Morgan

[Richmondfox]

Yes because he has played well since we have had Huth and Upson in the team. 

 

 

We dont play a rigid 5-4-1 anyway. It is more like a 3-4-3 in attack and a 5-4-1 in defence. No formation is defensive anyway. A formation is about the way you set your team up to play to their strengths. Barcelona, Chelsea  play with 1 defensive midfielder and Madrid used to play 2 defensive midfielders. It doesn't mean they are playing defensively but trying to find a balance that suits the team

 

The 5-4-1 formation has brought us better performances anyway, and also we have looked more of a threat in an attacking sense. I agree with the fullbacks, I would swap one of them for De Laet. Thing is changing formations doesn't always lead to better performances, we played well in a 4-4-2/4-4-1-1 at the start of the season, and then this formation looked poor later on in the season. At the moment 5-4-1 looks good, so why change it?

You might think he's been playing better (I don't) but his mistakes are still at the root of a lot of our goals conceded, we might even have a chance at winning if he didn't play.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tdo-HrqiZso 

 

The first goal at Man City he was ball watching even though there were defenders in front of him to deal with it, watch how he takes a second to react to Silva in the space he was at fault for creating, then his first instinct is to drop to the floor for his trademark Calamity block rather than close the 1ft gap.  The second goal is as if he is the striker finishing it, basic defending error for someone with his experience.  He needs to do the honorable thing and fall on his tattoo needle.  I never thought i'd be so negative to Morgan after last season but he isn't good enough.  

 

Against Everton he was ball watching Lukaku (granted no one else put a tackle in on him which was shocking enough) and left Naismith too much space,  I don't understand how we then didn't timewaste and roll about injured from 87 mins like other teams do to us.

 

Arsenal - First goal at Arsenal koscielny left him for dust.

 

Man Utd - The first goal was unlucky but he let RVP drift away from him.  Second goal he's ball watching again, changes his mind about covering the two Utd players to his left and goes to the player De Laet is covering then the ball is passed to the left in the space he created.  Third goal he ducks out of the way and it hits his head, OG.  That one is almost as bad as the simple headed clearance against West Brom into Cambiasso for an OG.

[Claridge]

Yes because he has played well since we have had Huth and Upson in the team. 

 

 

We dont play a rigid 5-4-1 anyway. It is more like a 3-4-3 in attack and a 5-4-1 in defence. No formation is defensive anyway. A formation is about the way you set your team up to play to their strengths. Barcelona, Chelsea  play with 1 defensive midfielder and Madrid used to play 2 defensive midfielders. It doesn't mean they are playing defensively but trying to find a balance that suits the team

 

The 5-4-1 formation has brought us better performances anyway, and also we have looked more of a threat in an attacking sense. I agree with the fullbacks, I would swap one of them for De Laet. Thing is changing formations doesn't always lead to better performances, we played well in a 4-4-2/4-4-1-1 at the start of the season, and then this formation looked poor later on in the season. At the moment 5-4-1 looks good, so why change it?

Played well? Hes always on his arse when the goals go in. woeful does not do his defending justice.

We average 2 a game with 5 at the back and have gained one point and been outplayed in the cup by Villa and you ask " Why change it ". To stop us getting beat every weak and put up a fight this season is why we need to change it . Also to see if Kramaric can finish as the problem before was having Nugent, and Vardy on the end of the chances we created before XMAS with the old system.

The other problem then Was Morgans defending and it makes no sense not to drop him as we are rock bottom now.I know fans are fickle but when virtually every fan you talk to agrees, there must be something in it. Don't know how to set up a poll but im sure mos tpeople want calamity dropped

[shailen]

Played well? Hes always on his arse when the goals go in. woeful does not do his defending justice.

We average 2 a game with 5 at the back and have gained one point and been outplayed in the cup by Villa and you ask " Why change it ". To stop us getting beat every weak and put up a fight this season is why we need to change it . Also to see if Kramaric can finish as the problem before was having Nugent, and Vardy on the end of the chances we created before XMAS with the old system.

