Dave
TFF member
Posts: 13,081
|
Post by Dave on Jan 5, 2011 17:16:41 GMT
The defence used for Paul Buckle using the 4-4-1-1 system seems to be he can then play the players he prefers to start the match with. If that really is the case then it could mean he is just forced to play that system, based on the players he does have in his side. I suppose the question could be asked if we have the right mix and balance of players in our squad. You only need to go back to Bucks first season in charge, to see he loaded the squad with to many midfield players.
The result was in order to have the players he wanted out on the pitch, he tried to make some midfield players into defenders without any real success. In fact playing Chris Hargreaves for example in defence was blamed for the poor results we were getting and only when we started playing with our proper defenders at the back, did the results improve.
On the other hand it could be no more than a case of Bucks now doing what is necessary to have players playing in the very best positions to get the most out of them. There also a time many felt he was guilty of playing players in the wrong positions in order to have the players he wanted out on the pitch.
|
|
|
|
Post by aussie on Jan 5, 2011 18:41:52 GMT
Ok so if you, Dave and that Australian fellow say we need to start playing 4-4-2 at home. Where are you proposing to play Eunan O'Kane exactly? Don't forget that playing 4-4-2 eliminates the free role Eunan O'Kane has been filling so well. Having said that of course PB described O'Kane as a "striker" in his latest article on dot com. Is he (O'Kane) on steroids?  If you are advocating that we change the formation a bit quicker at home when the "absurd" 4-4-1-1 or 4-5-1 isn't working then fair enough, you should always try and mix it up a little bit. But to change the whole formation at home to a 4-4-2 on the strength of ten decent minutes is a bit knee-jerk isn't it? That formation that worked for about fifteen to twenty minutes didn`t just work, we were battering them, the crowd noise rose incredibly, that`s how you should play at home and it only stopped working when Eunan O`kane was taken out of midfield and replaced so to say he can`t play in the midfield is pretty weak, especially because that`s his position! |
|
|
|
Post by lambethgull on Jan 5, 2011 19:43:05 GMT
My view is that you need to start with the formation that will give you the very best chance of winning the match. As soon as its clear its not working, or due to where the dangers may be coming from on the team you are playing, its time to change it. Yes, but which formation gives us the best chance of winning matches? I've only seen a handful of away games so far this season, but I agree with Chris that 4-4-1-1 has worked away from home. 4-4-2 leaves our most creative player in O'Kane with nowhere to play and it's hard to see a midfield pairing of Wroe and Mansell/Oastler providing enough for either the wingers, or a forward pairing involving Kee or Gritton who just aren't clinical or good enough. The departure of Benyon would make O'Kane's exclusion even more problematic. 4-4-1-1 quite simply isn't working at home, so something needs to happen. A half-decent (loanee?) partner for Benyon/Kee would make the transition to 4-4-2 and the removal of O'Kane easier to contemplate. |
|
|
|
Post by lambethgull on Jan 5, 2011 19:45:55 GMT
Ok so if you, Dave and that Australian fellow say we need to start playing 4-4-2 at home. Where are you proposing to play Eunan O'Kane exactly? Don't forget that playing 4-4-2 eliminates the free role Eunan O'Kane has been filling so well. Having said that of course PB described O'Kane as a "striker" in his latest article on dot com. Is he (O'Kane) on steroids? If you are advocating that we change the formation a bit quicker at home when the "absurd" 4-4-1-1 or 4-5-1 isn't working then fair enough, you should always try and mix it up a little bit. But to change the whole formation at home to a 4-4-2 on the strength of ten decent minutes is a bit knee-jerk isn't it? That formation that worked for about fifteen to twenty minutes didn`t just work, we were battering them, the crowd noise rose incredibly, that`s how you should play at home and it only stopped working when Eunan O`kane was taken out of midfield and replaced so to say he can`t play in the midfield is pretty weak, especially because that`s his position! He may have been okay for part of a game against midtable Oxford, but what about good away sides? |
