Accrington Web - View Single Post

Whalley Red · 05-09-2010, 14:13

On the team formation ...

I'm a big fan of the 4-2-3-1 formation; a look at our goals against tally is proof that two players in front of the central defence was necessary to stop the goals through the middle that we have typically conceded in recent seasons.

Watching the highlights from yesterday, their goal was farcical. Bateson is picking up no-one from the throw and we then have a 3-on-3 situation in the box with our three being Jimmy Ryan, Charlie Barnett and Dean Winnard. Where were Phil and Sean Hessey? I think their throw-in came from a long ball upfield after one of our attacks broke down, but it was very poor organisation which is something that we have not been guilty of this season.

Back to the team formation, long balls to Boulding, Lindfield or Gornell are never going to work and that showed yesterday when Gornell was faced with two big centre-backs. However, our formation means that we have lots of short, quick passes in midfield and that is what opens up the defences. In this respect, we have lots of small, quick (and quick-footed) players in comparison to the much bigger (and very physical) Wycombe side. We created lots of chances in the first 60 minutes against a well-organised side and on another day, we could have scored four by half-time. I think Gornell just needs to bring himself closer to the midfielders and interchange with them better to be the sole striker that we need (more Rooney than Van Nistelroy).

What about against weaker teams? I don't foresee a return to 4-4-2 with this team - we would need one big and one quick striker for this to be effective. What I would favour is a move from 4-2-3-1 to 4-3-2-1 instead (such as Arsenal play). There isn't the same protection in front of the defence, but pushing Putterill and Ryan to play just off Gornell would make us a lot more of an attacking force but within the same style of play - quick, short passes that open up a defence through the middle of the pitch.

05-09-2010, 14:13	#68
Whalley Red Full Member+ Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 669 Liked: 82 times Rep Power: 1653	Re: Wycombe game On the team formation ... I'm a big fan of the 4-2-3-1 formation; a look at our goals against tally is proof that two players in front of the central defence was necessary to stop the goals through the middle that we have typically conceded in recent seasons. Watching the highlights from yesterday, their goal was farcical. Bateson is picking up no-one from the throw and we then have a 3-on-3 situation in the box with our three being Jimmy Ryan, Charlie Barnett and Dean Winnard. Where were Phil and Sean Hessey? I think their throw-in came from a long ball upfield after one of our attacks broke down, but it was very poor organisation which is something that we have not been guilty of this season. Back to the team formation, long balls to Boulding, Lindfield or Gornell are never going to work and that showed yesterday when Gornell was faced with two big centre-backs. However, our formation means that we have lots of short, quick passes in midfield and that is what opens up the defences. In this respect, we have lots of small, quick (and quick-footed) players in comparison to the much bigger (and very physical) Wycombe side. We created lots of chances in the first 60 minutes against a well-organised side and on another day, we could have scored four by half-time. I think Gornell just needs to bring himself closer to the midfielders and interchange with them better to be the sole striker that we need (more Rooney than Van Nistelroy). What about against weaker teams? I don't foresee a return to 4-4-2 with this team - we would need one big and one quick striker for this to be effective. What I would favour is a move from 4-2-3-1 to 4-3-2-1 instead (such as Arsenal play). There isn't the same protection in front of the defence, but pushing Putterill and Ryan to play just off Gornell would make us a lot more of an attacking force but within the same style of play - quick, short passes that open up a defence through the middle of the pitch.