| Ollie speaks at last on 16:27 - May 24 with 2166 views | daveB |
| Ollie speaks at last on 16:03 - May 24 by Dando |
Pav was very good most of last season, I remember even rival fans raving about how good he looked. Not saying player of the year, but must have done well to earn a contract. He was full of confidence bombing down the wing, yet we held him back from his strengths and dented his confidence to the point he couldnt beat a man anymore.
Freeman had an excellent year, but he was also excellent for the short time we had him last year anyway.
Sylla did have injuries, but when was fit would often get overlooked by Washington who was shocking. I agree wouldnt have maybe done much better than Smith, but Im certain he would have done more than Washington.
I agree that not every one of the players mentioned could play at the same time, but if someone is playing well they should keep their place, simple as that. To me, it felt like Holloway was trying to make everyone happy by giving them all even amounts of game time, yet this is demotivating for those who play well and are then dropped. It was almost like he was trying to prove that players could be dropped but still react well to it. I don't personally think that helped at all.
Samuel was often coming off the bench and playing really well, yet barely got a look in. Once he did, up front alone as far as a I remember. I'm not sure who benefits from that? If anything, it destroys his confidence.
Overall, I just wish he stuck with the team/players who were performing well, and stuck with it - even if that did mean leaving others out. Surely you should earn your way into the team, and once you get there should be rewarded with keeping your place if you perform, not dropping them just to make others happy.
Thats what frustrated me about Holloway, as clearly he could get the team playing some great football when he played to our strengths, but tinkering was where he shot himself in the foot [Post edited 24 May 2018 16:04]
|
I know what you mean about keeping the same side, I think from Holloway's point of view if he did that then Chair and Samuel wouldn't have played during the run in and Eze wouldn't have been as involved, he tried to give them all a chance and to do that you can't pick a settled side.
I know I'm on my own with Pawel as he is highly rated, I just haven't seen this player so many talk about, he's had the odd good game but have rarely seen him beat men and bomb down the wing either at right wing, left wing or as a wing back. I know he could have played as a winger all season and maybe it could have worked but would have been at the expense of Freeman who seemed to struggle when we switched formation. Over the season Holloway was pragmatic over it seeing Freeman as the more effective player so build team to get best from him rather than Pawel. |  | |  |
| Ollie speaks at last on 16:43 - May 24 with 2133 views | CliveWilsonSaid |
| Ollie speaks at last on 16:03 - May 24 by Dando |
Pav was very good most of last season, I remember even rival fans raving about how good he looked. Not saying player of the year, but must have done well to earn a contract. He was full of confidence bombing down the wing, yet we held him back from his strengths and dented his confidence to the point he couldnt beat a man anymore.
Freeman had an excellent year, but he was also excellent for the short time we had him last year anyway.
Sylla did have injuries, but when was fit would often get overlooked by Washington who was shocking. I agree wouldnt have maybe done much better than Smith, but Im certain he would have done more than Washington.
I agree that not every one of the players mentioned could play at the same time, but if someone is playing well they should keep their place, simple as that. To me, it felt like Holloway was trying to make everyone happy by giving them all even amounts of game time, yet this is demotivating for those who play well and are then dropped. It was almost like he was trying to prove that players could be dropped but still react well to it. I don't personally think that helped at all.
Samuel was often coming off the bench and playing really well, yet barely got a look in. Once he did, up front alone as far as a I remember. I'm not sure who benefits from that? If anything, it destroys his confidence.
Overall, I just wish he stuck with the team/players who were performing well, and stuck with it - even if that did mean leaving others out. Surely you should earn your way into the team, and once you get there should be rewarded with keeping your place if you perform, not dropping them just to make others happy.
Thats what frustrated me about Holloway, as clearly he could get the team playing some great football when he played to our strengths, but tinkering was where he shot himself in the foot [Post edited 24 May 2018 16:04]
|
Well Dando I must say you have a very persuasive writing style!
A few points.
Yes Pav was off the boil for a lot of the season but there could have been many reasons for this. Your view is basically conjecture. Someone had to play that position and unfortunately for Pav he’s half decent at it and probably the best choice until Furlong came to the fore.