|
|
|
Post by aussie on Jan 5, 2011 20:00:05 GMT
So your in total denial that when we went 4-4-2, before Eunan got taken off, we were murdering them! O.k! Ah. TFF. The home of reasoned debate. Ah. The big city boys sticking together. Eunan, in case you haven`t noticed is improving massively and works well with 4-4-1-1, or 4-5-1 as some like to call it, and works well now in a 4-4-2. Or can`t people see that young players learn and improve with good coaching and masses of natural ability! For goodness sake we know what we saw and it would happen that most people actually believe what they saw, the difference was enormous in the game. You guys must be right though because after all we`re just niave country bumkins that couldn`t possibly have a clue, we must bow to your superiority! |
|
|
|
Post by jmgull on Jan 5, 2011 20:12:42 GMT
For heavens sake  - you can't simplify it so much to say that we abandon the 4-4-1-1 system, for a rigid 4-4-2 on the back of a 15 minute spell........when we were 3-1 down, of course it appears more attacking, we were chasing a game gung-ho that, at the time, was all but lost. It was of course right to go 4-4-2 as the 4-4-1-1 wasn't working, that's the beauty of having a Plan B, to change to and try and win or save a game (if you can critisize Buckle for anything it would be fair to say that we should have changed it 10 mins earlier at 1-2) - Buckle was blasted on here by his usual bashers (Terry etc) for not having a Plan B....back in the days that we used to play........yeah you guessed it 4-4-2!!! We all agree O'Kane is our most creative player, we all want him in the starting XI too.........Buckle has hit upon a system that allows that, and i think we are generally playing very attractive and ATTACKING football, it hasn't produced better results yet, but few can argue that generally it looks like it will in the future. Like any system though, some days it wont work or be as effective as others. The advantages of the 4-4-1-1 is that our wingers Zeb and Hemmings are given license to attack far more as the 2 more defensive midfielders Wroe and Oastler/Lathrope have to "sit in" and cover them.......with a flat 4-4-2, they have to track back much more........leaving the front 2 sometimes isolated and sometimes lacking in service. It also allows us to play Eunan in his best position, in the hole behind the front man, where he can create and score goals just as he's currently doing.........he wouldn't be nearly as effective in a central midfield role in a 4-4-2, where he would be spending most of his time scrapping to win the ball, perhaps when he fills out physically in years to come he may be good enough and strong enough to combine an "engine room" role with a creative one......he's of course, not their yet. Of course, the disadvantages are that we are left with just one out and out striker.........if as last saturday, the wingers both play well below their level and continually fail to beat their man or lose possesion straight away.......he is going to be isolated. It's then right of course, to change to a 4-4-2 or change personnel. I'm sure most will agree, that the side we are putting out at the moment is our best side.........we are creating enough chances and scoring enough goals at the moment...........we aren't winning enough games because our defence after being so good for so long, is having a bad patch, as the last two games have demonstrated. For Mr meerkat to call the 4-4-1-1 system absurd, is like many of his buckle bashing posts on here..........err absurd |
|
|
|
Post by ohtobeatplainmoor on Jan 5, 2011 20:26:01 GMT
Surely O'Kane's subsitution was hugely influenced by firstly already havinf been troubled by cramp, secondly playing on a heavy pitch and thirdly looking absolutely knackered!!??
