Blackpool (A)

[Stig]

2 minutes ago, thebells said:

Warren might well be a good player for us down the line, and attitude / mentality seem spot on.

However, he was out of his depth against Sheff Wed and clearly needs a season out somewhere, likely at NL level.

Easy to forget the game against Sheff Wed was his first ever pro football match, so he'll need time.

I expect he will be sent out on loan before the end of the window.

Agree that seems most likely now given he's not been in the squad since. But it's hard to judge in his first ever game, in a makeshift team that got reduced to 10 early on.

Cissoko looked equally lost on Saturday (and a bit disinterested) so I wouldn't be against giving Warren a bench spot at his expense. Could still loan him out after that if it's clear he needs development.

[Tonge moor green jacket]

13 hours ago, Duck Egg said:

Think we got into that 1985 game about 30 minutes in. The turnstiles were totally overwhelmed and a Blackpool bloke told me they were only expecting 800 to turn up. It was something like £3.80 to get in and they ran out of change in no time resulting in folk paying 4 or 5 quid just to get in.

Lucky you.

Half time for us.

Disgraceful.

[Tonge moor green jacket]

1 hour ago, Stig said:

Agree that seems most likely now given he's not been in the squad since. But it's hard to judge in his first ever game, in a makeshift team that got reduced to 10 early on.

Cissoko looked equally lost on Saturday (and a bit disinterested) so I wouldn't be against giving Warren a bench spot at his expense. Could still loan him out after that if it's clear he needs development.

It was also a game shortly after breaking his wrist.

Bit short of sharpness perhaps.

Pre season he did well, and showed a good level of commitment and bravery.

If he needs to go on loan to get better, then what do we do with McAtee?

[Johnnyrotten]

4 hours ago, paulhanley said:

Yes the previous week being a 2-1 home win over Chesterfield with Nat as temporary manager. He banged his head on the roof of those old concrete dugouts when getting up to celebrate. 

You are right of course, the Blackpool game was the first away game for Neal, Donny was the first overall.

I suspect it would have been a hell of a turnout at Blackpool that day regardless. First trip there for eight year etc. The year after it was a lot lower for a Tuesday night 1-1 draw in which we took the lead in the second half only to concede the equaliser within the space of about 60 seconds. Another chapter in the history of ridiculous ways to avoid victory at Bloomfield Road.

After having quite a few Wigan and Blackpool games on either Boxing Day/NY Day/Easter a few times from 83 to 86, it was noticeable that in 86/87 all 4 of those games were night matches, and no more packed away ends (that was the relegation to Div 4 season). 

I'd totally forgot Nat had a game as caretaker manager pre-Phil Neal, glad he won.

[paulhanley]

2 hours ago, Johnnyrotten said:

After having quite a few Wigan and Blackpool games on either Boxing Day/NY Day/Easter a few times from 83 to 86, it was noticeable that in 86/87 all 4 of those games were night matches, and no more packed away ends (that was the relegation to Div 4 season). 

I'd totally forgot Nat had a game as caretaker manager pre-Phil Neal, glad he won.

After 86/7 we certainly did not have many away local derbies in that Xmas/New Year period for a number of years. Quite a few at home - including Blackpool in 89/90 which we won 2-0 and Wigan in 92/3 which we won 2-1. The only away one that immediately springs to mind is a 3-1 defeat at PNE in 88/9 

[Eddie]

5 hours ago, gonzo said:

I'd love him to go 442 or similar.

Just can't see it for this one like. 

I think 442 is a bit of a romantic, rose-tinted notion, and would no doubt have all sorts of flaws that coaches and professionals could point out would be exploited by the modern game.

However

Imagine we pick an opponent that is particularly poor at defending crosses / generally a bit weak at the back (so us, but we can’t play against ourselves).

Set up with Simons and Erharon in the middle - in theory gives you enough in centre mid, especially if it were a home game.

ACD left wing, Cissoko/Gale right wing

Dalby and Burstow up top.

Hit the big man, play off him, get it out to the wings, get balls in the box constantly.

Very much an unrealistic hope, but it worked on Champ Man 01-02.

On a slightly more serious note, I do think football works in cycles and it wouldn’t surprise me to see something like a big man / little man forward partnership return at some point in the future, especially as centre backs are becoming less and less able in the air as there’s a bigger focus on their ability to actually play football.

[Ani]

1 minute ago, Eddie said:

I think 442 is a bit of a romantic, rose-tinted notion, and would no doubt have all sorts of flaws that coaches and professionals could point out would be exploited by the modern game.

However

Imagine we pick an opponent that is particularly poor at defending crosses / generally a bit weak at the back (so us, but we can’t play against ourselves).

Set up with Simons and Erharon in the middle - in theory gives you enough in centre mid, especially if it were a home game.

ACD left wing, Cissoko/Gale right wing

Dalby and Burstow up top.

Hit the big man, play off him, get it out to the wings, get balls in the box constantly.

Very much an unrealistic hope, but it worked on Champ Man 01-02.