Sylla is not the answer! Washington isn’t either! I hope they both bang in 20 goals next season..
Samuel doesn’t look like a player whose had his confidence destroyed to me. I think they tried him up front once and it didn’t work. That’s all no big drama. On the whole him and our other young players are being managed very well I think.
Mcclaren will get my support as they all do although as Dave says I wish him luck. He’ll need it! |  |
| |
| Ollie speaks at last on 17:12 - May 24 with 2090 views | Dando |
| Ollie speaks at last on 16:43 - May 24 by CliveWilsonSaid |
Well Dando I must say you have a very persuasive writing style!
A few points.
Yes Pav was off the boil for a lot of the season but there could have been many reasons for this. Your view is basically conjecture. Someone had to play that position and unfortunately for Pav he’s half decent at it and probably the best choice until Furlong came to the fore.
Sylla is not the answer! Washington isn’t either! I hope they both bang in 20 goals next season..
Samuel doesn’t look like a player whose had his confidence destroyed to me. I think they tried him up front once and it didn’t work. That’s all no big drama. On the whole him and our other young players are being managed very well I think.
Mcclaren will get my support as they all do although as Dave says I wish him luck. He’ll need it! |
I think that my point though, someone "had" to play in that position. Both Pav and Bidwell were the unfortunate ones to play in these positions, and it was all to accommodate the middle 3. I Think later in the season when we changed to 4 at the back, we proved that we could still fit the midfield 3 into the side, as well as getting Bidwell and Pav into their positions where they looked more comfortable and knew their roles. Why get an an "ok" performance out of two players, who could add so much more in their natural roles. Wasnt Bidwell Captain for Brentford at left back, and Pav a right winger for his country?
I'm not trying to win an argument, but for me these were clearly holding us back. We didn't have the players for 5 at the back, but we had several options for the wings. I know our season started well with that formation, but I think this was more down to our incredible fitness advantage over others in the first few weeks. Once other teams caught up, it wasn't really working anymore and we were found out.
I agree Sylla not the answer either, and hopefully up front we can do some business somehow and resolve it. Oteh looked good, so was a bit disappointing he didn't get more of a run up front. Again for me, it didnt help when we stuck Lynch up front that time to help him out. Thats pretty humiliating on the player.
I have a lot of excitement going into the season knowing there is a lot of genuine young talent coming through, and I really do think that Mcclaren can get a lot out of them, just like he did at Derby but maybe I am wrong.
Not going to be an easy job though, as its clear there is a divide right down the middle with the Ollie in and out crowd. We need a positive start, otherwise he will be in for a tough ride! |  | | |
| Ollie speaks at last on 17:54 - May 24 with 2057 views | daveB |
| Ollie speaks at last on 17:12 - May 24 by Dando |
I think that my point though, someone "had" to play in that position. Both Pav and Bidwell were the unfortunate ones to play in these positions, and it was all to accommodate the middle 3. I Think later in the season when we changed to 4 at the back, we proved that we could still fit the midfield 3 into the side, as well as getting Bidwell and Pav into their positions where they looked more comfortable and knew their roles. Why get an an "ok" performance out of two players, who could add so much more in their natural roles. Wasnt Bidwell Captain for Brentford at left back, and Pav a right winger for his country?
I'm not trying to win an argument, but for me these were clearly holding us back. We didn't have the players for 5 at the back, but we had several options for the wings. I know our season started well with that formation, but I think this was more down to our incredible fitness advantage over others in the first few weeks. Once other teams caught up, it wasn't really working anymore and we were found out.
I agree Sylla not the answer either, and hopefully up front we can do some business somehow and resolve it. Oteh looked good, so was a bit disappointing he didn't get more of a run up front. Again for me, it didnt help when we stuck Lynch up front that time to help him out. Thats pretty humiliating on the player.
I have a lot of excitement going into the season knowing there is a lot of genuine young talent coming through, and I really do think that Mcclaren can get a lot out of them, just like he did at Derby but maybe I am wrong.