|
|
|
|
Post by lambethgull on Jan 5, 2011 20:29:23 GMT
Ah. TFF. The home of reasoned debate. Ah. The big city boys sticking together. Eunan, in case you haven`t noticed is improving massively and works well with 4-4-1-1, or 4-5-1 as some like to call it, and works well now in a 4-4-2. Or can`t people see that young players learn and improve with good coaching and masses of natural ability! For goodness sake we know what we saw and it would happen that most people actually believe what they saw, the difference was enormous in the game. You guys must be right though because after all we`re just niave country bumkins that couldn`t possibly have a clue, we must bow to your superiority! I'm tempted to tell you not to be so bloody stupid, but it isn't really fair to ask you to do the impossible. |
|
|
|
Post by aussie on Jan 5, 2011 20:34:31 GMT
For heavens sake - you can't simplify it so much to say that we abandon the 4-4-1-1 system, for a rigid 4-4-2 on the back of a 15 minute spell........when we were 3-1 down, of course it appears more attacking, we were chasing a game gung-ho that, at the time, was all but lost. It was of course right to go 4-4-2 as the 4-4-1-1 wasn't working, that's the beauty of having a Plan B, to change to and try and win or save a game (if you can critisize Buckle for anything it would be fair to say that we should have changed it 10 mins earlier at 1-2) - Buckle was blasted on here by his usual bashers (Terry etc) for not having a Plan B....back in the days that we used to play........yeah you guessed it 4-4-2!!! We all agree O'Kane is our most creative player, we all want him in the starting XI too.........Buckle has hit upon a system that allows that, and i think we are generally playing very attractive and ATTACKING football, it hasn't produced better results yet, but few can argue that generally it looks like it will in the future. Like any system though, some days it wont work or be as effective as others. I`m not argueing with any of that, I even questioned the removal of eunan by asking if he was injured due to the knock he took! My beef is 4-4-1-1 wasn`t working (at home that day), didn`t work and was never gunna work in that game against 4-3-3, especially if ya wingers aren`t firing. The change was essential and worked extremely well, if you think otherwise then I would question which game you were at! I would like to clarify that it is in my opinion that 4-4-1-1 works very well away when on the counter attack and against teams playing certain formations, but every bleedin` game is a bit predictable for opposition managers isn`t it? We don`t need to do homework on Torquay because it`s nailed on they will play 4-4-1-1 with the same personel, even at home! Certain formations counter other formations and certain players fit roles differently, therefore if we study the oppostions formation and learn how their players use that formation then we would do better in some games than we have. Sometimes it`s wiser to play a team to counter other teams strenghts rather than play to your own attacking strengths, it`s a very hard call but all I am trying to say is that the permanent attack theory is obviously flawed. It should be applied in large amounts but in my opinion at the correct times against the correct situations, not all the bleedin` time! I believe it`s called managerial balance, he is young and still has lots to learn, he will learn because he is that way inclined to succeed and driven. One of many reasons I would be very gutted if we lost him! |
|
|
|
Post by jmgull on Jan 5, 2011 20:49:49 GMT
For heavens sake - you can't simplify it so much to say that we abandon the 4-4-1-1 system, for a rigid 4-4-2 on the back of a 15 minute spell........when we were 3-1 down, of course it appears more attacking, we were chasing a game gung-ho that, at the time, was all but lost. It was of course right to go 4-4-2 as the 4-4-1-1 wasn't working, that's the beauty of having a Plan B, to change to and try and win or save a game (if you can critisize Buckle for anything it would be fair to say that we should have changed it 10 mins earlier at 1-2) - Buckle was blasted on here by his usual bashers (Terry etc) for not having a Plan B....back in the days that we used to play........yeah you guessed it 4-4-2!!! We all agree O'Kane is our most creative player, we all want him in the starting XI too.........Buckle has hit upon a system that allows that, and i think we are generally playing very attractive and ATTACKING football, it hasn't produced better results yet, but few can argue that generally it looks like it will in the future. Like any system though, some days it wont work or be as effective as others. I`m not argueing with any of that, I even questioned the removal of eunan by asking if he was injured due to the knock he took! My beef is 4-4-1-1 wasn`t working (at home that day), didn`t work and was never gunna work in that game against 4-3-3, especially if ya wingers aren`t firing. The change was essential and worked extremely well, if you think otherwise then I would question which game you were at! I would like to clarify that