The Myth of the Left Wing Back

[voyeur]

I think that's a valid point, although I think I differ from you in how I look at it. I think we have a long term objective as to how we intend to play football and I think that is best addressed straight away, in League 1, rather than putting it off and essentially just making do. If we go down the route of compromising the system, then ultimately we'll never make the transition.

If it was a case of Cricthley coming in half way through a season, with the objective to survive, then I would agree that employing a simple system that fits the players and 'get's the job done' would be the way forward. As it is, I think (as fans) we need to be more focused on the longer term vision and making sure we have the very best chance of survival when we do get promoted.

We have conceded in a few games and that needs to be addressed. On balance, I think the system does expose a couple of issues, based on the Grimmy discussions we've had recently. Firstly, I think Grimmy's limitations as a keeper (not commanding his area) are probably exposed in the system and secondly, we've started to see a pattern of mistakes emerge from Casey. (conclusion, the system works bets with a commanding keeper and /or a commanding Central Defender) I would also say that I think Grimshaw has probably just not been at his usual best from a shot-stopping perspective in recent weeks and I'm not sure that is necessarily related to the system.

OK... Getting on to the new system..

The intention seems to be to try and dominate possession, so is that something we could do so easily whilst playing 4 at the back?

We could go with a 4231, which retains 5 in the Middle of the park, but we also know that Rhodes works better (in fact works at all) with a Strike Partner to bounce off. 442 potentially yields the Midfield advantage to the opposition and we'd be back to the former 'concede possession and hit them on the break' kind of style that we employed to decent effect in the Championship... (not exactly great football for the longer term though).. 433? Are we back to potential issues with Rhodes?

Personally I think the 3 at the back option is worth the wait, but I think we will need to shuffle the pack and see a few incomings / outgoings before we get there and that's not great in the short term.

I'm fine with us having a long term vision, But why a back three? Lads mostly learn to play in a four, and most teams play with a four. Including City, Liverpool, Arsenal etc. As well as Posh, Pompey etc. For good reasons. One advantage is that new players don't have to send months learning a new system.

I think if we had started pre season with a four we would be further on now, and would continue to improve. Instead we are lagging behind, and we are getting worse defensively. With our best defender sitting out, and our most creative player, a lot of the time. There is no sign that Critch knows how to combine three players in the middle of the park. I am sure it will improve, especially if he takes the stabiliser wheels off and lets players play their natural game a bit more. He's making bloody hard work of it, constraining people and asking people to function in ways they are not comfortable with. Perhaps it will morph into a super team that dominates possession, scores for fun and leaks very few goals. I hope so, but I won't hold my breath tbh. If the system was that good, it would be employed by more successful coaches than Critch.

 

[poolfc]

Could understand a 3-5-2 set up if we'd signed a Luke Garbutt upgrade in the summer and gone with Lyons at RWB until Gabriel is back or looked for another loan like Dujon Sterling.

Could understand any formation if we actually played forward at a tempo with one touch passing and movement in front of the ball instead of slow and ponderous tippy tappy then launch it.

Can't understand this wonky half shape thing where it looks like we're starting every game with a defender already sent off. Critchley is a man who looks like he lives his life in fear of conceding goals so hopefully he's having a think about it all.

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

I agree - it's clearly an attempt to address the valid criticism that he produced a very good counter punching team but one that struggled more often than not when the opposition didn't come at us.

I don't think it's so much about system as the struggle between how you work that system.

I think if anything, he's possibly (and this is pure conjecture based on the way we sometimes seem very passive) got a bit of mismatch between the training and intent - i.e. we obviously work a lot on shape and retaining possession but perhaps a bit at tbe cost of the more aggressive patterns of play we may need to adopt to make the system work.

I've been very critical of Critch at times - but I think it's fair to acknowledge that he is trying to put technical players on the pitch to do technical things - but I wonder to what extent he's fighting himself about how far to commit to that. As much as he got stuck for not including Dembele, I don't think Critch 1.0 would ever have played Dembele in the free role he did the game before.

There's an evolution in his thinking but I wonder, a bit like the performance of the team if that evolution is stuttering a bit at times.

My default opinion is 'get into em'' but I also do enjoy watching well drilled industrial football. I feel a bit like we fall between two stools sometimes. We're still a bit prone to sit back as if we've got that 2020-22 ability to soak it up and just compete/scrap and then explode - but sometimes we also stroke it about really well and look as if we could dominate if only we'd release one or two players to make space.

I'm not quite sure at times if we're trying to score or trying not to concede so to speak. It's frustrating because there's bursts of play where we look really confident in our identity as an attacking side.