On a slightly more serious note, I do think football works in cycles and it wouldn’t surprise me to see something like a big man / little man forward partnership return at some point in the future, especially as centre backs are becoming less and less able in the air as there’s a bigger focus on their ability to actually play football.

Is it that crazy ? 
 

Just need XS and EE to play in their half rather than too near back 4 . Otherwise there is no one round their area when the ball breaks from any attack.
Then you are swapping an ineffective number 10 for a more attacking option. 

Doubt Dalby is ready for 90 minutes yet and he certainly did not create much impact on Saturday. 

[kent_white]

Massive long shot but I live in hope. 

I'm trying to find one adult and one child's ticket for Saturday. Our lad is desperate to go - he's only 10 and I missed the ticket deadline. 

Happy to pay face value of course and even give you a reach around as long as you wear a balaclava! 😁

[bwfc4ife]

1 hour ago, Ani said:

Is it that crazy ? 
 

Just need XS and EE to play in their half rather than too near back 4 . Otherwise there is no one round their area when the ball breaks from any attack.
Then you are swapping an ineffective number 10 for a more attacking option. 

Doubt Dalby is ready for 90 minutes yet and he certainly did not create much impact on Saturday. 

Don't we already suffer from this problem with JM or JR in the team? At least with this setup there could be 2 in the box for crosses. 

Hope Schumacher starts insisting on some crosses coming in, league 1 defenders can't cope in the main.

[Ani]

18 minutes ago, bwfc4ife said:

Don't we already suffer from this problem with JM or JR in the team? At least with this setup there could be 2 in the box for crosses. 

Hope Schumacher starts insisting on some crosses coming in, league 1 defenders can't cope in the main.

Sorry if not clear but that is the point I am making, better with 2 up front than 1 up front with another not really involved.

Just do not see it happening until Dalby has proved his fitness. The concern is that if the midfield two are too deep we never get any second ball. I like XS and EE and think they can do their job further up the pitch but it does come with risks. 

[Wanderlust]

33 minutes ago, Ani said:

Sorry if not clear but that is the point I am making, better with 2 up front than 1 up front with another not really involved.

Just do not see it happening until Dalby has proved his fitness. The concern is that if the midfield two are too deep we never get any second ball. I like XS and EE and think they can do their job further up the pitch but it does come with risks. 

This is at the heart of what I was saying a few days back. The number on the shirt is irrelevant - what matters is that when we attack we do it quick and in numbers. We have the two wide men and a CF who will be there but it ain’t enough so we could play a high 10 - or two 9s in which case those behind step up into the 10 slot - and either way we need players arriving from midfield so that we have multiple threats. As you say, committing more in the attack does have risks but if we’re going to score more we have to get the bodies amongst them instead of the entire midfield camping out 35 yards from goal with a packed defence in front of them.

It may well require more running from our midfielders, but it’s what we need IMO.

[ianofcleveleys]

1 hour ago, bwfc4ife said:

Don't we already suffer from this problem with JM or JR in the team? At least with this setup there could be 2 in the box for crosses. 

Hope Schumacher starts insisting on some crosses coming in, league 1 defenders can't cope in the main.

You're right, in the desire to modernise and play a certain way there's been a lot of overestimating what L1 players can do and forgetting about what they struggle with.

Long throws have come back into fashion even at the top level recently, Arsenal score half their goals from set pieces, there's hope that formations like 4-4-2 might become in vogue again and we might see more of the ball being put into the POMO rather than tip tapped about in the middle third 

[Tonge moor green jacket]

Formations change, but there are still only 11 on the pitch.

I don't see any one set up being better than the others.

Purely about the players and coaching staff: their abilities on and off the pitch to create a team capable of beating another one.

If we have two forwards who appear to be the more physical, direct type, does that mean we can't play them both?

If the alternative isn't quite yielding the results, and/or at a given time a game may be suited to that, then play them.

 

[Arrested development]

2 hours ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Formations change, but there are still only 11 on the pitch.

I don't see any one set up being better than the others.

Purely about the players and coaching staff: their abilities on and off the pitch to create a team capable of beating another one.

If we have two forwards who appear to be the more physical, direct type, does that mean we can't play them both?

If the alternative isn't quite yielding the results, and/or at a given time a game may be suited to that, then play them.

 

We've signed wingers this off season to allow us up play primarily a 4231. You can't play two up top with 2 wingers. Barely any team plays 442 anymore, and those that do certainly don't have two out and out wingers playing in the 4.

How do you realistically expect us to line up with two forwards playing?. We've all seen enough of three at the back and wingbacks. 

I just don't see a world where we can play two up top from the start. Course there will be times when we are chasing the game but no way we regularly go 2 up top. 

You can't just not have an attacking midfielder In this set up . If mcatee and Randall aren't up to it, it'll be try someone else in the squad in the 10 for a few months, before addressing it again in January. 

