No need to panic, but...............

[Hempstead Gaz]

It imust be worth LD considering a slight change in line-up and revert to the old, trusted 4-4-2; since our 3-5-2 now appears to have been sussed out by opposition managers, and does seem to have let us down a bit recently.

If fit, my best side at present would be:

Cronin

Ricketts McCarthy R Smith Opinel

Long (or Anderson) Quinn De Bolla Keeling

McDonald Sodje

 

This at least gives us balance down both flanks, with proper full backs and wingers to get down the line, behind defenders and crosses in.

 

I appreciate people may prefer other players, but is the principle and formation right?

 

An idea?

[FleetFanatic]

3-5-2 wasn't neccessarily the problem, although Chelmsford put 5 in midfield for the first time this season to combat it.

 

The problem was the long-ball [****!!****] that I was led to believe had been greatly reduced this season.

[ColtheJock]

I think to be a successful team you need to be adapatable and what you suggest is not a bad idea. More and more long balls seem to be creeping back into the game even at the top level. What I have noticed with the Fleet this season the times I have seem them play, is that we have some players who can pass and move the ball and maybe we should be doing that more. I think the slightly worrying thing at the moment is that the goals seemed to have dryed up, and we need to get that back. We can concentrate on the league but a Cup Run would have been good for the club's finances. My suggested formation would be 4-4-2 but with a diamond in mindfield, with Quinn holding and Long at the point with the two wingers giving wide to get the balls in for MacDonald and AN Other!!!!

 

:-)

[Stu M]

Quote:

FleetFanatic said:
3-5-2 wasn't neccessarily the problem

The problem was the long-ball [****!!****] that I was led to believe had been greatly reduced this season.

Long-ball was the problem for us not scoring, but 3-5-2 was responsible for the winning goal and put the cat among the pigeons early on. I don't think we should necessarily discard it out of hand, but we need to have some facility to switch it to 4-4-2 and vice versa when it's clearly not working.

I guess Daish's hand was stayed in that regard at half-time as he'd already used one sub and wanted to bring Long and Sodje on if he was chasing the game, but had a third sub been available, I'd've brought Opinel on for one of the Smiths at half-time.

[Mighty Fleet]

Not sure it was the formation, more the attitude.

 

How many times did we get it down and try and pass the ball. Whether its 442 or 352, if you throw long balls up to players that aren't much over 5ft, you're going to struggle.

[Stu M]

Oh yeah, I'm not saying the formation was to blame over the attitude, but I just think it didn't do us any favours from the first whistle!

[Slartibartfast]

Quote:

Mighty Fleet said:
Not sure it was the formation, more the attitude.

How many times did we get it down and try and pass the ball. Whether its 442 or 352, if you throw long balls up to players that aren't much over 5ft, you're going to struggle.

Absolutely right, whatever formation you line up in if the players don't perform then you will lose.

[jc]

Quote:

Chatham Gary said:I appreciate people may prefer other players, but is the principle and formation right?

It pains me to say it, but, despite people's correct identification of excessive long-ball play being a major contributory factor to our defeat yesterday, Gary is spot on here.

As has been said in previous weeks, 3-5-2 with the players at our disposal doesn't make sense on paper. However, while results were being achieved with it, it was understandable that Daish was reluctant to change such a winning formula. However, now the key weaknesses, particularly in a defensive sense down our left-hand side, of such a system have been painfully laid bare for all to see, the time is right for a switch back to 4-4-2.

I wouldn't necessarily put Opinel in my top 11 Fleet players, but it's vital that a club puts out a team that is best suited to the system being employed, rather than selecting the club's eleven best players and going from there.

[Bernard]

Quote:

FleetFanatic said:
The problem was the long-ball [****!!****] that I was led to believe had been greatly reduced this season.

Yesterday's performance has caused a major problem as far as this is concerned. Supporters such as you, FF, who haven't turned up for a while but have been reassured into coming back by those of us who have championed our new, more cultured style of play will have arrived yesterday with renewed hopes of success by attractive football. The dross that was served up for almost ninety minutes of yesterday's game will do very little to attract back the wavering fans who had been led to believe aimless balls over the top were a thing of the past. A good FA Cup run could do wonders for growing interest in a club such as ours, but yesterday's performance has taken us two steps back once more.

Very disappointed <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

[cockneyred]

the odd bad performance dont make them bad players and sitting 4th in the conference having played all season with 3-5-2 should not mean wholesale changes to what has been successful, 3 strong defenders encouraged to go into midfield with passes and balls to strikers feet will get things back on track rather than massive panic changes to formation. midfield of quinn,coleman and slatter can play and need to be encouraged to get the ball and feed off strikers, keeling and ricketts to push forward again as we were during good winning run.out of whole season to date 2 bad games so keep the faith a bit longer.

[Harry J Allstars]

Anyone watching Ipswich v Luton at the moment will see what benefits a 4-4-2 can have and show how we could play.

[John Pearce]

Quote:

cockneyred said:
the odd bad performance dont make them bad players and sitting 4th in the conference having played all season with 3-5-2 should not mean wholesale changes to what has been successful, 3 strong defenders encouraged to go into midfield with passes and balls to strikers feet will get things back on track rather than massive panic changes to formation. midfield of quinn,coleman and slatter can play and need to be encouraged to get the ball and feed off strikers, keeling and ricketts to push forward again as we were during good winning run.out of whole season to date 2 bad games so keep the faith a bit longer.

Bad??? BAD???

Yesterday was bloody appalling!

[FleetFanatic]

Quote:

Bernard said:
Supporters such as you, FF, who haven't turned up for a while but have been reassured into coming back by those of us who have championed our new, more cultured style of play.

Work, family issues, funerals.....

.....but I see what you mean about others.

[Hirsty]

.....but surely Ipswich have better players than us, or else they would not be in the Championship ? or am I missing the point here ?

 

Hmmm....now if only Liam had signed Dirk Kuyt ( we couldn't afford Rooney !!)

 

I take it that you didn't give your views to Liam this week then ?

 

Cheers....

[Robbo]

Daish has gotta be careful in deciding whether to go back to 442. 352 has worked so well so far this season and has given us the solidity throughout the middle that I think we missed last season. You might say why change things when we're 4th in the league.

 

Unfortunately though I think the defeats to Weymouth, Stafford and Chelmsford have all come because of our flanks being exposed at the back, getting hit on the break (Elams goal a prime example). If we do switch to 442 then it will solve this problem, but it might open up other problems when we lose the solidness we've had throughout the middle for most of the season. Personally I like the 352 system as long as the opposing team don't have much down the wings.

[Bernard]

Yeah I wasn't referring to you in particular, FF, it's just your post sparked my comment. It's certainly good to see your return. The more fans the merrier down Stadio del Stonebridgio