| Yesterday's tactics/set-up 12:25 - Mar 2 with 726 views | kropotkin41 |
I thought we looked all right yesterday going forwards down the wings, but after all that very few crosses were put in and even had they been who would have been there to get in the end of them?
Morrison was playing very deep it seemed to me and Doyle, when he turned up, looked like he was always on the edge of the box.
I'm not trying to be clever here and always willing to learn something about football, but what was meant to be going on?
I'm posting this because someone else said that without Charlie we don't have enough goals in us to get into the play-offs, which at this stage looks about right........ but surely we do have players who can score - look at JJ yesterday - but not playing a system that creates chances.... to which problem Kevin Bond just shrugs every week.
|  |
| ‘morbid curiosity about where this is all going’ |
| |  |
| Yesterday's tactics/set-up on 12:29 - Mar 2 with 716 views | daveB |
We created very little when Austin was playing as well, I think the midfield lacks young legs to burst into the box and support the striker, the full backs are not overlapping to allow the wide players to get in the box when the ball is on the other flank as well. |  | | |
| Yesterday's tactics/set-up on 13:15 - Mar 2 with 677 views | baz_qpr |
This is the great mystery of life under Redknapp we don't seem to have any attacking plan. And agree Morrison was coming far far too deep and it was a big part of the problem |  | | |
| Yesterday's tactics/set-up on 16:08 - Mar 3 with 520 views | Loft1979 |
| Yesterday's tactics/set-up on 12:29 - Mar 2 by daveB |
We created very little when Austin was playing as well, I think the midfield lacks young legs to burst into the box and support the striker, the full backs are not overlapping to allow the wide players to get in the box when the ball is on the other flank as well. |
Really quality point!!
-The Pre Xmas QPR was a stoic defensive team, relying on JR and Matty Phillips to create chances for Austin, who ineviably scored on of his few looks.
- In the aftermath of Austin's injury we have opened the flood gates...for the opposition.
Traore...exciting player, but a liability on defense. Hoilet not a great defensive presence either. Henry was dumped and JB has been the defender too often. Prior to that JB and Henry created a spine in front of BAE-Dunne-NED-Simpson. I called for the wingback set so I am a little embarrassed to say it has not really worked...although I expected BAE and Simpson.
- TACTICS: With JB back, suggest we stick him into his best role, right midfield with Henry behind him. Kranck to his left and/or JR depending on a 5 man midfield or 4 man with 2 strikers . IF Krank plays as a center midfielderHenry behind them as the enforcer. Ravel behind the striker (Doyle).
-If Traore is indeed out, then I see QPR reverting to old ways with Ravel as Phillips behind the front man/men. |  | | |
| Yesterday's tactics/set-up on 16:30 - Mar 3 with 505 views | themodfather |
we don't seem to pass thru the middle, we don't create enough
many 1-0 wins were due to us taking our chance and oppo not.
hoilet just cut in blindly, we don't seem to pass when we can, traore too did this a lot.
we have ravel, a highly rated player yet i can't recall him having the ball or making any runs, albeit out of position.
doyle really could not control the ball v leeds, but they closed us down.
qpr don't like it up em, when closed down and "choked" we can't adapt. i've said all season we have a too low tempo and teams have sussed us. | | | |
| Yesterday's tactics/set-up on 17:40 - Mar 3 with 482 views | PhilmyRs |
After all the money we’ve spent, all the new faces brought into the club, on Saturday, we still had 2 players that have spent the majority of the last 2 years at centre half playing full back. At home, against a very ordinary team, in a game we should be looking to win, why? I can understand to a degree having either Hill or Hughes ‘doing a job at full back’ but not both, and especially not at home.
