[Archived] Portsmouth v Rovers

[Sparks Rover]

7 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

why no Travis after yesterday game changing performance @Bigdoggsteel? surely Nyambe for Travis and play Bennett as wing back with Travis and Smallwood in centre midfield? 

agree with the formation tho

You keep banging on Chaddy about this 352 when we just don't have the players for it.  If anything a 433 would be better.  A flat back 4 and then start from there.

 

[chaddyrovers]

6 hours ago, Bigdoggsteel said:

I agree Travis played well,but I don't feel Nyambe deserves to be dropped. 

Dare I say it,but what about having Travis in for Smallwood? 

I like the formation. I think it gets our best players on the field and offers more security defensively,where we badly need it. 

wouldn't drop Smallwood but I play Travis in centre mid next to him with Bennett at right wing back

11 minutes ago, Sparks Rover said:

You keep banging on Chaddy about this 352 when we just don't have the players for it.  If anything a 433 would be better.  A flat back 4 and then start from there.

 

well I do. Bell and Bennett would be good wing backs with the 3 defenders I've mention at the back(Lenihan Mulgrew and Williams), Smallwood and Travis centre midfield and Dack behind Graham and Armstrong up front. 

Who would be in 4-3-3 formation? what would be Dack role? 

Football is all about opinions and we have a vast variety on here. 

[skous18]

Raya

Nyambe Downing Mulgrew Williams

Payne Bennet Smallwood Armstrong

Dack

Graham

With Travis for Smallwood in the second half

[Oldgregg86]

                    Raya                           

Nyambe  Mulgrew.   Williams.  Bell                                                                                Bennett.   Smallwood. Travis

         Armstrong.        Dack

                        Graham

 

[Sparks Rover]

27 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

well I do. Bell and Bennett would be good wing backs with the 3 defenders I've mention at the back(Lenihan Mulgrew and Williams), Smallwood and Travis centre midfield and Dack behind Graham and Armstrong up front. 

Who would be in 4-3-3 formation? what would be Dack role? 

Football is all about opinions and we have a vast variety on here. 

Bennett wouldn't make a good wing backat all.  He can't defend or attack and lacks pace. The jury's out on bell considering his early appearances.

As I said you need 3 footballing centre backs if you play 3, lenihan (who's not played for yonks and that's another reason not to play him in a 3), and Williams can't play under pressure. An untried academy player in a position he never played before. Armstrong isn't a up top striker with back to goal against big centre halves, he's a in from the wing running at em. 

Sorry mate you've not a Scooby about formations and how to play them. Pompey would murder us.

In my opinion 

[chaddyrovers]

8 hours ago, Sparks Rover said:

Bennett wouldn't make a good wing backat all.  He can't defend or attack and lacks pace. The jury's out on bell considering his early appearances.

As I said you need 3 footballing centre backs if you play 3, lenihan (who's not played for yonks and that's another reason not to play him in a 3), and Williams can't play under pressure. An untried academy player in a position he never played before. Armstrong isn't a up top striker with back to goal against big centre halves, he's a in from the wing running at em. 

Sorry mate you've not a Scooby about formations and how to play them. Pompey would murder us.

In my opinion 

Armstrong's pace would give us a option in behind and Graham is the target man striker. Look how they link up for Armstrong goal. was excellent and quick. Armstrong isn't a winger and I would deefo play him up front. his finishing and pace would frighten these league 1 defences. 

Travis has played centre mid in every league apparence he made for us, sorry be clearly don't have a Scooby about him or where he played. 

On Bennett, he does have pace and can defend and attacked, our joint second league assist player. 1 behind Antonsson, Dack has the same as Bennett. Bell played left wing back for Fleetwood for a lot of the season. 

I believe Lenihan, Mulgrew and Williams would be ideal 3 at the back for me. 

also don't start lecturing me about Formation and telling me I don't know about formation and how to play them

[JBiz]

Footballs all about opinions and since Downing has looked suspect (since signing a contract, what a surprise) my opinion would be to stick with the second half line up bar one or two slight changes.

I think we’ve now got a much better setup for 3 or 5 at the back. Nyambe and Williams make far better wide CBs (in my opinion) especially Williams. Earlier in the season we didn’t have the WB options and I think that makes a big difference to this style of play.

Keep Bennett and Smallwood central and build an attack from Graham, Dack, Armstrong - with Bell/Travis as WB’s. Substitutions could fit in, in several ways then, Payne a direct replacement for Dack, Samuel for Graham, Antonsson for Armstrong et al.

We have conceded poorly all season so I can’t see any weight in the argument that a flat back four would be more resistant. I know the Donny memory will haunt but didn’t we have Ward in that game? And Caddis/Williams as wing backs? And Peter Whittingham in some strange inside right position.

[Lancs Rover]

14 hours ago, MGPensioner said:

maybe we need a poll to see who actually thinks a draw would be a point gained or 2 (more) lost ? 

MUST WIN !!!!!!

He'll save everyone of us, he'll save everyone of us...

[blueboy3333]

7 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

Travis has played in every league apparence he made for us,

Statistically undeniable.

