| Reality Check 08:55 - Oct 28 with 2557 views | Blue_Castello |
Well I have to confess to being a "glass half full merchant" over the last few weeks, there was always the nagging feeling that we hadn't played any of the top sides. The performances in our previous games were adequate but that was all that was needed to beat the teams put in front of us and Im certainly not complaining that we have only just lost our unbeaten record.
The problem Saturday was we came up against a far more organised team with what appeared superior work rate and in Sean Dyche a manager who had done his homework and knew our strengths and weaknesses.
There were quite a few people saying we are a really good team a couple of weeks ago based purely on the fact we had beaten poor opposition. The next three games will give us a better idea where we stand, but at the moment we look at best a top six side and not one who looks destined for automatic promotion.
Ive read all the threads after Saturdays defeat and I agree we have to get some perspective and Burnley brought us down to earth with a thump. Its only one defeat and TBH I would be happy with top six this year as I feared a far worse season was on the cards at the start. However Im not sure how patient the owners will be if we don't get back to the Premiership very quickly.
Barton will be a big loss for the Wigan game, Harry keeps saying we have loads of midfield players but its the "right sort" that we need and Henry / Jenas leave a lot to be desired. What I struggle to understand with Harry is he obviously does rate Faurlin, to an extent, and IF he does why not play him in his best position just in front of the back four. Yes we know Faurlin has a lack of pace BUT that's why he should play in his preferred position,where he played all season in the Championship winning team. Obviously Carroll is injured who would play in front of the back four but he still looks lightweight to me for that position and would be better played further forward. |  | | |  |
| Reality Check on 09:09 - Oct 28 with 2535 views | runningman75 |
Burnley were better organised and possess one of the best strikers in the league in Ings. We are lacking strikers with too much responsibility for Austin. We need to be able to change things. Wigan are a decent team but with so many games in hand and European matches we need to give someone such as Hitchcock a chance to play alongside Austin and change our formation. | | | |
| Reality Check on 09:21 - Oct 28 with 2507 views | adhoc_qpr |
I was more irritated by Redknapp just sitting on his hands and making no changes until it was already too late - and then the changes he did make were woeful (Jenas...).
Be interesting to see now if we actually do have the 'right sort' of players, as we could easily chalk up another loss versus Wigan this week. | | | |
| Reality Check on 09:46 - Oct 28 with 2470 views | stevec |
Burnley showed how it should be done at this level. Two strong goal scoring forwards, and a midfield/back line that pushes up and closes down.
Its finding two such forwards is the issue and we over emphasise the midfield aspect. Essentially 4-5-1 was 'invented' by the very top sides, sides who have midfielders who are confident in both halves of the pitch. The problem at Championship level, indeed the lower half of Premier League and downwards, is 5 man midfields are introduced not as a positive measure but purely to cover for the deficiencies in its midfielders. Hence we could play Faurlin in a 5, but he is massively vulnerable in a 4. Likewise Tom Carroll, likewise Kranjcar.
If memory serves, good wins at Leeds and Bolton were achieved with 'workers' in a central midfield of 4. Exactly what Burnley do, no one outstanding, but no perceptible weaknesses either. In the end, its not 20 passes across midfield, or blind alley runs by wingers, its the Ings, Vokes and indeed Austins that win games.
Hopefully, Andy Johnson can maintain a proper level of fitness, otherwise you fear teams are going to adopt the Burnley approach when playing us and we could start dropping out of contention. |  | | |
| Reality Check on 09:59 - Oct 28 with 2450 views | jonno |
| Reality Check on 09:46 - Oct 28 by stevec |
Burnley showed how it should be done at this level. Two strong goal scoring forwards, and a midfield/back line that pushes up and closes down.
Its finding two such forwards is the issue and we over emphasise the midfield aspect. Essentially 4-5-1 was 'invented' by the very top sides, sides who have midfielders who are confident in both halves of the pitch. The problem at Championship level, indeed the lower half of Premier League and downwards, is 5 man midfields are introduced not as a positive measure but purely to cover for the deficiencies in its midfielders. Hence we could play Faurlin in a 5, but he is massively vulnerable in a 4. Likewise Tom Carroll, likewise Kranjcar.
If memory serves, good wins at Leeds and Bolton were achieved with 'workers' in a central midfield of 4. Exactly what Burnley do, no one outstanding, but no perceptible weaknesses either. In the end, its not 20 passes across midfield, or blind alley runs by wingers, its the Ings, Vokes and indeed Austins that win games.
Hopefully, Andy Johnson can maintain a proper level of fitness, otherwise you fear teams are going to adopt the Burnley approach when playing us and we could start dropping out of contention. |
We sit too deep because our CBs fear their lack of pace being a problem, so we don't get anyone up to support Austin as he is too far away from the overly deep lying midfield. We also play at a tempo that is much too slow - which allows teams to press us in midfield high up the pitch. We need to move the ball much faster, and we need to move off the ball much more to provide options. This all means the midfield working much harder of course and matching the opposition's work rate, instead of slowly passing the ball about from side to side and retaining possession in areas of the pitch which are not a problem for the opposing team. We had 61% possession on Saturday but were second best all round. All season we have had the ball for long periods but not really created many scoring opportunities from that possession. |  | | |
| Reality Check on 10:37 - Oct 28 with 2385 views | stevec |
| Reality Check on 09:59 - Oct 28 by jonno |
We sit too deep because our CBs fear their lack of pace being a problem, so we don't get anyone up to support Austin as he is too far away from the overly deep lying midfield. We also play at a tempo that is much too slow - which allows teams to press us in midfield high up the pitch. We need to move the ball much faster, and we need to move off the ball much more to provide options. This all means the midfield working much harder of course and matching the opposition's work rate, instead of slowly passing the ball about from side to side and retaining possession in areas of the pitch which are not a problem for the opposing team. We had 61% possession on Saturday but were second best all round. All season we have had the ball for long periods but not really created many scoring opportunities from that possession. |
Agree with all what you say but even when Ned comes back and maybe we could then push up, I am just not sure if we have the midfielders who could get forward and score. Hoilett and SWP are unreliable in those positions, Krancjar possibly, but hard to see where goals would come from. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
