On sale in the morning

6 hours ago, bolty58 said:

Not reading any of the above. I already know what will be said by the negheads.

The last time we won this division, we lost 3 of our first 7 games. No need for panic just yet. Still think IE should have gone at the end of last season. There's a nagging doubt that he may have reached the limit of his capabilities.

If FV thought he deserved another chance then who are we to argue? He'll either turn it around or be gone by Christmas.

I suppose it depends what "turning it round" looks like?  Top 8?  Top 6? Its not black and white, we'll win some and lose some and we'll be in the top half no doubt, decisions would still need to be made based on what the expectation is.

35 minutes ago, Mounts Kipper said:

This with bells on. The signings weve made are designed to give us other options, Evatt had to give the majority of last season squad another bite of the cherry, clearly it’s not working so I’m expecting him to shake it up, go with the 2 wingbacks, chuck Matete into a 3 man midfield but that’ll need only 2 up top as can’t see a back 4 with 2 wingback types. So for me it’s a 5-3-2 the conundrum being where do you fit Collins and or Mcatee in that system. 

I think we have to go 3 in the middle 

Last season's formation yielded lots of goals and mostly good results 

We just needed to tweak the personnel and give ourselves options to change our approach 

I think we have that now if we start Matete 

And when fully fit we have plenty of attacking options to freshen things up or bring on more forwards 

I was surprised he started all 3 forwards at home, and more so yesterday 

I just don't think that is the answer or a system we should be working towards 

Shrewsbury gives us a chance to tweak it

But it should only really be two of Charles, Collins, Vic and McAtee for me unless we're going all out for a goal late on 

1 hour ago, perth_white said:

I think I've just lost faith. Oxford was abject and consistent with how we've performed in big games. Evatt has had great backing wrt to the level the club is at and brought in players in the summer who have excited the fanbase. I believe he's on record as saying 433 is his favoured formation, well fucking try it then. I really don't feel like I know better but the start to this season (4 games in) just feels the same. Someone suggested a back 4 that seemed sensible (Johnston, Santos, Toal, Tu-tu), I'd then try a midfield 3 that can accommodate Sheehan and Matete, with Vic up top allowing  Collins and McAtee to play either side. Sure it may not work but it seems to at least fit the players we have. First time I've ever criticised Evatt publically, hope he shoves it right back down my throat.

No problem with a back four but certainly not that one. Johnston is not a left back and needs to play in the centre, probably alongside Santos despite his current woes with Jones RFB and Iredale LFB. When Forrester is fit he can also cover the RFB position. I’m sad to say I’ve lost faith in Toal who I see more as a Santos replacement than on either side. We don’t yet know how good Forino is but he seems a logical Santos option or replacement with his size. That leaves both Desmond and Schon to be proper wingers which is what they really are anyway. I accept we’re not pro managers and we all have opinions but I think the majority can see that Evatt’s way just isn’t working and if he won’t/can’t change then we either continue to fail or Sharon acts.

50 minutes ago, Mounts Kipper said:

This with bells on. The signings weve made are designed to give us other options, Evatt had to give the majority of last season squad another bite of the cherry, clearly it’s not working so I’m expecting him to shake it up, go with the 2 wingbacks, chuck Matete into a 3 man midfield but that’ll need only 2 up top as can’t see a back 4 with 2 wingback types. So for me it’s a 5-3-2 the conundrum being where do you fit Collins and or Mcatee in that system. 

4 at the back. The wing back thing has never clicked & we've destroyed a few good players trying to force it.

3 minutes ago, Johnnyrotten said:

I suppose it depends what "turning it round" looks like?  Top 8?  Top 6? Its not black and white, we'll win some and lose some and we'll be in the top half no doubt, decisions would still need to be made based on what the expectation is.

 

That's where I think we're in danger of the worst of all worlds. Not shit enough to force a change, not good enough to actually go up. Beat the bad teams, finish fourth and lose in the playoffs.

I really don’t understand his thinking from Xmas to the end of season we got worked out and results showed this so his answer and his 3 coaches was to lose a midfielder and replace with an extra attacker ! We are get overrun again in midfield and Sheehan is not the answer he needs time on the ball which he will not in any game this season so he becomes a passenger leaving Thomo on his own with no help from anybody else. How Evatt and his 3 coaches can’t see this I am baffled but we all know he will persist with this and if he does they all will be gone by Xmas ! Somebody I know at the club told me Evatt is hard to get on with very moody and doesn’t take criticism well . 