Not going to be an easy job though, as its clear there is a divide right down the middle with the Ollie in and out crowd. We need a positive start, otherwise he will be in for a tough ride! |
With thew switch to play the 3 in the middle Freeman usually had to go wide on the left which is why Holloway didn't do that from the start of the season as it takes away our biggest threat. Having Bidwell be average as a wing back was no different to him being average at full back so no real loss. | | | |
| Ollie speaks at last on 17:59 - May 24 with 2051 views | davman |
| Ollie speaks at last on 16:19 - May 24 by Silverfoxqpr |
Pretty sure I'm right in saying there was just the one change from the Villa away match going into the next at Fulham. As has been well documented on here they were two of the best away performances of the season. Next game however was Reading away where there were five unforced changes to the side, this included the ineffectual Washington who hadn't previously had a look in suddenly finding himself in the starting line up again. Unsurprisingly three of the players dropped for the Reading match who had played against AV and Fulham were subsequently subbed on. I'm sure there are dozens of other examples but THIS is why so many were so frustrated with Oliie at times, myself included. Just plain daft. |
Good points,but the Reading game is a bad example. We may have lost, but I have no idea how; it was a great performance and we deserved so much more... |  |
| |
| Ollie speaks at last on 06:56 - May 25 with 1873 views | francisbowles |
I don't get the issue with sticking Lynch up front for the last 10 mins or so when we are chasing a game. Surely, it is a legitimate tactic to stick an extra big man in the attack and give tired defenders a new problem to get to grips with. | | | |
| Ollie speaks at last on 07:09 - May 25 with 1864 views | qprd |
| Ollie speaks at last on 14:15 - May 23 by Northernr |
Didn't look lost to me - winning games, and winning them well, with the season over and nothing to play for. Surely if they were sick of him and wanted him out it would have been cue on the rack and we wouldn't have been doing things like sticking four through Norwich and Sheff Wed with nothing riding on it. |
To be fair, this was largely due to the composition of the squad.
Guys like Furlong, Manning, Chair, Eze, Smyth, Oteh, Kakay all wanted to get minutes and prove themselves. They were going to work hard regardless of who the manager is.
Experienced pros like Mass and Pav were playing for World Cup spots
And then the rest of the team is just made up of decent hard-working blokes like Ned, Bidwell, Smith, Cousins, Scowen, Freeman, Washington. Ollie deserves some of the credit here with his recent recruitment.
The wasters were either "injured" (Lynch), shipped away in January (Yeni, Goss) or in the dog house (JET)
Under these circumstances, its hard to really say how good or bad he was with the dressing room | | | |
| Ollie speaks at last on 08:15 - May 25 with 1820 views | Hunterhoop |
| Ollie speaks at last on 17:54 - May 24 by daveB |
With thew switch to play the 3 in the middle Freeman usually had to go wide on the left which is why Holloway didn't do that from the start of the season as it takes away our biggest threat. Having Bidwell be average as a wing back was no different to him being average at full back so no real loss. |
I don't think that was the case, Dave. 433/451 allowed us to play two attacking wingers either side of Smith or Sylla, with the same Scowongoman three in midfield.
The 352 system was all about accommodating Washington as a second genuine forward.
Freeman was only impacted when Eze came on the scene, not because of the change in formation but that Exe's best position is attacking central midfield, but that's where Freeman was playing. In certain games, Eze played central and Freeman was put out wide as one of the two attacking wingers supporting Smith/Sylla. He was much less effective out there, but it wasn't the system or anything to do with Pav; it was about accommodating Eze.
You can easily play 433, with Smyth and Pav either side of Smith and that central midfield 3. We get genuine width, keep our strength in central midfield, and all we lose is Washington. As long as the other winger comes in off his flank when the ball is crossed from the other wing, and Freeman and Luongo break into the box to support the big man, we'll still get men around Smith and score goals. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Ollie speaks at last on 08:44 - May 25 with 1775 views | WestbourneR |
daveB mate - one day you're going to have let it go an accept you lost that argument. 3 at the back was no good for us - the results and particularly the performances improved greatly after the switch to a 4. It was as clear as day.
Accept you were wrong, let it gooooo.
