The lesson from last season?

Anything yellow and blue
Mooro
Grumpy old git
Posts: 3010
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 5:32 pm
Location: Hellenic/Spartan border

The lesson from last season?

Post by Mooro »

Some interesting facts on last season, following on from our latest results:

Last season our points tally was made up as follows(*):
- Home against top 12 sides – 24pts, 2nd best behind D&ampR.
- Away against top 12 sides – 19pts, 4th best behind York, Kiddie, D&ampR.
- Away against bottom12 sides – 26pts, 2nd behind Morecambe
- Home against bottom 12 sides – 21pts, only 12th best in the league!! With the exception of York (17) most of the other main players topped this by 6 or more points, while even Altrincham, Halifax, Grays and Crawley all topped or equalled our tally.
.(*) – some double counting to ensure every team has 12 results in each category(ie. 13th place included in top 12 for top 12 sides, 12th in bottom 12 for bottom 12 sides).

Two other significant numbers that came out of this, just to deepen the mood after dropping points in the last two games:
- Exeter only managed 7pts away to the top 12 last season,
- More worryingly, Halifax failed to gain a single point against the top 11 finishers last season.

This immediately confirms that one of our major flaws last season was killing off weaker sides at home, something most of us have long known, yet it seems that we are no nearer being able to close games out this season than we were last.

Unfortunately, it is probably that segment of the four that has the biggest impact upon ‘floaters’ in the crowd and attendances &amp mood as a whole, as people can put up with hard-earned results away from home and/or against the big sides at home, as long as they can see the odd comfortable win at the Kassam.

Something needs to be done about this, as without the ‘security’ of regular home bankers it is that bit harder to put together any sort of run of form on which to mount a real challenge &amp falling gates will begin to hit the balance sheet at some stage.
YF Dan
Middle-Aged Spread
Posts: 1001
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 10:02 am

Post by YF Dan »

I'm finding it unbelievably hard to motivate myself to make a 120 mile round trip to watch us defend at home, and I would consider myself a big fan of the club. If we were banging goals in, it would be a lot easier to justify.

I'm not in the slightest bit surprised fairer-weather fans can't be bothered. Football is meant to be entertainment. I'm not asking for Brazillian style skills, I just want us to pick more attackers than defenders.
Pe├▒a Oxford United
Middle-Aged Spread
Posts: 1760
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 11:13 am

Post by Pe├▒a Oxford United »

You don't actually, do you?
entirely disenchanted
boris
Grumpy old git
Posts: 2786
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 12:44 pm
Location: The house with no door

Post by boris »

Dan's been looking back at his old 1960s programmes, and yearns for the days of 2-3-5 with wing halves and inside forwards and the like.
Baboo
Grumpy old git
Posts: 3539
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 5:31 pm

Re:

Post by Baboo »

&quotboris&quot wrote:Dan's been looking back at his old 1960s programmes, and yearns for the days of 2-3-5 with wing halves and inside forwards and the like.
And not a Marvin Robinson in sight. But we did have Ray Gaston.
recordmeister
Middle-Aged Spread
Posts: 1808
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 11:34 am
Location: London

Post by recordmeister »

10 out field players in a game. back 4 should all be defensive, plus 1 in the middle of midfield. that's 5 defensive players. the other central midfielder should be creative, plus 2 attacking wingers and 2 strikers. that's 5 attacking players. everyone knows their job and role and the side is balanced. nice.
Jimski
Mid-life Crisis
Posts: 734
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 6:50 pm
Location: Oxford

Post by Jimski »

I just want us to pick more attackers than defenders.
I tend to think we play with two many of each of those, to the detriment of our midfield. Jim plays five defenders (no, I don't count the wing-backs as anything else) and then quite often with three strikers too. Three strikers is not an &quotattacking&quot formation. Chances are very often created from midfield (note I include wingers as midfielders), but we play hardly anyone in that area, and wonder why (a) we get over-run, and/or (b) we create few chances.
ty cobb
Middle-Aged Spread
Posts: 1121
Joined: Sun May 14, 2006 6:55 pm

Re:

Post by ty cobb »

&quotrecordmeister&quot wrote:10 out field players in a game. back 4 should all be defensive, plus 1 in the middle of midfield. that's 5 defensive players. the other central midfielder should be creative, plus 2 attacking wingers and 2 strikers. that's 5 attacking players. everyone knows their job and role and the side is balanced. nice.
ala the Brian Horton and Dennis Smith days.

Mind you the fans were quite happy to see the back of these two as well despite them going on to better things.
YF Dan
Middle-Aged Spread
Posts: 1001
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 10:02 am

Post by YF Dan »

I consider midfielders to be essentially there to score and create goals. Yep, they can do some defensive work if they like, and hell, one central midfielder can even sit back while the other one bombs forward. But if you make their first priority to push on, you won't get the kind of carnage we witnessed on tuesday when we ended up playing 8-0-3 (which was possibly the worst 30 minutes of football I've seen since Mark Wright's last game in charge at Orient).

Let's consider the team of 86. Who was the defensive midfielder there? Phillips and Hebberd covered each other. When McDonald and Langan were both in the team, you were effectively looking at 8 outfield players who had some sort of remit to get forward. Now, at best, we're limiting ourselves to 2 or 3. Just look at the number of goals scored (or not scored) by our midfield both this season and last for proof of that.

I don't know whats happened to Smith, but he's got stuck in some sort of 1990 &quotwing backs are fashionable&quot time warp, and got horribly, horribly stuck there.
GodalmingYellow
Senile
Posts: 5178
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 10:22 am

Re:

Post by GodalmingYellow »

&quotty cobb&quot wrote:ala the Brian Horton and Dennis Smith days.

