20/08/22 - L1: OUFC v Morecambe

[uptheus]

What’s Jamie Hanson up to these days?

On a treatment table somewhere with Winnall!

 

[Osei Yaw]

I know we haven't played it before so it's not on the table, but I'd like the old 4-1-2-1-2:

McGinty

Long
Moore
Findlay
Brown

McGuane

Brannagan
Henry

Bodin

Taylor
Joseph

If Gorrin is fit then have him at the base, bench Henry and move McGuane forward. Let Joseph and Taylor move their centre backs round and Bodin and Brannagan and McGuane/Henry drop into the spaces.

Then lose 1-0

 

[DevilsAvocado]

I know we haven't played it before so it's not on the table, but I'd like the old 4-1-2-1-2:

McGinty

Long
Moore
Findlay
Brown

McGuane

Brannagan
Henry

Bodin

Taylor
Joseph

If Gorrin is fit then have him at the base, bench Henry and move McGuane forward. Let Joseph and Taylor move their centre backs round and Bodin and Brannagan and McGuane/Henry drop into the spaces.

Then lose 1-0

We have a couple of times, thats basically a 4-4-2 diamond.

 

[RgYellows]

Good stats, i guess that there is a reason that through balls are attempted only 2% of the time though, thats because the center is
sewn up

To me, this is effectively saying that we should attack in the ineffective way the opposition want us to attack, because they won't try as hard to stop that. I don't like that reasoning.

Maybe theres a reason some things appear in the data, but there's also an opportunity to try and learn from it and improve - maybe by trying to excel in the most dangerous sort of attacks that are being under-utilised by the competition.

At the highest level of the game, Man City do this with their focus on cut-backs which was also driven by a realisation that they were a very effective way of scoring for how little they tended to be used.

when you are playing a 4-4-2D you dont have many options other than go centrally, its too telegraphed.

Given that all professional clubs use scouting, any preferred method of attacking will be well-known to the opposition.

Anyone who watched us play Bristol will know we plan to overhit crosses and hope it all works out, it just doesn't take much of a game plan to stop it.

To offer a different interpretation of the agreed facts: if central attacks are more profitable, and teams prioritise defending against central attacks, a formation that offers us more threat centrally than other teams has merit.

3-5-2 actually has less players responsible for providing width than the 4-3-3 or 4-2-3-1, the reason we looked so much more effective was the second (central) striker.

I appreciate that a diamond is taking it to the extreme - it needs a proper DM who can effectively play CB to avoid the scenario you depict.

Ultimately, I don't think many (any?) teams at this level execute any tactical plans to the level where a formation is the be-all and end-all. In fact, I don't know that the formation is ever the be-all and end-all. Formation analysis might just be a big con.

I do think that the way we go about trying to score will have a big bearing on success, and the numbers show that we should avoid relying on crosses. The link I shared was fairly damning, for example:

"Only one goal will be scored from crosses about every 40 attempts into Zone 17, even fewer as a percentage of total crosses when you consider all those that don’t make it into Zone 17"

"While there are ways to improve crossing efficiency, it’s typically not the best option and often results in a clearance and usually results in losing possession"

"Most crossing requires more volume than other types of passes in the Progressive Pass category which are more efficient. Teams usually end up losing possession after crossing, particularly in the air".

All of these would pretty much contradict the statement I challenged, which was that it was "easier to defend centrally than it is to deal with crosses into the box".

 

[m]

To me, this is effectively saying that we should attack in the ineffective way the opposition want us to attack, because they won't try as hard to stop that. I don't like that reasoning.

Maybe theres a reason some things appear in the data, but there's also an opportunity to try and learn from it and improve - maybe by trying to excel in the most dangerous sort of attacks that are being under-utilised by the competition.

At the highest level of the game, Man City do this with their focus on cut-backs which was also driven by a realisation that they were a very effective way of scoring for how little they tended to be used.


Given that all professional clubs use scouting, any preferred method of attacking will be well-known to the opposition.

Anyone who watched us play Bristol will know we plan to overhit crosses and hope it all works out, it just doesn't take much of a game plan to stop it.

To offer a different interpretation of the agreed facts: if central attacks are more profitable, and teams prioritise defending against central attacks, a formation that offers us more threat centrally than other teams has merit.

3-5-2 actually has less players responsible for providing width than the 4-3-3 or 4-2-3-1, the reason we looked so much more effective was the second (central) striker.

I appreciate that a diamond is taking it to the extreme - it needs a proper DM who can effectively play CB to avoid the scenario you depict.

Ultimately, I don't think many (any?) teams at this level execute any tactical plans to the level where a formation is the be-all and end-all. In fact, I don't know that the formation is ever the be-all and end-all. Formation analysis might just be a big con.

I do think that the way we go about trying to score will have a big bearing on success, and the numbers show that we should avoid relying on crosses. The link I shared was fairly damning, for example:

"Only one goal will be scored from crosses about every 40 attempts into Zone 17, even fewer as a percentage of total crosses when you consider all those that don’t make it into Zone 17"

"While there are ways to improve crossing efficiency, it’s typically not the best option and often results in a clearance and usually results in losing possession"

"Most crossing requires more volume than other types of passes in the Progressive Pass category which are more efficient. Teams usually end up losing possession after crossing, particularly in the air".

