| Worth trying a back 3 for the Watford game? 18:27 - Jan 11 with 2601 views | QPRConor2000 |
I personally wonder if Marti should maybe try a 3-5-2 or a 3-4-2-1 for Sunday?
We know that both Cannon and Paal would suit this system well due to their pace and we know that Dykes struggles on his own up top, so maybe pairing him with Armstrong up top would benefit him.
I do remember when we were under Warbs we did switch from a 4-2-3-1 to a 3-4-2-1 and that propelled us up the table, maybe if we done something similar, it could produce the same results maybe?
EDIT: I posted the thread twice by mistake, so ignore the post above this one.
[Post edited 11 Jan 18:32]
| | | |  |
| Worth trying a back 3 for the Watford game? on 20:12 - Jan 11 with 2507 views | MedwayR |
I've thought this for a while for the following reasons.
1) We play our best when we move the ball quickly so sitting deeper and playing on the break would suit us.
2) It gets both Dykes and Armstrong on the pitch theoretically giving us more goal threat.
3) It's gives tactical flexibility. For example, we could switch between a more attacking 3-5-2 with say Chair and Willock either side of Field to a more defensive 3-5-2 with Chair or Willock ahead of Field and Colback.
4) What have we got to lose.
The argument against is who'd play in the back 3, it would only take 1 injury to completely disrupt the backline. | |
| |
| Worth trying a back 3 for the Watford game? on 23:46 - Jan 11 with 2355 views | golborne |
I think Sinton mentioned we’ve conceded 4 in 13 in open play, so the defence are doing ok outside of set pieces. I think the key has been keeping JCS fit + the addition of cook has helped when fit. Just need to get these set pieces sorted. Warburton saved his job by switching to 343 against Norwich when our season and his job were on the ropes. They were top, or top 2 and we should have come away with more than a point. We then didn’t look back for a calendar year. Difference then was that Warbs was blind to the fact that neither Dickie, or Barbet were good enough to play in a two, let alone as a pair. We have better CB’s now | | | |
| Worth trying a back 3 for the Watford game? on 23:54 - Jan 11 with 2343 views | ParkRoyalR |
JCS is absolutely not your man to defend set pieces in this division. The 2nd goal at Millwall might suggest he's not the man in open play either.
However, he could be the man to bring the ball out and for a lot of the reasons stated above, now seems to be the right time to change to a 3-5-2 as Field is an option in the 3 when JCS doesn't fancy it and Bonner-Colback+Chair seem a balanced Midfield 3. | | | |
| Worth trying a back 3 for the Watford game? on 00:20 - Jan 12 with 2306 views | numptydumpty |
It's never going to happen.
Marti will stick throughout to 4 - 4 - 3 | |
| |
| Worth trying a back 3 for the Watford game? on 00:27 - Jan 12 with 2302 views | Watford_Ranger |
Worth a go. We normally look like we’ve got ten men. | | | |
| Worth trying a back 3 for the Watford game? on 01:34 - Jan 12 with 2277 views | QPROslo |
Best midfield we've used this season imo was Field, Dozzell and Colback. If Colback is fit again I think and hope this is who will play there. Marti wants us to play a quick passing game, Dozzell and Colback are the best we have doing that. | | | |
| Worth trying a back 3 for the Watford game? on 08:12 - Jan 12 with 2166 views | lassel |
The issue is in midfield, not in defence. 3/4/5 at the back isn’t going to make a difference when you’ve got a gaping hole infront of it. | | | |
| Worth trying a back 3 for the Watford game? on 08:23 - Jan 12 with 2154 views | ParkRoyalR |
Our goals against Southampton came from quick passes from deep with the 2nd goal actually coming from a very quick and accurate long pass from Sam Field who received a 10 yard sideways pass from Dozzell who as usual played it neat, tidy, safe and without breaking a line or taking out an opposition player.
Dozzell plays 10 passes per game like he did from deep for our goal at Preston he plays, if not, his lack of running, tackling, heading and defending at set pieces means he's a passenger who cannot be carried in a poor team and Chair takes that position. | | | |
| Worth trying a back 3 for the Watford game? on 08:59 - Jan 12 with 2091 views | stevec |
Haven’t we already tried every formation known to mankind? | | | |
| Worth trying a back 3 for the Watford game? on 09:25 - Jan 12 with 2073 views | Jules4367 |
9-0-1 ??
The 1 cannot be Dykes though ! | | | |
| Worth trying a back 3 for the Watford game? on 10:07 - Jan 12 with 2018 views | terryb |
I can't recall any goals against Southampton recently. Did you mean Bournemouth? | | | |
| Worth trying a back 3 for the Watford game? on 10:21 - Jan 12 with 2000 views | QPROslo |
To keep possession and make the right angles to reach forward players you obviously have to play balls sideways, quick and accurately too. I don't agree with you at all on Dozzell but pointless repeating it every day. I think Chair is better utilised further forward. | | | |
| Worth trying a back 3 for the Watford game? on 10:47 - Jan 12 with 1963 views | ParkRoyalR |
Oslo, I saw a stat recently where the two Celtic centre halves (maybe in recent Old Firm game) had completed a very high number of quick forward passes, with another stat saying, most crucially....
how many opposition players had been taken out of the game / by-passed by these quick forward passes...
These stats were so stark, almost unbelievable and I just thought of our creative ball playing central midfielder has 2 assists in 2 seasons and I can think of 2 of these forward types of passes cutting through the lines in recent memory (Swansea and Preston away).
Tom Carroll on a free transfer & halve Dozzell's wages could do the neat & tidy sideways pass to nowhere and until we fix this core problem this team & squad and Marti Cifuentes style of play are just not compatible. | | | |
| Worth trying a back 3 for the Watford game? on 10:53 - Jan 12 with 1940 views | QPROslo |
Dozzell makes good quick forward passes, not enough I agree. JCS the same when available. Field occasionally but more often inaccurately. | | | |
| Worth trying a back 3 for the Watford game? on 12:19 - Jan 12 with 1869 views | kensalriser |
Your problem there is that goals from set pieces count the same as goals from open play. And our terrible habit of conceding from set pieces is a recurrent problem. | |
| |
| Worth trying a back 3 for the Watford game? on 22:32 - Jan 12 with 1747 views | ParkRoyalR |
If this stat is correct and we have only conceded 4 goals from open play in 13 games it makes the recent pile-on Jimmy Dunne and hand-wringing for the return of Cook even more peculiar.
If Marti can get the players with desire on the pitch, protect Begovic at set pieces and get his most physical defender on the park so we cut-out this set piece problem we should be competitive in games and can hopefully replicate that Preston performance on Sunday. | | | |
| Worth trying a back 3 for the Watford game? on 22:43 - Jan 12 with 1737 views | Hunterhoop |
At passing it quickly backwards?! | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
