Team shape, tactics and personnel

[romavillan]

1 hour ago, TRO said:

I think, if they had decent service, it would work.

If you put our entire squad up for sale( hypothetically of course).....those 2 would be the first enquiries....2 very good players.

I think the midfield problems are exagerrated by sticking with two up top, No doubt they are both great players, but if you want wingers and them then you've got a two man midfield. We can play a 10 behind them and only have width from the full backs, which was the idea of the shape against Arsenal. Then we aren't playing Bailey or Traore or any wingers at all. I think our best shapes might turn out to be 4-2-3-1, 4-3-3 or even a 3-4-3 for the players we've got. I think if we want to control games we need to drop one of Watkins and Ings.
 

I'd back Smith to work it out and get us on a good run, whether that starts on Sunday or not I have no idea but if we lose then lots of short sighted folk will be on Smith's back immediately. 

[romavillan]

7 hours ago, DCJonah said:

3-4-3 and have Bailey and Buendia either side of a forward

That would be tasty, 5-4-1 when we're defending and then very tasty when we go forward, Bailey and Buendia could swap, Buendia could drift inside to help the midfield two out. Either 4-2-3-1, 4-3-3 or 3-4-3 for me.

All of which means we stop trying to play Ings and Watkins together.

[DCJonah]

2 minutes ago, romavillan said:

That would be tasty, 5-4-1 when we're defending and then very tasty when we go forward, Bailey and Buendia could swap, Buendia could drift inside to help the midfield two out. Either 4-2-3-1, 4-3-3 or 3-4-3 for me.

All of which means we stop trying to play Ings and Watkins together.

Yeah, I was all for giving it a go, but I don't think it's working and with Bailey back fit, he needs to be the guy we get into the game. 

[CVByrne]

On 27/10/2021 at 17:36, JAMAICAN-VILLAN said:

 

I don't mind the look of this, and think it's the best way to accommodate both Ings and Ollie as it stands as well.

( From Bham Live )

If the front 3 rotate positions I think it works

[TRO]

23 minutes ago, romavillan said:

I think the midfield problems are exagerrated by sticking with two up top, No doubt they are both great players, but if you want wingers and them then you've got a two man midfield. We can play a 10 behind them and only have width from the full backs, which was the idea of the shape against Arsenal. Then we aren't playing Bailey or Traore or any wingers at all. I think our best shapes might turn out to be 4-2-3-1, 4-3-3 or even a 3-4-3 for the players we've got. I think if we want to control games we need to drop one of Watkins and Ings.
 

I'd back Smith to work it out and get us on a good run, whether that starts on Sunday or not I have no idea but if we lose then lots of short sighted folk will be on Smith's back immediately. 

I agree, but why not play with just one winger, who can switch flanks at will.

I agree too, with the personnel we have in midfield ,we need 3 as 2 would be overrun.

4-2-3-1 or 4-3-3 is what I would go with.

controlling games at some point in our development must come...otherwise its just smash and grab, which is basically hit and miss.

Wingers without doubt are creators, but they have to be at it, otherwise they are passengers.

I think we have to look at getting players in, if we have any notion of control, in a game.

I think if anyone is looking at Sunday as a time to turn things around, is a tad unfair......Its like saying to a boxer, you need to get back to winning ways, its Tyson Fury next

 

[OutByEaster?]

We can play both strikers - but we need a number ten and a solid three man midfield.

This would work:

-------------------------------Martinez-----------------------------

Cash------------Konsa------------Mings-----------Targett

--------------------------------Luiz------------------------------------

--------------McGinn------------------Ramsey-----------------

------------------------------Buendia-------------------------------

--------------------Ings-----------------Watkins-----------------

But it would mean sacrificing the wingers, which means no place for Bailey.

We' sort of played a version of that but sacrificed a midfielder for a third centreback that hasn't helped us at all.

Personally I'm much more in favour of dropping one of the front two and playing Buendia and Bailey wide.

 

 

[MaVilla]

This is what i would like to see.

The only debate for me would be McGinn vs Ramsey vs Sanson for the 8 role.

 

The only other lineup i see as viable is:

[hippo]

1 minute ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

Yes buts it by the same people regardless of what he does.   I remember him getting it bad when we won games like the 3-0 against Arsenal for not taking anyone off when the game was apparently won. Now the same people are criticising him for making changes when he shouldn’t have. Both Ramsey and Nakamba should be capable of coming on and doing a job for 20 minutes. If they can’t then they shouldn’t be in the squad. 
 

 

I really would stop keeping a tally who posts what and when. Who said wot last season ? So what ? 

Nkamba and Ramsay are in the squad because we don't yet have the squad packed with quality like the top 6 do. We have to include some promising younger players and some who haven't quite cut it at this level. But you probably knew that already.

[Vive_La_Villa]

2 minutes ago, hippo said:

I really would stop keeping a tally who posts what and when. Who said wot last season ? So what ? 

Nkamba and Ramsay are in the squad because we don't yet have the squad packed with quality like the top 6 do. We have to include some promising younger players and some who haven't quite cut it at this level. But you probably knew that already.

I did know that. But you seem to be suggesting they should never play or come on as subs in case they cost us a game?  If they can’t come in when 2-0 up at home for 2 players that are looking very tiring when can they come on?

Im not keeping a tally. I know it’s the same people constantly contracting themselves. They are the only ones that post on here. 

[hippo]

3 minutes ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

I think if people believe the subs cost us the game then the bigger issue is we still have a shit squad. 2 like for like substitutions should not mean conceding 3 goals in 15 minutes. 
 

Sounds like still a lot of work to be done on signing new players if it’s substitutions that cost us games.

I think you're contradicting yourself here mate.

Surely you don't think Nkamba for Luiz is a like for like in terms of ability. ????

