| Holloway: It's not about formations on 16:30 - Mar 2 with 2708 views | 1JD |
| Holloway: It's not about formations on 15:02 - Mar 2 by daveB |
That would be the case if we switched formation, some players would benefit, others wouldn't. IMO the ones who would benefit are not as good as the ones the current system suits so would rather stick than twist at this stage of the season.
I think we should be doing better this season but not massively, i expected us to be 3/4 places higher in the league but overall this squad is a lower mid table one which is where we are |
you are of the same opinion to Holloway, which is fine, but I believe we can get more out of this group and would like to see some acknowdgenent and improvement of our deficits in the wing back system.
Namely, we have no width, little to no creativity, and no hold up play. If we are to stick with the wing backs, then I would deploy a 3-4-3 system. Holloway has already acknowledged this as an option when he referred to playing with “2 number 10s”. Which I think we have played once since then.
We could alternate between a narrow “2 number 10s” (ala Arsenal), or 2 wide forwards (ala Man City) - dependent on opposition tactics. The first option gives us much needed transitional personnel, whilst the second offers width and the ability to double up on wing play and create.
To do means moving Freeman from a central midfield position, to a higher, wider and more penetrative left number 10, and either Smyth/Eze/BOS as the right sided attacker. It also means removing an out and out striker in Washington, but I feel we offer very little as a 2-man strikeforce anyway, which needs addressing.
Lastly, we lose Freeman from a deeper central midfield role, yet I feel Loungo and Scowen should be more than capable to hold their own in there,and perhaps even demonstrate more fluidity in our passing game since they will have more options in front and out wide [Post edited 2 Mar 2018 16:32]
|  | |  |
| Holloway: It's not about formations on 18:13 - Mar 2 with 2621 views | daveB |
| Holloway: It's not about formations on 16:01 - Mar 2 by WestbourneR |
I don't think you can judge them properly until they've actually played as wingers. I thinl Pavel was very good when he did play on the wing - crossing from deep as a wing back is much more difficult. Even Freeman could play out wide.
You're also admitting that Ollie buying three wingers in the summer was all for absolutely no purpose.
You're bending over backwards to defend indefensible errors of judgement by the management. |
Not sure where you got that from about those signings were for no purpose, i didn't say that at all.
I just don't think they are the kind of wide men you are calling for who will throw crosses into the box. BOS and Wheeler both look like players who want to come inside rather than be the old fashioned kind of winger.
As for Pawel I know as a wing back he has to defend more but he has played most games this season and been in the oppositons half for the majority of the time but has not been putting crosses in, maybe if he had a full back behind him that would wake him up but nothing stopping him doing it now as he gets into good positions out wide every week, more often than not he is high up the pitch then chooses to come inside or go backwards. |  | | |
| Holloway: It's not about formations on 18:25 - Mar 2 with 2606 views | daveB |
| Holloway: It's not about formations on 16:30 - Mar 2 by 1JD |
you are of the same opinion to Holloway, which is fine, but I believe we can get more out of this group and would like to see some acknowdgenent and improvement of our deficits in the wing back system.
Namely, we have no width, little to no creativity, and no hold up play. If we are to stick with the wing backs, then I would deploy a 3-4-3 system. Holloway has already acknowledged this as an option when he referred to playing with “2 number 10s”. Which I think we have played once since then.
We could alternate between a narrow “2 number 10s” (ala Arsenal), or 2 wide forwards (ala Man City) - dependent on opposition tactics. The first option gives us much needed transitional personnel, whilst the second offers width and the ability to double up on wing play and create.
To do means moving Freeman from a central midfield position, to a higher, wider and more penetrative left number 10, and either Smyth/Eze/BOS as the right sided attacker. It also means removing an out and out striker in Washington, but I feel we offer very little as a 2-man strikeforce anyway, which needs addressing.
Lastly, we lose Freeman from a deeper central midfield role, yet I feel Loungo and Scowen should be more than capable to hold their own in there,and perhaps even demonstrate more fluidity in our passing game since they will have more options in front and out wide [Post edited 2 Mar 2018 16:32]
|
I'm sure Holloway sees it, we all see we need more width but I don't think the wingers are good enough yet to be changing the system away from 3 at the back.
I'd agree with you that playing 3-4-3 would solve a lot of the problems, not all of them but would be worth trying and worked well at Reading last season when we played that way.