I am though, (as to be fair, I also was with Appleton's 433) in favour of sticking to what we do and getting better at it. I think the difference this time is what he's trying to do is the result of a reflection on his past spell, league 1 in general etc - whereas I think first time round, it was a slightly naive attempt to apply the 'Liverpool method' to players who didn't have the capacity.

For me, it comes down largely to how he resolves the midfield trio - and largely in that whether he can give Dembele (and by extension Carey) the job of 'hurt opposition' as their key role - and can he live with the consequence that it will make us more vulnerable as a result of making us more potent.

I also wonder if Rhodes/Kouassi up front has quite the tireless energy his teams had previously. That's another variable vs the first time round. Rhodes is a special finisher and his all round play is excellent - but that manic energy of Jerry was a key factor in how we got up and Rhodes is 33, Kouassi isn't a relentless runner and Lavs breaks after 60 mins of running about. I'm not sure how much that impacts on his thinking.

There's a lot of that I agree with and I think the difference in 'training vs intent' or I'd probably say 'application vs intent' is definitely something that I've wondered about myself

It's very apparent, based on the NC interviews and the fact that he is constantly urging the lads forward from the Technical Area that the intent is to play on the front foot.

However, for whatever reason (and I don't think it's as simple as saying "The players are choosing to do it themselves") we are seeing the same thing occurring in most of our games and for long periods (sometimes when we get in front, other times early in the game) we seem to have a lengthy period of passive play, intertwined with periods of being really very good.

It feels on the face of it very much like we have a 'Passive Mode' and an 'Aggressive Mode' at the minute, which seems to revolve around the particular version of the system that we employ. So there's something about the way we are setting up or the particular in game strategy that seems to be causing that to happen.... I think it's happening too consistently for it to be down to the players perse and so it has to be something more fundamental.

 

[voyeur]

There's a lot of that I agree with and I think the difference in 'training vs intent' or I'd probably say 'application vs intent' is definitely something that I've wondered about myself

It's very apparent, based on the NC interviews and the fact that he is constantly urging the lads forward from the Technical Area that the intent is to play on the front foot.

However, for whatever reason (and I don't think it's as simple as saying "The players are choosing to do it themselves") we are seeing the same thing occurring in most of our games and for long periods (sometimes when we get in front, other times early in the game) we seem to have a lengthy period of passive play, intertwined with periods of being really very good.

It feels on the face of it very much like we have a 'Passive Mode' and an 'Aggressive Mode' at the minute, which seems to revolve around the particular version of the system that we employ. So there's something about the way we are setting up or the particular in game strategy that seems to be causing that to happen.... I think it's happening too consistently for it to be down to the players perse and so it has to be something more fundamental.

I would suggest the lads are not really comfortable in the system. And some are not well suited.

I do think that the best strategy is a simple one, one that enables players to be themselves and play to their full potential. You have to question things when you make your best defender redundant via a system change, I think. Leaving a young lad exposed in the centre of the defence.

Switch to a back 4 and:
- Marv can return gradually to his player of the season mode
- we can defend the width of the pitch effectively
- CJ and whoever is on the other side can attack with much more freedom
- Dembele can play the other side with a defender behind him
- which means he can drift inside and roam
- we no longer have an attacking midfielder wondering what to do and reducing us to ten men

We only really lose out on the attacking midfield player, and so far that has amounted to very little. And we need to be much more solid at the back, as a priority.

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

I'm fine with us having a long term vision, But why a back three? Lads mostly learn to play in a four, and most teams play with a four. Including City, Liverpool, Arsenal etc. As well as Posh, Pompey etc. For good reasons. One advantage is that new players don't have to send months learning a new system.

I think if we had started pre season with a four we would be further on now, and would continue to improve. Instead we are lagging behind, and we are getting worse defensively. With our best defender sitting out, and our most creative player, a lot of the time. There is no sign that Critch knows how to combine three players in the middle of the park. I am sure it will improve, especially if he takes the stabiliser wheels off and lets players play their natural game a bit more. He's making bloody hard work of it, constraining people and asking people to function in ways they are not comfortable with. Perhaps it will morph into a super team that dominates possession, scores for fun and leaks very few goals. I hope so, but I won't hold my breath tbh. If the system was that good, it would be employed by more successful coaches than Critch.

I don't profess to be an expert tactician, so I can't really answer the 'Why' question, beyond the fact that Critchley has opted to go down the route and it seems to fit the way he wants to play in terms of facilitating the press and dictating possession.

Plenty of Teams seem to have been able to use the system to great effect and so I really don't think it's some scarey and unorthodox system.

I think as fans we tend to always defer back to basics, because that's what we understand and the idea of employing a simplistic system possibly feels like a magic solution.

As it is, I really don't think it matters so much what the system is.... All systems can probably be as simple or as complex as you make them... What matters is that we focus on making the system work for us over the longer term and don't compromise just to get points on the board, unless that becomes absolutely necessary.

