The set up of the team and lack of bravery

[Strykr]

Funny how actual stats differ from popular perception.....

Suggests that perhaps you shouldnt rely on your macbook pro in a game of football.

 

[OllieSteph44]

Suggests that perhaps you shouldnt rely on your macbook pro in a game of football.

It suggests that sometimes the actual facts for things that can be measured aren’t seen by people who are front room football managers and base every opinion on perception depending on a scoreline. Had chances been converted Oldham was arguably a better attacking performance than FGR...but the ‘eye’ won’t see that due to the scoreline.

And I understand that all that matters is the result and the points but the outrage and dissection of the tactics, decisions and performance of the manager doesn’t add up.

 

[kentblues]

We were attacking them properly before Acquah was taken off. We hit the crossbar twice, Akinola missed a sitter etc

If Acquah's header was a centimetre lower we win 1-0 and this thread isn't started.

Yes- I think there are two things aren't there. Creating chances- and this has improved like everything else is my perception. And as you say seemed at its best pre substitutions.

Then there is, to me at least, the real problem- which is converting said chances. And who is more likely to do so. I am not a great fan of the "our luck will turn argument". Often that turns out to be a triumph of hope over expectation and outcome...regrettably..

 

[Grayson]

Not about us, but Russell Martin hits the nail on the head quite well here that is similar to this discussion:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1368894275564445696

 

[Tommy2holes]

Lack of bravery?
There is only one person in all this whose livelihood is on the line.
Question his tactics from the safety of your keyboard but not his bravery please.

Well we will have to agree to disagree.

Is MMs job on the line? Cheap option and did well in non league. I doubt he'd be replaced even if we get relegated tbh.

Football is about balance. Yes we look more solid and not conceding is a big part of the game but so is actually winning matches.

We have the lowest goals tally in the league and are very much in danger of being relegated. The teams in our mini relegation league have games in hand.

So when you are away from home against a team that is woeful, I don't think that bringing on two defensive midfielders is the answer and we should have gone for the jugular by throwing more attacking threat on.

To me that smacks of playing it safe.

We have to win games and we won't by making those kind of substitutes.

I'd happily have this chat with MM so please don't accuse me of being a keyboard warrior.

It was a terrible game of football that we should have won and had a better chance of doing so by adding to our attacking threat.

You don't agree, that's fair enough.

 

[OllieSteph44]

Not about us, but Russell Martin hits the nail on the head quite well here that is similar to this discussion:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1368894275564445696

Halle-****ing-lullah!!!!

What a great message. ???

 

[Exiled Shrimper]

Not about us, but Russell Martin hits the nail on the head quite well here that is similar to this discussion:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1368894275564445696

A very interesting interview.

I don't actually buy the 'lack of Plan B' argument anyway; this is quite simplistic but we are executing Plan B because Plan A was to play out from the back and through the thirds at the start of the season. We then went to Plan B, which was to be more direct with a solid defensive base. Then we moved to Plan C, which was to put five at the back with wing-backs as a means to try and get two up front without giving up the midfield advantage.

Plan A didn't work, Plan C didn't work, so we're utilising Plan B, which has been the most successful of the plans this season. I wouldn't be surprised, if we stay up, and MM is able to get the right personnel in, if we reverted back to Plan A at some stage in the future.

 

[OllieSteph44]

That my friend is part of the process....and I agree short term results and points were / are paramount and ‘style’ had to be put on hold in favour of building up a resilience, a belief, an ethos, and the morale of the whole club.

I said weeks ago eventually there will be a return to a more ‘attractive’ style of play.

The ‘process’ simply isn’t a consistent upward curve and it’s not finite. It’s an ongoing game. That’s education. That’s coaching. That is sport!

 

[onceknownasrab]

We have become a hard working, gritty outfit. On most days we can also display moments of pace and flair. We are, finally, professional. That is a stark contrast to a number of pre-MM seasons. This alone proves progress has been made under the new regime.

Beyond all doubt we are an unfinished project. The question is; will we progress enough to prevent relegation this season? Your guess is as good as mine and there are an awful lot of factors, known and unknown, that can make a mockery of our predictions.

Has MM made mistakes? Of course he has and no doubt he will acknowledge them and learn from them. Is he the right man for the job? I certainly believe so.

For me, the retention of GH and AM after January, were mistakes. I shall skip past the NR nonsense and probably choose to bite my tongue over RH. The time and money we have invested in these characters would certainly have been served better elsewhere.

We lack goals but I think we have the firepower to stay up. The substitutions made against Oldham, for my money, will go in the mistake box and were never going to help our goal tally. Oldham were there for the taking but we threw away the opportunity . I hope we never display that kind of bizarre selection again.

Mostly, in appraising the manager and players, the conclusions are positive. A tweak here, a lesson learned there, and we will survive.