All of these would pretty much contradict the statement I challenged, which was that it was "easier to defend centrally than it is to deal with crosses into the box".

Zone 17, is that Chesham? Will my Oyster Card get me there?

 

[Paul Cannell]

I think Zone 17 is Princes Risborough and you need a Progressive Pass to go there.

 

[uptheus]

I think Zone 17 is Princes Risborough and you need a Progressive Pass to go there.

Is it as hard to get into as Area 51?

 

[m]

Is it as hard to get into as Area 51?

With Bodin and Henry starting on the wings, yes.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Morning,

Appreciate the time spent in answering and the use of stats, agree with a lot but not everything.

To me, this is effectively saying that we should attack in the ineffective way the opposition want us to attack, because they won't try as hard to stop that. I don't like that reasoning.

Thats not what i`m saying, i`m all for a mixed approach, long, short, center, wide, keep them guessing, if the center is sewn up use the wings,
work the ball to the other wing with pace in an effort to destabilise the defence, playing with a diamond restricts us to playing centrally, its
too one dimensional unless our LB ( Its always the LB ) becomes a winger which in turn leaves us very exposed when we lose posession.

This is why i think its not a good deal and why the odds are against us, in these conditions i think its easier to defend centrally when you
know whats coming and everyone is set up to defend as opposed to dealing with crosses, etc when being hit on the counter, Wimbledon
and Bolton away last season being 2 examples.

I appreciate that i`m changing the goalposts and being more OUFC specific than the stats that you provided but i was just saying why i
didnt want to see us play with the diamond, not at home on a large pitch that can leave huge gaps in front of a defence that knows whats
coming. Having said that, the stats don`t lie and i will concede on my original quote.

Tbf, we did win one game last season ( can`t remember which one ) where we played with a wide diamond, so i guess its not all bad.

3-5-2 actually has less players responsible for providing width than the 4-3-3 or 4-2-3-1, the reason we looked so much more effective was the second (central) striker.

3-5-2 feels like a good balance for a KR team, he can play wingers as wing backs for all i care as long as he provides some cover
in defence, that extra CB will give the wingers license to roam without the worry of being caught out of position as much, it also
leaves us enough in the middle to play centrally and of course the added bonus of 2 up top is something i would like to see more
of, just not in a diamond.

 

[bazzer9461]

Well no new striker and no new FB’s the recruitment team need to jog in and bring in someone who can recruit.
Stockton could be back hope our stagnant defence can cope.
How KR partners MT as he had been isolated no support and will not score while he’s got strapping 6ft plus CB’s marking him.

 

[SteMerritt]

the recruitment team need to jog in

They would, but they pulled their hamstring last week and are sidelined for 2 months.

 

[Daviddidcotexile]

After giving up on the KR ramble of bad luck I am struggling to get on the positive bus at the moment. Surely even KR will realise that 2 up front, Gorrin in front of the defence with MM and CM more forward is a jigsaw that has promise. Given up on Brown starting instead of Seddon. Can't even think of a sensible reason why not ! Alternatively let's go Long Moore Findlay in a back 3 with Henry, Cam Gorrin and McGuane in front and Joseph Taylor and Goodram up top.

 

[MC Yellow]

After giving up on the KR ramble of bad luck I am struggling to get on the positive bus at the moment. Surely even KR will realise that 2 up front, Gorrin in front of the defence with MM and CM more forward is a jigsaw that has promise. Given up on Brown starting instead of Seddon. Can't even think of a sensible reason why not ! Alternatively let's go Long Moore Findlay in a back 3 with Henry, Cam Gorrin and McGuane in front and Joseph Taylor and Goodram up top.

Goodrham.

 

[mickbrownsconscience]

Could Jones not play RWB?

 

[tonyw]

Could Jones not play RWB?

Can Jones play at all, at the moment? You have to suspect that KR doesn't think so, given how little he's been used through the first four league games!

 

[RgYellows]

Can Jones play at all, at the moment? You have to suspect that KR doesn't think so, given how little he's been used through the first four league games!

I'm confused, should we be rushing the injury prone wingers back or phasing them in?

 

[jambon46]

Can Jones play at all, at the moment? You have to suspect that KR doesn't think so, given how little he's been used through the first four league games!

To be fair Jones is way off from starting, getting him up to pace would be priority.

 

[bazzer9461]

I'm confused, should we be rushing the injury prone wingers back or phasing them in?

I want to know why he was named on the bench last Tuesday if he is injured?

 

[RgYellows]

I want to know why he was named on the bench last Tuesday if he is injured?

Is he injured?

Maybe the plan is to give him 5-20 minutes if we ever find ourselves winning comfortably.

Not like he robbed anyone of a place is it.

 

[jambon46]

I want to know why he was named on the bench last Tuesday if he is injured?

I don't think he's injured Baz, just not played much so needs to get up to speed