The other problem then Was Morgans defending and it makes no sense not to drop him as we are rock bottom now.I know fans are fickle but when virtually every fan you talk to agrees, there must be something in it. Don't know how to set up a poll but im sure mos tpeople want calamity dropped

 

Yeah we played well against Arsenal, Everton and Man City. Poor finishing cost us in those games,and not being able to convert our chances. Conceding two goals a game against those teams isn't that bad, considering we are playing away from home. We should have had 7 points from those games, having outplayed Arsenal and Everton and matched Man City for the most part. Villa away in the cup was a poor performance, but again that was just down to a bad team performance and if any individuals are to blame it's Simpson and Schwazer. 

 

I don't think there is a magic wand that we can wave which is if we change this system we will play better, when the fundamental reason is that we haven't been able to convert our chances. We were getting beat week in week out with 4 at the back anyway. This system gives us more flexibility to attack with full backs in the wide area that can get further forward with the insurance of an extra defender, whilst Schlupp and Mahrez can get into the box more often to act as a support striker. Like I've said before, for me Morgan should be given some credit for his recent performances, but a lot of people are judging his previous performances, which were bad, as a permanent view. The thing about him on his arse is because he always tries to get his body in the way. The number of blocks he makes even this season is really encouraging, and it's harder to score past a defender especially the size of Morgan with his body spread out than him just standing there. 

 

In summary, he could and probably should have been dropped earlier on in the season. BUT since Huth has come in especially, he has looked good for me. If we change to a back four maybe he could be dropped, however in the current system he plays for me. 

[Silverdaz]

I think its no coicendence Wes has looked better in a back five now he is on the right side of the defence rather than the left

[Danno]

I think its no coicendence Wes has looked better in a back five now he is on the right side of the defence rather than the left

Same here. Always thought that he looks worse when playing with Wasilewski as he has to play on the left. It's no coincidence his best performances came when he was partnering Moore.

[Royston.]

Shows Pearson does fúck all research, it tells you on Football Manager that Morgan prefers the right.

[gerrytaggart]

Wez Morgan.

[Dickov22]

You might think he's been playing better (I don't) but his mistakes are still at the root of a lot of our goals conceded, we might even have a chance at winning if he didn't play.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tdo-HrqiZso 

 

The first goal at Man City he was ball watching even though there were defenders in front of him to deal with it, watch how he takes a second to react to Silva in the space he was at fault for creating, then his first instinct is to drop to the floor for his trademark Calamity block rather than close the 1ft gap.  The second goal is as if he is the striker finishing it, basic defending error for someone with his experience.  He needs to do the honorable thing and fall on his tattoo needle.  I never thought i'd be so negative to Morgan after last season but he isn't good enough.  

 

Against Everton he was ball watching Lukaku (granted no one else put a tackle in on him which was shocking enough) and left Naismith too much space,  I don't understand how we then didn't timewaste and roll about injured from 87 mins like other teams do to us.

 

Arsenal - First goal at Arsenal koscielny left him for dust.

 

Man Utd - The first goal was unlucky but he let RVP drift away from him.  Second goal he's ball watching again, changes his mind about covering the two Utd players to his left and goes to the player De Laet is covering then the ball is passed to the left in the space he created.  Third goal he ducks out of the way and it hits his head, OG.  That one is almost as bad as the simple headed clearance against West Brom into Cambiasso for an OG.

 

Funny how football fans see things differently when it comes to blame for a goal.

 

My views would be:

 

'The first goal at Man City he was ball watching even though there were defenders in front of him to deal with it, watch how he takes a second to react to Silva in the space he was at fault for creating, then his first instinct is to drop to the floor for his trademark Calamity block rather than close the 1ft gap. The second goal is as if he is the striker finishing it, basic defending error for someone with his experience. He needs to do the honorable thing and fall on his tattoo needle. I never thought i'd be so negative to Morgan after last season but he isn't good enough. '

 

Disagree entirely. The first goal is nothing to do with Wes, it is all about Schlupp losing the ball high up the pitch needlessly, we are then on the back foot and surely you can't blame Wes for being wrongfooted by Silva, who is possibly the best midfielder in the league. Second goal is all about Schlupp - absolutely PATHETIC attempt to stop the cross coming over. He's half asleep as usual and make zero effort to block it. Do you think someone like Kaamark would have let that come over? Not a chance.