 

[Born In A Blue Shirt]

I have to agree with those that have said the formation yesterday (and ever since the five at the back experiment) is not the problem. Whether you consider it 4-3-3 or 4-5-1, or if it morphs into 4-2-3-1 with one of the central midfielders pushed on, it's the formation that best suits the players we have at our disposal.

It's not that we weren't brave on Saturday; we just don't possess any players who have a history of being prolific goalscorers at league level. If you play one, two or three of our forwards, it won't make them any more prolific. Acquah is learning how to play at league level (and is improving; he was inches away from scoring on three occasions yesterday); Akinola is better suited to playing off a target man, but his 48 appearances at league level for Barnet saw him net 6 times; Goodship bagged goals for fun (75 in 83 games) for Weymouth, but that was at the third tier of non-league football. Even when he was fit, Ranger hadn't played league football for three years; Jay Simpson hasn't played League Two football for five years and has only two seasons where he's reached double figures, so bringing him in won't solve the issue.

We had 15 shots yesterday, 4 on target. Akinola had a free header early on, then Acquah had a close-range header saved, Hackett-Fairchild hit the crossbar. In the second half, Acquah hit the crossbar (and looked to be fouled as he waited to nod in the follow-up), and when Akinola went up front he had a good chance to lob the goalkeeper that he hit straight at him. We created clear-cut chances, we just didn't take them.

After the Forest Green Rovers match (9 shots, 4 on target), it was mentioned that we couldn't keep relying upon outstanding strikes like Hobson's and particularly Ferguson's to keep us up. Well yesterday, we weren't relying on long-range strikes. We created those clear-cut opportunities; we just weren't quite good enough up front to put them away.

It seems that the goalposts keep moving. Firstly, people would give MM time and see what happened when the registration embargo was lifted. At that time we had 6 points from 15 matches (0.4 points per game) and were 7 points from safety; since then we've collected 23 points from 18 games (1.28 points per game) and are only outside the relegation zone on goal difference.

Now, despite arresting the slide (our goal difference, for the record, was -23 during the embargo, and is now -26, so it's only -3 in the last 18 matches, which can be completely accounted for by the Port Vale defeat), and getting points at a rate that would probably keep us up (1.28 points per game for the final 13 matches gets us to 45/46 points) from a position where we really were dead and buried, especially given the chronic lack of confidence from losing a vast number of matches for almost two straight seasons, MM is being encouraged to abandon that and throw caution to the wind.

I'm not going to pretend I wasn't frustrated during, or immediately after, yesterday's match. At the time, MM's substitutions appeared to be negative. I can understand the argument for Halford going up top instead of Goodship, but it did seem like we weren't taking the game to Oldham and were, perhaps, settling for a draw (a goalless draw against a team that were the second top scorers in the division going into the match, mind). But, when you consider how the game had gone - and actually Demetriou's contribution after coming on, when we continued to create chances, albeit not at the same rate as earlier in the fixture, it does make more sense.

What clouds our judgement on how a team is set up is first the final result, and then the results of those around us. A point against Salford at home was judged to be a good point because Grimsby and Barrow both lost that day; a point away to Oldham was judged to be two points dropped partly because Barrow won and we ended the day in the relegation zone. We actually played much better against Oldham, although against Salford we got a hard-earned point against a side going for promotion. Ultimately, we will be judged on results, of course, but that's over a course of time, rather than as a one-off. The comparison of points per game playing in this way as against either the pre-Walsall way (2 points from 11 games), or with 5 at the back (which I think was 4 points from six matches) isn't even close.

I guess I feel, if we play the way we have since the start of February until the end of the season, we'll probably do enough to stay up. It will be close, but when you get 2 points from your first 11 matches, or 6 points from your first 15 matches, you're unlikely to get any comfort. It's frustrating that we're probably just a goalscorer away from doing what Stevenage have managed to do. But wishing we had one isn't going to make one appear.

And a note on 4-4-2 (which, given our lack of proven goalscorers, would not be a sensible formation to play). Very few teams play 4-4-2 now. Very few Academies play 4-4-2 now, so players aren't particularly comfortable playing it, either. Crucially, it cedes the midfield advantage and would invite more pressure on a back four and goalkeeper that are performing very well at the moment. We don't attempt to play a high possession-based game at the moment (remember those days at the start of last season, and again at the start of this?), but we'll see even less of the ball playing 4-4-2, and I'd be surprised if the two forwards combined saw as much of the ball as Acquah does in the current formation (and that's not loads given the service he gets at times). I'd suggest it's not the answer.

Fantastic post, all of this is spot on ? I really like the 4-2-3-1 formation - but I’ve said it before and will say it again; the whole idea of the formation is that the two holding players are there to give stability, which in turn enables the 3 attacking midfielders to have complete creative freedom to provide both opportunities and goals for themselves.

I think the formation is the one we should build the team upon. I also believe the personnel we have to execute it are more than capable of doing so at this level - As Exiled correctly points out, our points average has increased significantly since getting reinforcements and since playing the formation regularly.

