|
Post by datguy on Sept 12, 2020 16:16:32 GMT
Why play such a negative formation vs Millwall?
Hoofball vs experienced hoofball. Millwall were always going to contain us.
A midfield trio of Powell, Clucas and JOM have the capability to control Millwall but we just bypassed them every time we got the ball.
Think one of the biggest problems with the system is that it's not so much 3 at the back with the way we play. It's 5 at the back. Smith and Fox aren't wing backs.
I'll take the point, but don't know why we didn't push for more.
|
|
|
Post by chiswickpotter on Sept 12, 2020 16:26:10 GMT
Agreed but think with Mikel and Fletcher still short of match fitness, it was a system to get a point and nick a win. Fox to negate Wallace okay as well. Hope we go 4-3-3 with Fletcher up top, Brown’s pace and one other
|
|
|
Post by potterburt on Sept 12, 2020 16:27:21 GMT
Personally, think it was pretty savvy. They went 3-4-3 so when their WB are on the attack it can become a 5 heading forward. Meant we could defend away from home with 5 nestled in and then move on to a 3-4-1-2 for our attacks. Not sure if I agree with having Vokes to start as without loads of service from the wings he’s mainly their as a (poor mans) Mama to flick the ball on, which in theory could have worked with Campbell running on but Millwall got some big lads and happy to use their heads. Maybe Fletch wasnt 100% But would have preferred him to Vokes. Don’t think it was negative per say, sensible set up on opening game away from home. Good point, clean sheet and foundations being built .
|
|
|
Post by stokest5 on Sept 12, 2020 17:20:47 GMT
Why play such a negative formation vs Millwall? Hoofball vs experienced hoofball. Millwall were always going to contain us. A midfield trio of Powell, Clucas and JOM have the capability to control Millwall but we just bypassed them every time we got the ball. Think one of the biggest problems with the system is that it's not so much 3 at the back with the way we play. It's 5 at the back. Smith and Fox aren't wing backs. I'll take the point, but don't know why we didn't push for more. Good opening day point for me we had the best of it. Millwall were the bookies favourites for this game.
|
|
|
Post by zerps on Sept 12, 2020 17:22:01 GMT
Why so many of these wanky posts?
|
|
|
Post by datguy on Sept 12, 2020 17:23:51 GMT
Why play such a negative formation vs Millwall? Hoofball vs experienced hoofball. Millwall were always going to contain us. A midfield trio of Powell, Clucas and JOM have the capability to control Millwall but we just bypassed them every time we got the ball. Think one of the biggest problems with the system is that it's not so much 3 at the back with the way we play. It's 5 at the back. Smith and Fox aren't wing backs. I'll take the point, but don't know why we didn't push for more. Good opening day point for me we had the best of it. Millwall were the bookies favourites for this game. Said in my post I’m happy with a point. Could’ve been another two if we weren’t so negative.
|
|
|
Post by Cast no shadow on Sept 12, 2020 17:25:11 GMT
Why so many of these wanky posts? Cause we didn't win 5-0
|
|
|
Post by datguy on Sept 12, 2020 17:27:28 GMT
Why so many of these wanky posts? Cause we didn't win 5-0 What a load of bollocks. The football we played today was wank and warranted nothing more than a point. Fuck me - sorry for being negative and thinking it could’ve been 3 points if we played more possession football.
|
|
|
Post by stokest5 on Sept 12, 2020 17:29:13 GMT
Good opening day point for me we had the best of it. Millwall were the bookies favourites for this game. Said in my post I’m happy with a point. Could’ve been another two if we weren’t so negative. How can you be happy if your asking why we were so negative? Me thinks you’re on a wind up.
|
|
|
Post by wearestoke80 on Sept 12, 2020 17:31:45 GMT
We played for the point. Especially in the second half
|
|
|
Post by pottersrule on Sept 12, 2020 17:32:27 GMT
Good opening day point for me we had the best of it. Millwall were the bookies favourites for this game. Said in my post I’m happy with a point. Could’ve been another two if we weren’t so negative. We weren't that negative,we had about 10 corners and a least 3 good positions from free kicks.It was a lack of Craft in those areas that let us down.
|
|
|
Post by datguy on Sept 12, 2020 17:32:52 GMT
Said in my post I’m happy with a point. Could’ve been another two if we weren’t so negative. How can you be happy if your asking why we were so negative? Me thinks you’re on a wind up. I’m happy with the point. Would’ve taken it before kick off. Could tell after 5 minutes the game was there to be won. Stuck with a dull 5 at the back though and got what we deserved - a point.
