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

[Svlad Cjelli]

Long off.

Hunt and Church on.

4-5-1 --> 4-4-2.

Result?

3 goals in 20 minutes.

Church scores, Hunt has a hand in the other.

Well done Brian you're learning.

But would it have been the same if we'd started that way? Perhaps it's the switch of tactics against a tired defence that makes it effective, not just the tactics per se.

[Millsy]

Long off.

Hunt and Church on.

4-5-1 --> 4-4-2.

Result?

3 goals in 20 minutes.

Church scores, Hunt has a hand in the other.

Well done Brian you're learning.

But would it have been the same if we'd started that way? Perhaps it's the switch of tactics against a tired defence that makes it effective, not just the tactics per se.

I agree. Please read the opening post and my contributions since.

Starting 4-4-2 at home may not be better. I don't know, which is why I fall short of calling for a 4-4-2 start. But when you're losing at home and you start 4-5-1 YOU CHANGE. Whatever the reason - fresh legs, strikers who can actually score, having two strikers up front. It is *possible* that the extra striker up front is irrelevant and it's having a new striker that matters but I don't believe that for a second. When you're losing at home you DON'T persist with one striker.

[Svlad Cjelli]

Yep -maybe the most important thing is to make sure we're not over run in midfield for the first hour or so, so for that time maybe the extra man in midfield is more important than the extra man up front.

Although today for half the match we had the extra man in midfield and were still over run there!

[Ian Royal]

It's so nice to have a manager who will make positive substitutions, always go for the win and has more than one game plan.

McDermott seems to me to recognise we don't have a great team that he can just put out week after week and challenge the oppo to do their best, so he tailors his starting eleven and tactics to the situation and oppo. Now he's never going to get it right every time, but he's doing a pretty good job of it so far.

This though has to be balanced against a settled side as much as possible as partnerships and knowing what your team mates will do in any given situation are key in football.

Long's hard work makes him favourite for the lone striker role and that involves a formation that has given us plenty of success, though I'd be interested to see how Church or particularly Hunt could adapt to it.

Our midfield is a little weak to be playing 4-4-2 every game IMO, but Long is more likely to score goals in that formation, though I'd prefer Hunt and Church.

It's good to have both formations in our locker and our fitness and determination can make a late change to 4-4-2 with a couple of subs highly effective as we've seen. 4-2-3-1 Can be very good for keeping things tight and not being overrun - hence our excellent defensive record that admittedly took a hit today.

[Snowball]

[


Starting 4-4-2 at home may not be better. I don't know, which is why I fall short of calling for a 4-4-2 start. But when you're losing at home and you start 4-5-1 YOU CHANGE. Whatever the reason - fresh legs, strikers who can actually score, having two strikers up front. It is *possible* that the extra striker up front is irrelevant and it's having a new striker that matters but I don't believe that for a second. When you're losing at home you DON'T persist with one striker.

2WW, NOTE I-DO-NOT-LIKE 4-4-2

But, say for the argument that we start 4-5-1 or 4-3-3 and this is thought by the manager to nullify the opposition, not lose midfield etc, expecting 0-0 or we nick a 1-0 lead.

It doesn't work and we go 1-0 behind.

Now, INSTANTLY switching to 4-4-2 and we might go 2-0 down even 3-0 down before we start playing.

Maybe the manage would stick with 4-5-1, to keep the score the same (ie not get worse) or nick the equaliser.

Then, maybe 10 minutes after half-time, still losing 1-0 he goes 4-4-2, all out trying to get the equaliser and winner

[Snowball]

Maybe this comment is for "Back from the game" but we were EASILY winning the game for 20 minutes.

Doncaster were barely getting a touch (they took 3 minutes to actually have possession in our half)

We were solid, competent, confident, and we had gone 1-0 up.