it is in my opinion that 4-4-1-1 works very well away when on the counter attack and against teams playing certain formations, but every bleedin` game is a bit predictable for opposition managers isn`t it? We don`t need to do homework on Torquay because it`s nailed on they will play 4-4-1-1 with the same personel, even at home! Certain formations counter other formations and certain players fit roles differently, therefore if we study the oppostions formation and learn how their players use that formation then we would do better in some games than we have. Sometimes it`s wiser to play a team to counter other teams strenghts rather than play to your own attacking strengths, it`s a very hard call but all I am trying to say is that the permanent attack theory is obviously flawed. It should be applied in large amounts but in my opinion at the correct times against the correct situations, not all the bleedin` time! I believe it`s called managerial balance, he is young and still has lots to learn, he will learn because he is that way inclined to succeed and driven. One of many reasons I would be very gutted if we lost him! Fair enough oz. Not sure you can keep changing your system week to week though, these are Lge 2 players we're talking about. You pick the one that suits your team best and run with it...... Sure an opposition manager will know our formation, they'll invariably have 3 or 4 scouts reports on us. It's one thing though to know how we'll play.....you've still got to stop us. Had Hemmings and Zebroski, won their battles with their full backs against Oxford, then they have 4 attacking players to try and stop when you include O'kane and Benyon, that is why I believe that when this sysyem works well, it's very attacking and not easy to stop! |
|
|
|
Post by aussie on Jan 5, 2011 20:50:49 GMT
Ah. The big city boys sticking together. Eunan, in case you haven`t noticed is improving massively and works well with 4-4-1-1, or 4-5-1 as some like to call it, and works well now in a 4-4-2. Or can`t people see that young players learn and improve with good coaching and masses of natural ability! For goodness sake we know what we saw and it would happen that most people actually believe what they saw, the difference was enormous in the game. You guys must be right though because after all we`re just naive country bumkins that couldn't`t possibly have a clue, we must bow to your superiority! I'm tempted to tell you not to be so bloody stupid, but it isn't really fair to ask you to do the impossible. Go on then ignore the smiley, twas just joking with the apparent dig at the inability of TFF members to not be able to debate, ask Chris, he seems to think that if he doesn`t win an argument then it`s because of someone Else's ( several people actually ) inability to debate a point! I used to be like that but I`ve learned you have to try and put your points across rather than have a dig at people. Perhaps it`s better `North of Penn Inn`but then I wouldn`t know, I live in the Bay! Like I said earlier to someone else " I bow to your Superior intellect Sir"! |
|
|
|
Post by aussie on Jan 5, 2011 20:55:01 GMT
I`m not argueing with any of that, I even questioned the removal of eunan by asking if he was injured due to the knock he took! My beef is 4-4-1-1 wasn`t working (at home that day), didn`t work and was never gunna work in that game against 4-3-3, especially if ya wingers aren`t firing. The change was essential and worked extremely well, if you think otherwise then I would question which game you were at! I would like to clarify that it is in my opinion that 4-4-1-1 works very well away when on the counter attack and against teams playing certain formations, but every bleedin` game is a bit predictable for opposition managers isn`t it? We don`t need to do homework on Torquay because it`s nailed on they will play 4-4-1-1 with the same personel, even at home! Certain formations counter other formations and certain players fit roles differently, therefore if we study the oppostions formation and learn how their players use that formation then we would do better in some games than we have. Sometimes it`s wiser to play a team to counter other teams strenghts rather than play to your own attacking strengths, it`s a very hard call but all I am trying to say is that the permanent attack theory is obviously flawed. It should be applied in large amounts but in my opinion at the correct times against the correct situations, not all the bleedin` time! I believe it`s called managerial balance, he is young and still has lots to learn, he will learn because he is that way inclined to succeed and driven. One of many reasons I would be very gutted if we lost him! Fair enough oz. Not sure you can keep changing your system week to week though, these are Lge 2 players we're talking about. You pick the one that suits your team best and run with it...... Sure an opposition manager will know our formation, they'll invariably have 3 or 4 scouts reports on us. It's one thing though to know how we'll play.....you've still got to stop us. Had Hemmings and Zebroski, won their battles with their full backs against Oxford, then they have 4 attacking players to try and stop when you include O'kane and Benyon, that is why I believe that when this sysyem works well, it's very attacking and not easy to stop! When it works it`s fantastic but sometimes it won`t work and we need to work that out! It`s the next step up in a young managers learnin` to grasp these things, we are doing well and I for one am not unhappy but sometimes you just crave a little bit more! |
