Time running out

Forums Latics Crazy Forum Time running out

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 32 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #62907

    Thought we played quite well today and IMO definately edged the game and probably should have won it. But here lies our problem we don’t score enough goals and I fear although things have improved slightly we don’t have enough games left to survive.

    Here’s a question for anybody if a team is struggling for goals would not playing two up front double your chances of getting a goal??????? Not rocket science IMO.

    No it wouldn’t!! :naughty:

    The system bobby plays is all about possession, winning the midfield battle.
    Once this battle is won you can then feed your wide men and get players supporting the attack.
    Do you not think we created enough chances yesterday against a good champions league outfit?? :clap: Just check the stats.

    Play 2 out and out strikers from the start and you’ll find the likes of Modric, Jenas and co would have run riot and their front 2 would have got the number of chances that would have killed us off.
    Give Defoe 3-4 chances I’ll guarantee he scores at least one.

    Our problem is not the system, its simply the standard of finishing. :angry-soapbox: [/quote]

    If somebody cannot say that playing 2 up front would give us more chance of scoring more goals & winning games then by the same token somebody else (IMO) cannot say that playing 4 in midfield instead of 5 would mean our midfield would get overrun

    #62908
    Hindley blueHindley blue
    Player

      Cheers Tydesley the same thought had crossed my mind but god forbid we should show our tactical naivety and lack of football knowledge and question Bob.

      The best young manager in Europe you know. :eusa-liar: :eusa-liar: :eusa-liar:

      #62930
      If somebody cannot say that playing 2 up front would give us more chance of scoring more goals & winning games then by the same token somebody else (IMO) cannot say that playing 4 in midfield instead of 5 would mean our midfield would get overrun

      Tyldesley, clearly having two up front doesn’t guarantee you will score more goals, likewise, nor does playing five across the middle guarantee you will win the midfield battle.

      It’s a case of priorities however, and as it is the midfield that generally dictates the balance of a game, it stands to reason that if you are a man down or lightweight in that area you will not have the possession to create chances. You could play with four strikers, but if you can’t get hold of the ball to create chances for them, it’s irrelevant how many you have up front.

      #62934

      It doesn’t stand to reason at all

      I’ve seen plenty of teams over the years come up against other teams that have different formations which have meant that they are a man down or lightweight in midfield – 4-3-3 formations up against 4-4-2’s & 4-4-2 formations up against 4-5-1’s or other different scenarios.
      It by no means always makes for games in which the team who are a man lighter get dominated in midfield.

      Using your argument it also then stands to reason that forward lines that have 2 players in cause more problems for defences than forward lines with 1 player in.

      It doesn’t work like that coz the game is dependant on too many varuables & as I tried to point out in my original post I don’t think you can slate someone who says stick 2 up front & we’ll score more coz “it doesn’t guarantee you will score more” and then go on to say “but playing with 4 in midfield would mean the midfield would get overrun”

      #62938

      Of course it stands to reason!

      Five against four, or, four against three gives one team a numerical advantage. If you have an extra man unmarked somewhere across the middle of the pitch, there’s always a pass available. So, the easiest way of counteracting this is to at least match them man for man.

      I’m well aware that it isn’t as simple as that, however, unless you are considerably better than your opponents, and have players who can create space and cover the deficit, if you go into a game outnumbered in midfield you’re at a disadvantage immediately. No, it doesn’t guarantee that you will not be overrun in midfield, but it gives you a fighting chance to stop that happening if you at least match them man for man.

      Yes, I’d agree that a forward line of two causes more problems than a forward line of one, but only if they get the service. They can pull defenders all over the place and create space for the entire match, but if they’re not getting the ball because the midfield are being outplayed, it’s meaningless whether you have one or two strikers up there.

      #62944
      psklpaul tymon
      Player

        The fact of the matter is the system aint working :roll:

        #62946
        jrfatfanjrfatfan
        Player
          The fact of the matter is the system aint working :roll:

          THE TEAM ARN’T TAKING THEIR CHANCES!! :angry-banghead:

          From Matlock to ManU
          What a journey!

