Brian cost us --> Brian is learning... or is he?

[Millsy]

I took a massive helping of humble pie after Brian did so well for us last season.

I know it's early this season and as ever Madejski is being as helpful as a haemorrhoid so we can't judge Brian too harshly just yet

but..

WTF was Brian doing starting 4-5-1*** at home with the almighty Long leading our attack in the first place. And then if that wasn't bad enough, 1-1 at home with 20 mins to go WTF was he doing sticking with the tried and utterly-failed (in this match) and totally inappropriate (when trying to clinch a win) 4-5-1*** formation????? As far as I could see it certainly wasn't 4-3-3 as the wingers were sitting too deep and Siggy never got forward enough to provide anything in the hole so it seemed like we were trying to stick with a point.

Feds' blunder of course gifted them the point but we didn't deserve any more than a draw with our gutless, toothless 4-5-1*** to the death. Much as I disliked BR, at least he would have the balls to change formation mid-game when it was needed.

Brian - you may have had an extended honeymoon half-a-season but playing 4-5-1 with 1-1 at home will NOT get you my vote of confidence. SORT IT OUT.

***for the clueless members of Mensa who miss the point: if it makes you happier calling the setup of 5 (yes five) midfielders and one (yes ONE, UNO, EIN, BIR, ICHI, JEDAN) striker something other than 4-5-1 I'm not going to bicker about terminology. Those with half a brain cell will understand the point is the number of strikers that's the issue.

[PEARCEY]

I don't like 4-5-1 either. We should be playing 2 up-front at home.
McD remains very much in credit though and lets remember he's been given no money to strengthen...well apart from the Griffin signing.

[sandman]

Brian - you may have had an extended honeymoon half-a-season but playing 4-5-1 with 1-1 at home will NOT get you my vote of confidence. SORT IT OUT.

I'm sure he's really cut up about that.

[Row Z Royal]

It's not 4-5-1 HTH

[PEARCEY]

Well we certainly only playing one of our strikers and at home I would like us to start with two.

[Millsy]

Agree Pearcey.

[Pseud O'Nym]

But we were playing last season's top scorer. How would you fit him into 4-4-2?

[PEARCEY]

But we were playing last season's top scorer. How would you fit him into 4-4-2?

Its a problem because if we only play two in central midfield and assuming he's one of them then two of Howard/Tabb/Karacan miss out. It also means we would have a very attack-minded side and might suffer with Siggy's midfield partner over-worked....but at home we should be taking it to the opposition.
Trying to fit in Siggy, our two wingers and two upfront is tricky but I absolutely believe with that formation we would score plenty...but we may concede a few more as well.

[Wycombe Royal]

It's not 4-5-1 HTH

Exactly. We don't play 5 across the midfield.

If people can't spot that when at the match then I don't know where they looking.

This is the same formation that we averaged nearly 3 home goals per game using at the back end of last season.

Oh and it's not 4-5-1.

[Plymouth_Royal]

Definitely not 4-5-1. more of a 4-2-3-1 to accomodate SIg. If SIg wasn't here im almost certain we would be playing 4-4-2 to be honest.

Also Why the feck is LOLong still playing?? He's god awful. I'd rather have let him go than Rasiak.

[PEARCEY]

It's not 4-5-1 HTH

Exactly. We don't play 5 across the midfield.

If people can't spot that when at the match then I don't know where they looking.

This is the same formation that we averaged nearly 3 home goals per game using at the back end of last season.

Oh and it's not 4-5-1.

Wycombe I think you need to look at last season's match programmes m8. We played two up-front on a good number of occasions at home in the second-half of last season. if needed I will list the games for you.

[Wycombe Royal]

It's not 4-5-1 HTH

Exactly. We don't play 5 across the midfield.

If people can't spot that when at the match then I don't know where they looking.

This is the same formation that we averaged nearly 3 home goals per game using at the back end of last season.

Oh and it's not 4-5-1.

Wycombe I think you need to look at last season's match programmes m8. We played two up-front on a good number of occasions at home in the second-half of last season. if needed I will list the games for you.

Did I say we used it in EVERY game? A lot of our best performances were using Tabb, Howard and Sig in central midfield with Kebe and McAnuff out wide.

