| Two upfront 15:02 - Feb 6 with 2569 views | terryb |
Perhaps I should have put this on the Austin thread, but why does MW keep reverting to playing two upfront whenever he has a chance to? I can only assume that this has been his preference throughout his career & that he doesn't understand why it's not working for us.
We have repeatedly shown that we are more balanced & play better as a team when we have the one. I accept that this usually means that the striker is supported by Chair & Willock (not possible since the end of November) , but I can't recall us once looking ok with a pair this season. (apart from in the last few minutes of games). Last season it appeared that Austin & Dykes can compliment each other, so why is that no longer the case?
Please Mark, just the one on Wednesday please. |  | | |  |
| Two upfront on 17:48 - Feb 6 with 2372 views | Hastings_Hoops |
Sack the manager |  | | |
| Two upfront on 17:55 - Feb 6 with 2351 views | Northernr |
Maybe because Chair has been away. Like you, I'd very much hope we return to one up top with a supporting cast. The players we have to support the striker, particularly now Hendrick is here, are waaaaaaaaaaaaay better and more influential than our actual strikers. Chair, Willock and Johansen higher up, with Field covering, and then Dykes or Gray starting with Austin coming off the bench, I think is our best set up now, and is what got us our best performances end of last season. |  | | |
| Two upfront on 17:57 - Feb 6 with 2339 views | Phil_i_P_Daddy |
It doubles the chance of getting a half decent performance out of one them.
Apparently. |  |
| |
| Two upfront on 18:21 - Feb 6 with 2292 views | daveB |
I don't think it works that well personally although we did play well against West Brom with a front 2 |  | | |
| Two upfront on 18:29 - Feb 6 with 2272 views | ngbqpr |
| Two upfront on 18:21 - Feb 6 by daveB |
I don't think it works that well personally although we did play well against West Brom with a front 2 |
Sure we’ll return to it Weds with Chair & Willock both available. |  |
| |
| Two upfront on 19:21 - Feb 6 with 2200 views | PhilmyRs |
Harsh on the Manager. He wanted the Swansea guy and Lawrence to enable him to regularly pick the 1 up top with options behind, maybe even to try the odd false nine. He didn’t get what he wanted - not anybody’s fault as we stuck to budgets - and so with Chair only just back and resting Willock he played a front 2 as little options. Expect him to return to Chair and Willock on Wednesday. | | | |
| Two upfront on 20:22 - Feb 6 with 2054 views | TacticalR |
I wondered if it was because he thought Peterborough wouldn't have much fight in them and Austin and Dykes were going to fill their boots?
Both players need something to feed on and the kind of chances created from crosses in the Reading game weren't forthcoming. |  |
| |
| Two upfront on 20:37 - Feb 6 with 2031 views | Northernr |
| Two upfront on 19:21 - Feb 6 by PhilmyRs |
Harsh on the Manager. He wanted the Swansea guy and Lawrence to enable him to regularly pick the 1 up top with options behind, maybe even to try the odd false nine. He didn’t get what he wanted - not anybody’s fault as we stuck to budgets - and so with Chair only just back and resting Willock he played a front 2 as little options. Expect him to return to Chair and Willock on Wednesday. |
Good post. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Two upfront on 20:40 - Feb 6 with 2019 views | terryb |
It wasn't intended to be detrimental to MW. I'm just curious as to what he sees when we play two upfront that is not obvious to a lot of us. I've been very much in his camp since the win at Stoke in his first game.
We do change how we play when playing the two & we have less space for Adomah & Wallace to use. Perhaps his choice is based on how our opponents set up & he certainly would study that far more than any of us (except Clive watching every Championship game that he can!).
Not a criricism, just being perplexed. | | | |
| Two upfront on 22:33 - Feb 6 with 1917 views | daveB |
He had played 2 up front in 5 of the last 6 games and we won 5 of them. It wouldn't be my choice but I don't think it was a mad idea. Take our chances and we wouldn't be talking about it | | | |
| Two upfront on 23:04 - Feb 6 with 1876 views | CliveWilsonSaid |
We're like 4th place in the league. If we win our next game we might be second.
Im really struggling to find any issues. |  |
| |
| Two upfront on 09:19 - Feb 7 with 1676 views | nix |
| Two upfront on 22:33 - Feb 6 by daveB |
He had played 2 up front in 5 of the last 6 games and we won 5 of them. It wouldn't be my choice but I don't think it was a mad idea. Take our chances and we wouldn't be talking about it |
I think the problem is starting with two up front if Charlie is one of the two. You can start with Dykes and Gray, or Dykes and Willock, or Gray and Willock because they're both reasonably mobile. But if Charlie is one of the two it puts so much onus on the other player to do a lot of pressing, make the runs, make space in the box etc and makes it so much easier for the other team to mark the other attacker out of the game, knowing Charlie won't make a punishing run.
Dykes got through a lot of work against Peterborough but he's not got the game to make goals out of nothing, he needs space to run into and decent service, neither of which we created enough against Peterborough. |  | | |
| Two upfront on 09:33 - Feb 7 with 1643 views | PlanetHonneywood |
| Two upfront on 09:19 - Feb 7 by nix |
I think the problem is starting with two up front if Charlie is one of the two. You can start with Dykes and Gray, or Dykes and Willock, or Gray and Willock because they're both reasonably mobile. But if Charlie is one of the two it puts so much onus on the other player to do a lot of pressing, make the runs, make space in the box etc and makes it so much easier for the other team to mark the other attacker out of the game, knowing Charlie won't make a punishing run.