This is coming from a man who argued until he was red in the face that Mark Hughes was a brilliant manager. I was very very very wrong. It happens to all of us. |  |
| |
| Ollie speaks at last on 10:10 - May 25 with 1693 views | daveB |
| Ollie speaks at last on 08:44 - May 25 by WestbourneR |
daveB mate - one day you're going to have let it go an accept you lost that argument. 3 at the back was no good for us - the results and particularly the performances improved greatly after the switch to a 4. It was as clear as day.
Accept you were wrong, let it gooooo.
This is coming from a man who argued until he was red in the face that Mark Hughes was a brilliant manager. I was very very very wrong. It happens to all of us. |
Perhaps you can accept I have a different opinion to yourself. I thought performances at home improved when we switched to a back 4 which was partly due to change of system and partly due to playing some dreadful teams at home in the run in with some exciting young players. Results didn't change hugely either, said earlier on this thread we got 17 points out of 33 after the change, the 11 games before that we got 13 out of 33 so not a huge difference really. That was pretty much what we did all season regardless of the formation, we won at home lost away | | | |
| Ollie speaks at last on 10:12 - May 25 with 1687 views | TW_R |
| Ollie speaks at last on 14:23 - May 24 by daveB |
being pedantic Huill and Sunderland may be basket cases but they did finish higher than us the previous season.
I felt a year ago the squad was good enough for 14th - 18th, the lack of goals in the team was the main reason for that. Looking at us now for next season I still think the same, we'll do well to finish higher than 14th.
I think Sheff Utd have a better squad than us but the main difference between them and us was goals, they had a lot more goals in attack than we did, same with Millwall which was a far bigger factor than the managers. Also a lot less pressure on promoted sides with less expectations so usually when you go up to the Championship you fare well the first year then struggle after that.
If you only look at the league table then I'd agree he didn't make massive progress but that's why stats never really tell the whole story. If you look a where the club was a year ago compared to where we are now I think progress has been made, some players have improved and the squad looks a lot stronger now than it did a year ago despite it still needing improving in some areas.
Hopefully McClaren can build on that and progress further next season but it won't be easy to replicate this season let alone improve on it without several new players that we can't afford. |
"I think Sheff Utd have a better squad than us but the main difference between them and us was goals, they had a lot more goals in attack than we did, same with Millwall which was a far bigger factor than the managers."
Dave - this may surprise you but we scored more goals than Millwall (and Preston for that matter) and scored 4 fewer than Sheff Utd. Although more goals would be good no one seems to be mentioning how shockingly poor our defence was. There were only 4 teams that conceded more goals than us last season and they finished in the bottom 4 places.
I guess I'm a bit old-school, but if I were McClaren I would look to get us sorted at the back first. Hull finished below us and scored 70 goals (more than Cardiff and 'Boro) which should have seen them finish in the top 6. |  | | |
| Ollie speaks at last on 10:21 - May 25 with 1673 views | daveB |
| Ollie speaks at last on 08:15 - May 25 by Hunterhoop |
I don't think that was the case, Dave. 433/451 allowed us to play two attacking wingers either side of Smith or Sylla, with the same Scowongoman three in midfield.
The 352 system was all about accommodating Washington as a second genuine forward.
Freeman was only impacted when Eze came on the scene, not because of the change in formation but that Exe's best position is attacking central midfield, but that's where Freeman was playing. In certain games, Eze played central and Freeman was put out wide as one of the two attacking wingers supporting Smith/Sylla. He was much less effective out there, but it wasn't the system or anything to do with Pav; it was about accommodating Eze.
You can easily play 433, with Smyth and Pav either side of Smith and that central midfield 3. We get genuine width, keep our strength in central midfield, and all we lose is Washington. As long as the other winger comes in off his flank when the ball is crossed from the other wing, and Freeman and Luongo break into the box to support the big man, we'll still get men around Smith and score goals. |
I agree we can play 2 wingers in a 4-3-3 but not sure we did that all the time, in quite a few games we had Freeman and Manning wide so ended up with a narrow midfield and full backs providing the width so wasn't hugely different to what we were doing before but without a second forward.
