Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Forum index | Previous Thread | Next thread
Switch to four at the back 10:30 - Feb 20 with 2009 viewsWestbourneR

Bidwell goes off, Symth joins the attack, three at the back changed to a four, we make two goals and win.

Coincidence?

I know they were a man down but I make that several times in the last 5 to six games that we've switched the system (after starting with wing-backs) and then scored.

The width Smyth provided to set up the goal was plain to see. I just which Ollie would wake up and see it.

Poll: Should JFH get the sack?

0
Switch to four at the back on 11:05 - Feb 20 with 1954 viewsDorse

To be fair, I think that the long-term aim is to do just that but the sticking point is up front.

Playing 4231 would be most people's preferred option but which striker would be worth playing up front on his own? Smith? Not really mobile enough. Sylla? Bit inconsistent. Washington? Been there, done that. It's like the team is fine until you get to the front. For example:

Smithies - natch
Furlong, Onuoha, Lynch, Bidwell- fine
Hall, Scowen- no worries here
Wzsolek, Freeman, BOS - like what I see
And then....?

It looks to me like the decision to stick with 352 is based on having more than one option up front rather than tactical dogmatism. I have been banging on about 352 for ages and I have always liked it in principle but we've always looked a player or two short to make it work consistently. We aren't going down playing this way; we aren't going up either but that's OK if we are building up to something.

The introduction of young players to the First Team squad has been genuinely exciting. Maybe I'm just easily pleased but seeing the start of Eze, Oteh and Chair's QPR careers this season has been brilliant. Having a management team that is prepared to do what so many others have promised but never delivered (i.e. promoting youth) cheers me up no end!

I'm not saying we 'just need one or two' (c) Redknapp but we aren't far off.

'What do we want? We don't know! When do we want it? Now!'

1
Switch to four at the back on 11:14 - Feb 20 with 1938 viewsLblock

I agree with Westbourne - but with a caveat on system / personnel.

The 3-5-2 isn't a bad system but you need the players to play it and the two fundamental positions are the wingbacks. These lads need bundles of energy, not be slouches and also critically need to get balls into the box or pulled back to attacking midfielders.
I defy anyone to convince me we have the players to do this.

I'm still all for a 4-1-4-1 set up as we clearly have players who can play full back and also creative lads in the middle.

Clearly if there's a Charlie Austin MkII out there then the answers to every system are sorted but I'd guess we are some way off being able to pay £4mill for another one of him.

Current criteria is to get to 54 points asap.

Cherish and enjoy life.... this ain't no dress rehearsal

0
Switch to four at the back on 11:37 - Feb 20 with 1898 viewsWadR

I actually thought it looked like 3-4-3 when Smyth came on on Saturday, with Freeman going out to the left side of midfield.

But I agree that width is so important and I would like to see us use 4 at the back a bit more. The key, considering our few attacking strengths, regardless of formation or 3 ATB/4 ATB, is to get crosses in and work more attacking opportunities from wide.

There was a lot of groaning around me directed at Wszolek and the fact he wasn't taking players on and a perceived lack of confidence but the issue was that for the first 60 minutes he'd receive the ball to feet and invariably have at least one Bolton defender between him and the byline and no overlapping run making space and dragging players away.

It is very difficult to just beat a player 1 on 1 (or sometimes 1 on 2) from a standing start and Wszolek's best football for QPR has invariably come when he's had Furlong overlapping behind him, or, as we saw on Saturday, Smyth ahead of him.
0
Switch to four at the back on 11:46 - Feb 20 with 1875 viewsdaveB

bit odd to say Ollie should wake up and see it when he made the change and it worked.

Personally thought we were still playing with 3 at the back after Smyth came on but he changed the midfield shape to move Freeman wider so more of a 3-4-3 than a 3-5-2
0
Switch to four at the back on 11:49 - Feb 20 with 1861 viewswestberksr

I think Bidwell leaving the pitch isn't the issue, but the fact that Smyth entered the fray that was significant.

there is nothing preventing Washington doing what Smyth does; running the channels, challenging the defenders, being a massive (well tiny) PITA & just having that enthusiasm. As soon as he came on it is clear (to me) what we are lacking and that's a striker that gets involved. Washington simply doesn't do that and continues to confuse me as to what he actually brings to the team.

likewise when previously Bright has entered the match he just has more energy and wants to make defenders work. It might have something to do with formation as well but I also think the player selection is relevant too.

Bidwell pushes forwards and tries to get involved and Lynch carries the ball forwards as well, but you just don't see Washington making any decisive runs or showing for the ball; he also never holds it up to draw a foul. That might not be his game but after god knows how many appearances I still have no idea what his strengths are.

also thought Pav should have been more direct on Saturday against what is one of the weakest teams in the division when he is a more obvious attacking option than Bidwell on the other flank. Seemed to repeatedly be giving it ack to Ned who is hardly a ball playing libero.

ah, fukk it; what do I know? Carry on!
0
Switch to four at the back on 11:55 - Feb 20 with 1854 viewsqprd

Switch to four at the back on 11:37 - Feb 20 by WadR

I actually thought it looked like 3-4-3 when Smyth came on on Saturday, with Freeman going out to the left side of midfield.

