| A Recognised Pattern of Play / How We Attack 12:52 - Apr 11 with 2736 views | ParkRoyalR |
I was hoping with Austin being out, we could see how we have improved as an attacking team with our own players, given significant improvement in midfield (Johansen + Field).
Appreciate its only 1 game, but we did play like I hoped we would, with Dykes being the focal point of the attack (as he has been for Scotland) allowing the No10's and Wing Backs to attack the space behind him.
One of the frustrations for me this season is the length of time Chair tends to hold the ball (similar to Freeman) but yesterday even that was an Eze style positive as he seems to be drawing 2 or 3 players to him and then releasing the ball into space he's created for Johansen, Willock + Dykes to attack.
With the big improvement this season in the goalkeeping, defence and now midfield departments, it may be that our attack is not as toothless as some feared. We are creating more chances so when we now miss 1 chance its not the end of the world as it seemed earlier in the season.
I've always got why Warbs went for Dykes and Bonne as they do compliment each other and hoping Bonne now gets some game-time with the likes of Field, Johansen and Adomah supplying him as does need early quick ball as plays off last man and although not a natural goalscorer do think he can get plenty of goals in this Division with the right service.
|  | | |  |
| A Recognised Pattern of Play / How We Attack on 14:24 - Apr 11 with 2628 views | nix |
Good post. I agree with all of this.
I also think the lack of time on the training pitch impacted the first half of the season, especially given the number of new players we were bedding in. So we didn't bring in the five at the back until later in the season, possibly as a result of not having time to prepare for it.
There were just so many variables as to why we started so slowly but improved after Christmas, I don't think it's only the Charlie factor, although it's definitely a big contribution. And indeed the service has improved to our forwards, which is also in part down to them being able to prepare more. |  | | |
| A Recognised Pattern of Play / How We Attack on 15:33 - Apr 11 with 2557 views | rsonist |
We shall call it Plan 1. |  | | |
| A Recognised Pattern of Play / How We Attack on 15:44 - Apr 11 with 2529 views | Boston |
| A Recognised Pattern of Play / How We Attack on 15:33 - Apr 11 by rsonist |
We shall call it Plan 1. |
Plan 2 is Plan 1 barring the Bonne bit. | |
| |
| A Recognised Pattern of Play / How We Attack on 19:58 - Apr 11 with 2359 views | Northernr |
Yeh good post. I do think Chair is perhaps a little bit too keen to try and work that shooting position he loves 20 yards out coming in off the left, hanging on too long when he would be better off moving the ball on.
The interesting thing for me is in the games it hasn't worked for us, it really hasn't worked. Derby H, Huddersfield H and A, it rather felt like we could play all night in those games and not score.
To my untrained eye the common factors were...
- they were happy to let us have the ball in certain areas. They would leave Dickie, Barbet and De Wijs/Cameron completely unchallenged, quite happy for them to knock it between them and Dieng, keeping the play in front of them.
- As soon as it came into midfield they pressed very aggressively with big numbers. Most of the games we've lost this year have been when we've lost midfield, and when we've been losing midfield we've often compounded it by taking off a midfielder for an attacker to try and get back into it (this happened at Forest, removing a body from a beaten midfield for a striker and quickly going from 0-1 to 0-3).
- Multiple bodies clogging the wing back channels. Winger and full back overload in possession to force Kane/Kakay/Wallace back into their own half and make them defend more than attack.
I'd love somebody brighter than me to explain this to me more, and then, therefore, why other teams can't/won't/don't do the same thing. Why, for instance, did Coventry not watch what Huddersfield did to us and try the same thing? Why did Sheff Wed not watch what we did to Cov, and how Forest countered it, and do something similar? Literally first minute yesterday we had Willock, Chair, Wallace all marauding into that spot high on our left wing where we'd done all the damage against Cov. Forest stopped that, Weds didn't even really seem to try.
