|
Post by charliesghost on Jan 10, 2011 16:47:49 GMT
When betting on sport, trends are probably the best overall tool to use. In the long run, they very rarely lie.
Thus, winners of the Grand National overwhelmingly race with 11 stone or under, are "in" the handicap, have won at over three miles on a course with stiff fences and are under 10 years of age.
That usually narrows the field to about 7 or 8 runners, yet 18 of the last 20 winners have fitted these trends.
OUFC is now developing a really strong trend, and I'd like to see Wilder take it on board, rather than ignoring it and hoping for the best.
Away from home, with the very odd exception, we outperform our level - we look solid, organised, and threatening on the break.
Whereas at home, we often seem direction-less, lacking in goal-threat, and easy to defend against.
I don't believe this is a coincidence. At home, we play three midfielders, and this allows the away side far more possession than they would usually expect playing away. That, in turn, makes the crowd and the players nervous. It isolates out front three, and makes it near-impossible for the midfielders top "get beyond" the central striker (one of the most depressing sight in recent home games has been how easily our "wide" forwards have been played out of the game, leaving the defence to hoof the ball up to the central striker).
Whereas, away from home, we can invite the home side on to us, tuck in the two wife front men a bit and then exploit the gaps that get left behind. And, having three up-front,. when we DO break into those gaps we have options.
I simply cannot see us dominating games at home with our 4-3-3, now that teams have worked it out. And, given that Wilder clearly feels he has a point to prove about 4-4-2 (I played four full-backs and it didn't work - see!), how about a compromise?
3-5-2, with Batt and either Kinni or Tonkin providing the width (they are all suited to this); McLaren "sitting in", and Heslop and a.n.other breaking forward; and perm the strikers depending on the opposition. You might even want to play Alfie "in the hole" sometimes.
It'd just make us far harder to dominate (which several teams, even Barnet, have achieved with ease at times recently) and allow us to utilise our home advantage properly.
Basically, with our away results this season we should be challenging for promotion, never mind the play-offs. Our home form is appalling, though, and to write that trend off as chance would be negligent on Wilder's part.
|
|
|
Post by Millman on Jan 10, 2011 17:00:00 GMT
We have seen in the past how 352 can quickly become 532 with much the same end result of 433. Also not sure Tonks is anywhere near mobile enough for 352, he would end up getting pushed back.
Its no secret I am a fan of 442 especially at home. Potter and Deering could play wide. leaving Mclaren and an-other (poss Heslop) in the center (one holding the other attacking). The 442 adds cover for the full backs, and I think it suits Craddock and some of our other strike force more.
Your right though Wilder for some unknown reason has a massive problem with 442, and appears at time to be out to prove it doesn't work at any cost. Chances are we are stuck with 433.
|
|
|
Post by risdon on Jan 10, 2011 17:36:43 GMT
He started with 4-4-2 against Barnet after the success against Chesterfield and it didn't work, but then he did play four central midfielders that day.
Trouble is that Cole is as good as gone, Deering will be off again soon and that leaves Potter as the only out and out winger at the club.
|
|
|
Post by wizzard on Jan 10, 2011 19:47:57 GMT
As I see it 442 needs 2 wingers,and we havent got 2 wingers,or wont have when/if deering and cole go. 352 needs 2 wingbacks and I believe Batt and Kinni are mobile enough to do the job. 352 only becomes 532 when you lose the ball or could be 541 if one of the strikers drop back to assist midfield,re gain the ball and back to352. I'm with Charlie on this,but I doubt if Wilder will change.
|
|
|
Post by Long Live Clarkey on Jan 10, 2011 20:00:07 GMT
How many of the last 5 wins did we win with 4-3-3? If it's more than any other system, then stick with that system. It allows us to play 3 forwards, which is VITAL given we have Beano, Craddock, Midson, Potter, Maclean and potentially Green to keep happy. I think some people on here have the same strange aversion to 4-3-3 that Wilder does to 4-4-2.
|
|
|
Post by rollsy89 on Jan 10, 2011 20:30:20 GMT
442 worked a treat in 2nd half at Chesterfield. But we was shocking with it at Burton (But then we did have all four full backs playing) and it didn't work in 1st half at home to Barnet. Can't remember playing it for a longer period in any of the other games this season
We don't have the players to be a successful side playing 442 in my opinion.
Away from home the 4123 is working. But we're to easy to play and defend against at home. We play to narrow and seem to slow at home and play to many long balls.
|
|
|
Post by slick2484 on Jan 10, 2011 20:40:17 GMT
The problem is we only have 3 centre halfs as well, and Gaughan has not even played yet, Tonkin could play there then that only leaves Kinniburgh for left wing back.
