What was the game plan though ?
Sun Oct 03, 2021 10:08 am
An enjoyable game but we still have plasterers doing the decorating.
The change to a back 4 allowed another midfielder. Mozza's "injury" was hardly a surprise, dropping than captain is never a good sign.
I assumed it was a 4231, but had no idea what Bacuna's role was.
Pack and Ralls were the sitters. Although Pack has had a few good games I still don't know what he does well. In the 2 and a bit seasons I can barely remember a key pass or a pass even in the league young Colwell made on that diagonal switch to Giles. Everything is too slow and floaty. I think he is too slow to offer much cover for the centre halfs.
Ralls is starting to turn into a Gunnar type players, he breaks up play and tries to pass forward. He rarely gets into the box like he should if Pack is the base of the double pivot, but I always believe we play better with him in the team.
Is Bowen really an attacking midfeilder ? He looked better a little deeper where he could get on the ball and look up. It would be ballsy but him and Ralls would be my starters. Giles looked our best chance of creating anything. His crossing wasn't great but there was pure attacking intent all game.
Then Bacuna- He is quickish, mobile, aggressive but he is a stopper. I have no idea what his role is in this set up. Its making him look clueless. He is a defensive midfielder in the breaking it up mould
To be fair the 5 midfeilders owned the middle and Reading give us the flanks where our full backs had carte blanche. That was the problem yesterday. Although Brown did knock in a few decent balls in and McGuiness was MoM they are centre halfs, it was all a second too late whilst they organised themselves. Genuine full backs would have run into the space with intent and made Reading lose shape.
Keiffer tried and is getting frustrated. He hasn't got a genuine attacking midfielders (except Giles) in the ilk of Wilson, Tomlin,Ojo, Junior. No one is near him, its like the Alamo for him, he needs some help.
It was better, but Mick still played 4 centre halfs and 3 defensive midfielders. We did have lot of shots but not with the guile and skill required.
Mick will always play the experienced pro's even if he has to bang square pegs into round holes.
Its time for a caretaker, his football philosophy doesn't fit out current situation.
The change to a back 4 allowed another midfielder. Mozza's "injury" was hardly a surprise, dropping than captain is never a good sign.
I assumed it was a 4231, but had no idea what Bacuna's role was.
Pack and Ralls were the sitters. Although Pack has had a few good games I still don't know what he does well. In the 2 and a bit seasons I can barely remember a key pass or a pass even in the league young Colwell made on that diagonal switch to Giles. Everything is too slow and floaty. I think he is too slow to offer much cover for the centre halfs.
Ralls is starting to turn into a Gunnar type players, he breaks up play and tries to pass forward. He rarely gets into the box like he should if Pack is the base of the double pivot, but I always believe we play better with him in the team.
Is Bowen really an attacking midfeilder ? He looked better a little deeper where he could get on the ball and look up. It would be ballsy but him and Ralls would be my starters. Giles looked our best chance of creating anything. His crossing wasn't great but there was pure attacking intent all game.
Then Bacuna- He is quickish, mobile, aggressive but he is a stopper. I have no idea what his role is in this set up. Its making him look clueless. He is a defensive midfielder in the breaking it up mould
To be fair the 5 midfeilders owned the middle and Reading give us the flanks where our full backs had carte blanche. That was the problem yesterday. Although Brown did knock in a few decent balls in and McGuiness was MoM they are centre halfs, it was all a second too late whilst they organised themselves. Genuine full backs would have run into the space with intent and made Reading lose shape.
Keiffer tried and is getting frustrated. He hasn't got a genuine attacking midfielders (except Giles) in the ilk of Wilson, Tomlin,Ojo, Junior. No one is near him, its like the Alamo for him, he needs some help.
It was better, but Mick still played 4 centre halfs and 3 defensive midfielders. We did have lot of shots but not with the guile and skill required.
Mick will always play the experienced pro's even if he has to bang square pegs into round holes.
