| Can anyone resolve the on-pitch problems? 12:28 - Aug 22 with 1485 views | OakR |
As I see it our core issues (haivng only seen 2 games are):
1. Keeper.
We've lost Smithies, and now have Ingram. Smithies would gain us multiple points, and had good distribution. Ingram, on this showing, won't be near that. Can he improve?
2. Defence.
No Nedum. I'm not sure how much of a miss Robinson is, but Onouha is.
BFG is new to the league, and the defence is new as a unit, inc the keeper, so you'd expect it to improve. Some of the goals conceded have been shocking. Will Hall be the salvation someone on loan.
3. Strikers.
Essentially, we don't have a decent striker. Smith is ok at what he does, probably best as an impact sub. Washington gets a hard time, but tries hard but at the moment is just not looking good enough. Sylla does not contribute enough. We are basically too light upfront.
4. Midfield
In some way we've played ok in midfield for parts of games, but we need to decide how we want to play.
5. Tactics.
Clearly McClaren wanted us to play out from the back in the first few games but we don't have the players for this. he has realised this now, but where does that leave us? Hoof ball to Washington is a bit pointless.
So what to do?
Ultimately the squad is lower championship level. We were arguably unlucky against Sheff Utd, and might have done better had Washington scored when he should have, had Ingram saved when he probably should and Bidwell stood up, but that is more about our lack of quality than luck.
If you wanted to be optimistic you could say the defence has yet to gel and the manager has yet to find the tactics to fit the team at his disposal, and we may get some loan signings to turn things around a la Kyle Walker Adel but that is a very positive outlook. |  |
| |  |
| Can anyone resolve the on-pitch problems? on 12:44 - Aug 22 with 1412 views | qprd |
There are a lot of tactical issues, which I think sadly all stem from CW
There's been a lot of criticism of playing out of the back. But what is the alternative? Playing long to CW, who basically lost every aerial challenge? From what I saw yesterday, QPR were hardly playing out of the back. Sure, Ingram would play short to Leistner... but then Leistner would repeatedly punt it long to CW, who lost the ball.
Without a viable target man, the only way for us to advance the ball through the thirds is through passing from our defensive third into the midfield. Luongo and Scowen need to be collecting the ball deep and acting as the conduits from the midfield to the final third- Luongo is less of a passer, but can carry the ball and dribble. Scowen can pass a bit. But sadly, Luongo was just totally off the pace and doesn't look fit and Scowen wasn't too effective. Eze and Freeman, who are slightly more advanced, dont drop deep to collect the ball. That means that that Leistner and co are forced to bypass midfield and go long.
It also doesn't help that CW is totally useless leading the line. QPR tried to sometimes play over the backline, using CWs "pace" to get behind, but he never was able to win the ball. This allows opposition backlines to play with a slightly higher line, effectively squeezing the limited space in midfield.
We either need to commit to a back-to-the-goal striker who can lead the line, hold up the ball, run on the back shoulder to create space for the rest of the midfield.... or I guess we just go hyper direct with Smith.... but if were going to do that, like we tried yesterday, you cant take off crossers like Wzolek (which McLaren brilliantly did yesterday)
we just cant keep playing Washington. I feel bad for the guy b/c hes trying but hes clearly not good enough. I can forgive a lack of clinicality in front of goal if youre at least contributing in other ways like polter did with his excellent hold up play ... but Washington is literally bad at everything other than running around like a headless chicken chasing lost causes | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