I think the problem Holloway had when he was talking about playing BOS and Smyth off the main striker was that both of them then got injured so he had to go back to Washington again. | | | |
| Holloway: It's not about formations on 21:20 - Mar 2 with 2535 views | DavieQPR |
If it is not about formations why does he change them 3 or 4 times in the second half. |  | | |
| Holloway: It's not about formations on 00:07 - Mar 3 with 2450 views | TacticalR |
There's been quite a lot of talk about 'confidence' and 'belief'. If I was playing in that team and we couldn't score even when the team was playing well for 10, 20 or 30 minutes at a time, I don't think I would have any belief that we were going to win. In fact I would be expecting to lose. That belief would be perfectly rational. |  |
| |
| Holloway: It's not about formations on 00:15 - Mar 3 with 2446 views | PunteR |
| Holloway: It's not about formations on 00:07 - Mar 3 by TacticalR |
There's been quite a lot of talk about 'confidence' and 'belief'. If I was playing in that team and we couldn't score even when the team was playing well for 10, 20 or 30 minutes at a time, I don't think I would have any belief that we were going to win. In fact I would be expecting to lose. That belief would be perfectly rational. |
So your saying in order for us to believe we're going to win games we need to start winning some. |  |
| Occasional providers of half decent House music. |
| |
| Holloway: It's not about formations on 00:17 - Mar 3 with 2443 views | TacticalR |
| Holloway: It's not about formations on 00:15 - Mar 3 by PunteR |
So your saying in order for us to believe we're going to win games we need to start winning some. |
Yes, although we need to work our way up to it by scoring a goal every now and then. | |
| |
| Holloway: It's not about formations on 00:50 - Mar 3 with 2430 views | mylot50years |
| Holloway: It's not about formations on 14:01 - Mar 2 by Northernr |
The formation isn't great, lots of problems, but every formation we play with this squad is going to have problems. I'd like him to change it, I've had thoughts on what I'd like to see the same as everybody. But I do think we're very prone to always believing we're on quick fix away if only the idiot manager/DOF/chairman could see it. If we're playing 3-5-2 we think we'd be vastly improved in 4-4-2 and if we're playing 4-4-2 we'd be vastly improved in 4-2-3-1. If Manning isn't playing then he's the answer, if Sylla isn't playing then he's the answer. If this manager isn't working then we must change and the next one definitely will, for some reason.
And as the managers and players and formations change so the results remain the same, and we move onto the next signing, the next youth team player, the next big idea.
You look at what Nigel Clough does at Burton on a League Two budget and you can't tell me that tactics, thought, formations etc don't make a difference. But at the same time I look at our squad, with centre backs like Lynch and Baptiste, and strikers like Smith and Washington, and think it's a bit of a stretch to think the formation is the main problem and changing it will send us shooting up the league. |
I happen to think our squad of players are much more capable than it is being suggested,and to come to the conclusion that any change in the coaching situation, because it has not been successful in the past is off the agenda is being very naive.My fear is if as is being suggested we let Mr Holloway see out his contract, and because of the difficult situation financially the club are in this would be under the present circumstances the best route to take. I only hope TF and others don't see the solution this way because if we as a proud club think things are unstable now I dread to imagine what it would be like in 18 months time.At the end of the season we need to address the present coaching situation and with the present directives LF has put in place behind the scenes the other problems the club have may soon start to be less problematic hence enabling the club to stabilize. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Holloway: It's not about formations on 03:18 - Mar 3 with 2392 views | PlanetHonneywood |
| Holloway: It's not about formations on 12:41 - Mar 2 by 1JD |
Perhaps just perhaps the lack of belief comes from the fact that the players don’t believe in the system they are being asked to play? Which also means they might not believe in Holloway himself?
Anyone at Bristol City away would see the complete lack of trust in passing out wide to bidwell for example - my mate who came to the game said it stuck out like a sore thumb, and I had to agree. A kind of exasperated “oh why bother, I’m better off finding a different route cos that ain’t comin to nothing”. We’ve all been there, even in amateur football, when you don’t pass to a team mate cos you know it will break down. And to be clear this is not an attack on Bidwell, I think he can do a reasonable job at full back, but he has no place further up the field, or to he trusted with the whole left hand side |
Quite valid points.
As I read your post, my mind turned to Pav. If formations isn’t the issue, then playing players in their best position and good man-management are. Pav looks a shadow of his former self and scarred shitless at the prospect of going past his man. And your right about Bidwell also.
Looking at Pep, he’s getting blokes to play above and beyond themselves. He’s made Raheem look like a genuine threat, and everyone of them is being played to their strengths, not in something that doesn’t suit many individually and collectively. |  |
| |
| Holloway: It's not about formations on 07:49 - Mar 3 with 2343 views | TGRRRSSS |
Bit worrying he said this but I'd be wary of what people say in interviews for the most part, I dont think many Managers or coaches want to give much away in interviews to be honest.
Ferguson rarely said much of value in an interview except you knew he'd complement someone he'd hammered and slag of someone who'd beaten or drawn with his sides.