It feels like there is a cheat sheet to playing this QPR team, but some teams just don't bother with it. |  | | |
| A Recognised Pattern of Play / How We Attack on 14:58 - Apr 12 with 2097 views | BazzeR |
Two goals created by crosses from Barbet and Dickie says to me our C/Bs were pushing further forward ala Sheff Utd when they were promoted recently..but could explain the the return to defending so poorly at times on Saturday. | | | |
| A Recognised Pattern of Play / How We Attack on 15:03 - Apr 12 with 2082 views | francisbowles |
FWIW I also thought that De Wijs was very deep at times, probably to cover for the advancing centre backs.
I'll take letting the odd one in if we score plenty of good goals in reply. | | | |
| A Recognised Pattern of Play / How We Attack on 15:29 - Apr 12 with 2050 views | karl |
| A Recognised Pattern of Play / How We Attack on 19:58 - Apr 11 by Northernr |
Yeh good post. I do think Chair is perhaps a little bit too keen to try and work that shooting position he loves 20 yards out coming in off the left, hanging on too long when he would be better off moving the ball on.
The interesting thing for me is in the games it hasn't worked for us, it really hasn't worked. Derby H, Huddersfield H and A, it rather felt like we could play all night in those games and not score.
To my untrained eye the common factors were...
- they were happy to let us have the ball in certain areas. They would leave Dickie, Barbet and De Wijs/Cameron completely unchallenged, quite happy for them to knock it between them and Dieng, keeping the play in front of them.
- As soon as it came into midfield they pressed very aggressively with big numbers. Most of the games we've lost this year have been when we've lost midfield, and when we've been losing midfield we've often compounded it by taking off a midfielder for an attacker to try and get back into it (this happened at Forest, removing a body from a beaten midfield for a striker and quickly going from 0-1 to 0-3).
- Multiple bodies clogging the wing back channels. Winger and full back overload in possession to force Kane/Kakay/Wallace back into their own half and make them defend more than attack.
I'd love somebody brighter than me to explain this to me more, and then, therefore, why other teams can't/won't/don't do the same thing. Why, for instance, did Coventry not watch what Huddersfield did to us and try the same thing? Why did Sheff Wed not watch what we did to Cov, and how Forest countered it, and do something similar? Literally first minute yesterday we had Willock, Chair, Wallace all marauding into that spot high on our left wing where we'd done all the damage against Cov. Forest stopped that, Weds didn't even really seem to try.
It feels like there is a cheat sheet to playing this QPR team, but some teams just don't bother with it. |
I do think MW is the type of manager who thinks if we get the first 5/10 mins of a game on top then our shape or formation is the dominant one and dictates the game.
We have seen games before xmas where lack of a goal before halftime usually meant we lost the game as the opposition manager tweaked things and we lost control of the game, our subsequent change of formation has seemed to help that but also the quality loan players as well of course.
I haven't seen Coventry or Weds games but I do think Kakay was the weak link in the Forest game, with Wallace tied up on the left we needed quality attacking play on our right, Kane wasn't available and probably too scared to get Albert on at halftime but I'm sure that would have changed a lot of Forests attention to our left and Wallace could have more freedom as a result.
60th minute for the first sub again when we needed to change the direction of the game and make Forest have to do something different.
I'm just pissed off I missed the other 2 games! |  | | |
| A Recognised Pattern of Play / How We Attack on 16:58 - Apr 12 with 1967 views | BrianMcCarthy |
| A Recognised Pattern of Play / How We Attack on 15:29 - Apr 12 by karl |
I do think MW is the type of manager who thinks if we get the first 5/10 mins of a game on top then our shape or formation is the dominant one and dictates the game.
We have seen games before xmas where lack of a goal before halftime usually meant we lost the game as the opposition manager tweaked things and we lost control of the game, our subsequent change of formation has seemed to help that but also the quality loan players as well of course.
I haven't seen Coventry or Weds games but I do think Kakay was the weak link in the Forest game, with Wallace tied up on the left we needed quality attacking play on our right, Kane wasn't available and probably too scared to get Albert on at halftime but I'm sure that would have changed a lot of Forests attention to our left and Wallace could have more freedom as a result.