Its time for a caretaker, his football philosophy doesn't fit out current situation.
Re: What was the game plan though ?
Sun Oct 03, 2021 5:07 pm
I thought it was a 4-1-4-1 with pack rotating with ralls as the Def mid but could have been "fluid". Having said that I don't think Bowen was an attacking mid just a normal mid and he did a great job to be fair to the young lad, passing was very tidy.
On bacuna, I agree he's not an attacking player. Needs to be played as a CDM or rwb but no further forward imo.
On the game plan -totally clueless going forward. As you say a definite improvement overall but the attack play was awful. In any decent position it felt like we didn't have a clue what do with it and ended up getting it wide to try for a cross and headed goal -no clever play or through balls it's all just too 1 dimensional. Almost as if they've been only playing that way for a few years...! Need some new ideas and that needs to come from the / new manager and in jan we need some new faces even if they aren't the best quality, a bit more creativity will help the side.
Lastly -colwil.. think he needs to be played more centrally rather than on the wing. He didn't do badly but feel like he needs to be more involved to get the confidence and get into the game more
On bacuna, I agree he's not an attacking player. Needs to be played as a CDM or rwb but no further forward imo.
On the game plan -totally clueless going forward. As you say a definite improvement overall but the attack play was awful. In any decent position it felt like we didn't have a clue what do with it and ended up getting it wide to try for a cross and headed goal -no clever play or through balls it's all just too 1 dimensional. Almost as if they've been only playing that way for a few years...! Need some new ideas and that needs to come from the / new manager and in jan we need some new faces even if they aren't the best quality, a bit more creativity will help the side.
Lastly -colwil.. think he needs to be played more centrally rather than on the wing. He didn't do badly but feel like he needs to be more involved to get the confidence and get into the game more
Re: What was the game plan though ?
Sun Oct 03, 2021 5:58 pm
I have no doubt we set up 4231 with Pack and Ralls were the deep sitting midfield players. With MM deciding to go with CB as fullbacks again I think the plan was keep a clean sheet and hope to nick a goal. Unfortunately for most of the game it looked 451 with Bacuna, Bowen and Giles sat midway in our own half when Reading had the ball this left KM isolated and by the time we got number forward Reading had regrouped.
Although Brown got forward a lot there were times when both Bacuna and Giles needed him to run beyond into space to cross and he didn't make the run. Bagan would have and would have got crosses in quicker, as would NG or Sang, giving Reading less time to organise and get blocks in. I really believe if we had played fullbacks in the fullback positions we would not have lost that game also if Nelson had stepped out to meet Hoilett rather than taking two steps back he probably would have got a block in, sadly our CB seem to always step back and invite shots when are they going to learn?
Unfortunately MM has decided he needs CB as fullbacks no matter who the opposition is and whoever he picks up front they will be alone. MM needs to understand trying to fit square pegs in round holes has a negative effect on the team, but he won't.
It's going to be a long season.
Although Brown got forward a lot there were times when both Bacuna and Giles needed him to run beyond into space to cross and he didn't make the run. Bagan would have and would have got crosses in quicker, as would NG or Sang, giving Reading less time to organise and get blocks in. I really believe if we had played fullbacks in the fullback positions we would not have lost that game also if Nelson had stepped out to meet Hoilett rather than taking two steps back he probably would have got a block in, sadly our CB seem to always step back and invite shots when are they going to learn?
Unfortunately MM has decided he needs CB as fullbacks no matter who the opposition is and whoever he picks up front they will be alone. MM needs to understand trying to fit square pegs in round holes has a negative effect on the team, but he won't.
It's going to be a long season.
Re: What was the game plan though ?
Mon Oct 04, 2021 12:05 pm
One of the reasons mick gave for the upturn in results, when he first arrived, was fitting round pegs in round holes. He needs to listen to that advice now. Playing CBs as wingbacks and DMs as forwards is the exact opposite to that. I dont know how he expects to score goals and win games when 90% of the team are non-attacking players.