[chaddyrovers]

1 hour ago, Biz said:

Footballs all about opinions and since Downing has looked suspect (since signing a contract, what a surprise) my opinion would be to stick with the second half line up bar one or two slight changes.

I think we’ve now got a much better setup for 3 or 5 at the back. Nyambe and Williams make far better wide CBs (in my opinion) especially Williams. Earlier in the season we didn’t have the WB options and I think that makes a big difference to this style of play.

Keep Bennett and Smallwood central and build an attack from Graham, Dack, Armstrong - with Bell/Travis as WB’s. Substitutions could fit in, in several ways then, Payne a direct replacement for Dack, Samuel for Graham, Antonsson for Armstrong et al.

We have conceded poorly all season so I can’t see any weight in the argument that a flat back four would be more resistant. I know the Donny memory will haunt but didn’t we have Ward in that game? And Caddis/Williams as wing backs? And Peter Whittingham in some strange inside right position.

Agreed. 3 at the back is the right way to play now. 

Yes you are right about the Donny game and Whittingham position..

[blueboy3333]

Just now, chaddyrovers said:

Agreed. 3 at the back is the right way to play now. 

Even though we've never won playing 3 at the back and we've just gone 18 unbeaten playing 4 at the back? Sounds like a plan.

[arbitro]

Bell has arguably been our best player over his first three games and on Saturday was probably the worst. He is a far better attacker and defender than Williams and from his first few appearances it seems he is far better running at players from a deeper position. So why play him in a position that weakens him and the team? I've seen enough of this shoehorning players into positions they aren't really suited to.

We simply have to play a back four to give us a platform to keep a clean sheet.

[Stuart]

8 minutes ago, arbitro said:

Bell has arguably been our best player over his first three games and on Saturday was probably the worst. He is a far better attacker and defender than Williams and from his first few appearances it seems he is far better running at players from a deeper position. So why play him in a position that weakens him and the team? I've seen enough of this shoehorning players into positions they aren't really suited to.

We simply have to play a back four to give us a platform to keep a clean sheet.

Exactly as I saw it.

The number of times the overlapping run was on into the corner/final third and he just didn’t or couldn’t see it.

Play players in their best positions only - except for in an injury crisis.

[Dreams of 1995]

4-2-3-1 saw us through 18 games without a loss. To suddenly change the formation after two less than pleasing results is a bit of an overreaction. Especially when you are advocating changing the formation to one where we've had a 0% win rate playing it.

I'd argue that Mowbray has signed players to fit into that system but it begs the question why he has done that in the middle of a run using a completely different formation. Dropping Williams for Bell, sticking with 4 at the back and alternating Payne, Armstrong, Dack, Graham, Samuel, Antonsson and Chapman when he's fit in the front 4 should be more than enough to see us up.

 

[JBiz]

26 minutes ago, blueboy3333 said:

Even though we've never won playing 3 at the back and we've just gone 18 unbeaten playing 4 at the back? Sounds like a plan.

I thought we needed to improve to ensure automatic? If you stand still, you go backwards.

 

10 minutes ago, arbitro said:

 

We simply have to play a back four to give us a platform to keep a clean sheet.

We don’t have the centrebacks or the organisation to do that, not an opinion - a fact based on our statistics this season. Perhaps Lenihan will change that. I personally thought we looked a good shape second half Saturday, didn’t concede and scored. 3 at the back.

[blueboy3333]

Just now, arbitro said:

Bell has arguably been our best player over his first three games and on Saturday was probably the worst. He is a far better attacker and defender than Williams and from his first few appearances it seems he is far better running at players from a deeper position. So why play him in a position that weakens him and the team? I've seen enough of this shoehorning players into positions they aren't really suited to.

We simply have to play a back four to give us a platform to keep a clean sheet.

Mowbray will change the team again tomorrow. Any formation is possible.

The worry is quite a few called the disaster that was Bell playing on the wing before the game even started against Oldham. Now, if a layman can spot the impending nightmare then why can't the man who , in his own words, is 'tactically astute'.  He makes life incredibly difficult for himself due to his over-cautious approach and the fact he sees danger everywhere. He sets his teams up to try and answers questions asked by the opposition, rather than setting us up to ask questions of them. Even at home against teams that win once every 2 months (Oldham). It's bizarre, and more than that it's shit management. No manager is perfect but his fear of the opposing teams is almost pathological.

[Dreams of 1995]

1 minute ago, Biz said:

I thought we needed to improve to ensure automatic? If you stand still, you go backwards.

 

We don’t have the centrebacks or the organisation to do that, not an opinion - a fact based on our statistics this season. Perhaps Lenihan will change that. I personally thought we looked a good shape second half Saturday, didn’t concede and scored. 3 at the back.

You arguably need far more organised and commanding centre halves to play 3 at the back than you do 4, Biz. The centre halves need to be far more positionally aware, need to be able to split the channels and maintain a line to push the offside trap.

The only good thing about that system is that Mulgrew and Downing are better on the ball than most centre backs in this league, which again is a requirement of 3 at the back. Other than that there's nothing with our centre halves to suggest they can play that system.