 

[voyeur]

I don't profess to be an expert tactician, so I can't really answer the 'Why' question, beyond the fact that Critchley has opted to go down the route and it seems to fit the way he wants to play in terms of facilitating the press and dictating possession.

Plenty of Teams seem to have been able to use the system to great effect and so I really don't think it's some scarey and unorthodox system.

I think as fans we tend to always defer back to basics, because that's what we understand and the idea of employing a simplistic system possibly feels like a magic solution.

As it is, I really don't think it matters so much what the system is.... All systems can probably be as simple or as complex as you make them... What matters is that we focus on making the system work for us over the longer term and don't compromise just to get points on the board, unless that becomes absolutely necessary.

I feel like I understand systems reasonably well. Not at Pep level, but then again he has some of the world's best players to mitigate any shortcomings he may have! He opts for a 4 at the back approach, though. When's he going to catch on?!

I think the issue also is getting young lads in L1 to play a new system might just be a bit of shooting oneself in the foot. I don't think systems are as important as ability and confidence, and group cohesion. We seem to be sacrificing this season for a new system that may never work, and which isn't used by the best sides anyway, largely speaking. I'd prefer us to be building better combinations, and more confidence, and putting our best players on the pitch. In a secure system.

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

I would suggest the lads are not really comfortable in the system. And some are not well suited.

I do think that the best strategy is a simple one, one that enables players to be themselves and play to their full potential. You have to question things when you make your best defender redundant via a system change, I think. Leaving a young lad exposed in the centre of the defence.

Switch to a back 4 and:
- Marv can return gradually to his player of the season mode
- we can defend the width of the pitch effectively
- CJ and whoever is on the other side can attack with much more freedom
- Dembele can play the other side with a defender behind him
- which means he can drift inside and roam
- we no longer have an attacking midfielder wondering what to do and reducing us to ten men

We only really lose out on the attacking midfield player, and so far that has amounted to very little. And we need to be much more solid at the back, as a priority.

I don't disagree that the squad might be suited to a different system in the shorter term, but I come back to the thing about the long term vision. Once you start to compromise on the system, you really end up in an ongoing cycle, which is really where we found ourselves last time in the Championship.... What we should have done last time is forced and honed the system at L1 level, because we can probably get away with it (without risking relegation) and accepted that promotion might have come a season or two later.... That way, you arrive in the Championship playing the way you want to play, rather than being forced to play a system that get's you by.

I'm not sure whether it's the case, but it might be interesting to look at Teams like Luton Town and Brentford (I think they may have employed 352) as SS and others will likely view their progress, having been achieved on a low budget, as something we would wish to emulate.

 

[voyeur]

I don't disagree that the squad might be suited to a different system in the shorter term, but I come back to the thing about the long term vision. Once you start to compromise on the system, you really end up in an ongoing cycle, which is really where we found ourselves last time in the Championship.... What we should have done last time is forced and honed the system at L1 level, because we can probably get away with it (without risking relegation) and accepted that promotion might have come a season or two later.... That way, you arrive in the Championship playing the way you want to play, rather than being forced to play a system that get's you by.

I'm not sure whether it's the case, but it might be interesting to look at Teams like Luton Town and Brentford (I think they may have employed 352) as SS and others will likely view their progress, having been achieved on a low budget, as something we would wish to emulate.

I understand the long term vision argument, but I don't see why 532 is a long term vision.

Or any rigid system for that matter. Long term, you want to be able to shift to different systems confidently. And 532 seems an odd starting point.

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

I understand the long term vision argument, but I don't see why 532 is a long term vision.

Or any rigid system for that matter. Long term, you want to be able to shift to different systems confidently. And 532 seems an odd starting point.

It's 352 and as I said, it's probably worth looking at Brentford and Luton in terms of the answer to the 'Why' ...

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=596980838563256

 

[Insider]

I feel like I understand systems reasonably well. Not at Pep level, but then again he has some of the world's best players to mitigate any shortcomings he may have! He opts for a 4 at the back approach, though. When's he going to catch on?!

I think the issue also is getting young lads in L1 to play a new system might just be a bit of shooting oneself in the foot. I don't think systems are as important as ability and confidence, and group cohesion. We seem to be sacrificing this season for a new system that may never work, and which isn't used by the best sides anyway, largely speaking. I'd prefer us to be building better combinations, and more confidence, and putting our best players on the pitch. In a secure system.

It's funny how we see things differently. I thought City played 3-2-4-1 but like you say Pep has some of the best players in the world at his disposal so formations are probably irrelevant. He has team where all players are comfortable with the ball at their feet and very good at finding space when they are out of possession. We don't so we find a system and drill the players to play it. Hopefully we'll get there in the end with who we have and looking forward we recruit players to fit the preferred system. Of course you're fcuked on this basis if your manager buggers off.