[Eagle85]

If you want to play 442 one of the front men has to be really good at pressing, like Dion was. Cant have 2 strikers with Dalby and Burstow, they'd get bypassed really easily and our centre mids would be scrambling around too much, leaving them less likely to dictate play or carry the ball. Only situation it's good is chasing a goal last few mins like against Lincoln when we can use the rest of the team to go all out pushing up.

There's a correlation between the gradual death of 442 and pitches becoming much better. Occasionally been done since then like Simeone's Atletico but the entire team have to be machines.

[only1swanny]

Doesn't appear to be on sky,

[Zog1]

433 or 4231 is all we're getting from SS, and he'd be a fool to change it to 442 now, we've spent the best part of easy £5 million recruiting for 4231, he just needs to make it work. 

We need 2 things:

- Time to gel

- For our wingers to show a bit of variety. We have target men and a no 10 use them or move aside for someone who will, as we can't be playing 422. 

 

[Alf Hartigan]

28 minutes ago, Zog1 said:

 

We need 2 things:

- Time to gel

- For our wingers to show a bit of variety. We have target men and a no 10 use them or move aside for someone who will, as we can't be playing 422. 

 

With another 2 up top?

[freds dad]

3 hours ago, only1swanny said:

Doesn't appear to be on sky,

Because its a 3pm ko on a Saturday 

[Stig]

8 hours ago, Arrested development said:

We've signed wingers this off season to allow us up play primarily a 4231. You can't play two up top with 2 wingers. Barely any team plays 442 anymore, and those that do certainly don't have two out and out wingers playing in the 4.

How do you realistically expect us to line up with two forwards playing?. We've all seen enough of three at the back and wingbacks. 

I just don't see a world where we can play two up top from the start. Course there will be times when we are chasing the game but no way we regularly go 2 up top. 

You can't just not have an attacking midfielder In this set up . If mcatee and Randall aren't up to it, it'll be try someone else in the squad in the 10 for a few months, before addressing it again in January. 

Completely depends on the players you have available. If it's a choice between 442 with Burstow dropping a bit deeper or 4231 with Randall or McAtee as the 10, I'd go 442 every day.

However, my preference would be 433, again to make use of where our squad is strongest - midfield. Play 3 of our 4 mids and make it clear they need to be joining the attack.

[Tonge moor green jacket]

9 hours ago, Arrested development said:

We've signed wingers this off season to allow us up play primarily a 4231. You can't play two up top with 2 wingers. Barely any team plays 442 anymore, and those that do certainly don't have two out and out wingers playing in the 4.

How do you realistically expect us to line up with two forwards playing?. We've all seen enough of three at the back and wingbacks. 

I just don't see a world where we can play two up top from the start. Course there will be times when we are chasing the game but no way we regularly go 2 up top. 

You can't just not have an attacking midfielder In this set up . If mcatee and Randall aren't up to it, it'll be try someone else in the squad in the 10 for a few months, before addressing it again in January. 

Wingers on their natural sides.

The two new guys in midfield.

For me, their is an element of over-analysis.

Doesn't have to be your 4-2-3-1.

Doesn't have to have 3 at the back.

If our so called number 10s aren't cutting it, then try one of the strikers in there.

Call one your no 10 if it makes folk more comfortable. 

As those stats illustrate, we're are creating chances. Why not try a slightly different forward pairing and see if the conversion rate increases.

Walker and McGinley formed a wonderful partnership, with the latter often being the supporting one.

Plenty of posters have said they've been impressed by Burstow's link play too.

It become too restrictive for me, to say player X can't do this, that, or the the other, especially if those that can, aren't doing.

 

[masi 51]

7 hours ago, Zog1 said:

433 or 4231 is all we're getting from SS, and he'd be a fool to change it to 442 now, we've spent the best part of easy £5 million recruiting for 4231, he just needs to make it work. 

We need 2 things:

- Time to gel

- For our wingers to show a bit of variety. We have target men and a no 10 use them or move aside for someone who will, as we can't be playing 422. 

 

That is nothing but a contradiction....4231 at present omits Taylor,  Erhahon,  Gale/Cissoko  Burstow/Dalby from the starting 11 . Yet  as others have said   Cogley and one of Mcatee/Randal start each game.

£3m of his 5m investment cannot start on his current 4231   unless you can tell me otherwise

[gonzo]

Why I said previously I think the Erhahon signing was unnecessary.

[Tonge moor green jacket]

4 minutes ago, gonzo said:

Why I said previously I think the Erhahon signing was unnecessary.

Hmm, I think it was done to provide more bite in the middle.

Simons to play in a role like Morley/Sheehan. 

Competition and providing an opportunity for subtle difference in midfield, particularly against difference opposition. 

Which is akin to my point about the two guys up top.

[masi 51]

6 minutes ago, gonzo said:

Why I said previously I think the Erhahon signing was unnecessary.

Again i disagree, he will become a big player for us in the next couple of seasons.

I cannot believe we are chasing Kenny and then only play one of Dalby/Burstow/Kenny

And again i cannot believe he is going to play Cogley   Two of Toal/Johnson/Firino and one of Mcatee/Randal all season.

Hence why after Saturday i think he will change formation for the rest of the season