 

'Against Everton he was ball watching Lukaku (granted no one else put a tackle in on him which was shocking enough) and left Naismith too much space, I don't understand how we then didn't timewaste and roll about injured from 87 mins like other teams do to us.'

Again, disagree entirely. I thought Wes had a decent game at Everton. The first goal I'd lay the blame split 50/50 between Upson and Schwarzer. Upson is brushed off the ball and outmuscled SO easily by Lukaku who then gets the ball to Naismith. Not much Wes could do about it. Schwarzer is then as mobile as a tree trunk as he watches the ball go in. Not Wes' fault at all imo

 

'Arsenal - First goal at Arsenal koscielny left him for dust.'

Agree - this was pathetic inexcusable defending from Wes

 

 

.Man Utd - The first goal was unlucky but he let RVP drift away from him. Second goal he's ball watching again, changes his mind about covering the two Utd players to his left and goes to the player De Laet is covering then the ball is passed to the left in the space he created. Third goal he ducks out of the way and it hits his head, OG. That one is almost as bad as the simple headed clearance against West Brom into Cambiasso for an OG.'

 

Disagree again. First goal is offside, so how can anyone be blamed really? Second goal I think Wasilewski is at fault - he's unecessarily come charging out of the back line into midfield leaving our defence exposed. He does this fairly often yet no one seems to notice. Fans favourite and all that. Third goal is Ulloa's fault - he loses the challenge at the near post - his job there is to win the ball and he get outjumped, allowing the ball into our area. Wes tries to clear and is desperately unlucky that it ends up in the net. Not a lot he could do about it.

 

I don't actually think Wes has been too bad! The one really poor performance he's had for me was Crystal Palace at home where he had a nightmare. Otherwise, he's been no worse than the rest of them. I'd be more than happy with a back 2 of him and Huth for the remainder of the season.

[Jonaldinho]

Schlupp should've done much better with Man City's second goal BUT once the cross has come in, Wes is in the perfect position to clear it. Yet for some reason, he tries to let it come across his body and clear with his right foot rather than his left, which has given Milner the opportunity to score. Baffling defending.

[Dickov22]

Schlupp should've done much better with Man City's second goal BUT once the cross has come in, Wes is in the perfect position to clear it. Yet for some reason, he tries to let it come across his body and clear with his right foot rather than his left, which has given Milner the opportunity to score. Baffling defending.

 

Accept that it did seem a strange method he used to try and clear the ball. Its a collective thing though - Schlupp at fault and also there are (i think) THREE Leicester defenders all in the box, and one James Milner. Why does he get to the ball first? Wes just seems to get blamed for everything, and its grossly unfair. For example he got blamed by many for the goals we conceded at home to Liverpool. I'd argue none were his fault. First was Konchesky daydreaming allowing Lallana to ghost in behind him and score, Gerrard goal Wes is stretching to clear a ball and it lands at Gerrard's feet on the egde of our box - where are the midfielders tracking his run??

[jmono84]

Schlupp should've done much better with Man City's second goal BUT once the cross has come in, Wes is in the perfect position to clear it. Yet for some reason, he tries to let it come across his body and clear with his right foot rather than his left, which has given Milner the opportunity to score. Baffling defending.

Defo agree with this... Full backs won't be able to stop every cross coming into the box... Wes was in a great position but what he did to attempt to clear the ball was unexplainable! Defo wes at fault for that goal...

If we looked at every game and every goal someone is at fault somewhere. No team is ever going to stop conceding but wes made a complete howler there.

[Gio]

Funny how football fans see things differently when it comes to blame for a goal.

My views would be:

'The first goal at Man City he was ball watching even though there were defenders in front of him to deal with it, watch how he takes a second to react to Silva in the space he was at fault for creating, then his first instinct is to drop to the floor for his trademark Calamity block rather than close the 1ft gap. The second goal is as if he is the striker finishing it, basic defending error for someone with his experience. He needs to do the honorable thing and fall on his tattoo needle. I never thought i'd be so negative to Morgan after last season but he isn't good enough. '

Disagree entirely. The first goal is nothing to do with Wes, it is all about Schlupp losing the ball high up the pitch needlessly, we are then on the back foot and surely you can't blame Wes for being wrongfooted by Silva, who is possibly the best midfielder in the league. Second goal is all about Schlupp - absolutely PATHETIC attempt to stop the cross coming over. He's half asleep as usual and make zero effort to block it. Do you think someone like Kaamark would have let that come over? Not a chance.

