i would go
Norris
Grimmer Taylor Low. Reach
Lowry Simmons Humphries
Fred Kone Sadlier
Bench
Rav, Back, Bradley , Leahy, Gmac, Udoh Westergaard.
Mikes going to go:
Charlton will pack the middle of their midfield and stop our wing backs getting forward and Kone will look isolated again while Udoh pulls up trees chasing down the long balls we can only use to get out of defence in an attempt to break there back line and get the Chalfont defence turning. Which will rarely happen.
Our wingbacks primarily will be tasked in increasing the numbers in midfield to try and win the battle there but will be too far back to be able to get the jump on Charltons full backs if we did come out with the ball.
When that happens, and Jack can step out of defence, he and Fred will be on top of each other and not able to double up and overlap effectively, so will result in cutting back inside for most of the game, trying an early cross, or -more likely - passing all the way back to Norris/Bradley again for “control” reasons
Taylor and Reach will give each other space and Taylor will aim to carry the ball forward at least once a half and being quite effective in doing so, but will only be able to do it once or twice as the midfield is too compacted with Charlton players as they know that’s the key to stopping us
Our best chances across both legs will come from Leahy free kicks to either Taylor Or Bradley.
If Mikes insistent on this set up - and I have no reason to think he’ll change, I’d personally put Simons in Leahy position and get Lowry and Humphries in midfield and Reach/Fred playing as left and Right midfielders looking to break Charltons back line. Simons/ leahy’s role in the pivot will be to fill at LB if they counter but we really really need to avoid having half our outfield players in defence for 180 minutes.
But that would take out our dead ball specialist and I have no idea of Lowry and Humphries would be able to win the midfield battle. It could still be a blood bath but at least we might be able to trick our way out of midfield
If I were in charge? Back to 4 2 3 1 and get those fullbacks forward and give there defence something to worry about for once in the last 2 or 3 months
Something like this:
Grimmer/reach and Fred/udoh/Humpries can help in midfield without having the whole side of the pitch to cover.
Just push forward or drop back to provide numbers
4 Likes
if he plays this then we get thumped again
1 Like
This post is really well considered. My key thought after reading it is that we have to play a back four or we will sacrifice way too much possession at home with limited pace of threat on the counter and become impotent. Has to be a back four.
4 Likes
How anyone can suggest a player who has never started for Wycombe before and has looked off the pace when he’s come on for the biggest game of the season is beyond me!
Guess it’s all a game of opinions.
7 Likes
That’s always the danger of a wing back system. You need attack minded wingbacks looking to spend most of there game from the half way line on wards. If they are pushed back, you have 5 defenders and little hope of getting out of it.
I think this was the big issue vs Stockport - for the first 60/65 mins they were more attack minded than previous games (Reach being vital in attaining that over Leahy in previous games at LWB) and we looked more of a threat going forward. But Stockport getting their tails up after the Pen miss and nerves/lack of confidence from our side saw us concede ground and it snowballed.
The problem with attack minded wingbacks is by definition they aren’t as good defending so you need your pivot/defensive mid shield/quarterback role (which is the one I think Leahy was trying to be vs Stockport) covering the channels if the opposition break - the formation then essentially becomes a back four until you stop the initial attack and get the numbers back. They then Pivot back to the centre to be the out of defence and have your wing backs bombing forward again to provide the width stretching the opposition midfield allowing space in the middle as well.
I’ve said before that I like a wingback system but your wingbacks need to be the fittest and fastest players on the pitch. They need to get up and back quickly and really open the pitch up and stretch the opposition.
We either don’t have the players for that or Dodds isn’t employing them that way and they get pinned back to a dreadful 5 at the back, with a holding mid fielder or two and Humphries dropping back so he can get the ball.
Kone looking like an isolated figure and an opposition having an easy time.
Playing the 4231 isn’t massively different in approach either. You push one of you CB’s into a DMF role and each one can cover a FB going forward, retaining the 4 at the back during a counter. You still have a pivot if that counter breaks down and your wingbacks start 5 or 10 yards further forward as they are more of a winger/wide forward role.
3 Likes
Not sure if this has been considered yet, apologies if it has. Is Butcher available?
No. Not eligible to play.
I’ve seen you mention this a couple of times about playing a back five against Stockport but we played a back four for the first 65 minutes.
It was definitely 4-2-3-1 until the subs…
And can we get him a chair to sit on in the technical area during a match. All that pacing up and down like a depressed tiger in a zoo, puts me on edge, probably makes the players apprehensive as well.
At best it was a 3 4 2 1 as per this caption of the full replay (albeit the players in the positions shown wasn’t quite as it turned out as reach was 100% on the left side and Leahy more in the middle of midfield.
Two of those 4 in midfield being the wing backs that got push back into a back five from 60th odd minute mark causing all of the problems I described above.
This is one of the big misnomers when you play wingbacks at home.
If you win the midfield battle everyone says how clever the manager is because he’s got attacking wide mean, but when your opposition win the midfield, everyone blames the manager for being defence minded playing 5 at the back at home.
