I was hoping that during his time away

Phil_bfc deux

Phil_bfc deux

Well-known member
He would have learnt a bit more

But no it's the same old negative safety first Critchley

Playing one upfront at home and inverted wing backs just smacks of trying to be too clever tactically again

I was really hoping he would have changed and the first 2 games showed promise

Take the handbrake off please
 
We need to give it 10 to 12 games and see how it is. It was never going to be exciting and I think everyone ignored that after the shite season we had last season. Sadler is under pressure too, because if Critch fails, his judgement will be totally questionable.

I don't want to be too negative, what did we expect though? 4 midfielders, 1 up front, inverted wing backs and Marv as your playmaker from defence, you don't need to be a highly qualified football coach to see that is a very negative and unbalanced side.

We have a decent squad and with a few additions as good as anyone in this league and a lot better than most. 10 to 12 games will tell us where we are.
 
ThereisonlyoneChrisMalkin said:
Inverted wingbacks/fullbacks means they are playing on the opposite side of there strongest foot. i.e Lyons right footed playing left wing-back and CJ left footed playing right wing-back.
Click to expand...
Different meaning for wingers and fullbacks. For fullbacks it means that they rotate into midfield when needed, when the team is in possession. You can blame Pep for all of this by the way he started it with Cancelo.
 
Phil_bfc deux said:
He would have learnt a bit more

But no it's the same old negative safety first Critchley

Playing one upfront at home and inverted wing backs just smacks of trying to be too clever tactically again

I was really hoping he would have changed and the first 2 games showed promise

Take the handbrake off please
Click to expand...
Then to say all is fine and well in his post-match prezzer is very worrying too.
 
td53 said:
Love the semantic argument.

To invert something is to 'put upside down or into the opposite position'

That literally is what he's done. Lyons at left back and CJ at right back.

Take it up with the dictionary not me.
Click to expand...
That isn’t the meaning of inverted full backs though.

Inverted may mean opposite but in football terms, inverted does not mean to play on the opposite flank.
 
Phil_bfc deux said:
He would have learnt a bit more

But no it's the same old negative safety first Critchley

Playing one upfront at home and inverted wing backs just smacks of trying to be too clever tactically again

I was really hoping he would have changed and the first 2 games showed promise

Take the handbrake off please
Click to expand...
Same old Critchley it’s just not entertaining football. He will stick with formations that don’t work for far too long, like last time . I will of course give my complete support whilst he is here, but like you said it seems he hasn’t learnt anything , I’m not feeling overly optimistic for his future at this marvellous club . Was listening to Micky Mellon on Radio Blackburn , he was saying our fans will demand entertainment with attacking football and expect promotion, not much sign of any of that .
I know it’s early days and I do wish and hope for the best, but that’s the last 2 games where we’ve looked clueless, playing teams I fully expect to be at the wrong end of the table . We have some good players if used correctly, I think 🤷‍♂️
 
For me, the inversion (how ever we interpret it) worked to a degree. Husband is a good footballer for defender. Lyon has quality. Those two looked our best outlet. Lyon was tucking inside whilst Jimmy went outside and they couldn't handle it.

CJ is CJ and Casey, whilst playing very well isn't as adroit as Jimmy is going down the line, probably because he's never been a full back (and believe it or not, Jimmy has played on the wing a bit too)

I don't mind the inversion of the players are technically able. I think one flank wasn't last night.
 
Tangerine_Dream said:
That isn’t the meaning of inverted full backs though.

Inverted may mean opposite but in football terms, inverted does not mean to play on the opposite flank.
Click to expand...
According to who? Some sky pundit? When I use a word I don't check how Micah Richards uses it first, as if he's Samuel Johnson.

(Smiley face cos that came across more arsey than I meant it too)
 
Phil_bfc deux said:
He would have learnt a bit more

But no it's the same old negative safety first Critchley

Playing one upfront at home and inverted wing backs just smacks of trying to be too clever tactically again

I was really hoping he would have changed and the first 2 games showed promise

Take the handbrake off please
Click to expand...
100% Philip.
 
td53 said:
For me, the inversion (how ever we interpret it) worked to a degree. Husband is a good footballer for defender. Lyon has quality. Those two looked our best outlet. Lyon was tucking inside whilst Jimmy went outside and the couldn't handle it.

CJ is CJ and Casey, whilst playing very well isn't as adroit as Jimmy is going down the line, probably because he's never been a full back (and believe it or not, Jimmy has played on the wing a bit too)

I don't mind the inversion of the players are technically able. I think one flank wasn't last night.
Click to expand...
Lyons and Hubby at least had an understanding. All the major threat came down their flank. Casey drove forward but never went past CJ partly because CJ was so high. The right flank was the issue.
 