'Against Everton he was ball watching Lukaku (granted no one else put a tackle in on him which was shocking enough) and left Naismith too much space, I don't understand how we then didn't timewaste and roll about injured from 87 mins like other teams do to us.'

Again, disagree entirely. I thought Wes had a decent game at Everton. The first goal I'd lay the blame split 50/50 between Upson and Schwarzer. Upson is brushed off the ball and outmuscled SO easily by Lukaku who then gets the ball to Naismith. Not much Wes could do about it. Schwarzer is then as mobile as a tree trunk as he watches the ball go in. Not Wes' fault at all imo

'Arsenal - First goal at Arsenal koscielny left him for dust.'

Agree - this was pathetic inexcusable defending from Wes

.Man Utd - The first goal was unlucky but he let RVP drift away from him. Second goal he's ball watching again, changes his mind about covering the two Utd players to his left and goes to the player De Laet is covering then the ball is passed to the left in the space he created. Third goal he ducks out of the way and it hits his head, OG. That one is almost as bad as the simple headed clearance against West Brom into Cambiasso for an OG.'

Disagree again. First goal is offside, so how can anyone be blamed really? Second goal I think Wasilewski is at fault - he's unecessarily come charging out of the back line into midfield leaving our defence exposed. He does this fairly often yet no one seems to notice. Fans favourite and all that. Third goal is Ulloa's fault - he loses the challenge at the near post - his job there is to win the ball and he get outjumped, allowing the ball into our area. Wes tries to clear and is desperately unlucky that it ends up in the net. Not a lot he could do about it.

I don't actually think Wes has been too bad! The one really poor performance he's had for me was Crystal Palace at home where he had a nightmare. Otherwise, he's been no worse than the rest of them. I'd be more than happy with a back 2 of him and Huth for the remainder of the season.

Completely agree with this. He's not been that bad in the last few games except for arsenal's first goal.

Maybe he could have done better for a couple of the other goals but they weren't directly his fault, usually another players initial mistake and he's been left to try sort out the mess.

People are just being bias against him because of the bad games he was having before and are just blaming him for every (or most) goal at the minute

[Merging Cultures]

Yes because he has played well since we have had Huth and Upson in the team. 

 

 

We dont play a rigid 5-4-1 anyway. It is more like a 3-4-3 in attack and a 5-4-1 in defence. No formation is defensive anyway. A formation is about the way you set your team up to play to their strengths. Barcelona, Chelsea  play with 1 defensive midfielder and Madrid used to play 2 defensive midfielders. It doesn't mean they are playing defensively but trying to find a balance that suits the team

 

The 5-4-1 formation has brought us better performances anyway, and also we have looked more of a threat in an attacking sense. I agree with the fullbacks, I would swap one of them for De Laet. Thing is changing formations doesn't always lead to better performances, we played well in a 4-4-2/4-4-1-1 at the start of the season, and then this formation looked poor later on in the season. At the moment 5-4-1 looks good, so why change it?

 

I agree about the formation, but not about Morgan

[Fox Ulike]

Yes because he has played well since we have had Huth and Upson in the team. 

 

 

We dont play a rigid 5-4-1 anyway. It is more like a 3-4-3 in attack and a 5-4-1 in defence. No formation is defensive anyway. A formation is about the way you set your team up to play to their strengths. Barcelona, Chelsea  play with 1 defensive midfielder and Madrid used to play 2 defensive midfielders. It doesn't mean they are playing defensively but trying to find a balance that suits the team

 

The 5-4-1 formation has brought us better performances anyway, and also we have looked more of a threat in an attacking sense. I agree with the fullbacks, I would swap one of them for De Laet. Thing is changing formations doesn't always lead to better performances, we played well in a 4-4-2/4-4-1-1 at the start of the season, and then this formation looked poor later on in the season. At the moment 5-4-1 looks good, so why change it?

 

Good post. Now let me tell you why it’s wrong.

 

You say that you’d prefer De Laet to Simpson in the five man defence, as if it’s a small detail. It’s not. It’s hugely significant. We have to play the right players in the right system.

