Brian cost us --> Brian is learning... or is he?

[Victor Meldrew]

Wycombe in the 5 home games in the back end of last season starting with Barnsley and then in order Plymouth,Sheff Wed, Derby and Coventry we scored 15 goals playing 2 up-front at precisely 3 goals per game. I'd say that shows that playing 2 upfront works.

And we scored 10 goals in the last 2 home matches playing only one up front. We can all pick sequences that show what we want them to show, but the simple fact is that 1 up front DID work last season.

And I say again "last season".

[PEARCEY]

Wycombe in the 5 home games in the back end of last season starting with Barnsley and then in order Plymouth,Sheff Wed, Derby and Coventry we scored 15 goals playing 2 up-front at precisely 3 goals per game. I'd say that shows that playing 2 upfront works.

And we scored 10 goals in the last 2 home matches playing only one up front. We can all pick sequences that show what we want them to show, but the simple fact is that 1 up front DID work last season.

I'm not picking sequences merely referring to your back end of the season comment....and pointing out how well we did with 2 upfront.
We are currently playing 1 up-front and averaging 1 goal a game as opposed to an average of 3 a game the last time we played a sequence of games with 2 upfront.

[RobRoyal]

It's not 4-5-1 HTH

Exactly. We don't play 5 across the midfield.

If people can't spot that when at the match then I don't know where they looking.

This is the same formation that we averaged nearly 3 home goals per game using at the back end of last season.

Oh and it's not 4-5-1.

This.

4-2-3-1 is comfortably the most successful formation in football currently. Those who think that using a single central front-man is necessarily a defensive move are stuck in the past.

[Woodcote Royal]

I took a massive helping of humble pie after Brian did so well for us last season.

I know it's early this season and as ever Madejski is being as helpful as a haemorrhoid so we can't judge Brian too harshly just yet

but..

WTF was Brian doing starting 4-5-1 at home with the almighty Long leading our attack in the first place. And then if that wasn't bad enough, 1-1 at home with 20 mins to go WTF was he doing sticking with the tried and utterly-failed (in this match) and totally inappropriate (when trying to clinch a win) 4-5-1 formation????? As far as I could see it certainly wasn't 4-3-3 as the wingers were sitting too deep and Siggy never got forward enough to provide anything in the hole so it seemed like we were trying to stick with a point.

Feds' blunder of course gifted them the point but we didn't deserve any more than a draw with our gutless, toothless 4-5-1 to the death. Much as I disliked BR, at least he would have the balls to change formation mid-game when it was needed.

Brian - you may have had an extended honeymoon half-a-season but playing 4-5-1 with 1-1 at home will NOT get you my vote of confidence. SORT IT OUT.

Post of the season Mrs Federici

PS. If only Karacan had not been selected his back would not have obstructed hubbies clearance and utimately cost us victory . Sort it Brian

[Ian Royal]

The system works, but only if we use it correctly. The problem is if you're a little shy of confidence it's easy to just lump the ball forward bypassing our strengths. And easy to not take risks as the support players and so sit a little deeper.

Long may have done well to win headers against the centrebacks, but either Sig / McAnuff / Kebe need to be running on for knockdowns / flick ons, or we need to play it on the deck through midfield.

Starting with Long is a big mistake IMO. He's ok in a team that's found it's feet and having worked up a head of desire and need to prove himself. But he isn't a player to start the season with. Church is probably best suited to the formation for me, but has a problem with overthinking his shots and not being instinctive enough. Hunt is a better finisher, but I'm not sure how suited to the formation he is.

The fact is our match winners are Sigurdsson, Kebe & McAnuff. To play them all we need to play 4-2-3-1 (4-5-1 for those who want to keep it ultra simple). Unless we want to have a totally powderpuff midfield that would get overrun by a Theale Primary XI.

[Ian Royal]

Wycombe in the 5 home games in the back end of last season starting with Barnsley and then in order Plymouth,Sheff Wed, Derby and Coventry we scored 15 goals playing 2 up-front at precisely 3 goals per game. I'd say that shows that playing 2 upfront works.