But I agree that width is so important and I would like to see us use 4 at the back a bit more. The key, considering our few attacking strengths, regardless of formation or 3 ATB/4 ATB, is to get crosses in and work more attacking opportunities from wide.

There was a lot of groaning around me directed at Wszolek and the fact he wasn't taking players on and a perceived lack of confidence but the issue was that for the first 60 minutes he'd receive the ball to feet and invariably have at least one Bolton defender between him and the byline and no overlapping run making space and dragging players away.

It is very difficult to just beat a player 1 on 1 (or sometimes 1 on 2) from a standing start and Wszolek's best football for QPR has invariably come when he's had Furlong overlapping behind him, or, as we saw on Saturday, Smyth ahead of him.


You are right. It was a 3-4-3

Totally agreed on Wzolek too. Wzolek was getting his supply from either Onohua or Scowen. Neither player was going to pass it to him and then overlap him as Onohua is a CB and Scowen is the shield to the centrebacks.(although interestingly, lynch was overlapping a lot in the first half on the left and continuing into the opposition final third)

As a result, Wzolek was left either to pass backwards to Scowen or try to take on a defender. In addition, because he was collecting the ball at the halfway line, he was probably less likely to try to take on his defender b/c (a) its an awfully long way to go to get into a dangerous position and (b) given how deep he is, if he loses the ball, the other team would be on their way to our goal

i don't get playing Wzolek as a wingback because it neutralises his skills. Personally, i think he should play as an out and out winger with Furlong behind him as you suggest

However, if for some godforsaken reason we continue using him as a RWB, we need Freeman, Washington or Smyth to run into the channel behind the opposition left back to free up space for Wzolek
0
Switch to four at the back on 11:55 - Feb 20 with 1851 viewsCliveWilsonSaid

It looks like the club have picked a system and are sticking by it. A lot of fans have been asking for a club philosophy and that's what we're getting. It's never going to please everyone and it seems to be generally agreed that the system is mostly fine but we don't have the players to make it a complete success. Perhaps they think it's better to stick with the same system and identify/develop players that might make it work better.

Poll: Expectations for this season?

0
Switch to four at the back on 12:02 - Feb 20 with 1833 viewsDavieQPR

The trouble with the 3-5-2 is no one helps out the WBs who are often left marking both a winger and an overlapping fullback.
0
Login to get fewer ads

Switch to four at the back on 13:00 - Feb 20 with 1697 viewsQPR_John

Switch to four at the back on 11:55 - Feb 20 by CliveWilsonSaid

It looks like the club have picked a system and are sticking by it. A lot of fans have been asking for a club philosophy and that's what we're getting. It's never going to please everyone and it seems to be generally agreed that the system is mostly fine but we don't have the players to make it a complete success. Perhaps they think it's better to stick with the same system and identify/develop players that might make it work better.


So the clubs philosophy is to decide on a system first without ensuring it has the players to carry it out.
0
Switch to four at the back on 13:34 - Feb 20 with 1615 viewsCliveWilsonSaid

Switch to four at the back on 13:00 - Feb 20 by QPR_John

So the clubs philosophy is to decide on a system first without ensuring it has the players to carry it out.


Well yeah. I guess the theory is that over time it becomes integral to the club so that you have a conveyor belt of players coming though who have been playing it all their lives and can just slot in. A bit like Ajax and Barcelona.

I'm not convinced it can work as well at a club like QPR but it's what a lot of people were crying out for not so long ago. Also it's not a fact that's what the club are actually doing. It's just my observation.

Poll: Expectations for this season?

0
Switch to four at the back on 13:54 - Feb 20 with 1564 viewsdaveB

Switch to four at the back on 13:00 - Feb 20 by QPR_John

So the clubs philosophy is to decide on a system first without ensuring it has the players to carry it out.


not at all, Holloway tried out a ton of different systems last season, something he was slated for, and decided to stick with this one.

The system does suit a lot of our players. Gives protection to the defence, allows for an extra defender as well which is useful when our defenders are prone to errors they have back up around them now to help. It also allows us to play 2 up front. I think it works a lot better when Hall is fit as he can move into midfield when we have the ball and allow Freeman to move wide and Luongo to push further forward.

Downside is a lack of width but after the way we were being cut apart on the break with a midfield 4 last season and how rarely we threatened to score with 1 up front it made sense to try this and overall it's worked pretty well. To move onto the next level we may well need to adapt and change again to have better control of the ball and play with more width but for what is required this season i've been impressed that Holloway has stuck with it as I fully expected him to change the system at the first sign of trouble
0
Switch to four at the back on 14:01 - Feb 20 with 1549 viewsWestbourneR

Personally not sure 352 is the formation a club like QPR should be building our entire philosophy around.