The real question is/was:-

Was Luiz in such a state of fatigue - that justified bringing on the lower ability Nkamba.?  (No for me .... YMMV)

 

[hippo]

19 minutes ago, tom_avfc said:

I guess you run the risk of picking up injuries by playing players into the ground. If bringing Nakamba on for 20 minutes means Douglas Luiz doesn’t pick up an injury that puts him out for weeks/ months then it may be better in the long run.

I’m happy to trust the sports scientists and the manager with all the information available to them rather than some bloke on a forum who thinks everybody should be able to play 90 minutes every game to be honest.

Like I say football isnt an endurance sport.

There is no sports science precise enough to say that 68 minutes is ok - but 90 isn't.

The only sort of metrics would be distance covered and heart rate. I can't believe we would be making decisions on those metrics.

Yes you are correct - you are more likely to get injured when playing fatigued. But if start taking players off for fear of injury your getting into a injury guessing game.

[Vive_La_Villa]

1 minute ago, hippo said:

Stick to the point. Do you think the medical staff on match day influenced Luiz being subbed on 68 minutes ?

I think they would have advised him prior to the game on his fitness and gave recommendations after he played for Brazil and the impact of only returning the day before the game. 

[hippo]

Just now, Vive_La_Villa said:

I think they would have advised him prior to the game on his fitness and gave recommendations after he played for Brazil and the impact of only returning the day before the game. 

Wow ! I know we have some good tech and people on our medical staff. But I'd be mighty impressed if they can advise that. 

Be more likely to be "do you feel fit enough to play" 

[hippo]

13 hours ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

I think they would have advised him prior to the game on his fitness and gave recommendations after he played for Brazil and the impact of only returning the day before the game. 

You might want to read this 

springer.com... Much more on link

Quote

Abstract

Participation in soccer match-play leads to acute and transient subjective, biochemical, metabolic and physical disturbances in players over subsequent hours and days. Inadequate time for rest and regeneration between matches can expose players to the risk of training and competing whilst not entirely recovered. In professional soccer, contemporary competitive schedules can require teams to compete in excess of 60 matches over the course of the season with periods of fixture congestion occurring, prompting much attention from researchers and practitioners to the monitoring of fatigue and readiness to play. A comprehensive body of research has investigated post-match acute and residual fatigue responses. Yet the relevance of the research for professional soccer contexts is debatable, notably in relation to the study populations and designs employed. Monitoring can indeed be invasive, expensive, time inefficient, and difficult to perform routinely and simultaneously in a large squad of regularly competing players. Uncertainty also exists regarding the meaningfulness and interpretation of changes in fatigue response values and their functional relevance, and practical applicability in the field. The real-world need and cost–benefit of monitoring must be carefully weighed up. In relation to professional soccer contexts, this opinion paper intends to (1) debate the need for post-match fatigue monitoring; (2) critique the real-world relevance of the current research literature; (3) discuss the practical burden relating to measurement tools and protocols, and the collection, interpretation and application of data in the field; and (4) propose future research perspectives.

 

[QldVilla]

39 minutes ago, hippo said:

Stick to the point. Do you think the medical staff on match day influenced Luiz being subbed on 68 minutes ?

Yes. From the data they would have received from the Brazil national team on his playing minutes and recovery and the effects of the travel, they would have made a recommendation to Smith on how many minutes Luiz would be able to play, it’s not exact to 68 minutes, but the player would also have input.

[PaulC]

2 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

Personally I'm much more in favour of dropping one of the front two and playing Buendia and Bailey wide.

Thats my preference.  Got to try something different. Watkins and Ings not working 

[hippo]

37 minutes ago, QldVilla said:

Yes. From the data they would have received from the Brazil national team on his playing minutes and recovery and the effects of the travel, they would have made a recommendation to Smith on how many minutes Luiz would be able to play, it’s not exact to 68 minutes, but the player would also have input.

Ok. I will bow to your superior knowledge. If they can work all that from HR and distance run I'd be very impressed.

IME it can't be done. Even if it could it's usefulness is highly debatable. Training by stats for footballers is only really used in pre season.

[QldVilla]

2 hours ago, hippo said:

Ok. I will bow to your superior knowledge. If they can work all that from HR and distance run I'd be very impressed.

IME it can't be done. Even if it could it's usefulness is highly debatable. Training by stats for footballers is only really used in pre season.

In most professional sports they take the base level measurements through gps tracking, lactate thresholds etc etc and feed in all into the performance programmes and it spits out key performance data from preseason and training during the week. That’s how they track performance and whether a player is fatiguing etc. Things like sickness, travel will impact on the data as they elevate the heart rate, blood pressure, temperature etc and this is measured as well and taken into account.

In rugby league they have a gps tracker that reads the heart rate etc that sits behind the shoulder blades in the jersey during play and feeds direct data to the sports performance team.

Individualised training is set on this data, but also assists in decision making pre, post game and during the game. A simple thing like an elevated temperature or heart rate can make the decision on whether a player should train, play or rest.

[dont_do_it_doug.]

3 hours ago, hippo said:

Wow ! I know we have some good tech and people on our medical staff. But I'd be mighty impressed if they can advise that. 

Be more likely to be "do you feel fit enough to play" 

It's not 1992. They can absolutely tell you where a player should be at physically and what kind of load they can handle. That can obviously change during the course of a game, but to think they are doing this on vibes alone is outdated. 

[Zatman]

9 hours ago, QldVilla said:

Yes. From the data they would have received from the Brazil national team on his playing minutes and recovery and the effects of the travel, they would have made a recommendation to Smith on how many minutes Luiz would be able to play, it’s not exact to 68 minutes, but the player would also have input.

Luiz was also the only Brazilian player from the squad to play in the Premier League that weekend