I think that where the machinery is breaking down with the 4-2-3-1 is quite easy to diagnose. The back four are defending well and are not conceding a great deal. The two holding players are contributing to this and breaking up opposition attacks. However, if we look at the 3 players playing in behind Acquah, they are all playing well but for me just lacking bravery in the final third. As a winger or attacking midfielder, it’s a dream to be able to have the defensive shackles removed somewhat, knowing the that there are players behind who can cover.

So ultimately I think it requires the front players to have the confidence to take more risks in possession, but provided we do that the goals will start to come.

Certainly it was clear to see we at least created more chances against Oldham, but it’s essential to continue that on now into tomorrow’s game.

 

[Strykr]

It suggests that sometimes the actual facts for things that can be measured aren’t seen by people who are front room football managers and base every opinion on perception depending on a scoreline. Had chances been converted Oldham was arguably a better attacking performance than FGR...but the ‘eye’ won’t see that due to the scoreline.

And I understand that all that matters is the result and the points but the outrage and dissection of the tactics, decisions and performance of the manager doesn’t add up.

In this instance im pretty sure 90 percent of us 'front room managers' perceived the substitions to be unneccesarily negative and dare i say, crap.

 

[OllieSteph44]

In this instance im pretty sure 90 percent of us 'front room managers' perceived the substitions to be unneccesarily negative and dare i say, crap.

Im pretty sure 90% of the front room managers considering subs with absolutely no responsibility or fear of outcome whatsoever would’ve made more attacking substitutions without having to worry about conceding a late goal and going home with zero points.

Those same managers who then don’t have to answer to the press, explain away another defeat to the fans and slip even closer to certain relegation. Those same front room managers who live in the wonderful utopian world of hindsight where we can all see that simply bringing on a forward means you score a goal and win 1-0.........and not real world one that MM has to live in, where the bigger picture says that a point away from home with continued progress and strengthened belief among the players having not lost again, may just hold them in better stead for the next crucial 13 games where your work every day on the training ground and the ongoing improvements made in performances may just mean that the players start to execute the finish to the approach play your training sessions, tactical input and late nights chewing over a game plan, deserve!

I’ve said it before, hindsight managing from the arm chair is literally the easiest job in football! The wages aren’t great but the success rate is guaranteed 100% ?

 

[Strykr]

Depends where you sit in terms of going for 3 and potentially losing or grinding out 1 point.

When the oppo are as ****e as oldham it was worth the risk to me.

Are we going down with unadventurous draws is the question.

Im questioning MM's intent not entering into a debate about armchair managers.

 

[Leigh_Seasider]

Depends where you sit in terms of going for 3 and potentially losing or grinding out 1 point.

When the oppo are as ****e as oldham it was worth the risk to me.

Are we going down with unadventurous draws is the question.

I would have been more concerned about facing holmes and goodship then chris phillips tbh.

We had 15 shots away from home, that’s hardly unadventurous. We didn’t put them away, that’s a totally different problem. Would Holmes or Goodship have scored? We don’t know. Having upset the balance of the team we might’ve conceded. Hindsight is great! Let’s hope we bury at least a couple vs Tranmere.

 

[Strykr]

We had 15 shots away from home, that’s hardly unadventurous. We didn’t put them away, that’s a totally different problem. Would Holmes or Goodship have scored? We don’t know. Having upset the balance of the team we might’ve conceded. Hindsight is great! Let’s hope we bury at least a couple vs Tranmere.

True , i should have been clearer, i meant the subs.

 

[sufc4life21]

I wonder if the next 2 games results dont go are way, will ron panic and give MM the bullet and go for the new manager bounce. Just me speculating.

 

[OllieSteph44]

His intent was clearly to try and win. The chances created show that. We have no idea of how Holmes or Goodship are in terms of fitness or form and from our armchairs we have no idea how they’ve trained.....

It’s perfectly acceptable in my book for a manager to assess the situation, consider that you’ve given it a good go, aren’t happy with options on the bench to improve the attacking intent and settle for a point with a view to “we live to fight another day”.

Sometimes that’s really really good management as opposed to irrational decisions driven by emotion in the heat of the moment.....the FG manager can vouch for that when he turned 1-0 at half time into 3-0 just because he thought his team should win that game easily and couldn’t accept that they weren’t.

 

[OllieSteph44]

I wonder if the next 2 games results dont go are way, will ron panic and give MM the bullet and go for the new manager bounce. Just me speculating.

100,000,000% no. I couldn’t be any more certain if i tried.

 

[Member]

Only 9 teams in the league have more clean sheets this season than us. Only 2 teams have conceded fewer goals in the last 6 games.

 

[Member]

I wonder if the next 2 games results dont go are way, will ron panic and give MM the bullet and go for the new manager bounce. Just me speculating.

The new manager bounce isn’t really a thing, it’s regression to the mean. Managers get sacked after a run of bad results, it’s natural that the run will come to an end eventually.