He showed his brightness in many ways by saying very little of value in most interviews I ever saw of him.
The exception maybe being in 1999 in Barcelona.
As for Holloway I think overall he's doing a reasonable job in the circumstances, not sure anyone better for us is around.
HUghes is available for work anyone....... |  | | |
| Holloway: It's not about formations on 12:07 - Mar 3 with 2250 views | BazzaInTheLoft |
| Holloway: It's not about formations on 16:01 - Mar 2 by WestbourneR |
I don't think you can judge them properly until they've actually played as wingers. I thinl Pavel was very good when he did play on the wing - crossing from deep as a wing back is much more difficult. Even Freeman could play out wide.
You're also admitting that Ollie buying three wingers in the summer was all for absolutely no purpose.
You're bending over backwards to defend indefensible errors of judgement by the management. |
The purpose of a skint club buying young wingers with sell on potential seems obvious to me, wether you play them straight away or not.
Also, I think it's been said around 22,000 times that Olly doesn't instigate the transfers he just signs them off.
Using words like indefensible doesn't strengthen your point, just makes you look hyperbolic. |  | | |
| Holloway: It's not about formations on 14:00 - Mar 3 with 2191 views | stevec |
Burnley giving Everton the runaround with a couple of monsters up front and what are they, about 7th in the Premier.
Ollies right about formations, but it is about players in their right positions. |  | | |
| Holloway: It's not about formations on 14:03 - Mar 3 with 2185 views | BazzaInTheLoft |
| Holloway: It's not about formations on 14:00 - Mar 3 by stevec |
Burnley giving Everton the runaround with a couple of monsters up front and what are they, about 7th in the Premier.
Ollies right about formations, but it is about players in their right positions. |
Some rare agreement between me and you Steve. | | | |
| Holloway: It's not about formations on 17:01 - Mar 3 with 2136 views | WestbourneR |
| Holloway: It's not about formations on 12:07 - Mar 3 by BazzaInTheLoft |
The purpose of a skint club buying young wingers with sell on potential seems obvious to me, wether you play them straight away or not.
Also, I think it's been said around 22,000 times that Olly doesn't instigate the transfers he just signs them off.
Using words like indefensible doesn't strengthen your point, just makes you look hyperbolic. |
I’m definitely going to take your advice on vocabulary.
- Young wingers ‘with sell on potential’ need to play. Otherwise they won’t realise that potential.
- Holloway told Northen in his pre-season interview that he’d asked for wingers. So others may have scouted them but Ollie is one who says what he needs. That’s the system.
- In the same interview he said he’d gone after wingers because he wanted to improve the supply of crosses into the box that compliment the aerial power of our strikers.
- He has since thrown that all out the window and become fixated on a formation which has no room for wingers annd provides absolutely zero supply into the box from out wide.
Now you can pissy with me all you like but it’s a mess - and it’s a mess that reflects our managers utter inability to order his thoughts and develop a coherent strategy.
Someone on he posted that Ollie has always had a habit of playing players out for position and it’s true. It’s very very stupid. Gallen on the right wing anyone, Santos up front? |  |
| |
| Holloway: It's not about formations on 17:45 - Mar 3 with 2100 views | BazzaInTheLoft |
| Holloway: It's not about formations on 17:01 - Mar 3 by WestbourneR |
I’m definitely going to take your advice on vocabulary.
- Young wingers ‘with sell on potential’ need to play. Otherwise they won’t realise that potential.
- Holloway told Northen in his pre-season interview that he’d asked for wingers. So others may have scouted them but Ollie is one who says what he needs. That’s the system.
- In the same interview he said he’d gone after wingers because he wanted to improve the supply of crosses into the box that compliment the aerial power of our strikers.
- He has since thrown that all out the window and become fixated on a formation which has no room for wingers annd provides absolutely zero supply into the box from out wide.
Now you can pissy with me all you like but it’s a mess - and it’s a mess that reflects our managers utter inability to order his thoughts and develop a coherent strategy.
Someone on he posted that Ollie has always had a habit of playing players out for position and it’s true. It’s very very stupid. Gallen on the right wing anyone, Santos up front? |
We made £9m out of Sterling without him setting foot on the pitch.
Parett the same.
Bowler had one appearance for us.
Kpekwa 3(?) games.
Goss linked with a £Xm move despite playing less minutes on the pitch than the mascot.
Is Olly doing the right things? Maybe not.
Should we hold him to casual words to a forum 9 months ago? No.
I wouldn’t be so sensitive either, this isn’t pissy i’m just calling you out on what I think is a weird snobbery you have. Feel free to dish it back. I can take it. | | | |
| Holloway: It's not about formations on 19:08 - Mar 3 with 2064 views | WestbourneR |
| Holloway: It's not about formations on 17:45 - Mar 3 by BazzaInTheLoft |
We made £9m out of Sterling without him setting foot on the pitch.