Full back is such a key position in modern Football, just look at Shaw at Southampton, Baines/Coleman at Everton, or closer to home the impact Walker had with us whilst on loan. Asking two aging central defenders to add any kind of attacking threat is just asking for trouble. Currently we only have 1 full back out injured, is that sufficient to justify Saturday’s selection? If it does, then that’s a poor reflection on our recent transfer activity. Personally, even ignoring our lopsided transfer dealings, I think we should have sufficient resources to put at least 1 non centre half at full back. On Saturday, Armand could have done a job, we could have re-called Ekotto or even gone with Gary O’Neil on the right, a job he’s performed in the past. So many times on Saturday there was no easy pass out to the full back, When Simpson’s available he’s always an option for our midfielders because he gets up and down the pitch all game. When you suddenly lose that on both sides of the pitch it has such a negative impact on the rest of your attacking play. Morrison for instance looks such a gifted player and he clearly has vision but a few times he cut in or looked out wide and the full back had hardly ventured forward at all so the ball was just a bog standard backward pass. If however, it was a Traore or Simpson, Morrison would then have the option to fizz 1 or 2 diagonal balls towards either full back and we’d be able to get in behind a bit more. The few occasions Hill tried to roll back the years (not that he ever was a flying full back) or Hughes got forward with attacking intent (he got forward a lot just never looked like he wanted to be there) options suddenly appeared and we looked like we could create.
1’m not his biggest critic, and others have a lot more complains to level at him, but this tactic of playing centre backs at full backs is one of the more irritating recent Redknapp traits for me. I’d sooner convert a midfielder to do a full backs role at this level than use a centre half. | | | |
| Yesterday's tactics/set-up on 18:51 - Mar 3 with 432 views | kropotkin41 |
Interesting points. I think that B A-E tore a fingernail in training on Friday and wasn't available. | |
| ‘morbid curiosity about where this is all going’ |
| |
| Yesterday's tactics/set-up on 19:29 - Mar 3 with 402 views | oldmeadoniansR |
| Yesterday's tactics/set-up on 17:40 - Mar 3 by PhilmyRs |
After all the money we’ve spent, all the new faces brought into the club, on Saturday, we still had 2 players that have spent the majority of the last 2 years at centre half playing full back. At home, against a very ordinary team, in a game we should be looking to win, why? I can understand to a degree having either Hill or Hughes ‘doing a job at full back’ but not both, and especially not at home.
Full back is such a key position in modern Football, just look at Shaw at Southampton, Baines/Coleman at Everton, or closer to home the impact Walker had with us whilst on loan. Asking two aging central defenders to add any kind of attacking threat is just asking for trouble. Currently we only have 1 full back out injured, is that sufficient to justify Saturday’s selection? If it does, then that’s a poor reflection on our recent transfer activity. Personally, even ignoring our lopsided transfer dealings, I think we should have sufficient resources to put at least 1 non centre half at full back. On Saturday, Armand could have done a job, we could have re-called Ekotto or even gone with Gary O’Neil on the right, a job he’s performed in the past. So many times on Saturday there was no easy pass out to the full back, When Simpson’s available he’s always an option for our midfielders because he gets up and down the pitch all game. When you suddenly lose that on both sides of the pitch it has such a negative impact on the rest of your attacking play. Morrison for instance looks such a gifted player and he clearly has vision but a few times he cut in or looked out wide and the full back had hardly ventured forward at all so the ball was just a bog standard backward pass. If however, it was a Traore or Simpson, Morrison would then have the option to fizz 1 or 2 diagonal balls towards either full back and we’d be able to get in behind a bit more. The few occasions Hill tried to roll back the years (not that he ever was a flying full back) or Hughes got forward with attacking intent (he got forward a lot just never looked like he wanted to be there) options suddenly appeared and we looked like we could create.
1’m not his biggest critic, and others have a lot more complains to level at him, but this tactic of playing centre backs at full backs is one of the more irritating recent Redknapp traits for me. I’d sooner convert a midfielder to do a full backs role at this level than use a centre half. |
Totally agree. From where I was watching, through the bloody net in the school end, our worst footballers saw most of the ball. Dunne hill and Hughes had a number of touches and possession but due to no fault of their own don't have the ability to influence games in an attacking fashion. I thought Hughes was extremely poor with the ball and I remember Dunne hopelessly hoofing it on more than one occasion. I remember seeing Yuk play one game and he seemed to have a bit of pace about him. Surely against a poor Leeds team this may have given us another option. We sure needed one. | | | |
| Yesterday's tactics/set-up on 21:08 - Mar 3 with 370 views | baz_qpr |
I think there are two tactical issues, neither of them are full back related or formation related IMHO.
1. Our midfield 4 or 5 rarely get beyond our strikers, Hoilett is a classic example but where we do have pace but don't use it to get behind teams so we are always playing with 4+ defenders in front of us
2. Our back 4 sit too deep because they have no pace which means the the midfield also sit too deep and its hard to push up as a team and get behind the opposition. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