 

As you say, formations are the way to set your team to play to their strengths. Do you really think that Simpson’s or Konchesky’s strength is going forward as a wing-backs?

 

By playing these two, Pearson is doing exactly the opposite of what you say: He is not “playing to their strengths”. He is playing them in roles to which they are not well-adapted, and leaving players like De Laet (who is tailor-made for a wing-back role) out of the side. Or choosing Konchesky over Schlupp in that role.

 

We probably have two of the best wing-backs in the division - but we don't play them.

 

This is a big problem that has been with us all season: Vardy on the wing, James as an attacking midfielder, and Ulloa as a striker ‘dropping deep are three other examples.

 

Pearson is absolutely right when he goes on about ‘slim margins’. Winning and losing can be the difference between having just one player playing out of their comfort zone.  

[indierich06]

Good post. Now let me tell you why it’s wrong.

 

You say that you’d prefer De Laet to Simpson in the five man defence, as if it’s a small detail. It’s not. It’s hugely significant. We have to play the right players in the right system.

 

As you say, formations are the way to set your team to play to their strengths. Do you really think that Simpson’s or Konchesky’s strength is going forward as a wing-backs?

 

By playing these two, Pearson is doing exactly the opposite of what you say: He is not “playing to their strengths”. He is playing them in roles to which they are not well-adapted, and leaving players like De Laet (who is tailor-made for a wing-back role) out of the side. Or choosing Konchesky over Schlupp in that role.

 

We probably have two of the best wing-backs in the division - but we don't play them.

 

This is a big problem that has been with us all season: Vardy on the wing, James as an attacking midfielder, and Ulloa as a striker ‘dropping deep are three other examples.

 

Pearson is absolutely right when he goes on about ‘slim margins’. Winning and losing can be the difference between having just one player playing out of their comfort zone.  

What?!

 

Schlupp the centre forward and Ritchie De Laet are two of the best wing-backs in the Premier League? Put the bottle down and step away from the keyboard.

[Corky]

Simpson's been appalling in any formation, De Laet might not be the saviour but should be back in.

[AKCJ]

I don't buy into the idea of Simpson being the better defender of the two.

 

Fact is he's not as good attacking wise as De Laet, which makes him pretty useless.

 

Would rather play De Laet as he can help in the attack rather that Simpson who can't attack or defend.

[Fox Ulike]

What?!

 

Schlupp the centre forward and Ritchie De Laet are two of the best wing-backs in the Premier League? Put the bottle down and step away from the keyboard.

 

I said PROBABLY!!! Probably probably probably.

 

Does anyone else find that over 75%of their posts on Foxestalk are spent correcting people who just re-interpret your posts to mean something of their own chosing?

 

And to answer your question – yes I think they probably are… I can't think of too many sets of wing-backs who are as good as De Laet/Schlupp. Note that most teams don’t have Pearson’s maverick tactial genius, and don’t play five at the back so don't use wing-backs.

[shailen]

Good post. Now let me tell you why it’s wrong.

 

You say that you’d prefer De Laet to Simpson in the five man defence, as if it’s a small detail. It’s not. It’s hugely significant. We have to play the right players in the right system.

 

As you say, formations are the way to set your team to play to their strengths. Do you really think that Simpson’s or Konchesky’s strength is going forward as a wing-backs?

 

By playing these two, Pearson is doing exactly the opposite of what you say: He is not “playing to their strengths”. He is playing them in roles to which they are not well-adapted, and leaving players like De Laet (who is tailor-made for a wing-back role) out of the side. Or choosing Konchesky over Schlupp in that role.

 

We probably have two of the best wing-backs in the division - but we don't play them.

 

This is a big problem that has been with us all season: Vardy on the wing, James as an attacking midfielder, and Ulloa as a striker ‘dropping deep are three other examples.

 

Pearson is absolutely right when he goes on about ‘slim margins’. Winning and losing can be the difference between having just one player playing out of their comfort zone.  

 

On the RWB situation De Laet should play. He is tailor made for that position and his pace and overlapping ability would be a real asset. Just the fact that Mahrez doesn't track back enough for me so he may be exploited defensively but Simpson hasn't done enough to warrant that he is better defensively anyway.