          #62980
          filmossfilmoss
          Player

            The fact of the matter is the system aint working :roll:

            THE TEAM ARN’T TAKING THEIR CHANCES!! :angry-banghead: [/quote]

            We need a couple of decent strikers then !! We bought a striker in March but he aint played hardly ! Rodders seems to be on the team sheet every game and his goals to attempts ratio is biz !!

            #62986
            jrfatfanjrfatfan
            Player

              I won’t argue with that!! :clap:

              Lets hope Bobby has the sense to play Sammon Saturday. He has just said on Wigan world, that apart from this week all the other games are winnable. So lets give the boy a chance, what a stage to net you’re first premier league goal. :happy-partydance:

              From Matlock to ManU
              What a journey!

              #62990

              fekin ‘ell.
              sounds like jewel, defeated before we start.

              #63003
              Of course it stands to reason!

              Five against four, or, four against three gives one team a numerical advantage. If you have an extra man unmarked somewhere across the middle of the pitch, there’s always a pass available. So, the easiest way of counteracting this is to at least match them man for man.

              I’m well aware that it isn’t as simple as that, however, unless you are considerably better than your opponents, and have players who can create space and cover the deficit, if you go into a game outnumbered in midfield you’re at a disadvantage immediately. No, it doesn’t guarantee that you will not be overrun in midfield, but it gives you a fighting chance to stop that happening if you at least match them man for man.

              Yes, I’d agree that a forward line of two causes more problems than a forward line of one, but only if they get the service. They can pull defenders all over the place and create space for the entire match, but if they’re not getting the ball because the midfield are being outplayed, it’s meaningless whether you have one or two strikers up there.

              Standish it doesn’t stand to reason because as you yourself admit just matching or having one more midfielder on the park than the opposition doesn’t guarantee that you will dominate the midfield. You’ve tried to reason it but admitted it doesn’t work
              If that’s all that was required to dominate the midfield then that would be the only tactic managers would employ and as can be seen all over the world midfields with one less player can & do dominate games

              By the way I am not saying what formation Bobby should or shouldn’t play – IMO it should be the best formation to suit the group of players that he has at his disposal. Not rigidly sticking to one formation or another & thereby forcing players into roles for which they are not suited

              #63024

              Tyldesley, I don’t know if you are not seeing the wood for trees here, or if you are being deliberately pedantic as a matter of principle.

              In my post from which you have picked up the phrase ‘stands to reason’ , I stated:

              ‘midfield…it stands to reason that if you are a man down or lightweight in that area you will not have the possession to create chances.’

              Bearing in mind the phrase ‘lightweight’ does not refer to a lack of numbers, is that not a fair statement? (ie. In summary, if you are not winning it/are being muscled out in midfield you will not have possession, and therefore will not have the ball to create chances?)

              At no point have I said five in midfield would guarantee you will win control.

              Likewise, is the following not a fair statement?

              If you are outnumbered in midfield, you have more chance of being overrun than if you are not outnumbered.

              Let’s break it down to base levels: so if in theory, the number of players you have in midfield doesn’t have any bearing on your ability to control the game, why not play two there, and go 4-2-4?

              Would you agree that three should give you a stronger midfield than two? Therefore you’d agree that four should be stronger than three? But should five not be a stronger midfield than four?

              Yes, there are teams with very good midfielders who can play outnumbered and still come away on top, but that is when there’s a mismatch in ability – a luxury not enjoyed at Wigan, and a theory not risked by many managers.

              Therefore, to refer back to my previous posts, if you are playing against a team with an extra man in midfield, or you need to strengthen your midfield, it stands to reason that putting an extra man there should assist you, but no, it’s not guaranteed to do that.

              So don’t give me that tosh ‘you’ve tried to reason it’. I have reasoned it, and it does stand to reason. It’s a case of simple common sense that a numerical advantage gives you more of a fighting chance than having a numerical disadvantage.

              #63027
              Hindley blueHindley blue
              Player
                Tyldesley, I don’t know if you are not seeing the wood for trees here, or if you are being deliberately pedantic as a matter of principle.