60th minute for the first sub again when we needed to change the direction of the game and make Forest have to do something different.
I'm just pissed off I missed the other 2 games! |
"I'm just pissed off I missed the other 2 games!"
Are you, ahm, watching tomorrow's game? |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| A Recognised Pattern of Play / How We Attack on 17:19 - Apr 12 with 1924 views | karl |
| A Recognised Pattern of Play / How We Attack on 16:58 - Apr 12 by BrianMcCarthy |
"I'm just pissed off I missed the other 2 games!"
Are you, ahm, watching tomorrow's game? |
Haha, I saw both the Huddersfield limp affairs but missed Derby!
So far I'm on schedule for Rotherham and their great escape! | | | |
| A Recognised Pattern of Play / How We Attack on 17:37 - Apr 12 with 1897 views | BrianMcCarthy |
| A Recognised Pattern of Play / How We Attack on 17:19 - Apr 12 by karl |
Haha, I saw both the Huddersfield limp affairs but missed Derby!
So far I'm on schedule for Rotherham and their great escape! |
You're not very lucky right now, are you?
If I had a boat, I'm not sure you'd be boarding... | |
| |
| A Recognised Pattern of Play / How We Attack on 18:07 - Apr 12 with 1879 views | karl |
| A Recognised Pattern of Play / How We Attack on 17:37 - Apr 12 by BrianMcCarthy |
You're not very lucky right now, are you?
If I had a boat, I'm not sure you'd be boarding... |
Blob Pugwash is in charge of the good ship LFW, we're in safe hands!!  | | | |
| A Recognised Pattern of Play / How We Attack on 20:48 - Apr 12 with 1792 views | NorrisGreen |
I think this thread is pretty deluded. Owls were the pits - insipid, hopeless, garbage, powder-puff non-opposition.
Our defence was way too spread out with huge gaps that even a mediocre opposition should have exposed.
Chair's "roving role" and licence to play anywhere just isn't dynamic and offensive enough and isn't developing any sort of ESP or understanding with his team-mates.
Willock looks promising but I'm not yet seeing a defined role or position in evidence for him.
Yep, you can only beat what's in front of you but latching onto Saturday as evidence that MW has instigated a clear set-up/plan/formation is hugely stretching credibility in my view. | | | |
| A Recognised Pattern of Play / How We Attack on 21:10 - Apr 12 with 1738 views | Hunterhoop |
| A Recognised Pattern of Play / How We Attack on 19:58 - Apr 11 by Northernr |
Yeh good post. I do think Chair is perhaps a little bit too keen to try and work that shooting position he loves 20 yards out coming in off the left, hanging on too long when he would be better off moving the ball on.
The interesting thing for me is in the games it hasn't worked for us, it really hasn't worked. Derby H, Huddersfield H and A, it rather felt like we could play all night in those games and not score.
To my untrained eye the common factors were...
- they were happy to let us have the ball in certain areas. They would leave Dickie, Barbet and De Wijs/Cameron completely unchallenged, quite happy for them to knock it between them and Dieng, keeping the play in front of them.
- As soon as it came into midfield they pressed very aggressively with big numbers. Most of the games we've lost this year have been when we've lost midfield, and when we've been losing midfield we've often compounded it by taking off a midfielder for an attacker to try and get back into it (this happened at Forest, removing a body from a beaten midfield for a striker and quickly going from 0-1 to 0-3).
- Multiple bodies clogging the wing back channels. Winger and full back overload in possession to force Kane/Kakay/Wallace back into their own half and make them defend more than attack.
I'd love somebody brighter than me to explain this to me more, and then, therefore, why other teams can't/won't/don't do the same thing. Why, for instance, did Coventry not watch what Huddersfield did to us and try the same thing? Why did Sheff Wed not watch what we did to Cov, and how Forest countered it, and do something similar? Literally first minute yesterday we had Willock, Chair, Wallace all marauding into that spot high on our left wing where we'd done all the damage against Cov. Forest stopped that, Weds didn't even really seem to try.