On the LWB, I fear playing Schlupp and another winger will exploit Schlupp. He isn't the best defensively, and could really be exploited and has a lot of lapses of concentration which is why I personally wouldn't have him there. Konchesky and Schlupp have made a good combination on the left in this formation and a lot of our chances have been created by balls in from Konchesky recently. Think he has done better of the two to adapt to that position. 

 

Now I can understand why you picked this point out, but every team will have weaknesses in individual positions. Man City CB situation for example. The way we set up should be to minimise our team's weaknesses rather than individuals. Those being taking chances, and conceding soft goals. Although the stats probably counter this, we have looked better in the opposition box and defended alot better.

[Fox Ulike]

On the RWB situation De Laet should play. He is tailor made for that position and his pace and overlapping ability would be a real asset. Just the fact that Mahrez doesn't track back enough for me so he may be exploited defensively but Simpson hasn't done enough to warrant that he is better defensively anyway.

On the LWB, I fear playing Schlupp and another winger will exploit Schlupp. He isn't the best defensively, and could really be exploited and has a lot of lapses of concentration which is why I personally wouldn't have him there. Konchesky and Schlupp have made a good combination on the left in this formation and a lot of our chances have been created by balls in from Konchesky recently. Think he has done better of the two to adapt to that position. 

 

Now I can understand why you picked this point out, but every team will have weaknesses in individual positions. Man City CB situation for example. The way we set up should be to minimise our team's weaknesses rather than individuals. Those being taking chances, and conceding soft goals. Although the stats probably counter this, we have looked better in the opposition box and defended alot better.

 

Every team who is at bottom of every league will miss chances and concede soft goals. These are just the symptoms, they are not the root cause of our problems.

 

OK Schlupp (and RDL) aren’t the best defensively, but surely the point of playing an extra centre-back is that you can play with attack-minded full-backs because you have the extra cover at the back.

 

My point is simply that playing 3 central defenders and 2 defensive fullbacks is serious flawed – unless the aim is a narrow defeat. It’s fine for as long as you can keep the game to 0-0, but it’s completely useless if you go one down. (Which we tend to do!)

[filbertway]

That Milner goal was embarassing for all 3 blokes in the box, 1 attacker against 3 defenders. Shambles.

[shailen]

Every team who is at bottom of every league will miss chances and concede soft goals. These are just the symptoms, they are not the root cause of our problems.

 

OK Schlupp (and RDL) aren’t the best defensively, but surely the point of playing an extra centre-back is that you can play with attack-minded full-backs because you have the extra cover at the back.

 

My point is simply that playing 3 central defenders and 2 defensive fullbacks is serious flawed – unless the aim is a narrow defeat. It’s fine for as long as you can keep the game to 0-0, but it’s completely useless if you go one down. (Which we tend to do!)

 

So if we don't address our chance taking and individual defending we won't solve the problem. We are bottom because we haven't scored enough goals and defended weakly at times. This is the root cause of the problem. Some teams that are bottom of the league may defend poorly and not even create chances. You can't say that every team at the bottom of the league are suffering the same problems.

 

Yes playing five defensive players is really negative, but as I've mentioned it is more like a 3-4-3 in attack and a 5-4-1 in defence. Either you play attacking full backs to support the attack and suffer in defence. Or defensive full backs to support the attack. Each method has it's flaws and pros. We are and were creating chances with defensive fullbacks so I don't feel the need to play attacking full backs. But having said that I would have De Laet over Simpson because there isn't much difference in their defensive abilities. 

 

Playing 5 at the back isn't resigning yourself to defeat. We nearly beat Everton with this formation and should have beaten Arsenal. We have looked worse imo when we have played 4 at the back in a 'so-called' more attacking formation, and gone 1 down. Like I said, formations are not offensive or defensive. It's the players who have to perform in those tactics that makes the difference. 

[smudger63]

So if we don't address our chance taking and individual defending we won't solve the problem. We are bottom because we haven't scored enough goals and defended weakly at times. This is the root cause of the problem. Some teams that are bottom of the league may defend poorly and not even create chances. You can't say that every team at the bottom of the league are suffering the same problems.