                In my post from which you have picked up the phrase ‘stands to reason’ , I stated:

                ‘midfield…it stands to reason that if you are a man down or lightweight in that area you will not have the possession to create chances.’

                Bearing in mind the phrase ‘lightweight’ does not refer to a lack of numbers, is that not a fair statement? (ie. In summary, if you are not winning it/are being muscled out in midfield you will not have possession, and therefore will not have the ball to create chances?)

                At no point have I said five in midfield would guarantee you will win control.

                Likewise, is the following not a fair statement?

                If you are outnumbered in midfield, you have more chance of being overrun than if you are not outnumbered.

                Let’s break it down to base levels: so if in theory, the number of players you have in midfield doesn’t have any bearing on your ability to control the game, why not play two there, and go 4-2-4?

                Would you agree that three should give you a stronger midfield than two? Therefore you’d agree that four should be stronger than three? But should five not be a stronger midfield than four?

                Yes, there are teams with very good midfielders who can play outnumbered and still come away on top, but that is when there’s a mismatch in ability – a luxury not enjoyed at Wigan, and a theory not risked by many managers.

                Therefore, to refer back to my previous posts, if you are playing against a team with an extra man in midfield, or you need to strengthen your midfield, it stands to reason that putting an extra man there should assist you, but no, it’s not guaranteed to do that.

                So don’t give me that tosh ‘you’ve tried to reason it’. I have reasoned it, and it does stand to reason. It’s a case of simple common sense that a numerical advantage gives you more of a fighting chance than having a numerical disadvantage.

                You would think so Standish but how many times have we proved your theory wrong in the last two seasons????

                #63029
                You would think so Standish but how many times have we proved your theory wrong in the last two seasons????

                Hindley, you’re correct, the theory has been proven wrong over the last few season many times – but it’s not a Wigan thing I’m getting at, it’s the reasoning as to why a team would play five in midfield as opposed to two up front.

                It’s an insurance policy adopted by a lot of managers these days, whereby goals are sacrificed in lieu of possession and trying to stop the opposition midfield from playing.

                It’s not to everyone’s taste, but it’s becoming more and more common these days as less and less managers subscribe to the ‘If you scored two, we’ll score three’ train of thought. One-nil is the way things are starting to go.

                #63032

                Standish – I am being deliberately pedantic to a large extent.
                For the last 2 seasons many of those who have criticised posters who have said stuff along the lines of “for gawds sake stick 2 up front & see if we can get more goals” have responded with “playing 2 up front doesn’t guarantee that you will score more goals”

                And they’re right – it doesn’t

                But my original post was prompted by someone stating just this line & then following it up with “if you play 4 in midfield you will get over run”
                Well I’m sorry if playing 2 up front doesn’t guarantee you more goals then you can’t go on to say in the same post to say somet along the lines of Latics have to play 1 more in midfield (or match) the opposition number wise to stop themselves getting over run

                I know exactly what you are saying in terms of “it stands to reason that if we have one more player in midfield than them we are less likely to be over run” coz I understand the theory behind it but it doesn’t stand to reason in a practical sense when there are football teams all over the world at all levels who dominate midfield battles in games despite being lighter on numbers than the opposition

                Who wins the midfield battle depends on far more than numbers – I’ve seen Latics over the last couple of seasons get absolutely battered in the middle of the park by teams in & around us in the table who have played 4-4-2 as opposed to our 4-5-1. They’ve done it in some instances purely down to them having better players but also on occasions having more fight in them and (amongst other reasons) our midfield sitting back way too deep & allowing the opposition on to them instead of harrying them & getting in their faces
                Also admittedly at times Latics midfield has dominated the opposition

                So the reason why i said it doesn’t “stand to reason” is quite simply because time & time again all over the world it doesn’t work just as often as it does work

                As I’ve said I don’t see any particular system as the right one to play I just want to see a system emplyed that gets the best out of the players we have. Evidence suggests that the current system is not doing that although our manager has rarely employed any other tactic to enable us to make any comparison

              Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 32 total)
              • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

              Forums Latics Crazy Forum Time running out