pingu Posted August 26, 2012 Report Share Posted August 26, 2012 A thought that has been occuring to me recently when thinking about this season's games so far is that we are really not playing to our strengths and if PLan A isn't working then there is a lack of a Plan B. I'm gonna try and post what I think is happening just now, our stengths and weaknesses, and a proposed way of playing which I think I would like to see given a shot.. I know people use the match threads for lineup discussions but i thought this might be a place to discuss more fundamental things tactics-wise. Discussion, constructive criticism welcome! This might be completely redundant after today's game but I have worries for the season ahead so I think it is still worthy of debate. As I see it at the moment, and I know we have a chance to go top today and it's the start of the season, we severly lack a cutting edge. How often are we seeing the ball being worked out wide to say Murphy, for him to have two defenders on him, he rightly plays it back to Hammell and the ball then gets squared via the entire defence to end up at Humphrey who faces the same problem - then he either tries to take the guy(s) on and gets little change from it, or plays it backwards for the same thing to happen again. Because we are not Barcelona, someone eventually miscontrols or loses it and because the majority of the team is up the park and a high defensive line we are immediately prone to the counter as we saw against Panathinaikos and Levante. The current tactic of tippy-tappy play it out wide is not working just now. In effect we are playing a back 4 with sometimes pushing up full backs, a midfield two of Lasley and Law, a striker out of position on the left, a right winger and a little and large forward combo. Often this is a 4-2-4. I have my reservations because: It is predictable. Better teams will park men behind the ball, double up on wingers and hit of on the break when our defence are sitting just over the halfway line offering an outlet for the ball. The lack of defensive protection when Lasley and Law are upfield is startling Murphy is probably getting some unfair criticism in my opinion. What can he do when there are two defenders to beat? He is not left footed so taking them on and swinging a cross in from the left is pretty ineffective Hammell often can't overlap because of said breakaway potential Humphrey, for me, is completely off the boil Higdon is often isolated and has few places to lay off to Lasley is having to do almost all of the ballwinning work in the midfield - he seems to be trying 'harder' and I can forsee him picking up a lot of cards again There is not enough height in the team to constantly work the ball wide and get crosses in from open play, nor anyone who can consistently provide a good cross. Therefore, I would like to see a style of play as follows: ------------------------------------------------Randolph-------------------------------------------------- Hateley -------------------Cummins/Ramsden-------------Hutchinson----------------- Hammell --------------------------------------------------Carswell/Lasley----------------------------------------- ------------------------------Law-------------------------------------- Lasley/Hetherington ---------------------- Murphy------------------------------------------------------ Ojamaa/McHugh -------------------------------------------------- Higdon---------------------------------------------------- I think this would suit our strengths a lot better: It allows a sitting midfielder to break up play and offer protection against the break and offer a 'safe ball' along with the two centre backs, who are pretty comfortable on the ball anyway. The sitting midfielder can cover either wing if either of the full backs are advanced and a counter comes down there whilst the full back is out of position. Murphy and Ojaama/McHugh are pulled in off the wing and given a free floating, interchanging role behind Higdon, where they can take through balls from the ball playing Law, Lasley and Hetherington. Higdon has players closer to lay off to and they can take a shot - resulting in more shots on goal. Higdon also has the potential to flick headers over the defence for them to run onto. Murphy and Ojaama have space to run and make runs, which are their main strengths. If needed, Hateley and Hammell can sneak up on the overlap outside of Murphy/Ojaama for the cross (and are both probably better crossers of the ball than Murphy/Ojamaa/Humphrey/Daley). It might also suit ZFA when he comes through as he seems fairly attack minded. This of course could be morphed into something with a bit more width if you introduced Humphrey or Daley for any of the forward players. What do we think? Any alternative systems? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ya Bezzer! Posted August 26, 2012 Report Share Posted August 26, 2012 We started like this today. ----------------------------Randolph--------------------------- --------------Hutchinson-----------------Cummins--------------- Kerr--------------------------------------------------Hammell-- --------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------Hetherington----------------------- --------------Lasley------------------------Law---------------- --------------------------------------------------------------- ------------Ojamaa-------------------------------Murphy-------- ----------------------------Higdon----------------------------- Without a wide midfielder/winger and Ojamaa/Murphy tucked infield we looked exposed down our flanks, especially the right hand side where Carey was getting a lot of good crosses into the box. Hard to really say if the tactical set up was a success or not as Lasley/Law/Murphy/Ojamaa were all sub par today which left a decent back four performance and an isolated Higdon up front. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gary_411 Posted August 26, 2012 Report Share Posted August 26, 2012 That's basically what was played today but no-one was willing to help Hammell on the left, and he was overrun for most of the second half. Ojamaa would rather play as part of a front two than in the deeper position Murphy does but this means the formation is a bit imbalanced. We got away with it in the most part against Killie as ZFA was a bit faster, and Ramsden/Cummins were able to come out and pick up the extra man. Saints played with 2 out and out strikers today so we didn't have that luxury of a spare CB to cover. Added to this, not one of the midfield 3 seemed to settle in the holding role; Law, Lasley and Hetherington all floated in and out of that space in front of the defence. This meant we didn't really get the security that the extra man should have given us. We didn't make the most out of the formation and players we had on the pitch, and a win would have been a very fortunate result. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pingu Posted August 26, 2012 Author Report Share Posted August 26, 2012 Was quite surpised to see Motherwell line up almost exactly as I had stated. Not sure why I get a red dot for it? I don't think there was anything inherently wrong with the tactcs today to be honest. The formation requires a shift and a half from Murphy and Ojaama who have to track back down the wings when not in possession and work forward in and around behind Hidgon otherwise. They didn't really do that, so any exposure down the left, which incidentally was after Murphy was hooked for Humphrey was the fault of the manager/Ojaama for not making that cover once Humphrey moved to the right. It also requires the defence and holding midfields to be strong in the tackle, and the centre backs to be able to clear crosses, which Cummins and Hutchinson did all day. For those saying we were overrun, again I think when we don't have possession then the Ojaama and Murphy roles need to flood the midfield to make it 5 man strong. It's also a personnel thing. I think I would play that again, but it could use a new, experienced defensive midfielder (or Ramsden?), take out Ojaama and stick Law in behind the strikers where he can be a bit more creative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
henry Posted August 26, 2012 Report Share Posted August 26, 2012 Our tactics are the same every game ,just pass the ball about but don't shoot and then get back and defend like fuck.Simples. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kmcalpin Posted August 26, 2012 Report Share Posted August 26, 2012 It's also a personnel thing. I think I would play that again With the players we have I'd think very carefully about playing that formation again....ever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pingu Posted August 27, 2012 Author Report Share Posted August 27, 2012 What would other people do with the personnel we have then? The reason it didn't work was because I don't think the roles were properly defined in terms of wide play and holding midfield. People have to remember we were a few players short, just a few days after a Euro tie against a decent St Mirren side who have improved from last year. If we had won, would you still be saying the same? It's like someone new having a mediocre to bad debut (Jennings, Jutciewitz, Porter spring to mind). Are you gonna tell me they should never play again? No, things need time to bed in. Although, with this site and Motherwell fans in general, we are too quick to judge. People are not happy with the tippy tappy, non-penetrative displays before today, people are not happy with today - lets discuss some alternatives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ya Bezzer! Posted August 27, 2012 Report Share Posted August 27, 2012 With the players we have I'd think very carefully about playing that formation again....ever. I wouldn't abandon this tactic although there are obviously things to work on. At the end of the day we got a draw against what I think will be a hard team to beat this season and pretty much our entire midfield didn't perform. Our failings weren't entirely tactical yesterday it was just that the entire midfield failed to perform on the day, that happens some times, it doesn't write off an entire tactical approach. We've had much worse results and performances in a 4-4-2. For me one of McCall's biggest failings is his reluctance to try new things so I'm certainly not going to criticize him for the set up yesterday. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weeyin Posted August 27, 2012 Report Share Posted August 27, 2012 Our failings weren't entirely tactical yesterday it was just that the entire midfield failed to perform on the day, that happens some times, it doesn't write off an entire tactical approach. I think this is a key point in any tactical discussion. You can have the best tactics in the world, but if the players don't execute, or are just off form, they won't work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.