6 hours ago, bolty58 said:

Not reading any of the above. I already know what will be said by the negheads.

The last time we won this division, we lost 3 of our first 7 games. No need for panic just yet. Still think IE should have gone at the end of last season. There's a nagging doubt that he may have reached the limit of his capabilities.

If FV thought he deserved another chance then who are we to argue? He'll either turn it around or be gone by Christmas.

Problem for me is if we wait till Christmas to replace Evatt, we'll have wasted the season. Will end up being an upper mid table recovery job for a new manager similar to the Coyle to Freedman season. 

While this is a much tougher league this season I don't think we can afford many more seasons in league 1 from a financial point of view, so I'd be acting now if I was FV. 

You've only got to look at the teams that have been promoted to see that it's got to be consistent, the right formation, bet Stockport aren't trying to play some fancy formation and they'll play to their strengths.

 

I just checked, 4231. I wonder if there is a trend with teams in and around the top with the formations they play.

Edited August 25, 20241 yr by SalCity Biggie
Additional info

1 hour ago, wakey said:

Wasn't it Shankly who said football's a simple game complicated by idiots ...

We do create a lot of chances which lead to corners and free kicks... but we don't practice dead balls enough, Morley is a case in point... good corner/free kick taker but became isolated

23 minutes ago, ianofcleveleys said:

Evatt talked in close season about knowing what needed fixing, but when he talked about it not being Plan B but Plan A.2 my enthusiasm quickly faded, suggesting he hadn't seen much of what anyone outside his office had seen and any changes would be just tinkering with shapes rather than acknowledging some of principles had to be rethought. 

All I've seen is do so far, after a load of ins and outs and more generous Board backing, is us doing most of the same things, with the same types of players, with just an unsuccessful tweak to the system. If anything, we actually look less robust and more lightweight than we did last season

The changes to approach and personnel needed to be a fair bit more radical than Evatt seems willing to admit if we are to clamber out of this tough, uncompromising and streetwise Division 

The Plan B/A 2.0 is the thing that baffles me. As a manager would you not want to showcase how you’re able to influence a game by changing things up when things aren’t going well? For people/fans/journos to be praising you for how you can change things up rather than doing the same thing over and over. 
 

I’ve always been a big Evatt fan and a trust the process person, but it’s the stubbornness for me now. 

28 minutes ago, Wanderlust said:

"Wasn't it Shankly who said football's a simple game complicated by idiots ... " - I'm with Shankly on this.

In the cold light of day I was hoping to see things in a different light but I can't help but come back to thinking that the system/selection has to change - unless we loan or sign a player or players to complete Evatt's jigsaw of a system before the week is out.

I think a few of us would feel more comfortable going with a back 4, if only for a security blanket. Totally understand the back 3/playing it out from the back is designed to create more space further up the pitch but...it just doesn't work for us or at least not effectively and...we risk giving it away in dangerous areas like both yesterday's goals. In reality though, our wide midfielders are forced to drop back to receive the ball on the wing and Sheehan or Tommo drop back to receive it deep anyway whenever they press (they always do against us) so where is the advantage that we are supposed to be gaining from it? We call it a back 3 but unless we go long, we have at least 6 back trying to get on the pass from back, so why not go with a back 4 and see if teams are as willing to commit four attackers to press them when we have it at the back? That would create more space further up the pitch if they're brave/daft enough to do it.

But for me, the key area for us - and where we have the biggest dilemma is in midfield. That's where the press that cramps our back 3 and stifles the outballs comes from. That's where the quick transition from defence to attack breaks down. That's where we get overrun or from where the opposition play through us in their transitions.

And in my book, Evatt is overly obsessed with trying to play "pretty football" - we have too many easy on the eye but ineffectual players who occasionally come good, but for the most part slow us down and give defences way too much time to get back and organise. OK occasionally they do something brilliant and it's great to watch - but for the most part we get found out and overelaborate in front of goal.