Our squad has no balance really, and its full of centre midfielders and strikers. No options really to change it around unless someone plays out of their favoured position.
I know he's on about getting another centre half in, but Wright and Worley are is favoured 2, so is this new one gonna be someone he's bringing in to sit on the bench, cos he said he could not offer Creighton 1st team football, so why would the new signing be any different.
|
|
|
Post by charliesghost on Jan 11, 2011 15:14:06 GMT
How many of the last 5 wins did we win with 4-3-3? If it's more than any other system, then stick with that system. It allows us to play 3 forwards, which is VITAL given we have Beano, Craddock, Midson, Potter, Maclean and potentially Green to keep happy. I think some people on here have the same strange aversion to 4-3-3 that Wilder does to 4-4-2. Oh bullshit. Read my original post. Our home record is abysmal, and getting worse. Whilst our away record is really good. OK. Rather than posting banal shite, YOU tell me why that is. Don't say it's coincidence. It's not.
|
|
|
Post by Long Live Clarkey on Jan 11, 2011 15:49:21 GMT
How many of the last 5 wins did we win with 4-3-3? If it's more than any other system, then stick with that system. It allows us to play 3 forwards, which is VITAL given we have Beano, Craddock, Midson, Potter, Maclean and potentially Green to keep happy. I think some people on here have the same strange aversion to 4-3-3 that Wilder does to 4-4-2. Oh bullshit. Read my original post. Our home record is abysmal, and getting worse. Whilst our away record is really good. OK. Rather than posting banal shite, YOU tell me why that is. Don't say it's coincidence. It's not. Bullshit? Banal shite? I posted an opinion, not a half-assed series of abuse with very little reference to the topic at hand. Interestingly, I can't say the same of your comment there. Or is someone else having a different opinion really that crushing for you? I get really bored of the kind of hostility that's on here sometimes, and that was a perfect example, I'm perhaps a little guilty of it too now. I read your post, why else would I have responded to it? Not that I was particularly responding to your post anyway. Let's look at our last 3 home games, and our last 3 away games. Won all except one home game. Not that bad. Don't try and bring performances into it either, with the exception of one half at Torquay and one at Chesterfield we've been grinding out our results. Our best performances of the season, Bristol and Morecambe, were both played with a 4-3-3 if you do try and bring them into it. Torquay we played with a 4-3-3. Barnet, in the second half in which we won the game, we played certainly a variation of 4-3-3, almost exactly the same we played at Southend and didn't. That perhaps suggests formations aren't the problem. Aldershot, also, was played with a 4-3-3 formation. The one exception was the 4-4-2 that won us the game at Chesterfield. Strikes me as though 4-3-3 seems to work rather well. How about you read my post and give it a bit of consideration before posting next time? It is just opinions, after all. I didn't come here to attack you. Sorry, but after 2 home wins out of 3, I think it's fair to say our home record is getting better. Think back to what happened before then.
|
|
|
Post by Gavin Archery on Jan 11, 2011 16:11:32 GMT
Was filled with many thoughts after reading the original post, but all I will post is football is a confidence game. Get a run going and winning is expected. Momentum is key etc.
|
|
|
Post by John Lennon on Jan 11, 2011 16:26:41 GMT
4-3-3 at home makes us to open, predictable, and easy to play against, its that simple. But Wilder cant see it, and people even try and defend it. We make it to easy for teams at home, so how can that be justified?
|
|
|
Post by Long Live Clarkey on Jan 11, 2011 16:29:40 GMT
4-3-3 at home makes us to open, predictable, and easy to play against, its that simple. But Wilder cant see it, and people even try and defend it. We make it to easy for teams at home, so how can that be justified? What are we playing away? It looks a lot like 4-3-3 to me. Also, having won 2 of our last 3 home games, we can't have been playing that openly, predictably, or easy to counter, surely?
|
|
|
Post by John Lennon on Jan 11, 2011 17:07:49 GMT
4-3-3 works away from home. But at home it doesnt. 6 defeats at home prove that.
|
|
|
Post by Long Live Clarkey on Jan 11, 2011 17:12:33 GMT
4-3-3 works away from home. But at home it doesnt. 6 defeats at home prove that. It has recently, with the exception of Southend, and if it keeps working then surely we should keep playing it, going by the betting trends analogy? I admit, I don't understand why our home games have tended to be worse. If I had to hand a comprehensive list of the team sheets for each game I might have a better idea. However, I do think if we can make it work away from home we should be able to make it work at home as well. That's not to say we shouldn't be looking at other formations, but we shouldn't discard one that appears to be working, just try and play the same way we do when it works. What that entails, I'm not sure.