Reasons being
- It's very demanding to get right tactically and I don't think that's good thing with the kind of players and coaches we're generally going to have available to us at Championship level.
- It requires wing-backs - which is a very specialist position and requires that rare form of player who can both attack and defend very well, including crossing. The full back position is more forgiving, see Bradley Orr in our promotion season.
- It provides very little width.
[Post edited 20 Feb 2018 16:06]

Poll: Should JFH get the sack?

0
Switch to four at the back on 14:35 - Feb 20 with 1498 viewsdaveB

Switch to four at the back on 14:01 - Feb 20 by WestbourneR

Personally not sure 352 is the formation a club like QPR should be building our entire philosophy around.

Reasons being
- It's very demanding to get right tactically and I don't think that's good thing with the kind of players and coaches we're generally going to have available to us at Championship level.
- It requires wing-backs - which is a very specialist position and requires that rare form of player who can both attack and defend very well, including crossing. The full back position is more forgiving, see Bradley Orr in our promotion season.
- It provides very little width.
[Post edited 20 Feb 2018 16:06]


I've not seen anything from the club to suggest they are building a philosophy around these tactics. I just think its what they are going to use this season, next season might be different players and potentially a different way of playing, i think unless you are a Man City or one of the rich clubs it's impossible to say this is how we will play and we'll always play like this. The kind of players you have will often dictate the tactics at clubs like ours.
0
Switch to four at the back on 15:18 - Feb 20 with 1445 viewskensalriser

Nail on head there, Dave. It is a bit grandiose to think that QPR can have a club philosophy as some of the biggest clubs in the world do. We just aren't resourced in that way.

It's related to the fanciful notion that QPR have a tradition of playing attractive attacking football (the West Ham way is equally deluded). If we do, I must have been terribly unlucky over the last 40+ years to have not witnessed this amazing tradition year in year out, because other than literally around four or five seasons in that time most of what I've watched has been either average to mediocre or just plain shite.

Poll: QPR to finish 7th or Brentford to drop out of the top 6?

1
Switch to four at the back on 15:40 - Feb 20 with 1421 viewsCliveWilsonSaid

Switch to four at the back on 14:35 - Feb 20 by daveB

I've not seen anything from the club to suggest they are building a philosophy around these tactics. I just think its what they are going to use this season, next season might be different players and potentially a different way of playing, i think unless you are a Man City or one of the rich clubs it's impossible to say this is how we will play and we'll always play like this. The kind of players you have will often dictate the tactics at clubs like ours.


Sorry Dave it was me that started talking about philosophies. I'll keep my trap shut next time!

Poll: Expectations for this season?

0
Switch to four at the back on 16:02 - Feb 20 with 1401 viewsDando

I think we are better with 4 at the back as well. We are decent enough with the current formation, but for me we would be even better and more exciting to watch with more width. As decent as left back Bidwell is, he slows down our attacks and is only suited to the left back role.

All our threat was coming from the right hand side as usual.
As soon as we had Smyth, Eze, Freeman, Wzolek and Luongo on the field - suddenly the threat was from all angles, rather than just relying on the right wing or some magic from Freeman.

Happens too often for my liking, that we start too predictably, easy to defend - then change it similar to above and get better later on. For me, we are fixing what was wrong in the first place, rather than a master tactical decision.
Not a moan as such, but think we could be playing more to our strengths than we are from the kick off
[Post edited 20 Feb 2018 16:12]
0
Switch to four at the back on 16:08 - Feb 20 with 1385 viewsWestbourneR

Switch to four at the back on 16:02 - Feb 20 by Dando

I think we are better with 4 at the back as well. We are decent enough with the current formation, but for me we would be even better and more exciting to watch with more width. As decent as left back Bidwell is, he slows down our attacks and is only suited to the left back role.

All our threat was coming from the right hand side as usual.
As soon as we had Smyth, Eze, Freeman, Wzolek and Luongo on the field - suddenly the threat was from all angles, rather than just relying on the right wing or some magic from Freeman.

Happens too often for my liking, that we start too predictably, easy to defend - then change it similar to above and get better later on. For me, we are fixing what was wrong in the first place, rather than a master tactical decision.
Not a moan as such, but think we could be playing more to our strengths than we are from the kick off
[Post edited 20 Feb 2018 16:12]


Like you say Dando, the change mid game is not a tactical masterstroke, as some have suggested, but much more a case of the correcting the incorrect formation we'd started with.
[Post edited 20 Feb 2018 16:43]

Poll: Should JFH get the sack?

0
Switch to four at the back on 17:41 - Feb 20 with 1274 viewssmegma

Switch to four at the back on 16:08 - Feb 20 by WestbourneR

Like you say Dando, the change mid game is not a tactical masterstroke, as some have suggested, but much more a case of the correcting the incorrect formation we'd started with.
[Post edited 20 Feb 2018 16:43]


I thought our starting formation on Saturday wasn't bad. It was because Boltons formation seemed to be 9-1-0 that forced the change.
1
About Us Contact Us Terms & Conditions Privacy Cookies Advertising
© FansNetwork 2024