King for Porter. He wont drop mrs Doyle though
David Weir's Red and White Army
stannyblade, Today at 8:34 PM Report

Yeah,Doyle does seem to be undroppable.I suppose DW see's him as one of he senior pro's in a young team along with Collins and McMahon.I would think all three won't feature in the Manager's long term plan.