|
|
|
Post by surbitonyellow on Jan 11, 2011 17:18:39 GMT
4-3-3 at home makes us to open, predictable, and easy to play against, its that simple. But Wilder cant see it, and people even try and defend it. We make it to easy for teams at home, so how can that be justified? What are we playing away? It looks a lot like 4-3-3 to me. Also, having won 2 of our last 3 home games, we can't have been playing that openly, predictably, or easy to counter, surely? The weakness in your analysis is that you seem to have assumed that 3 games is enough to observe a trend. It isn't. Look at the performances and results for the whole season and the trend is fairly clear to me. 4-3-3 can and will work against weaker opposition as it did in the conference, but it won't work against more mature teams in league 2 who know how to snuff out the wide players and put pressure on the sitting midfielder, be they Payne, McLaren or whoever else. Unless Wildr makes modifications (and really that is all they are) to the way we play, we will continue to be a shit or bust team. Winning one weak, losing the next.
|
|
|
Post by rollsy89 on Jan 11, 2011 18:02:50 GMT
LLC you saying it works away so it must be able to work at home is rubbish. EVERYONE plays different away from home than they do at home. Away from home, we try to keep things tight, keep the ball. And then counter attack teams. It's working. As the home team are the more attacking teams. Teams come to us. Play a flat back four. Out number us in midfield. And counter attack us. And it works more often than not. We can not break teams down at home. Our midfield mainly pass sideways or backwards. Our full backs float hopeful balls down the line, and our keeper and defence hoof it long all the time. So easy to play against. So the 433 is not working at home.
|
|
|
Post by wingwongox on Jan 11, 2011 19:46:50 GMT
I'm with you on 3-5-2..
It has become an unfashionable way of playing but with the right players I think it could be successful.
For it to work you need not just 2 players suited to the wing back role. You also need an attacking midfielder (that can either run beyond the forwards / or play in a creative floating role) and a ball playing centre back.
At this level Batt's game seems ideally suited to a right wing back role. Think Tonkin could do an OK job as wing back on left. Either Alfie could do the floating role, or Payne / Hall could do the attacking role.
Maybe I'm missing something because very few sides play 3-5-2, but I could see it working at home.
|
|
|
Post by Long Live Clarkey on Jan 11, 2011 22:20:47 GMT
LLC you saying it works away so it must be able to work at home is rubbish. EVERYONE plays different away from home than they do at home. Away from home, we try to keep things tight, keep the ball. And then counter attack teams. It's working. As the home team are the more attacking teams. Teams come to us. Play a flat back four. Out number us in midfield. And counter attack us. And it works more often than not. We can not break teams down at home. Our midfield mainly pass sideways or backwards. Our full backs float hopeful balls down the line, and our keeper and defence hoof it long all the time. So easy to play against. So the 433 is not working at home. I know this is responding to the other comment, but I realised the idea of betting trends didn't work after I posted. My bad there. While this is to some degree true, the problem is that in 2 of the last 3 games we've managed it. Now considering we tried all sorts of formations during our losing streak (4-1-4-1, 4-4-2, 3-4-3 or something along those lines), I can't see that the connection is so clearly to do with the formation. Have we actually won a game at home that hasn't been played with 4-3-3? The trend I've seen is that when a team tries to shut us out, they often manage it. When teams don't do that away, say Port Vale, they lose. Since few teams do it at home, we tend to win at their places. I think that's a big part of what you're saying, Rollsy? Our main problem, as you say, is in midfield. They play tight to our players, and don't give them space. However, we now have Maclaren, a more combatative midfielder. One of the things that these midfielders do, as Bulman did for us, is to create space for our midfield to play in. That may or may not be the answer, we'll see, but 4-4-2 isn't going to create more space for us in midfield. In any given system (aside from box formations, uncommon in England) you have either two players in midfield or three. 3-5-2, we have 3, like now, or 2 midfielders and 3 'forwards'. We then have two players on the wings, where we currently have four. I don't know how that creates more space for us. In 4-4-2, you have just two, but the wing threat is greater. Our problem? Without crosses, the wing threat is very small, and Maclean is the only consistently good crosser on our team, and he's a forward. If we want to use his crosses, he really has to be played out wide in a 4-3-3. While in ideal it would be nice to change formation, so long as we want to keep Maclean, it's going to be very difficult to do it, because of both his wages demands and, crucially, the fact that we have a big, skilled selections of forwards that we need to keep happy.