When Long putt Tabb through that was gilt-edged and it should have been 2-0


That's 2-0 after 25 or so minutes, playing 4-5-1 with "useless Long" up front. THE SYSTEM WAS WORKING (I still hate it!)


They got an equaliser (HRK failed to stop the cross and the centre-backs didn't do a good job) AND ONLY THEN DID THINGS CHANGE.
OUR CONFIDENCE PLUMMETED, WE BACKED OFF AND LET A FOOTBALLING SIDE, PLAY KEEP-BALL. They were better at that than we
are. We let them back into the game, but we should have been 2-0 up and then probably three up.

[Pseud O'Nym]

Last season after 14 games 10 points -12 goal difference.
This season after 14 games 22 points +8 goal difference.

All the stats I need.

[Snowball]

Last season after 14 games 10 points -12 goal difference.
This season after 14 games 22 points +8 goal difference.

All the stats I need.

Last season after 14 games 10 points -12 goal difference. WITH GYLFI
This season after 14 games 22 points +08 goal difference. 10 Games WITHOUT GYLFI

All the stats I need.

[Millsy]

Last season after 14 games 10 points -12 goal difference.
This season after 14 games 22 points +8 goal difference.

All the stats I need.

Last season after 14 games 10 points -12 goal difference. WITH GYLFI
This season after 14 games 22 points +08 goal difference. 10 Games WITHOUT GYLFI

All the stats I need.

Absolutely.

I don't think there's anyone with an IQ of above 80 who doesn't think Brian >>>>>> Brenda.

[Millsy]

[


Starting 4-4-2 at home may not be better. I don't know, which is why I fall short of calling for a 4-4-2 start. But when you're losing at home and you start 4-5-1 YOU CHANGE. Whatever the reason - fresh legs, strikers who can actually score, having two strikers up front. It is *possible* that the extra striker up front is irrelevant and it's having a new striker that matters but I don't believe that for a second. When you're losing at home you DON'T persist with one striker.

2WW, NOTE I-DO-NOT-LIKE 4-4-2

But, say for the argument that we start 4-5-1 or 4-3-3 and this is thought by the manager to nullify the opposition, not lose midfield etc, expecting 0-0 or we nick a 1-0 lead.

It doesn't work and we go 1-0 behind.

Now, INSTANTLY switching to 4-4-2 and we might go 2-0 down even 3-0 down before we start playing.

Maybe the manage would stick with 4-5-1, to keep the score the same (ie not get worse) or nick the equaliser.

Then, maybe 10 minutes after half-time, still losing 1-0 he goes 4-4-2, all out trying to get the equaliser and winner

It's possible. And I agree I'm happy with a 4-5-1 when it's working.

We need the 4-4-2 option for when things aren't going right. 35 minutes of 4-4-2 is much better than a few minutes of it, so well done Brian as I say.

[floyd__streete]

I am normally pro this manager - he has had a far reduced budget to that enjoyed by his last 3 predecessors and is doing a good job in the context of having to sell basically anyone worth selling - but McD's pig-headedness cost us the chance of being competitive yesterday afternoon.

His impassioned defence of Shane LOLong after last Saturday was very noble I am sure, but I was disappointed to see us start with the 4-5-1 which failed so badly against Doncaster. At 1-0 down and being played off the park we suddenly got a helping hand with Orr's sending off and I expected us to go 4-4-2 second half, but he didn't change it until we were 2 goals down and out of the game. I suspect that he was about to take LOLong off until Shane finally managed to get his first shot away all afternoon - and how - to make it 2-1. Point somehow proven in McD's head, we thn had the ridiculous spectacle of Hunt being brought on to play on the wing .

That said, I'd probably stick with the 4-5-1 on Wednesday against Cardiff in an attempt to flood the midfield and keep the score down in what seems to be a very likely defeat against an expensively assembled team of players whom we are unlikely to be able to cope with.