 

[voyeur]

It's 352 and as I said, it's probably worth looking at Brentford and Luton in terms of the answer to the 'Why' ...

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=596980838563256

Sure, a back 3 can work. I don't think it means it is working for us or will work in the future, or especially that we should carry on using it now when we seem so bad at executing it. If we achieve promotion with it and we thrive in the championship with it, fine. But we need to improve now if we don't want to lose touch completely with the top two. Do we have a playoff mentality? I think we are under performing, and I think the reason is the system and the way it constrains both the coaches and the players. And systems shouldn't take 6 months to learn. or longer. Pro footballers should bv able to play a system quicker than that surely. What's the problem?

 

[td53]

I would suggest the lads are not really comfortable in the system. And some are not well suited.

I do think that the best strategy is a simple one, one that enables players to be themselves and play to their full potential. You have to question things when you make your best defender redundant via a system change, I think. Leaving a young lad exposed in the centre of the defence.

Switch to a back 4 and:
- Marv can return gradually to his player of the season mode
- we can defend the width of the pitch effectively
- CJ and whoever is on the other side can attack with much more freedom
- Dembele can play the other side with a defender behind him
- which means he can drift inside and roam
- we no longer have an attacking midfielder wondering what to do and reducing us to ten men

We only really lose out on the attacking midfield player, and so far that has amounted to very little. And we need to be much more solid at the back, as a priority.

Go to four at the back and the variation is essentially one or two up front. Who? Rhodes needs a partner, Kouassi is a kid, Lavs never stays fit. We don't have the Jerry player who made that single striker variant successful last time by doing a ridiculous amount of work at pace and with skill.

In 3-5-2 you've got a lot permutations in midfield - how to get a player free - i.e. drop Norburn deep as a sitter and go for corners quaterback style or push Dembele or Carey on as a proper 10. You also get the RCB and LCB able to underlap as Jimmy in particular has done very well (top assist maker!)

I take the point it gives Dembele a role - but I don't see why he can't have a role like he played against Stevenage where we essentially let him run it from an advanced midfield position.

Aside from Ekpiteta (and is it his defensive work or his passing - and why does he suddenly not need to pass the ball in a 4?) - I'm not totally sure who it suits fundamentally 'better'

Grimmy - he's a keeper, not sure the formation should impact him too much (despite the long post the other day)
Dale and CJ have both played mostly well of late. Dale probably best run in side and CJ probably 5 or 6 out 9 of his best displays for us in terms of all round play. His biggest asset is his athleticism and I actually (contrary to my earlier view that it was mental to play him as a wing back) think he brings a lot more to the team doing this role where he can get up and down than he does just haring after it banged to the corners. He's harder to track in this role, he runs from deeper. He's quick yes, but in a different system you just cover him a bit deeper.

Jimmy is playing the best he's ever played.
Casey is having, despite some questions of late, a good first proper season overall
Penno - it's difficult to say as I've not seen him do owt else.
Norburn - Not sure he'd suit a flat 2 particularly- so that would impact how we set up/variations.
Kenny - playing v well.
Carey/Dembele - Dembele has played really well aside from game he played up front - Carey would play better with more of a free role like Dembele gets occaisionally. - I don't think it's a question of needing to find him a role as much as trusting him to do the role.
Rhodes - Needs a partner - playing superbly
Kylian/Lavs - not sure either of them especially gain from a switch - Kylian might feed off some more crosses, but Critch will invert wingers anyway - he always does so that negates that.
Morgan - seems a bit flighty to be a flat 2 player
Virtue - I think he can do well in this system - missing piece for me atm.
Call Con - If we went back to a flat mid 2 with just kicking the opposition up in the air, great, but that's not what's needed here - that works against sides you have to disrupt or get squashed (i.e. Fulham) - we need to force games. I think he's essentially stuck in the utility role.
Bees - fuck knows.
Thommo - if he can't play LWB, there's no point in him - he's not good enough to be a pure midfield and he gives me palpatations as an out and out LB - meaning we'd be stuck with Jimmy as the only one.
Joseph - might be able to do the Jerry one up front role possibly but who knows?
Virtue - has looked decent every time I've seen him this year and made us tick in the game he actually started

For me, it's Critch's inherent caution which he needs to fight with - and if we went to a 4, as much as 4231 or what ever can be sexy as fuck, you end up with 451 games such as we saw a fair few of and us having the same gripes.

Plus - if we keep playing wing backs, then Jack Moore can slot in one day and be the new Kieran Trippier and all will be good.