|
|
|
Post by datguy on Sept 12, 2020 17:35:10 GMT
Said in my post I’m happy with a point. Could’ve been another two if we weren’t so negative. We weren't that negative,we had about 10 corners and a least 3 good positions from free kicks.It was a lack of Craft in those areas that let us down. That was the game plan. Play for corners and set pieces. Some decent set pieces today in fairness. I’d consider that negative football though. It was hoof to Vokes and bypass the midfield all game. Was crying out for Campbell on the wing and Powell in and around Vokes.
|
|
|
Post by LankyPotter on Sept 12, 2020 17:35:43 GMT
We played for the point. Especially in the second half We didn’t though fella, by all means protect the point and we did but you can’t say that we weren’t trying to take all 3. Smith was bombing forward when he could and the subs tell you that we were going for it. Don’t buy this ‘we played for a point’ bull. Take it, move on to the next game.
|
|
|
Post by zerps on Sept 12, 2020 17:38:36 GMT
We played well today. Our defence has a certain calm about it.
These threads are embarrassing and there’s plenty of them.
|
|
|
Post by datguy on Sept 12, 2020 17:41:01 GMT
We played well today. Our defence has a certain calm about it. These threads are embarrassing and there’s plenty of them. Has anyone said any different re the defence?
|
|
|
Post by GreaterGlasgowstokie on Sept 12, 2020 17:41:24 GMT
We weren't that negative,we had about 10 corners and a least 3 good positions from free kicks.It was a lack of Craft in those areas that let us down. That was the game plan. Play for corners and set pieces. Some decent set pieces today in fairness. I’d consider that negative football though. It was hoof to Vokes and bypass the midfield all game. Was crying out for Campbell on the wing and Powell in and around Vokes. You are way off point mate. Where have you been the last five years?
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Sept 12, 2020 17:49:15 GMT
What system did we play in the 0-0 home game back in January?which was also a tight game
|
|
|
Post by jezzascfc on Sept 12, 2020 23:20:35 GMT
352 has obviously been devised to make us tougher to beat on the road. Today it worked. My worry is if it becomes the norm, home and away, no matter the opponents or if it suits the players at our disposal.
We have quite a few centre halves and forwards, so it gets 5 of them into the team instead of 3 in 4231. However, the wide men are full backs, not wing backs, with neither the pace, trickery or attacking instincts to give the forwards decent service from out wide. If played, it screams out for Tymon and Brown.
The biggest fault is that it negates the strengths of McClean, Campbell and Powell, who, with Clucas, were the real keys to our revival in an attacking sense last season. Jimmy is either dropped (as here) or shoe horned in at wing back. Campbell is the support striker, when he has thrived coming in from wide right, whilst Powell is played deeper in a flat central three, instead of creating from no.10 where he has been so influential.
I hope MON is happy to move back to 4231 when circumstances dictate, or it could well be a steady, but pretty unspectacular, mid-table team we'll be watching this season, not playing to its full potential.
|
|
|
Post by greenhoff on Sept 12, 2020 23:43:40 GMT
352 has obviously been devised to make us tougher to beat on the road. Today it worked. My worry is if it becomes the norm, home and away, no matter the opponents or if it suits the players at our disposal. We have quite a few centre halves and forwards, so it gets 5 of them into the team instead of 3 in 4231. However, the wide men are full backs, not wing backs, with neither the pace, trickery or attacking instincts to give the forwards decent service from out wide. If played, it screams out for Tymon and Brown. The biggest fault is that it negates the strengths of McClean, Campbell and Powell, who, with Clucas, were the real keys to our revival in an attacking sense last season. Jimmy is either dropped (as here) or shoe horned in at wing back. Campbell is the support striker, when he has thrived coming in from wide right, whilst Powell is played deeper in a flat central three, instead of creating from no.10 where he has been so influential. I hope MON is happy to move back to 4231 when circumstances dictate, or it could well be a steady, but pretty unspectacular, mid-table team we'll be watching this season, not playing to its full potential. This 100%
|
|
|
Post by Menorca Stokie on Sept 13, 2020 4:40:11 GMT
Why so many of these wanky posts? Because the majority of Stoke fans are thick and think we should be in the Champions league. The reality is, it was the first game of the season, we looked solid and had some fight and came away with a point away from home. Lot of positive signs compared the the last 6 or 7 seasons. Let’s give the manager the benefit of the doubt eh and see where we are after a dozen or so games and try and get behind our teams.