There is an argument to say Sheehan is our best "creator" of chances, but although he is easy on the eye, I can't remember the last time he created anything at least not in 2024. But my concern is that he's the weakest link out of possession. Perhaps someone would be kind enough to put me right on this, but from memory he isn't a patch on George for goals and assists and he doesn't put in anything like the same workload. As mentioned earlier, we need to control midfield and if we put Matete in the middle with Tommo and Demps on either side we'd be stronger defensively and I would argue all three are creative and have the energy to contribute at both ends of the pitch.

Which leaves the front 3 and currently two of them are having to drop back to get more bodies in a midfield that gets overrun too easily anyway so why not keep one (Dion or Vic) in a central area no wider than the box to try to occupy 2 CBs and have up to 5 other runners coming from the middle? Having the three athletes in the middle in Tommo, Matete and Demps  doing box to box would get the most out of them plus Collins and McAtee (who can also run) doing primarily top half should scare defences shitless because all of them can run, find space, keep good control of the ball and pick out a killer pass. All with the security of a back 4. Playing that basic 433/451/415 structure and giving the forward 6 players some freedom and fluidity is simple enough - just need to up their workrate and coach the mid 3 for someone to cover the back 4 when one has the opportunity to exploit a space eg Tutu bombing down the wing to join in.

I just think that instead of having three excellent midfield athletes constrained by an overcomplex system or left to chase shadows when only two of them are selected and therefore outnumbered (even worse when Sheehan starts) is daft and doesn't fully utilise their obvious assets.

Love to watch Sheehan, but for me he should be coming on as a sub when the hard yards have been done by the better athletes. Schon is still a maybe for me. Forino has the makings of a decent back 4 option. 

As for transfers, I still think we are still one box to box midfielder light and am gutted that the one signing we didn't make permanent is Matete.

 

That's a good analysis. I've thought for a while watching the way we play this back 3/5 is making us more defensive and deep than we should be. Our extra man is a defender so it's too tempting to pass it round at the back, and then the midfield and full backs inevitably come deep to try and get involved.

Would love us to go to a 4 at the back of Iredale, Johnston, Santos, Tutu (Jones when fit) and get everyone pushed further forward.

 

40 minutes ago, Wanderlust said:

"Wasn't it Shankly who said football's a simple game complicated by idiots ... " - I'm with Shankly on this.

In the cold light of day I was hoping to see things in a different light but I can't help but come back to thinking that the system/selection has to change - unless we loan or sign a player or players to complete Evatt's jigsaw of a system before the week is out.

I think a few of us would feel more comfortable going with a back 4, if only for a security blanket. Totally understand the back 3/playing it out from the back is designed to create more space further up the pitch but...it just doesn't work for us or at least not effectively and...we risk giving it away in dangerous areas like both yesterday's goals. In reality though, our wide midfielders are forced to drop back to receive the ball on the wing and Sheehan or Tommo drop back to receive it deep anyway whenever they press (they always do against us) so where is the advantage that we are supposed to be gaining from it? We call it a back 3 but unless we go long, we have at least 6 back trying to get on the pass from back, so why not go with a back 4 and see if teams are as willing to commit four attackers to press them when we have it at the back? That would create more space further up the pitch if they're brave/daft enough to do it.

But for me, the key area for us - and where we have the biggest dilemma is in midfield. That's where the press that cramps our back 3 and stifles the outballs comes from. That's where the quick transition from defence to attack breaks down. That's where we get overrun or from where the opposition play through us in their transitions.

And in my book, Evatt is overly obsessed with trying to play "pretty football" - we have too many easy on the eye but ineffectual players who occasionally come good, but for the most part slow us down and give defences way too much time to get back and organise. OK occasionally they do something brilliant and it's great to watch - but for the most part we get found out and overelaborate in front of goal.

There is an argument to say Sheehan is our best "creator" of chances, but although he is easy on the eye, I can't remember the last time he created anything at least not in 2024. But my concern is that he's the weakest link out of possession. Perhaps someone would be kind enough to put me right on this, but from memory he isn't a patch on George for goals and assists and he doesn't put in anything like the same workload. As mentioned earlier, we need to control midfield and if we put Matete in the middle with Tommo and Demps on either side we'd be stronger defensively and I would argue all three are creative and have the energy to contribute at both ends of the pitch.