 

[voyeur]

It's funny how we see things differently. I thought City played 3-2-4-1 but like you say Pep has some of the best players in the world at his disposal so formations are probably irrelevant. He has team where all players are comfortable with the ball at their feet and very good at finding space when they are out of possession. We don't so we find a system and drill the players to play it. Hopefully we'll get there in the end with who we have and looking forward we recruit players to fit the preferred system. Of course you're fcuked on this basis if your manager buggers off.

Well that also raises the fact that we had a long term strategy under Critch first time round, and he has returned with a different strategy. So how long term are his strategies?! It's just football spiel I think - filling interview minutes!

 

[voyeur]

Go to four at the back and the variation is essentially one or two up front. Who? Rhodes needs a partner, Kouassi is a kid, Lavs never stays fit. We don't have the Jerry player who made that single striker variant successful last time by doing a ridiculous amount of work at pace and with skill.

In 3-5-2 you've got a lot permutations in midfield - how to get a player free - i.e. drop Norburn deep as a sitter and go for corners quaterback style or push Dembele or Carey on as a proper 10. You also get the RCB and LCB able to underlap as Jimmy in particular has done very well (top assist maker!)

I take the point it gives Dembele a role - but I don't see why he can't have a role like he played against Stevenage where we essentially let him run it from an advanced midfield position.

Aside from Ekpiteta (and is it his defensive work or his passing - and why does he suddenly not need to pass the ball in a 4?) - I'm not totally sure who it suits fundamentally 'better'

Grimmy - he's a keeper, not sure the formation should impact him too much (despite the long post the other day)
Dale and CJ have both played mostly well of late. Dale probably best run in side and CJ probably 5 or 6 out 9 of his best displays for us in terms of all round play. His biggest asset is his athleticism and I actually (contrary to my earlier view that it was mental to play him as a wing back) think he brings a lot more to the team doing this role where he can get up and down than he does just haring after it banged to the corners. He's harder to track in this role, he runs from deeper. He's quick yes, but in a different system you just cover him a bit deeper.

Jimmy is playing the best he's ever played.
Casey is having, despite some questions of late, a good first proper season overall
Penno - it's difficult to say as I've not seen him do owt else.
Norburn - Not sure he'd suit a flat 2 particularly- so that would impact how we set up/variations.
Kenny - playing v well.
Carey/Dembele - Dembele has played really well aside from game he played up front - Carey would play better with more of a free role like Dembele gets occaisionally. - I don't think it's a question of needing to find him a role as much as trusting him to do the role.
Rhodes - Needs a partner - playing superbly
Kylian/Lavs - not sure either of them especially gain from a switch - Kylian might feed off some more crosses, but Critch will invert wingers anyway - he always does so that negates that.
Morgan - seems a bit flighty to be a flat 2 player
Virtue - I think he can do well in this system - missing piece for me atm.
Call Con - If we went back to a flat mid 2 with just kicking the opposition up in the air, great, but that's not what's needed here - that works against sides you have to disrupt or get squashed (i.e. Fulham) - we need to force games. I think he's essentially stuck in the utility role.
Bees - fuck knows.
Thommo - if he can't play LWB, there's no point in him - he's not good enough to be a pure midfield and he gives me palpatations as an out and out LB - meaning we'd be stuck with Jimmy as the only one.
Joseph - might be able to do the Jerry one up front role possibly but who knows?
Virtue - has looked decent every time I've seen him this year and made us tick in the game he actually started

For me, it's Critch's inherent caution which he needs to fight with - and if we went to a 4, as much as 4231 or what ever can be sexy as fuck, you end up with 451 games such as we saw a fair few of and us having the same gripes.

Plus - if we keep playing wing backs, then Jack Moore can slot in one day and be the new Kieran Trippier and all will be good.

That's a good post and you make some excellent points there. But I think overlook all the issues we are experiencing. If all those playvrs are thriving so much in the 352, why are so wide open and so lacking creativity, through the middle in particular, in real life?

I agree that caution is holding us back, but I think the caution is a product of the system change to a large degree. Because it's not proving to be a secure system. So far at least. 12 points down off 15 games. I don't believe Pompey are really that much better than us. SS is putting 5m in this season on top of 18m prior to this season. are we getting value for money? If not, why not?

 

[td53]

That's a good post and you make some excellent points there. But I think overlook all the issues we are experiencing. If all those playvrs are thriving so much in the 352, why are so wide open and so lacking creativity, through the middle in particular, in real life?

I agree that caution is holding us back, but I think the caution is a product of the system change to a large degree. Because it's not proving to be a secure system. So far at least. 12 points down off 15 games. I don't believe Pompey are really that much better than us. SS is putting 5m in this season on top of 18m prior to this season. are we getting value for money? If not, why not?

Because, you need a player to set the tone - and we don't free that player up to do that.

Let me put it this way - It's like playing our 442 but without Bowler fit or telling Bowler to tuck in and track his man first and foremost.