And we scored 10 goals in the last 2 home matches playing only one up front. We can all pick sequences that show what we want them to show, but the simple fact is that 1 up front DID work last season.

I'm not picking sequences merely referring to your back end of the season comment....and pointing out how well we did with 2 upfront.
We are currently playing 1 up-front and averaging 1 goal a game as opposed to an average of 3 a game the last time we played a sequence of games with 2 upfront.

And Wycombe has pointed out we did plenty good with one upfront using this system last season.

It's not the system that's faulty. It's the quality of play at this time.

[SLAMMED]

Also Why the feck is LOLong still playing?? He's god awful. I'd rather have let him go than Rasiak.

This. Fed up with Long playing on the wing when he's supposed to be our only striker up front. He should be in the middle waiting for the ball, not going out and getting the ball himself.

[Sarah Star]

Yes, why does he seem to prefer playing down the wing? Is he out of position or was he told to play like that?

[Ian Royal]

Strikers will go where they can to find space. It's not a problem having him go wide, providing a winger and midfielder break into the box.

[handbags_harris]

People can berate the system we have played as much as they like, but similar systems serve many other clubs extremely well and the fact remains that we still create chances utilising this system. By that token I'd say it's not the system that isn't working, it's the finishing. Quite frankly I'm not worried. My feeling to this thread, and in particular the thread's opening gambit, is very much one of overreaction.

[under the tin]

I sit in the north stand.
I saw countless wins in the air from Long following long kicks. but the trouble was that the supporting players were invariably behind the knock ons.
If you are going to play this way, you need a suppoerting forward player like Church/Hunt to feed off of them.
If you want to play it through the midfield, don't knock it up, play it through the team.
Simples.

[brendywendy]

Nhunt did exactly the same when he came on.probably to drag defenders out of position and allow kebe,sig and jobi in to find the holes. But as with most of our problems we dont play to fit the players.its not longs fault that every header went to noone.

[under the tin]

we dont play to fit the players.its not longs fault that every header went to noone.

Zatley, Brendy

[SLAMMED]

Strikers will go where they can to find space. It's not a problem having him go wide, providing a winger and midfielder break into the box.

Which they don't.

How about the wingers stay on the wing, and the striker stays up front? Or am I asking too much?

[Ian Royal]

Strikers will go where they can to find space. It's not a problem having him go wide, providing a winger and midfielder break into the box.

Which they don't.

How about the wingers stay on the wing, and the striker stays up front? Or am I asking too much?

You're asking for a very simple and predicatable way of playing. If the wingers and strikers (and midfielders) stay where they start, then you never have more than one (or two if you're playing 4-4-2) in the box. There's no one dragging defenders out of position and leaving space for others to exploit. It's totally reliant on individuals beating their marker somehow.

You're criticising the striker, for the failings of the defenders, wingers and midfielders who should be getting in postion to receive the striker's crosses / flick ons / knock downs. Or not playing the long balls to his head or into the channels in the first place.

[PlasticRoyale]

I made a bet with myself that Royalee started this thread when i first logged on.

Imagine my surprise to find he's not even on the thread

[sheshnu]

Most of the best teams (& coaches!) in the world play with "one up". I don't think that necessarily demonstrates it's a bad formation to play in.

[Whore Jackie]

I sit in the north stand.
I saw countless wins in the air from Long following long kicks. but the trouble was that the supporting players were invariably behind the knock ons.
If you are going to play this way, you need a suppoerting forward player like Church/Hunt to feed off of them.
If you want to play it through the midfield, don't knock it up, play it through the team.
Simples.

That was Long's biggest plus point yesterday. He won the majority of headers and no-one gambled on him doing so. You've got to have players looking for that or play a different system with Hunt because that's not his forté.

[Barry the bird boggler]

It's not 4-5-1 HTH

It's whatever you want it to be as long as it doesn't end in 2

[The Real Sandhurst Royal]

Whore Jackie wrote:

That was Long's biggest plus point yesterday. He won the majority of headers and no-one gambled on him doing so

Long won the headers but in a 4-5-1 system they will come to nothing as the formation is not set right for the flick or touch on.

4-4-2 is required if we are going to continue to play the long ball.