Which leaves the front 3 and currently two of them are having to drop back to get more bodies in a midfield that gets overrun too easily anyway so why not keep one (Dion or Vic) in a central area no wider than the box to try to occupy 2 CBs and have up to 5 other runners coming from the middle? Having the three athletes in the middle in Tommo, Matete and Demps  doing box to box would get the most out of them plus Collins and McAtee (who can also run) doing primarily top half should scare defences shitless because all of them can run, find space, keep good control of the ball and pick out a killer pass. All with the security of a back 4. Playing that basic 433/451/415 structure and giving the forward 6 players some freedom and fluidity is simple enough - just need to up their workrate and coach the mid 3 for someone to cover the back 4 when one has the opportunity to exploit a space eg Tutu bombing down the wing to join in.

I just think that instead of having three excellent midfield athletes constrained by an overcomplex system or left to chase shadows when only two of them are selected and therefore outnumbered (even worse when Sheehan starts) is daft and doesn't fully utilise their obvious assets.

Love to watch Sheehan, but for me he should be coming on as a sub when the hard yards have been done by the better athletes. Schon is still a maybe for me. Forino has the makings of a decent back 4 option. 

As for transfers, I still think we are still one box to box midfielder light and am gutted that the one signing we didn't make permanent is Matete.

 

Bit of irony in that first sentence pal.. 🤣

13 minutes ago, Dimron said:

We do create a lot of chances which lead to corners and free kicks... but we don't practice dead balls enough, Morley is a case in point... good corner/free kick taker but became isolated

We had 3 corners yesterday, 2 at Orient.

We get into a lot of decent positions but then it all fizzles out.

1 hour ago, Leyther_Matt said:

Not interested one bit in what Evatt has had to say, but then again I’ve never really paid much attention to post-match interviews anyway.

Without the two fuck ups it had 0-0 written all over it, and that’s probably what makes it even worse because we just laid it on a plate for them.

Another team who kicked the fuck out of Sheehan for the first 20 mins and then they know they can get on top. We so often struggled with three in midfield last season so it’s no wonder it’s happening again with only playing with two. 

Collins and McAtee can both be top drawer when they’re on it, but I don’t see how either of them fit in to any sort of structure, and so to play them both leaves us really short elsewhere when they’re just wandering about looking for scraps.

The whole situation with Santos is really getting a bit toxic now, too. I thought it was a little harsh that he became the poster boy for the Wembley failure as, now matter how scarring a mental image it is, him being stood on top of the bastard ball was because he had literally nobody to pass to apart from the other centre halves and goalkeeper. However, he absolutely triggered me yesterday, not with the mistake for the goal but when he made was should have been a simple, short pass and it ended up twatting someone in row C. Fucking pathetic from any professional footballer, but is completely exaggerated by him being the preening peacock who is always keen to blame others for what are just pure basic shortcomings.

Cracking day out with so many faces on here. But bloody hell it was a grim 90 minutes. 

Santos has done really well under Evatt, come up from low leagues playing the Evatt system and that is why he is the captain, he will not play any other way. Why should he? He is at the peak of his career at the moment as the manager's right hand man

4 minutes ago, Stig said:

That's a good analysis. I've thought for a while watching the way we play this back 3/5 is making us more defensive and deep than we should be. Our extra man is a defender so it's too tempting to pass it round at the back, and then the midfield and full backs inevitably come deep to try and get involved.

Would love us to go to a 4 at the back of Iredale, Johnston, Santos, Tutu (Jones when fit) and get everyone pushed further forward.

 

I agree regarding a back four, but, whatever system you play in this league, tippy tappy football will not get you out of this division, Stockport and Wrexham are two examples, not the most entertaining, but much more effective!

2 minutes ago, Ani said:

We had 3 corners yesterday, 2 at Orient.

We get into a lot of decent positions but then it all fizzles out.

Okay point taken, but there has been a lot of wastage of dead ball situations, just seems to want to play fancy passing football... you can't walk it over the line every time!

26 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Christ, he's not started a league game yet, but as a sub at Orient folk said he changed the game. More physical, and driving at them. 

As shit as it was yesterday, I don't see how anyone could make such a judgement so early, on him.