That happened a few times and we were largely rank. We struggled to make chances. If you'r going to play Josh, you had to just say 'get it and run and do your thing' - Everyone currently 'plays the system' and that's the problem, be it 442 or 352 or whatever. If everyone is fundamentally worrying about countering the opposition etc, then you end up with possession for the sake of it and no one in space (as everyone is tracking the instant you get a turnover)

The 442 worked, not because it was 442 but because it had two high quality players wide (Keshi and Bowler) playing off one of the best target men in the game (Madine) with everyone else busting their arses off to just win ball and pump it at Gaz/get it wide. Keshi or Josh made it up as they went along. They were not (especially in Josh's case as Keshi did a lot of work) especially 'playing the system'

We've got maybe one of those 3 players now in terms of that quality (Dembele)

I see your point that Critch might be more likely to give Dembele his head our wide - but then, for me, we're right back where we were ages ago but without some of the other pieces in what made that jigsaw work.

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

The point @td53 makes about EKI is a really valid one…

I’m any possession based system the CH’s need to be comfortable on the ball. That’s not going to change whether we play 4 at the back or 3.

 

[TANGERINETOWERPOWER]

As ever with the AVFTT massive, the agenda driven ‘Negative Nellies’ can’t resist a toxic myth or two. With Fans Favourite 'Dobbie' being Ditched for Critch a small collective of C U Next Tuesdays are always on the look out for any excuse to drag our Tactical Genius [AKA Mini Pep] down, and the Left Wing Back has certainly been a bone of contention worth picking.

We keep reading about Critchley "Persisting with Callum Connolly at LWB" and used as an example of the Manager's ineptitude, so I thought I'd take a look at the FACT vs FICTION and see what all the fuss is about.

So we're 15 Games into the Season and sitting in 8th Place in League 1 with 23 Points an average of 1.53 points per game and a win rate of 40%.

So just how many of those 15 games have feature Callum Connolly in the LWB position ? [I'm assuming that it must be a significant number, given the rumblings from the Armchair Army]...

He has in fact only Played 2 Full 90 Minutes at LWB

Additionally he has played:
45 Minutes (vs Lincoln, where he was switched to CH at Half-Time)
74 Minutes (being replaced vs Wycombe by Owen Dale)
20 Minutes (to Replace Owen Dale vs Reading)
16 Minutes for the tiring Thompson (brought in due to Dale bereavement)at Charlton

[A grand total of 335 minutes or just over 3 and a half games at LWB] - You could hardly call it 'persisting'!!

In fact what has actually happened in reality is that he's been given a reasonable chance and then Critchley has very swiftly moved on. In other words "Nothing to see here"

Of course, with Lyons being absent, the LWB position is one that has presented us with problems. I think most people would probably agree that he is a natural and obvious option, along with the injured Jordan Gabriel. It certainly wasn't a natural fit for Dale (at least on the face of it) and Thompson has had significant question marks hanging over him after a hit and miss season last year. He was a player who seemed to have a calamity a game up his sleeve, which often saw us concede. On balance, our resident 'Jack of All Trades' was hardly an outlandish option and let's face it, he's proven himself extremely able in pretty much every other position he's been asked to play.

So who else has filled the LWB position and how have they fared (or more as to the point how have we fared with each different Option)


Connolly has started 4 Times (for a total of 299 Minutes at LWB) - We've Won 2 and Lost 2 (Average 1.5 Points per Game) - Win Rate 50%
Lyons has started 3 Times (for a total of 270 Minutes at LWB) - We've Drawn all 3 Nil Nil (Average 1 Point per Game) - Win Rate 0%
Dale has started 5 Times (for a total of 421 Minutes ad LWB & RWB) - We've Won 3, Drawn 1 and Lost 1 (Average 2 Points per Game) Win Rate 60%
Thompson has started 3 Times (for a total of 255 Minutes and LWB) - We've Won 1, Drawn 1 and Lost 1 (Average 1.33 Points per Game) Win Rate 33%

Truth be known our results haven't suffered as a result of Callum playing in the LWB position and as usual he's managed to 'do a job' for the Team. The choice to play him in that position has been borne out of a sense of necessity and experimentation and in my view at least, I don't see anything particularly 'out there' about the Manager going with that option. Clearly the idea that Critchley has (in any way) persisted with Connolly in that position having played him there for a 3 and a half games, is nothing short of nonsense and it really shows the 'Critchley Critics' up for exactly what they are (mostly full of piss and wind)... Dale is the one player that he has persisted with more than any other and notably we've had our best run of games whilst he was in situ.... Of course, the goal Away at Oxford may well have cost Dale his place and opened up the door for Thompson.... Can he make the position his own or will Big Cal need to make a return?