Parett the same.
Bowler had one appearance for us.
Kpekwa 3(?) games.
Goss linked with a £Xm move despite playing less minutes on the pitch than the mascot.
Is Olly doing the right things? Maybe not.
Should we hold him to casual words to a forum 9 months ago? No.
I wouldn’t be so sensitive either, this isn’t pissy i’m just calling you out on what I think is a weird snobbery you have. Feel free to dish it back. I can take it. |
Baz it’s not about holding him to an interview - it’s about the fact we bought two even three players based on the reasoning laid out on that interview. He spent the vast majority of our transfer budget on them.
I’m holding him to account for that.
Not snobbery - it’s the basics. | |
| |
| Holloway: It's not about formations on 08:23 - Mar 4 with 2001 views | BazzaInTheLoft |
| Holloway: It's not about formations on 19:08 - Mar 3 by WestbourneR |
Baz it’s not about holding him to an interview - it’s about the fact we bought two even three players based on the reasoning laid out on that interview. He spent the vast majority of our transfer budget on them.
I’m holding him to account for that.
Not snobbery - it’s the basics. |
I don't think QPR publish their transfer budgets so neither you or I know if that is true or not.
Personally I think they are good investments and were wise moves by the club as a whole in the long term. If we'd signed David Bentley and Aaron Lennon I'd be inclined to agree with you.
If these wingers go on to become first team regulars next season or sell for twice their value then it'll be worth it whatever exposure they had 2017/18. | | | |
| Holloway: It's not about formations on 09:56 - Mar 4 with 1945 views | LadbrokeR |
| Holloway: It's not about formations on 07:49 - Mar 3 by TGRRRSSS |
Bit worrying he said this but I'd be wary of what people say in interviews for the most part, I dont think many Managers or coaches want to give much away in interviews to be honest.
Ferguson rarely said much of value in an interview except you knew he'd complement someone he'd hammered and slag of someone who'd beaten or drawn with his sides.
He showed his brightness in many ways by saying very little of value in most interviews I ever saw of him.
The exception maybe being in 1999 in Barcelona.
As for Holloway I think overall he's doing a reasonable job in the circumstances, not sure anyone better for us is around.
HUghes is available for work anyone....... |
To be honest Holloway could do with saying a little bit less. | | | |
| Holloway: It's not about formations on 10:24 - Mar 4 with 1928 views | mendipexile |
Back to the original point, it is a bit about formations, but not only that. I think Holloway is playing the system he does as he thinks it gets the best out of who he sees as his best players, the midfield three. They won't always play well though, no one plays well all the time. It's clear Pav and Bidwell are no wing backs. It's a difficult position to play, even more so in a team that's not solid defensively, but they try. Our strikers aren't very good. If they were they wouldn't be here. Again, I don't know if Connor will make it at this level but I really hope he does because he works bloody hard and we need him to. The route of this is constant change, managers, playing styles and players coming and going. I don't like it but I have resigned myself to a few years of how we are now. The club is in a mess and this will take ages to sort out, but they've made a start. For me, what happens with players leaving or joining in the summer is crucial because I think we do have some foundations of a decent team. If we can keep our better players and find others like Freeman and Scowen we might be on to something. | | | |
| Holloway: It's not about formations on 11:26 - Mar 4 with 1896 views | daveB |
| Holloway: It's not about formations on 17:01 - Mar 3 by WestbourneR |
I’m definitely going to take your advice on vocabulary.
- Young wingers ‘with sell on potential’ need to play. Otherwise they won’t realise that potential.
- Holloway told Northen in his pre-season interview that he’d asked for wingers. So others may have scouted them but Ollie is one who says what he needs. That’s the system.
- In the same interview he said he’d gone after wingers because he wanted to improve the supply of crosses into the box that compliment the aerial power of our strikers.
- He has since thrown that all out the window and become fixated on a formation which has no room for wingers annd provides absolutely zero supply into the box from out wide.
Now you can pissy with me all you like but it’s a mess - and it’s a mess that reflects our managers utter inability to order his thoughts and develop a coherent strategy.
Someone on he posted that Ollie has always had a habit of playing players out for position and it’s true. It’s very very stupid. Gallen on the right wing anyone, Santos up front? |
you say we have zero supply from out wide but that just isn't true. Smith scored from crosses into the box in the last 2 home games and missed 6 great chances from the same situation in those games. Lynchs goal against Bolton also came from a cross into the box.
It may not be the conventional wingers playing but we're still putting crosses into the box | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