|
|
|
Post by charliesghost on Jan 12, 2011 13:49:50 GMT
Oh bullshit. Read my original post. Our home record is abysmal, and getting worse. Whilst our away record is really good. OK. Rather than posting banal shite, YOU tell me why that is. Don't say it's coincidence. It's not. Bullshit? Banal shite? I posted an opinion, not a half-assed series of abuse with very little reference to the topic at hand. Interestingly, I can't say the same of your comment there. Or is someone else having a different opinion really that crushing for you? I get really bored of the kind of hostility that's on here sometimes, and that was a perfect example, I'm perhaps a little guilty of it too now. I read your post, why else would I have responded to it? Not that I was particularly responding to your post anyway. Let's look at our last 3 home games, and our last 3 away games. Won all except one home game. Not that bad. Don't try and bring performances into it either, with the exception of one half at Torquay and one at Chesterfield we've been grinding out our results. Our best performances of the season, Bristol and Morecambe, were both played with a 4-3-3 if you do try and bring them into it. Torquay we played with a 4-3-3. Barnet, in the second half in which we won the game, we played certainly a variation of 4-3-3, almost exactly the same we played at Southend and didn't. That perhaps suggests formations aren't the problem. Aldershot, also, was played with a 4-3-3 formation. The one exception was the 4-4-2 that won us the game at Chesterfield. Strikes me as though 4-3-3 seems to work rather well. How about you read my post and give it a bit of consideration before posting next time? It is just opinions, after all. I didn't come here to attack you. Sorry, but after 2 home wins out of 3, I think it's fair to say our home record is getting better. Think back to what happened before then. Happily, at least Wilder thinks our home form is a problem, even if you do not. We have lost more games at home than any other side this season. A fact you seem entirely to ignore. As for recent games, we were abysmal against Southend, very poor against a dreadful side in Barnet and, even by CW's admission, pretty rubbish against Macclesfield. None of whom are good sides (all bottom half, I think). T
|
|
|
Post by Long Live Clarkey on Jan 12, 2011 15:48:24 GMT
Bullshit? Banal shite? I posted an opinion, not a half-assed series of abuse with very little reference to the topic at hand. Interestingly, I can't say the same of your comment there. Or is someone else having a different opinion really that crushing for you? I get really bored of the kind of hostility that's on here sometimes, and that was a perfect example, I'm perhaps a little guilty of it too now. I read your post, why else would I have responded to it? Not that I was particularly responding to your post anyway. Let's look at our last 3 home games, and our last 3 away games. Won all except one home game. Not that bad. Don't try and bring performances into it either, with the exception of one half at Torquay and one at Chesterfield we've been grinding out our results. Our best performances of the season, Bristol and Morecambe, were both played with a 4-3-3 if you do try and bring them into it. Torquay we played with a 4-3-3. Barnet, in the second half in which we won the game, we played certainly a variation of 4-3-3, almost exactly the same we played at Southend and didn't. That perhaps suggests formations aren't the problem. Aldershot, also, was played with a 4-3-3 formation. The one exception was the 4-4-2 that won us the game at Chesterfield. Strikes me as though 4-3-3 seems to work rather well. How about you read my post and give it a bit of consideration before posting next time? It is just opinions, after all. I didn't come here to attack you. Sorry, but after 2 home wins out of 3, I think it's fair to say our home record is getting better. Think back to what happened before then. Happily, at least Wilder thinks our home form is a problem, even if you do not. We have lost more games at home than any other side this season. A fact you seem entirely to ignore. As for recent games, we were abysmal against Southend, very poor against a dreadful side in Barnet and, even by CW's admission, pretty rubbish against Macclesfield. None of whom are good sides (all bottom half, I think). T Look, if you're going to attack me in the way you are, at least attack what I actually said. We have lost 6 home games this season. This is a problem. There, I said it. It's been said so many times, I didn't think I really needed to acknowledge it. Against Barnet, we struggled with 4-4-2. Beano and Potter came on for a 4-3-3 for the last half an hour, and we played well. It wasn't a case of two lucky goals, we did actually play well. Macclesfield was an average performance, far from rubbish. Southend was mainly a result of a few key players (crucially our midfielders) going totally missing, and we were totally awful, but it was mainly thanks to that. Now I've already explained what I think the answer to that is, and it should come into practice in the next game or two. If it doesn't, I'll hold my hands up and admit I was wrong, but until that point, please refrain from accusing me of posting banal shite.
|
|