My issue with a 4-3-3 will always be you don't get enough bodies in the box which is what happened with JFH and for a lot of the time under Redknapp so it turns into a 4-5-1.. That can be fixed by playing Eze or Freeman off the main striker in more of a 4-2-3-1 but again relies on Eze or Freeman getting beyond the striker which isn't really their game and the wide players coming in to support the forward as Routledge and Ephraim used to do but again that leaves you narrow again needing full backs to provide width.
Any formation you pick has problems, I just think the stick Holloway gets for sticking to 3-5-2 for so long was unfair, fans were screaming for him to stick to a formation last summer then moaned when he did stick to one. 3-5-2 wasn't perfect and certainly didn't provide us with width from wingers or get the best out of the full backs but it wasn't terrible and would have been interesting to have seen the reaction if we had started last season with what was a tough start on paper playing a wide open 4-3-3 with 2 out and out wingers, I'm not convinced we'd have done as well as we did with a more narrow solid team especially at home. | | | |
| Ollie speaks at last on 10:24 - May 25 with 1667 views | daveB |
| Ollie speaks at last on 10:12 - May 25 by TW_R |
"I think Sheff Utd have a better squad than us but the main difference between them and us was goals, they had a lot more goals in attack than we did, same with Millwall which was a far bigger factor than the managers."
Dave - this may surprise you but we scored more goals than Millwall (and Preston for that matter) and scored 4 fewer than Sheff Utd. Although more goals would be good no one seems to be mentioning how shockingly poor our defence was. There were only 4 teams that conceded more goals than us last season and they finished in the bottom 4 places.
I guess I'm a bit old-school, but if I were McClaren I would look to get us sorted at the back first. Hull finished below us and scored 70 goals (more than Cardiff and 'Boro) which should have seen them finish in the top 6. |
Genuinely am surprised by that, didn't think we scored anything like the number of goals they did. Would agree the defence was a big problem I think injuries played a big part in that but certainly away from home we are far too easy to score against and that has to improve | | | |
| Ollie speaks at last on 10:27 - May 25 with 1662 views | SimonJames |
| Ollie speaks at last on 10:10 - May 25 by daveB |
Perhaps you can accept I have a different opinion to yourself. I thought performances at home improved when we switched to a back 4 which was partly due to change of system and partly due to playing some dreadful teams at home in the run in with some exciting young players. Results didn't change hugely either, said earlier on this thread we got 17 points out of 33 after the change, the 11 games before that we got 13 out of 33 so not a huge difference really. That was pretty much what we did all season regardless of the formation, we won at home lost away |
That extra 4 points could have potentially put us in 12th place, in which case I think people's views on our progress and expectations about next season would be more upbeat.
...and who knows, IH might still have been in charge. |  |
| 100% of people who drink water will die. |
| |
| Ollie speaks at last on 10:37 - May 25 with 1638 views | TW_R |
| Ollie speaks at last on 10:10 - May 25 by daveB |
Perhaps you can accept I have a different opinion to yourself. I thought performances at home improved when we switched to a back 4 which was partly due to change of system and partly due to playing some dreadful teams at home in the run in with some exciting young players. Results didn't change hugely either, said earlier on this thread we got 17 points out of 33 after the change, the 11 games before that we got 13 out of 33 so not a huge difference really. That was pretty much what we did all season regardless of the formation, we won at home lost away |
Although I preferred 4 at the back (given the players we have/had) I do agree with you. We had some shocking performances using both systems. The Sunderland home game was the most turgid of displays I've witnessed since the home game vs Wycombe circa 2003. And that game was the footballing equivalent of having to sit through 4 back to back Coldplay gigs! Hull away was awful too. 2 of our best results of the season were against top 2 teams at the time we played them when we had 3/5 at the back.