Dykes got through a lot of work against Peterborough but he's not got the game to make goals out of nothing, he needs space to run into and decent service, neither of which we created enough against Peterborough. |
When I was back earlier in the season I commented that Austin's position was likely to be coming off the bench. I hasten to add, this was not a masterstroke, as plenty were saying this before and subsequently.
An FA Cup game is however, ideal for him to get some minutes. But what remains abundantly clear is that basic fitness wise, he remains way off where he should be. That said, you always fancy him to notch.
However, Chair and Willock are back and we should (hopefully soon) see a return to more productive outcomes. |  |
| |
| Two upfront on 09:38 - Feb 7 with 1627 views | TheChef |
| Two upfront on 09:19 - Feb 7 by nix |
I think the problem is starting with two up front if Charlie is one of the two. You can start with Dykes and Gray, or Dykes and Willock, or Gray and Willock because they're both reasonably mobile. But if Charlie is one of the two it puts so much onus on the other player to do a lot of pressing, make the runs, make space in the box etc and makes it so much easier for the other team to mark the other attacker out of the game, knowing Charlie won't make a punishing run.
Dykes got through a lot of work against Peterborough but he's not got the game to make goals out of nothing, he needs space to run into and decent service, neither of which we created enough against Peterborough. |
Exactly, you need Dykes plus one other who is creating more movement. Charlie unfortunately doesn't provide that, and currently he makes much more impact coming off the bench. |  |
| |
| Two upfront on 10:08 - Feb 7 with 1570 views | golborne |
Charlie played slightly behind dykes for much of the first half to try and link the play, but it didn’t really work as he was below his best, misplacing too many passes | | | |
| Two upfront on 10:30 - Feb 7 with 1523 views | BklynRanger |
| Two upfront on 19:21 - Feb 6 by PhilmyRs |
Harsh on the Manager. He wanted the Swansea guy and Lawrence to enable him to regularly pick the 1 up top with options behind, maybe even to try the odd false nine. He didn’t get what he wanted - not anybody’s fault as we stuck to budgets - and so with Chair only just back and resting Willock he played a front 2 as little options. Expect him to return to Chair and Willock on Wednesday. |
I was going to say he could have played Amos with Chair, like he did so well against Reading - but Luke was being rested (I think/hope). So fair enough - fewer options, but he could have put Thomas in there, or even Hendrick. In fact Hendrick and Chair might not have been that much different from Amos and Willock, granted fitness and knowing each other's game do argue against it to some extent, but he did have options.
I don't really like it either, but some of this two up front stuff comes, I think, down to the players having roles and instructions beyond what we're aware of - both up front and at the back. In the same way he's looking for a CB to step into midfield during the game he's visibly looking for one of the front two, when played like that, to step into that 2-behind the striker role. He obviously think what Austin lacks in mobility to achieve that he makes up for in other ways, but let's not get into that. |  | | |
| Two upfront on 10:48 - Feb 7 with 1463 views | nix |
'He obviously think what Austin lacks in mobility to achieve that he makes up for in other ways'
In fairness, he has played that role previously, and sprayed the ball around fairly effectively but on Saturday he got caught in possession a couple of times, once where they made a break and nearly scored from it. I'm not sure Warbs will repeat that experience. | | | |
| Two upfront on 11:29 - Feb 7 with 1394 views | BklynRanger |
| Two upfront on 10:48 - Feb 7 by nix |
'He obviously think what Austin lacks in mobility to achieve that he makes up for in other ways'
In fairness, he has played that role previously, and sprayed the ball around fairly effectively but on Saturday he got caught in possession a couple of times, once where they made a break and nearly scored from it. I'm not sure Warbs will repeat that experience. |
True, he has got that capability but it seems to have suffered. I wondered if he was left on to build up his fitness to be able to get back to doing that again, in a circular/semi-circular logic kind of way... | | | |
| Two upfront on 12:34 - Feb 7 with 1341 views | nix |
| Two upfront on 11:29 - Feb 7 by BklynRanger |
True, he has got that capability but it seems to have suffered. I wondered if he was left on to build up his fitness to be able to get back to doing that again, in a circular/semi-circular logic kind of way... |
Yes. That could be interesting to see if things improve. | | | |
| Two upfront on 13:13 - Feb 7 with 1290 views | PeterHucker |
| Two upfront on 12:34 - Feb 7 by nix |
Yes. That could be interesting to see if things improve. |
I don’t think 2 up front is anyone’s preferred option including MW’s.
He’s played both Chair and Willock together with 1 up front pretty much whenever Chair and Willock have both been available. |  | | |
| Two upfront on 13:36 - Feb 7 with 1221 views | Burnleyhoop |
| Two upfront on 10:08 - Feb 7 by golborne |
Charlie played slightly behind dykes for much of the first half to try and link the play, but it didn’t really work as he was below his best, misplacing too many passes |
Might have worked better the other way around. Dykes is excellent in the air so Chaz should be the one picking up the flicks/ knock-on’s. Chaz is and always has been a poacher. Anyone expecting him to run channels and play the high press is deluded. Get him in and around the box and give him the damn ball and we then we might see some end product. | | | |
| Two upfront on 16:22 - Feb 7 with 1097 views | PinnerPaul |
I'm not sure about the merits of 1 v 2 but convinced we are a miles better side playing on the break as us oldies call it or we're very good at transaction in the modern parlance.
Even v Reading we had our best moments after their attacks broke down, rather than as part of sustained pressure.
Anyone agree (or not - its a free country/board!)? | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