Start of the 2nd half: three centre backs in red, wing backs in orange. 100% 3 cb’s and 2 wing backs. Same in the first half
Out of possession we were either a back 5 or back 3 with 4 in a lower midfield - depending on (mostly) semantics. Never a back 4
Notice how Stockport have a man wide right pushing Reach right back as the last man from kick off? Also how from the word go they were packing the middle of the park with men? They changed to cut off our out down the wings and through the middle. Sure this is just a snap shot of the opening seconds but I’m confident you can see the same patterns if you watch the game back
I’d forgotten they made a half time sub and changed shape tbh. Their shape change may have contributed as much to our collapse as the our lack of confidence.
6 Likes
One post on your present hate figure per thread is enough.
3 Likes
You didn’t go to the game did you?
Absolute claptrap.
We played a back four for 65 minutes…
1 Like
I did thanks. Block C of the family stand if you must know. What that has annything to do with my anibilty to see the players positioning, I don’t know. If anything it’s harder to spot at the game from relatively low.
And I’ve also watched it again on wtv.
And we didn’t.
I think you’re getting confused by us actually playing the wing back system (semi) properly with some fluidity rather than rigid positions.
Out of possession and when they have it in defence/gk, grimmer/bradley and Taylor are consistently playing within the width of the D with a reach/fred covering the flanks. Once possession is ours, the two wide CB split to semi fb passions, reach and Fred get beyond the halfway line and one of the centre mid drop deeper to show for the ball in the middle.
Just re watch the first 20 mins of the full replay and track grimmer, Fred and Reach’s positioning. The back three are playing the width of the D/centre circle with Fred/reach covering the flanks.
I have no idea what kind of back 4 this is, what with 5 players in along the back (note Fred pushing out of defence to close down the Stockport player)
1 Like
It’s not as concrete as you’re making it out to be. Exactly the same ‘back 8’ today (starting XI minus Cam, Kone and Udoh) but Fred played so much higher, mostly due to game state. Against Stockport he was trapped in and made it a back 5, but with the same personal today we played a back 4 and worked so much better.
Absolutely certain it was a back 3 with wing backs against Stockport from the start. Yesterday was, of course, a back 4.
3 Likes
Yes. Most certainly so. I was surprised at one point to see Caleb Taylor defending in the right back position but it eventually dawned on me that he had been switched from his usual left centre back position to right centre back.
The back four was Grimmer, Taylor, Bradley and Reach. Grimmer gets forward more than your average right full back and Reach (“not a left back” = MD) more than the average left full back so that tweaking of the back line was key and should remain.
I’d been harbouring a naughty fantasy that Ravizzoli would reappear in the playoffs but, after that all important double save by Norris, virtually at what might have been the actual death, I’m prepared to apologise for the only slightly tongue in cheek comments I made about him yesterday.
Odd to be referring to 0-0 as a good result, perhaps but the slight feelgood factor arises (a) because it was better than expected and (b) our recent away form has been better than the home version.
That performance was much more Ainsworth than Bloomfield. Most certainly so.
4 Likes
At least in terms of personnel (I’m far too busy to read all that text!!), your ultimate predicted lineup was amazingly accurate - so much so that I wondered if one of your five edits was a cheeky late (or even post hoc) amendment. Getting the move of Taylor from left to right centre back showed remarkable prescience. It certainly proved to be an extremely successful tweak.
Firstly, apologies for saying absolute claptrap yesterday! The beers giving me a braver voice which was uncalled for…
I think we will have to agree to disagree. Your picture shows a perfect back four with Fred doubling up in defence on the Stockport wing back OR you could argue it is a back 5.
Here we have a perfect 4-2-3-1 from the 15th minute:
55th minute, not a great screen capture but 4-2-3-1 again, with Fred in the line of three. This was from a free kick for offside.
There are definitely times in the game when Fred dropped into a wing back role, making it a back five but from what I saw, I do not feel it was the intention to play with a back five.
The subsitutions went to a back 5 and formation went to 5-2-2-1 and we got completely destroyed.
Anyway, last night was excellent, cagey but thoroughly enjoyable. Hope we can play similarly and secure the win on Thursday.
1 Like
Oh 100% the intention wasn’t to be a back 5. It’s a back 3 with Fred and Reach lining up inline with Simons and Leahy to make a 4 in the first line of midfield. Reach and Fred were tasked in getting forward and providing width but also needing to track back and cover the right back slot.
What you’re seeing there isn’t the perfect back 4, it’s a combination of Fred being told to push up and then only strolling back. That drags the 3 over to the right to cover that flank and a gap the size of the Stockport coach between Taylor and Reach and a Stockport attacker looking to run through it. There is in no way Fred was part of the three attacking midfielders behind Udoh vs Stockport. If he was he was woefully out of position.
Which substitutions are you saying caused us to go to back 5? Sadlier and Westergaard for GMac and Lowry? Because they were like for like swaps playing behind Udoh.
If you mean the next Substitutions, that was a triple change after we conceded the 3 goals.