[Millsy]

I am normally pro this manager - he has had a far reduced budget to that enjoyed by his last 3 predecessors and is doing a good job in the context of having to sell basically anyone worth selling - but McD's pig-headedness cost us the chance of being competitive yesterday afternoon.

His impassioned defence of Shane LOLong after last Saturday was very noble I am sure, but I was disappointed to see us start with the 4-5-1 which failed so badly against Doncaster. At 1-0 down and being played off the park we suddenly got a helping hand with Orr's sending off and I expected us to go 4-4-2 second half, but he didn't change it until we were 2 goals down and out of the game. I suspect that he was about to take LOLong off until Shane finally managed to get his first shot away all afternoon - and how - to make it 2-1. Point somehow proven in McD's head, we thn had the ridiculous spectacle of Hunt being brought on to play on the wing .

That said, I'd probably stick with the 4-5-1 on Wednesday against Cardiff in an attempt to flood the midfield and keep the score down in what seems to be a very likely defeat against an expensively assembled team of players whom we are unlikely to be able to cope with.

Top post. Words out my mouth.

I didn't bump this thread up largely because I couldn't listen to all the game/ havent read detailed match report yet so didn't know how the game panned out and what/when things happened.

I am STUNNED that with 1-0 down we didn't go 4-4-2 as a matter of urgency .... till we were 2 down. ESPECIALLY after last week!!?? I have no defence for the man.

BIggest disappointent for me was Mr Zero scoring (what sounded like a midlfielder's goal anyway) if it in any way justifies him into shifting the goalposts back to saying Long is actually a fit-for-purpose striker (which he isn't), instead of coming up with the most laughable excuse of his purpose being there to "tire the defenders out". FYI Brian - Long couldn't "tire out" a defence with one man short yesterday.

Still I don't think it was unreasonable to start with him yesterday in a lone striker (or should I say lone-tirer) system and I agree it's fair to do away against a good side like Cardiff. But FFS sticking with this against TEN MEN WHILST LOSING 1-0??????????

*bangs head repeatedly against brick wall*

Still.... respect to Brian for coming up YET AGAIN with a strong hint to Madejski that he NEEDS ANOTHER PLAYER/STRIKER by attributing the defeat again to the opposition being able to spend money on players. Are you listening Madejski? When a manager is consistently forced into using the most ineffective striker/system in the history of the club and is forced into coming up with embarrassing excuses for it and is squarely attributing defeats to the opposition being able to buy players, maybe, just maybe, he needs another option.

[Snowball]

Had we been 4-4-2 in the first half, I doubt we'd've touched the ball except when we were kicking off after each QPR goal.

Their midfield totally and utterly out-classed ours.

After HT I think Mac was waiting to see how Colin W would set up in the second half before making his changes.

Church was actually stripping off when QPR scored on the break.

In the second half we had plenty of ball but simply lacked real confidence and knew we were out-classed (how it looked to me).

As for Hunt, he's played a lot of games as a winger, and HRK was not having a great game. To bring on a winger who is also a striker, was a brave move. It's hardly Mac's fault that Hunt didn't have his best game, is it? He kept faith with Longy and Longy justified that faith. Not only did he score a cracking goal but he set Church up for one (but Church shot over, when he should have least got it on target)

[savage 4 england]

Posted this in another thread.

I think we should look to our best players. I think clearly Kebe and McAnuff are the players that will make something happen. I think we need to play 2 up top to give them something to aim at. Our central midfielders lack the quality to keep the ball and create chances. I think our central players should just press and look to pass the ball to the wings. You could say return to the way we played under Coppell.

I am a massive fan of 4-5-1 and would love to see us boss possession, but it isn't going to happen. Without Gylfi it just seems a bit pointless.

[The Real Sandhurst Royal]

Savage 4 Enagland wrote

I think clearly Kebe and McAnuff are the players that will make something happen

McAnuff play like he dos not gove a sh*t. His attributes are his pace and running a players, neither of which he has used recently.