 

Yes playing five defensive players is really negative, but as I've mentioned it is more like a 3-4-3 in attack and a 5-4-1 in defence. Either you play attacking full backs to support the attack and suffer in defence. Or defensive full backs to support the attack. Each method has it's flaws and pros. We are and were creating chances with defensive fullbacks so I don't feel the need to play attacking full backs. But having said that I would have De Laet over Simpson because there isn't much difference in their defensive abilities. 

 

Playing 5 at the back isn't resigning yourself to defeat. We nearly beat Everton with this formation and should have beaten Arsenal. We have looked worse imo when we have played 4 at the back in a 'so-called' more attacking formation, and gone 1 down. Like I said, formations are not offensive or defensive. It's the players who have to perform in those tactics that makes the difference. 

Remind me again how this particular 5 at the back formation has made us so much more solid at the back!

Haven`t we conceded 2 goals in each of the games we`ve played using that formation.

A formation that means we play the striker we brought in to score the goals to save us up on his own, having to chase around like a blue arse fly, just to see a bit of the ball!

If he really wants to play 5 at the back, (so that he can try and justify keeping his chum Calamity Morgan in the team), then lets use it in a more positive way,and go with more attacking full backs in DeLaat and Schlupp, and play 3 in midfield,  probably James and  Cambiasso with Mahrez playing behind a front two, with Kramaric being given some much needed support from another striker, probably Nugent for me, because he`s an intelligent footballer, and would probably be a better foil for Kramaric.

If we are going to go down, then lets at least go down having a go, and play with an attacking intent, rather than just try and keep the game tight, and hope that the fine margin that we usually lose by, goes our way.

[shailen]

Remind me again how this particular 5 at the back formation has made us so much more solid at the back!

Haven`t we conceded 2 goals in each of the games we`ve played using that formation.

A formation that means we play the striker we brought in to score the goals to save us up on his own, having to chase around like a blue arse fly, just to see a bit of the ball!

If he really wants to play 5 at the back, (so that he can try and justify keeping his chum Calamity Morgan in the team), then lets use it in a more positive way,and go with more attacking full backs in DeLaat and Schlupp, and play 3 in midfield,  probably James and  Cambiasso with Mahrez playing behind a front two, with Kramaric being given some much needed support from another striker, probably Nugent for me, because he`s an intelligent footballer, and would probably be a better foil for Kramaric.

If we are going to go down, then lets at least go down having a go, and play with an attacking intent, rather than just try and keep the game tight, and hope that the fine margin that we usually lose by, goes our way.

 

We have looked more organised at the back against three of the leagues best attacks, in Man City, Arsenal and Everton. They have all had to work hard to break us down and get a grip on the game. The number of chances these teams had against us were very limited for the creative players these teams had, and in all these games we have created more or the same number of chances.

 

Why is the current system so defensive? Surely then why don't we go three at the back and play a 3-4-3? This system allows us to be more attacking, with as I have explained before the flexibility to go three at the back when we are attacking and five at the back in defence. I do agree with Kramaric being isolated in the formation and therefore I'd like to see more support from either one of the wingers or one of the midfielders. 

 

Finally I do agree with the need for us to take more risks. But that doesn't stem from the formation but individuals need to play more direct at times and try and press higher up the pitch when required. We can do this with 5 at the back. I'd love to see Mahrez commit more defenders and actually get more balls in the box. Crosses get goals. 

[fleckneymike]

We have looked more organised at the back against three of the leagues best attacks, in Man City, Arsenal and Everton. They have all had to work hard to break us down and get a grip on the game. The number of chances these teams had against us were very limited for the creative players these teams had, and in all these games we have created more or the same number of chances.

 

Why is the current system so defensive? Surely then why don't we go three at the back and play a 3-4-3? This system allows us to be more attacking, with as I have explained before the flexibility to go three at the back when we are attacking and five at the back in defence. I do agree with Kramaric being isolated in the formation and therefore I'd like to see more support from either one of the wingers or one of the midfielders. 

 

Finally I do agree with the need for us to take more risks. But that doesn't stem from the formation but individuals need to play more direct at times and try and press higher up the pitch when required. We can do this with 5 at the back. I'd love to see Mahrez commit more defenders and actually get more balls in the box. Crosses get goals. 

 

Arsenal did not have to work hard. Both goals were incredibly soft. Everton missed countless chances until we very kindly scored on their behalf.