Mind you the fans were quite happy to see the back of these two as well despite them going on to better things.
The grass is always greener...

I was one of those shouting for their heads at the time. If only we realised what gems we had.
Last edited by GodalmingYellow on Thu Sep 06, 2007 9:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
GodalmingYellow
Senile
Posts: 5178
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 10:22 am

Re:

Post by GodalmingYellow »

&quotYF Dan&quot wrote:I don't know whats happened to Smith, but he's got stuck in some sort of 1990 &quotwing backs are fashionable&quot time warp, and got horribly, horribly stuck there.
Agreed.

I too like the idea of 4-4-2, one defensive midfielder, one attacking, with two wingers and the concept of get the 'kin ball wide. The pitch is wide for a reason.

Perhaps we should have a collection, say fifty quid each, and tell the club they can only have the money if they promise to play 4-4-2 for the rest of the season.
Isaac
Dashing young thing
Posts: 621
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 9:32 am

Post by Isaac »

Like the Rob Duffy discussions last year, I think we'll end up having this one repeatedly over the course of the season. I don't reckon a switch to 4-4-2 isn't going to magically produce attacking football, goals and an immediately improved performance. We played 4-4-2 in our relegation season after all and a lot of our football then was appalling. We also played 4-4-2 when we conceded 100 goals in division 3. Please note, I'm not suggesting that 4-4-2 is a flawed or wrong formation at all but it's not necessarily the answer to all our problems.

Smith has picked his signings to play 5-3-2, there's no real wingers (apart from Ledgister and possibly Yemi, both right footers). Who'd play left wing? There's also no proper full backs. I think Anaclet could do ok although I'm not sure he'd be at his best, but Jeannin is a very average defender particularly positionally. 4-4-2 would have the same problems the current team do, mainly a lack of pace and it would involve more players playing out of position.

It's good that Smith has a plan and got the players (in theory) to play to that plan, I guess the question is whether it is the right plan and the right players.
GodalmingYellow
Senile
Posts: 5178
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 10:22 am

Re:

Post by GodalmingYellow »

&quotIsaac&quot wrote:Like the Rob Duffy discussions last year, I think we'll end up having this one repeatedly over the course of the season. I don't reckon a switch to 4-4-2 isn't going to magically produce attacking football, goals and an immediately improved performance. We played 4-4-2 in our relegation season after all and a lot of our football then was appalling. We also played 4-4-2 when we conceded 100 goals in division 3. Please note, I'm not suggesting that 4-4-2 is a flawed or wrong formation at all but it's not necessarily the answer to all our problems.

Smith has picked his signings to play 5-3-2, there's no real wingers (apart from Ledgister and possibly Yemi, both right footers). Who'd play left wing? There's also no proper full backs. I think Anaclet could do ok although I'm not sure he'd be at his best, but Jeannin is a very average defender particularly positionally. 4-4-2 would have the same problems the current team do, mainly a lack of pace and it would involve more players playing out of position.

It's good that Smith has a plan and got the players (in theory) to play to that plan, I guess the question is whether it is the right plan and the right players.
I don't buy this, there's no wingers argument. Anyone with a little pace and ball control can play as a winger.

In terms of players who could easily play as wingers we have, Jeannin, Anaclet, Yemi, Ledgister, Trainer.

In terms of players who could play wide in 4-4-2 whilst acting in tandem with an overlapping full back we also have Rose.

That gives plenty of options.

When Yemi played right wing for us last season with Anaclet at full back, they played some of the most scintillating football we saw.

Jeannin is far better playing as a winger, than as a wing back, as defensively he is fairly weak. His best play comes form the attacking part of his game.

Ledgister was signed as a winger.

The idea that we don't have the personnel for 4-4-2 just isn't right in my view.
Isaac
Dashing young thing
Posts: 621
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 9:32 am

Post by Isaac »

If Jeannin plays left wing, who plays left back? Day? I can only see an increase in the amount of hoofing with that pairing down the left. Trainer is many things, but a left winger he is not, he could do a job at left midfield I'm sure but I don't think that job would include marauding down the left and pinging in crosses.

We only have 2 wingers, both right footed, the benefit of playing 4-4-2 should be to get your wingers crossing the ball, if you don't have the personnel to do it properly then there's a danger you'd weaken the team elsewhere for limited benefit.
GodalmingYellow
Senile
Posts: 5178
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 10:22 am

Re:

Post by GodalmingYellow »

&quotIsaac&quot wrote:If Jeannin plays left wing, who plays left back? Day? I can only see an increase in the amount of hoofing with that pairing down the left. Trainer is many things, but a left winger he is not, he could do a job at left midfield I'm sure but I don't think that job would include marauding down the left and pinging in crosses.

We only have 2 wingers, both right footed, the benefit of playing 4-4-2 should be to get your wingers crossing the ball, if you don't have the personnel to do it properly then there's a danger you'd weaken the team elsewhere for limited benefit.
I don't accept that, for the reasons given above.

Trainer is a fit guy with reasonable pace and ball control and in my view woulod operate effectively as a winger.

Don't forget, the majority of a left winger's duties are not to run 50 yards with the ball at pace and ping in a cross, nice though that is when it happens. The majority of a left wingers duties are about gaining yards, spreading play wide and stretching out the opposition. they do this by taking on players and by jockying defenders down the line.

Day and Gilchrist have played left back before, and we have Gnohere (OK don't go there). Jeannin could play left back with Ledgister or Trainer or Rose in front.

There is also no problem playing a right footer on the left and vice versa. Most of Joey's games were played on the right wing.

There are lots of options available.
Post Reply