|
|
|
Post by clarkeda on Sept 13, 2020 8:20:37 GMT
If you draw your away games, win your home games we’ll be where we need to be at the end of the season.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Sept 13, 2020 8:24:56 GMT
Personally, think it was pretty savvy. They went 3-4-3 so when their WB are on the attack it can become a 5 heading forward. Meant we could defend away from home with 5 nestled in and then move on to a 3-4-1-2 for our attacks. Not sure if I agree with having Vokes to start as without loads of service from the wings he’s mainly their as a (poor mans) Mama to flick the ball on, which in theory could have worked with Campbell running on but Millwall got some big lads and happy to use their heads. Maybe Fletch wasnt 100% But would have preferred him to Vokes. Don’t think it was negative per say, sensible set up on opening game away from home. Good point, clean sheet and foundations being built . "Maybe Fletch wasnt 100% But would have preferred him to Vokes". There is no maybe about it. If you look at Fletcher's lack of minutes on the pitch during preseason - when he picked up a soft tissue injury - ir would clearly have been a big risk to give him much more than the 30 minutes he was given. If we'd have started with Fletcher, the chances are he would have had to be subbed in the first half or he would have been injured again.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2020 8:31:44 GMT
Our away form has been awful for a few years now (about 157 to be precise)
MON is a pragmatist and will want us to become much harder to beat before he releases the shackles. If players are sharp and on form there’s no reason why that system can’t see us dominating possession and picking up regular points along the way.
Let’s not got too carried away, it’s been a couple of games at the end of last season and a couple of pre-season games to date. We all want to see 4-2-3-1 attacking football but we’ve got to become more battle hardened on the road also.....
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Sept 13, 2020 9:08:04 GMT
Why play such a negative formation vs Millwall? Hoofball vs experienced hoofball. Millwall were always going to contain us. A midfield trio of Powell, Clucas and JOM have the capability to control Millwall but we just bypassed them every time we got the ball. Think one of the biggest problems with the system is that it's not so much 3 at the back with the way we play. It's 5 at the back. Smith and Fox aren't wing backs. I'll take the point, but don't know why we didn't push for more. I agree we bypassed the midfield too much but that isn't the fault of the formation - it's a combination of the decision making of the defenders and the wing backs and midfield making themselves available. It's perfectly possible to use the midfield in a 352 - it needs the players to get on the same wavelength. As MoN pointed out himself we can't just expect to blow teams away every time and an away point at Millwall is a decent result - providing it's a baseline performance and not the height of our ambitions and ability (which I don't think it is).
|
|
|
Post by pmjh on Sept 13, 2020 9:19:38 GMT
It was a good away performance, a good point against a team who were just outside the play offs last season. The stats suggest we were the better of the two teams on the day. It wasn't one for the purist but we'll get that some games no matter what system we play.
|
|
|
Post by potterpaul on Sept 13, 2020 9:29:15 GMT
The team needs tweaking but let's be honest nobody played bad enough to be dropped really. Its a matter of a slight balance adjustment rather than poor performance. Add Fletcher, Brown and Tymon in place of Vokes, Campbell and Chester for the Wolves game and see if adds that improvement required.
|
|
|
Post by pmjh on Sept 13, 2020 9:36:25 GMT
The team needs tweaking but let's be honest nobody played bad enough to be dropped really. Its a matter of a slight balance adjustment rather than poor performance. Add Fletcher, Brown and Tymon in place of Vokes, Campbell and Chester for the Wolves game and see if adds that improvement required. Brown and Tymon definitely. It might be useful to try Fox at LCB in this one with Tymon at LWB. I think Fletcher might be eased in gradually for a few games.
|
|
|
Post by gingerninja on Sept 13, 2020 12:03:31 GMT
Defensively I still think we will struggle against teams with pace and movement. Millwall type teams I think will suit us all day long.
|
|
|
Post by Trouserdog on Sept 13, 2020 12:29:01 GMT
Obviously the more risks you take, the more likely the opposition are to score. Go for the win, you may end up coming away with nothing.
Millwall's a tough place to go,they'll be in the top half you'd think come the end of the season. We can't just turn up at these places and blowtorch teams off teh pitch- we're not good enough to do that. A point away (in a game where we were the better side) is always a satisfactory outcome.
If we'd have gone for the win and ended up conceding, the moaning on here would have been off the scale.
|
|