If your post was intended to highlight the inanity of applying data to these kind of arguments then you succeeded admirably. There are lies. Damn lies and statistics and your figures simply are not credible for a number of reasons.

The first and most salient is sample size…you just haven’t got a big enough sample size to offer credible statistics to back your arguments up.

There are also too many variables that make up win ratios in terms of differing team selections, positional changes, tactics and very importantly quality of opposition. For those reasons your assumptions regarding how individual players within the squad influence our results are flawed until we get a much bigger sample size and even then may be misleading. Good thread though Bifster.

 

[voyeur]

Because, you need a player to set the tone - and we don't free that player up to do that.

Let me put it this way - It's like playing our 442 but without Bowler fit or telling Bowler to tuck in and track his man first and foremost.

That happened a few times and we were largely rank. We struggled to make chances. If you'r going to play Josh, you had to just say 'get it and run and do your thing' - Everyone currently 'plays the system' and that's the problem, be it 442 or 352 or whatever. If everyone is fundamentally worrying about countering the opposition etc, then you end up with possession for the sake of it and no one in space (as everyone is tracking the instant you get a turnover)

The 442 worked, not because it was 442 but because it had two high quality players wide (Keshi and Bowler) playing off one of the best target men in the game (Madine) with everyone else busting their arses off to just win ball and pump it at Gaz/get it wide. Keshi or Josh made it up as they went along. They were not (especially in Josh's case as Keshi did a lot of work) especially 'playing the system'

We've got maybe one of those 3 players now in terms of that quality (Dembele)

I see your point that Critch might be more likely to give Dembele his head our wide - but then, for me, we're right back where we were ages ago but without some of the other pieces in what made that jigsaw work.

I think you are largely right Matt. Some really good explanation there. Thank you. 442 certainly has its limitations, but it can work well as it has for us, and there are other 4-based systems that can be easily adopted. And the 532 system has held us back so far this season IMO. I hope Critch let's go of his fear, and we get to see a more confident version of what he is trying to do. A version that doesn't waste our creative players. And I hope we aren't 20 points off top by Xmas.

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

If your post was intended to highlight the inanity of applying data to these kind of arguments then you succeeded admirably. There are lies. Damn lies and statistics and your figures simply are not credible for a number of reasons.

The first and most salient is sample size…you just haven’t got a big enough sample size to offer credible statistics to back your arguments up.

There are also too many variables that make up win ratios in terms of differing team selections, positional changes, tactics and very importantly quality of opposition. For those reasons your assumptions regarding how individual players within the squad influence our results are flawed until we get a much bigger sample size and even then may be misleading. Good thread though Bifster.

Sample size to back what arguments up?

Have I made any arguments or drawn any conclusions, beyond the fact that Connolly hadn’t actually played at LWB very much (despite claims that Critchley has persisted with him)?

 

[Seainsea]

I understand the long term vision argument, but I don't see why 532 is a long term vision.

Or any rigid system for that matter. Long term, you want to be able to shift to different systems confidently. And 532 seems an odd starting point.

Professional players should be able to adapt to different systems in a match nevermind the whole season. I can't help thinking that Critchley has read "5-3-2 - The System for 23/24 Season" book and has resolutely decided that this is the only formation to adopt! Pennington played in a 5-3-2 for Shrewsbury and to be fair Husband has adapted well but Ekpiteta has floundered because he doesn't have a steady traditional CH partner (Keogh) and doesn't look comfortable playing out from the back as the system demands. I think the attempt to shoe horn Connolly into the LWB back role when Husband/Thompson/Lyons were much more obvious candidates was just ridiculous really and totally blunted the attacking play down that side of the pitch.

 

[A_Tense_Grin]

All comes down to results and performances and they have not been good enough. Again, it depends on what your expectation levels are. Mine are a lot higher than 8th in the table so I am naturally going to be disappointed. If you are happy with 8th, then you are bound to think Connolly is fine playing as Roberto Carlos and Kouassi has been a revelation.

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

Professional players should be able to adapt to different systems in a match nevermind the whole season. I can't help thinking that Critchley has read "5-3-2 - The System for 23/24 Season" book and has resolutely decided that this is the only formation to adopt! Pennington played in a 5-3-2 for Shrewsbury and to be fair Husband has adapted well but Ekpiteta has floundered because he doesn't have a steady traditional CH partner (Keogh) and doesn't look comfortable playing out from the back as the system demands. I think the attempt to shoe horn Connolly into the LWB back role when Husband/Thompson/Lyons were much more obvious candidates was just ridiculous really and totally blunted the attacking play down that side of the pitch.

It’s not 532, not by any stretch of the imagination…

We play two advancing wingbacks with a bias towards their attacking qualities.

