Why do we start games so badly?

[Collymore]

We're 1-0 down to Charlton and we'll probably win 2-1 but it begs the question why can't we start games well? It seems to take a goal conceded for us to wake up or a rollocking off Nige at half time.

 

You would think the player/staff would have identified this but it keeps happening over and over again. Frustrating to say the least...

[The Doctor]

I'm starting to think it's the bloody formation - every time we change set up at half-time and improve. Just start with 4-4-2 rather than trying this, having it not work and then change round part way through the match.

[Mark]

Negative starting 11 more often than not.

[Larry_LCFC]

Dyer not starting when hes on fire. Wood not starting following a hattrick. Knocky not starting when hes our most creative player. Thats why we start so shit. Bizzarre Nigel.

[jonthefox]

we're obviously a second half team.

[Guest]

Probably a mental thing or maybe they want to be known as the "come from behind boys".  Kingfox's type of guys

[XLM]

No doubt Nigel inserts his sparkly white trainer up someone's arse and the team performs out of fear. 

[Guest]

No doubt Nigel inserts his sparkly white trainer up someone's arse and the team performs out of fear. 

 

And the worst player has to clean it off.

[Finnaldo]

And the worst player has to clean it off.

Lick it off.

[Rocky Dennis]

Dyer not starting when hes on fire. Wood not starting following a hattrick. Knocky not starting when hes our most creative player. Thats why we start so shit. Bizzarre Nigel.

Not one of those points relate to Morrison being unmarked, behave yourself!

[Collymore]

Lick it off.

 

Danns was saying they tasted like Daz on Tuesday. 

[Guest]

Danns was saying they tasted like Daz on Tuesday. 

 

Daz Eadie?

[stevelcfc]

I think it's because of the defensive mid 3, he then changes it to a more creative attacking mid 2nd half and we improve.

[Guest]

I think it's because of the defensive mid 3, he then changes it to a more creative attacking mid 2nd half and we improve.

 

But that should mean we go in level surely?

[Collymore]

Daz Eadie?

No, Danny Baker.

[Monsell1976]

It's simple if we set up defensively and create very little problems for the opposition, we invite them to put us under pressure and eventually we will conceed.

Today's game I am not sure we needed to go so defensive, we should have gone at them from the start, but hopefully he will change back to 4-4-2 second half and really cause them problems.

[Guest shearfox]

Because we like to give the opposition a chance, it would be boring if we started like we end we would walk the league...

[Les-TA-Jon]

It's not necessarily as simple as everyone's making it out to be. Think of the Birmingham game. Yes we started and played the first half as 3-5-2, and didn't play particularly well. And yes we changed to 4-4-2 in the second half and changed the game. But that doesn't mean it's as simple as:

 

3-5-2 is rubbish and 4-4-2 is great. In that game, we controlled the game playing 3-5-2 and then overran them with Dyer, at 4-4-2 at the start of the second half. Then from around 60 mins to 75mins we were overran in midfield, because 4-4-2 leaves king and james out numbered. 

 

There's both positives and negatives to both formations, hence why we're seemingly quite happy to be using both within the course of one match. 

[Monsell1976]

It's not necessarily as simple as everyone's making it out to be. Think of the Birmingham game. Yes we started and played the first half as 3-5-2, and didn't play particularly well. And yes we changed to 4-4-2 in the second half and changed the game. But that doesn't mean it's as simple as:

3-5-2 is rubbish and 4-4-2 is great. In that game, we controlled the game playing 3-5-2 and then overran them with Dyer, at 4-4-2 at the start of the second half. Then from around 60 mins to 75mins we were overran in midfield, because 4-4-2 leaves king and james out numbered.

There's both positives and negatives to both formations, hence why we're seemingly quite happy to be using both within the course of one match.

It also has alot to do with what formation suits the playing personnel, and we are clearly not as comfortable with 3-5-2, 5-3-2 than 4-4-2, 4-3-3, and tend to be more negative when playing 3-5-2, 5-3-2.

[Jimmy]

It's not necessarily as simple as everyone's making it out to be. Think of the Birmingham game. Yes we started and played the first half as 3-5-2, and didn't play particularly well. And yes we changed to 4-4-2 in the second half and changed the game. But that doesn't mean it's as simple as:

 

3-5-2 is rubbish and 4-4-2 is great. In that game, we controlled the game playing 3-5-2 and then overran them with Dyer, at 4-4-2 at the start of the second half. Then from around 60 mins to 75mins we were overran in midfield, because 4-4-2 leaves king and james out numbered. 

 

There's both positives and negatives to both formations, hence why we're seemingly quite happy to be using both within the course of one match. 

except no, we didn't against Birmingham we started 433

[Mack]

For some unknown reason he keeps playing 5-3-2 at the start of games then realising over and over again it is shit and changing it.

It was always going to be too late at some point, and this week that is what has happened.

[Ricey]

Negative formation and lack of attacking/creative players.

Charlton have had a shocking start to season, we should have taken it to them. Instead we play what sounded like a 5-3-2 with Dyer and Knockaert still on the bench.

I'm not saying we should go gung-ho, but you need at least one player on the pitch who will pass forward or run at players.