[blueboy3333]

5 minutes ago, Biz said:

I thought we needed to improve to ensure automatic? If you stand still, you go backwards.

We're not going to improve by employing a system that has been a disaster every time we have played it this season. And whatever system we play if we set up not to lose we'll struggle to win enough games to go up automatically anyway. Mowbray poo-ing himself and playing a full-back on the wing at home just because one-win-in-ten Oldham are in town just about sums up his mentality.

[arbitro]

10 minutes ago, Biz said:

I thought we needed to improve to ensure automatic? If you stand still, you go backwards.

 

We don’t have the centrebacks or the organisation to do that, not an opinion - a fact based on our statistics this season. Perhaps Lenihan will change that. I personally thought we looked a good shape second half Saturday, didn’t concede and scored. 3 at the back.

Our two best away performances were at Bradford and Scunthorpe when we won each of them 1-0. Two banks of four with two defensive minded central midfielders screening them. Smallwood, Evans and Travis are capable of doing this in my view. We have the wherewithal to do it, Mowbray chooses not to.

[JBiz]

Just now, Dreams of 1995 said:

You arguably need far more organised and commanding centre halves to play 3 at the back than you do 4, Biz. The centre halves need to be far more positionally aware, need to be able to split the channels and maintain a line to push the offside trap.

The only good thing about that system is that Mulgrew and Downing are better on the ball than most centre backs in this league, which again is a requirement of 3 at the back. Other than that there's nothing with our centre halves to suggest they can play that system.

I agree somewhat, I also think that you need mobile left and right side centrebacks to press with it, and they become full backs on counters - williams and Nyambe might not have the awareness but they both play full back, and have that mobility.

I almost think it suits Charlie to sit in the middle too, more of a sweeper role. We certainly don’t look solid with 4 at the back, and we’ve a top heavy squad in terms of attack, which a 3 CB system allows for extra. It makes a lot sense to me at least.

[Giant]

Lenihan in midfield for Smallwood anyone? Richie is a bit part player at the moment while he gets his head round the threat of a ban. We were overrun in midfield first half on Sat.

[JHRover]

All this talk about different formations and line-ups.

We're 31 games into the season. We should know by now, injuries permitting, who is going to be starting every game, and what formation we are going to be using, and yet none of us have the foggiest idea what is going to come next.

We should have a way of playing, a preferred starting 11 and a structure we are comfortable with and should follow that as far as we can. Yet is seems to me that everything is up in the air. Even Smallwood, who was previously a lynchpin of our side and the first name on the teamsheet, has now found himself taken off in his last 3 games.

There's a difference between having options and a deep, strong squad and then chopping and changing things on a match by match basis. I'm worried that this constant changing is causing us problems and preventing any consistency or momentum building.

I worry that the returns of Antonsson, Chapman and Whittingham, rather than being the icing on the cake and the final push we need to get the job done, will instead cause even more confusion, chopping and changing.

 

 

[JacknOry]

Just now, JHRover said:

All this talk about different formations and line-ups.

We're 31 games into the season. We should know by now, injuries permitting, who is going to be starting every game, and what formation we are going to be using, and yet none of us have the foggiest idea what is going to come next.

We should have a way of playing, a preferred starting 11 and a structure we are comfortable with and should follow that as far as we can. Yet is seems to me that everything is up in the air. Even Smallwood, who was previously a lynchpin of our side and the first name on the teamsheet, has now found himself taken off in his last 3 games.

There's a difference between having options and a deep, strong squad and then chopping and changing things on a match by match basis. I'm worried that this constant changing is causing us problems and preventing any consistency or momentum building.

I worry that the returns of Antonsson, Chapman and Whittingham, rather than being the icing on the cake and the final push we need to get the job done, will instead cause even more confusion, chopping and changing.

 

 

Smallwood seems too concerned about being booked and it has seemingly affected how he plays. Just get booked and get it out of the way. We have players that can cover for him.

[Dreams of 1995]

6 minutes ago, Biz said:

I agree somewhat, I also think that you need mobile left and right side centrebacks to press with it, and they become full backs on counters - williams and Nyambe might not have the awareness but they both play full back, and have that mobility.

I almost think it suits Charlie to sit in the middle too, more of a sweeper role. We certainly don’t look solid with 4 at the back, and we’ve a top heavy squad in terms of attack, which a 3 CB system allows for extra. It makes a lot sense to me at least.

As much as I agree with the theory behind Nyambe and Williams a back 3 of Nyambe, Mulgrew and Williams would frighten the life out of me. I don't think CM could organise them two for 90 minutes.

Truth about it is without Mulgrew we simply don't have another quality centre half. Downing has just dropped in form and with Lenihan out there isn't really anyone else that you think would step in and solidify it.

 

In regards to Smallwood I'd say putting a tenner on him being booked tomorrow is a pretty good shout. Bury, Walsall and Wimbledon coming up before Wigan means we can afford to lose him, and rest him, for some of them games.

[Bigdoggsteel]

Completely agree that Smalwood needs to take a tactical booking and get it out of the way. A 2 game break would probably do him the world of good