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

I think you are largely right Matt. Some really good explanation there. Thank you. 442 certainly has its limitations, but it can work well as it has for us, and there are other 4-based systems that can be easily adopted. And the 532 system has held us back so far this season IMO. I hope Critch let's go of his fear, and we get to see a more confident version of what he is trying to do. A version that doesn't waste our creative players. And I hope we aren't 20 points off top by Xmas.

I think @td53 makes a lot of really good points. As I see it, whilst it’s easy to have a downer on it and obviously we have shipped a few goals, there are plenty of positives too.

We do seem to be operating two distinctly different approaches. We have what you might describe as a more rigid ‘contain & probe’ approach, which appears to be more cautious and then we have a more fluid attacking style.

So far we seem to be starting with one and ending with the other or vice versa (depending on the opposition). That’s certainly how it feels to me at least.

We seem to be pretty good with the fluid attack approach, but not very good with the out possess and contain option. Personally I don’t think it’s practical to think we can just attack for 90 minutes every game and so we need to become proficient at both.

 

[20togo]

Could understand a 3-5-2 set up if we'd signed a Luke Garbutt upgrade in the summer and gone with Lyons at RWB until Gabriel is back or looked for another loan like Dujon Sterling.

Could understand any formation if we actually played forward at a tempo with one touch passing and movement in front of the ball instead of slow and ponderous tippy tappy then launch it.

Can't understand this wonky half shape thing where it looks like we're starting every game with a defender already sent off. Critchley is a man who looks like he lives his life in fear of conceding goals so hopefully he's having a think about it all.

Think that middle para sums up how we generally have been playing.

 

[Matesrates]

Think that middle para sums up how we generally have been playing.

Agree, that’s the problem, question is, why can’t the head coach get it right?

 

[20togo]

I think @td53 makes a lot of really good points. As I see it, whilst it’s easy to have a downer on it and obviously we have shipped a few goals, there are plenty of positives too.

We do seem to be operating two distinctly different approaches. We have what you might describe as a more rigid ‘contain & probe’ approach, which appears to be more cautious and then we have a more fluid attacking style.

So far we seem to be starting with one and ending with the other or vice versa (depending on the opposition). That’s certainly how it feels to me at least.

We seem to be pretty good with the fluid attack approach, but not very good with the out possess and contain option. Personally I don’t think it’s practical to think we can just attack for 90 minutes every game and so we need to become proficient at both.

do you seriously believe the utter crap you come out with mary?

Shipping goals but there's positives. What positives? These two distinctly different approaches? How many times have we started with this more fluid attacking slyle? Twice, against bottom of the league Cheltenham and then against Stevenage. The overwhelming vast majority of matches this season has been the more rigid cautious approach with us passing it along the back line and then launching it. Seems you also think it reasonable that L1 players should be able to play like PL players and be as comfortable on the ball like the Brentford players are. We are Blackpool FC playing in L1 with pretty much L1 players. I'd suggest it's better we play to our players strengths not our players weaknesses.

As you alluded to not long back, I think you are spending too much time watching the tv in the Moretti Lounge with your beer goggles on and paying little regard to what is happening out on the pitch.

 

[voyeur]

Professional players should be able to adapt to different systems in a match nevermind the whole season. I can't help thinking that Critchley has read "5-3-2 - The System for 23/24 Season" book and has resolutely decided that this is the only formation to adopt! Pennington played in a 5-3-2 for Shrewsbury and to be fair Husband has adapted well but Ekpiteta has floundered because he doesn't have a steady traditional CH partner (Keogh) and doesn't look comfortable playing out from the back as the system demands. I think the attempt to shoe horn Connolly into the LWB back role when Husband/Thompson/Lyons were much more obvious candidates was just ridiculous really and totally blunted the attacking play down that side of the pitch.

I agree that pro footballers should be able to switch system mid game. But ours haven't fully adapted to 3 at the back yet, about 4 months in. That's the frustration. I understood the short term use of Connolly at LWB sort of, it was Critch not trusting others to keep us tight. And we were actually a lot tighter back then so maybe we should go back to it. It pretty much meant we played a back 4. And kept 5 straight clean sheets!

 

[voyeur]

I think @td53 makes a lot of really good points. As I see it, whilst it’s easy to have a downer on it and obviously we have shipped a few goals, there are plenty of positives too.

We do seem to be operating two distinctly different approaches. We have what you might describe as a more rigid ‘contain & probe’ approach, which appears to be more cautious and then we have a more fluid attacking style.

So far we seem to be starting with one and ending with the other or vice versa (depending on the opposition). That’s certainly how it feels to me at least.

We seem to be pretty good with the fluid attack approach, but not very good with the out possess and contain option. Personally I don’t think it’s practical to think we can just attack for 90 minutes every game and so we need to become proficient at both.

We do, but I think use the fluid attacking thing rather more!