I rate Matete from what I've seen, he'll become a regular.  If he's a creator and potential scorer I'll hold my hands up I'm wrong.  I thought his game was deeper than that, and his goalscoring record (5 goals in over 90 games) backs that up. If he's been brought in as a creative spark/Maghoma replacement its a surprise to me but I'd be happy for him to start most games.

3 minutes ago, woolli said:

I agree regarding a back four, but, whatever system you play in this league, tippy tappy football will not get you out of this division, Stockport and Wrexham are two examples, not the most entertaining, but much more effective!

Absolutely proof is clear to see when you look at previous teams to have left this league, it’s L1 football don’t over complicate things 

2 minutes ago, radcliffe white said:

Absolutely proof is clear to see when you look at previous teams to have left this league, it’s L1 football don’t over complicate things 

Unfortunately we have a manager who lives for complicating things and whilst he’s here it’s unlikely its going to change.

47 minutes ago, Whitesince63 said:

No problem with a back four but certainly not that one. Johnston is not a left back and needs to play in the centre, probably alongside Santos despite his current woes with Jones RFB and Iredale LFB. When Forrester is fit he can also cover the RFB position. I’m sad to say I’ve lost faith in Toal who I see more as a Santos replacement than on either side. We don’t yet know how good Forino is but he seems a logical Santos option or replacement with his size. That leaves both Desmond and Schon to be proper wingers which is what they really are anyway. I accept we’re not pro managers and we all have opinions but I think the majority can see that Evatt’s way just isn’t working and if he won’t/can’t change then we either continue to fail or Sharon acts.

Makes sense. Continuing to do the same thing doesn't 

16 minutes ago, woolli said:

I agree regarding a back four, but, whatever system you play in this league, tippy tappy football will not get you out of this division, Stockport and Wrexham are two examples, not the most entertaining, but much more effective!

It's a good point, just look at Derby and Pompey last season. One generally playing 523, the other 4231, but the common thing was they were both just solid, no nonsense teams, playing safe football in the opposition half.

Whatever formation, I agree, we're making it too easy for the opposition playing so much at the back.

26 minutes ago, Stig said:

That's a good analysis. I've thought for a while watching the way we play this back 3/5 is making us more defensive and deep than we should be. Our extra man is a defender so it's too tempting to pass it round at the back, and then the midfield and full backs inevitably come deep to try and get involved.

Would love us to go to a 4 at the back of Iredale, Johnston, Santos, Tutu (Jones when fit) and get everyone pushed further forward.

 

The irony is that the current system is supposed to make us an attacking team as I understand it, but we somehow manage to take risks at the back and still don't have any space when we get forward.

As for who should be in the back four I'm not overly concerned as we have options for different games. Midfield is where we can make a huge difference IMO.

Sadly, I think we need a change of manager and it should have happened after Wembley.  I like Evatt and he will be successful in his next job, probably in the championship where his ideas will be more suited to a higher quality squad at his disposal.

However, what we need now is someone pragmatic like Nathan Jones or Oxfords manager last season. They realise that sometimes in league 1 you are going to have to dig results out and that is something we seem incapable of doing. 

30 minutes ago, Dimron said:

Santos has done really well under Evatt, come up from low leagues playing the Evatt system and that is why he is the captain, he will not play any other way. Why should he? He is at the peak of his career at the moment as the manager's right hand man

Nothing excuses his wayward passing, didn't even seem to acknowledge the 1st goal was entirely of his own doing. I don't think he was blameless for the 2nd. On his day he's properly one of the best CF in the league. But can be a liability.

We hadn't really played well last season since Xmas, notwithstanding all the injury issues. However, there was one performance that showed what the squad of that time could do when they really put their minds and backs into it. The away effort at Barnsley in the play offs was the blueprint, hard work off the ball from front to back, tenacious defending, lower-risk policy around playing out from back, quicker transfer of ball to the forwards, stretching and turning defenders. One of the best, if not the best, performances of the season. 

What's baffling is that it was such a one-off. We hadn't seen anything like it in the weeks preceding and we haven't since. Why is something known only to Evatt, Markham and the players themselves. The approach and the levels were there that night and were highly effective. The close season analysis should have taken as long as required to watch that match back through again, and no more.