It feels like there is a cheat sheet to playing this QPR team, but some teams just don't bother with it. |
Completely agree with your two main observations, Clive.
When teams do that, IMO, you have to be able to play through them on the deck. You’re basically facing a side who is sitting deep (so over the top isn’t on), but ready to pounce when you play it into your midfield/wing backs.
If they pounce and miss, you’re marauding onto a back 4 with the ball at feet, and runners. Cue chances and goals. Which is what we see against these sides who don’t get tight or arrive too late in midfield.
The reason it works for the oppo sometimes is, in my opinion, down to our own players. Dom Ball, Geoff Cameron, are not good enough to play accurate one/two touch football playing forward through teams. They get caught or have to go backwards. Field and Johansen are clearly good enough. But one from column A and one from column B doesn’t work either. You take the ball player out of the game our attacks rely on the crisp passing accuracy of Cameron or Ball. Both are worried about their place in the team so go safe and backwards every time or simply cannot execute consistently enough.
Field, Johansen, Amos and Carroll would give us the depth to pass out though next season, and a back 3 of big lads gives is the strength at the back of we get caught.
The other point I’ll make is that we are able to pass out much better in a 3421 than a 3412. Chair and Willock are harder to track. But, you could make a case to stay going to the latter, when teams sit off and wait to pounce allows us to be more direct and skip over the trap. That’s why I think you see Warburton take off a “midfielder” for a forward.
I still think we are much better overall in a 3421, but Chair and Willock’s movement is critical. And sometimes, whisper it quietly, Chair has off games in terms of his movement when we have possession. I think Willock actually works harder but is less experienced at finding pockets.
Finally, Chair, who is certainly more guilty than Willock of this, does have a tendency when teams set up to pounce to go all conservative and cautious in his play. In some games I find myself shouting at my screen for him to turn and drive, not stop it, slow it down and go backwards. It allows the oppo to reset the next trap. His job should always be to break through the trap. Field and Johansen need to try to pass through it, but he needs to be able to take a touch and turn someone and drive forward. Eze was brilliant at it and carried the team up the pitch sometimes.
Chair is less experienced and less assured of his role than Eze was. Next year we need to empower Chair to take risks to break through the press, even if he loses the ball more often. Otherwise teams who execute the cheat sheet well against us will force us just to play in front of them in our half. And eventually it’ll be a central midfielder robbed trying to do too much. |  | | |
| A Recognised Pattern of Play / How We Attack on 21:16 - Apr 12 with 1731 views | nix |
Excellent post Hunter. | | | |
| A Recognised Pattern of Play / How We Attack on 21:36 - Apr 12 with 1704 views | BrianMcCarthy |
Very good post, Hunter. | |
| |
| A Recognised Pattern of Play / How We Attack on 12:27 - Apr 13 with 1574 views | karl |
There was an additional part to the Forest, and I think Barnsley, set up and that was they pushed up a high defensive line so it was a truly packed midfield.
Dom Ball doesn't have enough passing quality but I do think he tries to break the lines just he misplaces too many.
Obviously the way to break a high line is the occasional long ball over the top but I would imagine Hughton took the gamble that we don't normally 'resort' to those? Having Kane as a diagonal outball would have helped but over the top would have meant using Willock as the lead man I would imagine.
There is a point where the players have to read this situation too and try something themselves? | | | |
| A Recognised Pattern of Play / How We Attack on 12:47 - Apr 13 with 1538 views | Hunterhoop |
| A Recognised Pattern of Play / How We Attack on 12:27 - Apr 13 by karl |
There was an additional part to the Forest, and I think Barnsley, set up and that was they pushed up a high defensive line so it was a truly packed midfield.
Dom Ball doesn't have enough passing quality but I do think he tries to break the lines just he misplaces too many.