|
|
|
Post by lambethgull on Jan 5, 2011 21:06:00 GMT
I'm tempted to tell you not to be so bloody stupid, but it isn't really fair to ask you to do the impossible. Go on then ignore the smiley, twas just joking with the apparent dig at the inability of TFF members to not be able to debate, ask Chris, he seems to think that if he doesn`t win an argument then it`s because of someone Else's ( several people actually ) inability to debate a point! I used to be like that but I`ve learned you have to try and put your points across rather than have a dig at people. Perhaps it`s better `North of Penn Inn`but then I wouldn`t know, I live in the Bay! Like I said earlier to someone else " I bow to your Superior intellect Sir"! Why not pick a fight with Chris then instead of making silly comments based on where people live? You're a Eunan fan, and that's fine. You believe 4-4-2 would work better, fine. Why not stick to that instead of airing your prejudices and showing everyone the chip that sits on ypur shoulder? |
|
Dave
TFF member
Posts: 13,081
|
Post by Dave on Jan 5, 2011 23:00:50 GMT
Some excellent debate on this thread and its very clear we all have our own views on what formation Paul Buckle should start the games at home and away with. Having read the thread again and giving everything said a bit more thought; I have come to the following conclusion.
Paul Buckle is going to put out on the pitch his eleven best players that he believes will win the match. We all know Bucks only really wants his teams to win games and never looks to just try and not lose games or draw them. He therefore is going to play the formation that those players are best suited too and if playing to their best form, will produce the most for the team.
It’s been suggested that all the other teams will know how we are going to know the formation we are going to play and yes that would be true. They just like us will have had us watched and would know who the players are we have, that need to be watched and taken care off. In other words where the danger is most likely to come from.
I have always believed any team should just play its own game and it’s up to the other team to try and stop them, only if the other team is successful in doing that should plan B be brought into action.
It could be argued that Zebs was very well looked after by the Oxford players, as soon as the ball went near him they had two players onto him, so it was clear they saw him as a major threat and one that needed to taken care off. When a player is doubled up in that way, then it has to leave more space elsewhere on the pitch and maybe we failed to find that space or take real advantage of it.
As I said first time I saw Hemmings play and I do feel he would have done so much better if he had just stuck to his game and not kept wanting to get into a personal scrape with their right back. We did create much more when we did go to 4-4-2, but I have to agree with Justin we were going all out to get back into the game and that made it look like it was working better than the system we started with. It was only expected the crowd noise was going to rise when we got the second goal and then the third. Mind you it went bloody quite when they went and got their forth.
|
|
|
|
Post by alunmeerkat on Jan 6, 2011 12:23:46 GMT
Chris - were you at the match if you were not then you cannot really see how the game changed when we went to 4-4-2. Its not a question of understanding anything and its not rocket science either.
Benyon has had his critics but if there is a better striker in League 2 on current form then I would like to see him. Its not really a question of where to accomodate O'Kane in the team its about results.
Would we have been more effective with Kee alongside Benyon and two wingers in their proper positions against Oxford?
On the evidence of my own eyes and the last quarter of an hour I would say there is absolutely no doubt about it.
How many games have we actually won with O'Kane playing at the expense of leaving out a striker - I don't reckon its that many.
Oxford's defence could hardly cope with Benyon when he was up top by himself. When Kee joined him they were in disarray.
We were extremely unlucky not to win the game in the end in my view - on chances created when we went 4-4-2 you would have to say that our starting formation was a missedopportunity to get three points.
|
|
- you can't simplify it so much to say that we abandon the 4-4-1-1 system, for a rigid 4-4-2 on the back of a 15 minute spell........when we were 3-1 down, of course it appears more attacking, we were chasing a game gung-ho that, at the time, was all but lost.