I don't think we were ever going to get consistency as we never played a consistent team. The mentality of having players that have played well in one game and dropped the next made no sense. How can a striker put a decent run together if he scores 2 goals in one game, but doesn't play the next. The irony is the one striker IH played consistently in a formation that didn't suit him couldn't score for toffee and then when we switched to a back 4 (a system that would have suited Washington in my opinion) he never got a look in. | | | |
| Ollie speaks at last on 11:09 - May 25 with 1587 views | 2Thomas2Bowles |
Sick to death of the excuses for Washington. |  |
| |
| Ollie speaks at last on 11:44 - May 25 with 1558 views | TW_R |
| Ollie speaks at last on 11:09 - May 25 by 2Thomas2Bowles |
Sick to death of the excuses for Washington. |
And yet you have been full of excuses for Holloway on a weekly basis. | | | |
| Ollie speaks at last on 11:46 - May 25 with 1549 views | 2Thomas2Bowles |
| Ollie speaks at last on 11:44 - May 25 by TW_R |
And yet you have been full of excuses for Holloway on a weekly basis. |
I criticised him for picking CW... often. | |
| |
| Ollie speaks at last on 12:02 - May 25 with 1524 views | WestbourneR |
| Ollie speaks at last on 10:10 - May 25 by daveB |
Perhaps you can accept I have a different opinion to yourself. I thought performances at home improved when we switched to a back 4 which was partly due to change of system and partly due to playing some dreadful teams at home in the run in with some exciting young players. Results didn't change hugely either, said earlier on this thread we got 17 points out of 33 after the change, the 11 games before that we got 13 out of 33 so not a huge difference really. That was pretty much what we did all season regardless of the formation, we won at home lost away |
That's clearly a no then... | |
| |
| Ollie speaks at last on 13:00 - May 25 with 1475 views | Dando |
| Ollie speaks at last on 10:27 - May 25 by SimonJames |
That extra 4 points could have potentially put us in 12th place, in which case I think people's views on our progress and expectations about next season would be more upbeat.
...and who knows, IH might still have been in charge. |
This is how I see it. We were never going to get in the play offs, but I dont believe we got the most use out of our players. We signed a million wingers yet didnt play a winger system, we had no wing backs but played wing backs?! I dont get it.
Holloway did a decent job, but those strange decisions were part of his downfall and a few extra points would have seen us move right up the table and gain a lot more support/confidence from the board and the fans. | | | |
| Ollie speaks at last on 13:24 - May 25 with 1448 views | DejR_vu |
| Ollie speaks at last on 10:10 - May 25 by daveB |
Perhaps you can accept I have a different opinion to yourself. I thought performances at home improved when we switched to a back 4 which was partly due to change of system and partly due to playing some dreadful teams at home in the run in with some exciting young players. Results didn't change hugely either, said earlier on this thread we got 17 points out of 33 after the change, the 11 games before that we got 13 out of 33 so not a huge difference really. That was pretty much what we did all season regardless of the formation, we won at home lost away |
A four point differential every 11 games works out about 17 over an entire season, so it is actually quite a big difference Dave. | |
| |
| Ollie speaks at last on 13:36 - May 25 with 1427 views | daveB |
| Ollie speaks at last on 13:24 - May 25 by DejR_vu |
A four point differential every 11 games works out about 17 over an entire season, so it is actually quite a big difference Dave. |
if a back 4 would have guaranteed us an extra 4 points every 11 games i'd agree with you we should have done it but just don't buy that it would have done. Results with both systems were pretty similar across the season. | | | |
| Ollie speaks at last on 13:56 - May 25 with 1402 views | Esox_Lucius |
Were they? |  |
| The grass is always greener. |
| |
| Ollie speaks at last on 14:06 - May 25 with 1391 views | kensalriser |
Data sample is too small to be reliable. |  |
| |
| Ollie speaks at last on 17:20 - May 25 with 1279 views | PinnerPaul |
| Ollie speaks at last on 13:36 - May 25 by daveB |
if a back 4 would have guaranteed us an extra 4 points every 11 games i'd agree with you we should have done it but just don't buy that it would have done. Results with both systems were pretty similar across the season. |
For once!, I agree.
Good and bad under both systems
2 good with a back 3 were Wolves and Sheff Utd & 2 good with a 4 were Fulham away & Aston Villa away.
Plenty of poor, especially away performances with a 3, but our worst home performance v Forest was with a 4! | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