Obviously the way to break a high line is the occasional long ball over the top but I would imagine Hughton took the gamble that we don't normally 'resort' to those? Having Kane as a diagonal outball would have helped but over the top would have meant using Willock as the lead man I would imagine.
There is a point where the players have to read this situation too and try something themselves? |
Agree, Karl. And whilst Barnsley executed almost a kamikaze press, I actually think the cheat Hughton used (and one or two others) actually involves a deep(ish) back line. They invite us on, but keep everyone back, not pressing the centre half in possession. When we try I play it into the midfield or wing backs, their midfield and forwards then press out midfield/wing backs bd we go back again. If we go long, there isn’t the space in behind to play it into without it going through the keeper or out. And If we try the long ball forward to chest or head, they back that they’ll win it or we’ll get crowded out.
When teams play a high line, I think we can go over the top successfully. Dykes is a willing runner and isn’t slow. Willock and Thomas make good deep runs. Bonne, if he can stay onside, becomes more of a threat, and with Dickie and Barbet, we have centre halves good enough to execute those long passes in behind. Sheff Wed played a high line and we cut through it second half a few times.
We struggled against Barnsley because their press was insane. They pressed onto our centre halves and even Senny. All 11 pressed. On occasion we did get in behind but the centre halves had so little time we couldn’t go long effectively.
Forest say deep and off us, but set the trap when we played it into midfield. I trust us that we can hurt teams who go for a high press. What we’ve not showed is how we beat the Forest type of set up. As Sinton points out, we end up just playing our football in from of them across the back 3 and then in to the midfield and back to the centre halves.
You’re right players need to think for themselves, but I think Chair will, with more confidence and security, realise he needs to turn a man and break the trap, whilst we need central midfielders who have the ability to control and pass forward in tight spaces. Ball and Cameron can’t do that.
Finally, in those matches where we face that problem we need to resist the urge to keep it. You have move it quicker and risk losing it. And if we do lose it playing forward, that’s fine, the ball is in front of us. If we lose it controlling it or playing backwards then we’re screwed. That’s why the midfielder needs to be good but always looking to play forward. Possession stats will go down, but I think it’s the only way to beat that deep set, reactive press when we play it into the midfield/wing backs. | | | |
| A Recognised Pattern of Play / How We Attack on 13:02 - Apr 13 with 1517 views | francisbowles |
This is a really interesting thread. | | | |
| A Recognised Pattern of Play / How We Attack on 13:32 - Apr 13 with 1484 views | karl |
| A Recognised Pattern of Play / How We Attack on 13:02 - Apr 13 by francisbowles |
This is a really interesting thread. |
The Forest one was interesting, forwards sat back and let us have the ball along our defensive line = low block but their defense pushed right up and squeezed into our midfield = high press!
In our low standard of football (my local football not QPR!) getting a high press to work is difficult as having players time their movement correctly is hard to get with relatively low training hours.
The low block is much easier and having the defence push up high is not difficult so might be something to look at as an option for squeezing a team trying to play through the midfield, I don't think it would work for 90 mins as chucking in long balls does come easy to some teams
| | | |
| A Recognised Pattern of Play / How We Attack on 13:54 - Apr 13 with 1429 views | golborne |
| A Recognised Pattern of Play / How We Attack on 12:47 - Apr 13 by Hunterhoop |
Agree, Karl. And whilst Barnsley executed almost a kamikaze press, I actually think the cheat Hughton used (and one or two others) actually involves a deep(ish) back line. They invite us on, but keep everyone back, not pressing the centre half in possession. When we try I play it into the midfield or wing backs, their midfield and forwards then press out midfield/wing backs bd we go back again. If we go long, there isn’t the space in behind to play it into without it going through the keeper or out. And If we try the long ball forward to chest or head, they back that they’ll win it or we’ll get crowded out.
When teams play a high line, I think we can go over the top successfully. Dykes is a willing runner and isn’t slow. Willock and Thomas make good deep runs. Bonne, if he can stay onside, becomes more of a threat, and with Dickie and Barbet, we have centre halves good enough to execute those long passes in behind. Sheff Wed played a high line and we cut through it second half a few times.