[loyalroyal4life]

It's not 4-5-1 HTH

Exactly plus it is what worked for us back end of last season. We had plenty of chances today which on another day could of resulted in a different ending.

Think the only thing i would say is noel hunt should of come on earlier

What you deem to be 4-5-1 will work well with Sig off N.Hunt IMO

[RoyalBlue]

It's not 4-5-1 HTH

Exactly plus it is what worked for us back end of last season. We had plenty of chances today which on another day could of resulted in a different ending.

Which on another day and with at least one clinical finisher in the team.

Long had all day when that ball broke to him on the far post and made the most of that the time to make sure he hit the side netting!

[Millsy]

It's not 4-5-1 HTH

Exactly. We don't play 5 across the midfield.

If people can't spot that when at the match then I don't know where they looking.

This is the same formation that we averaged nearly 3 home goals per game using at the back end of last season.

Oh and it's not 4-5-1.

THERE IS ONLY ONE STRIKER.

I dont' give a flying poop what the other players in midfield are trying to do, whether it's a 4-4-1-1, 4-3-2-1, 4-1-4-1, 4-5-1 etc etc etc... THE FACT IS THERE IS ONLY ONE STRIKER. End of.

Time and again today we pumped the ball up to little Long (who to be fair to him did well to win as many headers as he did!) but he had NOONE to give it to. There was no kebe or McAnuff to be seen right next to him most of the time (they played deeper and did some good build up play so I'm not knocking them, but they certainly weren't constantly up there), so it wasn't 4-3-3. There was no Siggy or Howard constantly just playing behind him, so no 4-4-1-1.

I don't care what you want to call it. I don't care what page out of BR's much mocked "bumper book of tactics" he got this formation from and I don't care what you guys like to call the formation.

The fact of the matter, just in case it's not clear enough is that we play WITH ONE STRIKER. (and never a great one at that)

We played many games like that last season and did ok, but wwhen you can see it ain't working in a game and you're 1-1 at home you BRING ANOTHER STRIKER ON.

If you don't have one who can complement what you've got, you go to Madejski's door and BANG REALLY HARD until he let's you have a few penny's from the Cilla Fund. We know he'll pay up.

Oh.

[PEARCEY]

Wycombe in the 5 home games in the back end of last season starting with Barnsley and then in order Plymouth,Sheff Wed, Derby and Coventry we scored 15 goals playing 2 up-front at precisely 3 goals per game. I'd say that shows that playing 2 upfront works.

[Wycombe Royal]

Did anyone one say there wasn't one striker? I didn't, so calm down.

[Wycombe Royal]

Wycombe in the 5 home games in the back end of last season starting with Barnsley and then in order Plymouth,Sheff Wed, Derby and Coventry we scored 15 goals playing 2 up-front at precisely 3 goals per game. I'd say that shows that playing 2 upfront works.

And we scored 10 goals in the last 2 home matches playing only one up front. We can all pick sequences that show what we want them to show, but the simple fact is that 1 up front DID work last season.

[Victor Meldrew]

It's not 4-5-1 HTH

Exactly. We don't play 5 across the midfield.

If people can't spot that when at the match then I don't know where they looking.

This is the same formation that we averaged nearly 3 home goals per game using at the back end of last season.

Oh and it's not 4-5-1.

The system worked well for much of the second part of last season but this season with that system we are averaging just one goal per game after 4 matches.
In those 4 matches we have scored 3 goalmouth scramble goals (something that has hardly happened since Cureton left) and one cracker from Gylfi so you could say that this season it ISN'T working.

On the radio this morning they were talking about teams playing with a lone striker and the consensus was that it only works when that lone striker can hold up play for long enough and well enough for midfielders to get forward quickly enough to join in.
IMHO none of our strikers are strong enough nor have good enough ball skills to make this happen and our goals tend to come on the break created by our wingmen.
When this doesn't work we have no plan B as we saw today.

The balance of the squad is not right if we wish to achieve more than survival this season and the idea of promotion with the squad in it's current make-up is ludicrous and once again I wish our owner had shut up pre-season as by trotting out the promotion line once more without any substance makes him sound like a deluded idiot which I am sure he is not (well,outside of football that is).

[Zammo]

Only one striker. McDonut out.