Tangerine_Dream said:
That isn’t the meaning of inverted full backs though.

Inverted may mean opposite but in football terms, inverted does not mean to play on the opposite flank.
Click to expand...
What does it mean then?

If this is the case, I genuinely don't know.

I thought it was opposite side and cutting in on stronger foot.
 
The optimism from pre season has been eroded, and replaced by a dread of being bored and angr each game. We’re back to critchleys method of passing it around the back until pressed, then pass it to the goalkeeper who walks around with it until pressed, which means his only alternative is to hoof it upfield and inevitably their giant defenders get it. I am dreading it.
 
I think the truth is, the pep thing is an evolution of the idea of inversion. It becomes a standard tactic and therefore inversion become short hand for that. But inversion means to swap. It just does. That's the meaning.

It's like, in a way how 'phone' now means 'camera and internet and apps' as well as telephony - but actually, a Nokia 3210 is still a phone even though it lacks the features that an iPhone does.
 
Bloody hell.

Inverted wing backs isn’t playing on the opposite side of your strong foot. It’s involves stepping inside the pitch and contributing, defensively and/or offensively, in central positions. It would be nice if CJ and Lyons tried to be fair.

Nothing to do with stronger/weaker feet. If you’re hugging the left touchline with the ball at your stronger right foot, that doesn’t make you an inverted full back.
 
Tangerine_Dream said:
That isn’t the meaning of inverted full backs though.

Inverted may mean opposite but in football terms, inverted does not mean to play on the opposite flank.
Click to expand...
Just because someone in football is too stupid to understand the word and has used it incorrectly, doesn't make it right! It's like the obsession some years ago with calling centre backs centre halves, it's just plain wrong headed and people that buy in to it are just as daft as those that started it! 😂
 
Matesrates said:
The optimism from pre season has been eroded, and replaced by a dread of being bored and angr each game. We’re back to critchleys method of passing it around the back until pressed, then pass it to the goalkeeper who walks around with it until pressed, which means his only alternative is to hoof it upfield and inevitably their giant defenders get it. I am dreading it.
Click to expand...
Yeh but we’ll be difficult to beat . Maybe 🤔
 
Chrismalkin said:
Bloody hell.

Inverted wing backs isn’t playing on the opposite of your strong foot. It’s involves stepping inside the pitch and contributing, defensively and offensively, in central positions. It would be nice if CJ and Lyons tried to be fair.

Nothing to do with stronger/weaker feet. If you’re hugging the left touchline with the ball at your stronger right foot, that doesn’t make you an inverted full back.
Click to expand...
IT LITERALLY DOES.

The word inversion has NOTHING to do with stepping inside.

It's like saying spaghetti describes the sauce.
 
hertfordseasider said:
We need to give it 10 to 12 games and see how it is. It was never going to be exciting and I think everyone ignored that after the shite season we had last season. Sadler is under pressure too, because if Critch fails, his judgement will be totally questionable.

I don't want to be too negative, what did we expect though? 4 midfielders, 1 up front, inverted wing backs and Marv as your playmaker from defence, you don't need to be a highly qualified football coach to see that is a very negative and unbalanced side.

We have a decent squad and with a few additions as good as anyone in this league and a lot better than most. 10 to 12 games will tell us where we are.
Click to expand...
Playing to our strengths would be a start .
 
Chrismalkin said:
You just keep moaning and not understanding, my friend. I’ll sit here and relax
Click to expand...

I'm not moaning. I'm just sat here enjoying my accurate use of words.

Paul Ince called Madine Nadine and Muggers went on about elastication but I didn't start changing my mind about the meaning of language then did I?

🤣🤣🤣
 
Last edited:
The problem is though, we're so very predictable already and it didn't take Exeter / Vale long to suss us out and stifle our shooting chances - barely a keeper save in the last 3 hours.
Left in the right position and right in the left position did work to some degree but its all so same-as-same-as over 90 mins, no different to playing a left footed winger down the left wing. Defences adapt, just as they did for Bowler so I'd like Critch to keep swapping them over during the game to give them something to think about. If you change nothing then nothing changes.
 
Phil_bfc deux said:
He would have learnt a bit more

But no it's the same old negative safety first Critchley

Playing one upfront at home and inverted wing backs just smacks of trying to be too clever tactically again

I was really hoping he would have changed and the first 2 games showed promise

Take the handbrake off please
Click to expand...
Keep saying it mate but it’s so Southgate esque.

That was 0-0 with Scotland last night.

Dougall and Norburn at home to Port Vale 😵‍💫
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top