We struggled against Barnsley because their press was insane. They pressed onto our centre halves and even Senny. All 11 pressed. On occasion we did get in behind but the centre halves had so little time we couldn’t go long effectively.
Forest say deep and off us, but set the trap when we played it into midfield. I trust us that we can hurt teams who go for a high press. What we’ve not showed is how we beat the Forest type of set up. As Sinton points out, we end up just playing our football in from of them across the back 3 and then in to the midfield and back to the centre halves.
You’re right players need to think for themselves, but I think Chair will, with more confidence and security, realise he needs to turn a man and break the trap, whilst we need central midfielders who have the ability to control and pass forward in tight spaces. Ball and Cameron can’t do that.
Finally, in those matches where we face that problem we need to resist the urge to keep it. You have move it quicker and risk losing it. And if we do lose it playing forward, that’s fine, the ball is in front of us. If we lose it controlling it or playing backwards then we’re screwed. That’s why the midfielder needs to be good but always looking to play forward. Possession stats will go down, but I think it’s the only way to beat that deep set, reactive press when we play it into the midfield/wing backs. |
"I still think we are much better overall in a 3421, but Chair and Willock’s movement is critical. And sometimes, whisper it quietly, Chair has off games in terms of his movement when we have possession. I think Willock actually works harder but is less experienced at finding pockets."
It's 3421 all the way and there is a more direct game plan for the 2 to get beyond the striker when appropriate. When we first moved to this formation Charlie was often dropping off his man to collect and then play it around the corner to the two who had moved beyond him. i think out fourth on Saturday was the perfect execution that. Dykes into the pocket and Thomas hitting the space off him. Willock and Chair need to make that gamble more often, as they did when we first moved to that formation. | | | |
| A Recognised Pattern of Play / How We Attack on 14:45 - Apr 13 with 1374 views | californiahoop |
A great thread, I miss sitting next to the many football experts, all with great ideas on the game! | | | |
| A Recognised Pattern of Play / How We Attack on 15:18 - Apr 13 with 1346 views | karl |
| A Recognised Pattern of Play / How We Attack on 14:45 - Apr 13 by californiahoop |
A great thread, I miss sitting next to the many football experts, all with great ideas on the game! |
90 minute heroes!  | | | |
| A Recognised Pattern of Play / How We Attack on 16:35 - Apr 13 with 1276 views | simmo |
| A Recognised Pattern of Play / How We Attack on 13:54 - Apr 13 by golborne |
"I still think we are much better overall in a 3421, but Chair and Willock’s movement is critical. And sometimes, whisper it quietly, Chair has off games in terms of his movement when we have possession. I think Willock actually works harder but is less experienced at finding pockets."
It's 3421 all the way and there is a more direct game plan for the 2 to get beyond the striker when appropriate. When we first moved to this formation Charlie was often dropping off his man to collect and then play it around the corner to the two who had moved beyond him. i think out fourth on Saturday was the perfect execution that. Dykes into the pocket and Thomas hitting the space off him. Willock and Chair need to make that gamble more often, as they did when we first moved to that formation. |
Agreed, I think having the 2 'behind' the striker is much more effective, becoming a 3 when needed. Not just because it gets the best out of the likes of Chair and Willock who can find the space and work between lines, but it also adds an extra body and outball when we're under the cosh.
I appreciate that Wednesday aren't the best, but it was v encouraging to see a glimpse of the potential team with Dykes as a focal point, being the main target man when the ball is out wide and the pivot when we play through centrally - both things play to his natural strengths IMO. Success is also predicated on Chair and Willock commiting to getting in the area too so Dykes isn't isolated, again why it's been so encouraging to see end product from both in the last few home games. |  |
| ask Beavis I get nothing Butthead |
| |
| A Recognised Pattern of Play / How We Attack on 18:41 - Apr 13 with 1184 views | BrianMcCarthy |
Excellent thread, folks. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
