| Scowen and Cameron 22:19 - Oct 28 with 7047 views | Hunterhoop |
You just cannot play that as a midfield pair.
Too slow. Too immobile. Too bad on the ball.
The first 5 min set the tone and it got worse.
It’s not a reflection of them as people. Scowen runs around and I think Cameron cares. But one does not have the ability and the other no longer the legs. It’s a recipe for disaster.
Two holding midfielders and yet we were getting carved open down the middle with midfielders advancing on our two slow centres stuck between tracking runners or committing and rushing selling themselves. Continually free runners running into our back 4.
Two holding midfielders and yet we could not pass out. Back to Leistner. Back to Hall. Back to Kelly. Unable to take one touch, turn and play a forward pass. Only ever play the way they’re facing. Both of them.
Brentford has 6 players starting in our half pressing us from goal kicks because they knew Cameron and Scowen could not possible play through them, and they had no physical hold up man to worry about.
Two games running we’ve started with that 4-2-3-1 shape. Both times Scowen and Cameron as the two. Both times a poor performance. I’d include Blackburn too, but everyone else thinks they were good then, which I cannot fathom.
If we and Warburton want to play this style, which I believe he and we want, he cannot keep combining these two. Get Ball back in. Try Amos with him. We need another ball player and a more positionally astute holding midfielder. |  | | |  |
| Scowen and Cameron on 10:04 - Oct 29 with 1150 views | paulparker |
For what it’s worth I would go 3-5-2
A back 3 of barbet, Leinster , Cameron
Wing backs BOS & manning
Hall as a holding midfielder
Eze & chair either side
With hugill and wells up top |  |
| And Bowles is onside, Swinburne has come rushing out of his goal , what can Bowles do here , onto the left foot no, on to the right foot
That’s there that’s two, and that’s Bowles
Brian Moore
|
| |
| Scowen and Cameron on 10:11 - Oct 29 with 1138 views | RblockPrior |
I am getting a bit sick of all this Scowen bashing and people using him as a scapegoat, he is no where near as bad as people make out. Committed and someone who breaks up play well. People literally wait for the mistake and focus on that ignoring all the positive.
Scowen was much better than Cameron last night imo, however all this said I am not sure why Ball isn't getting a game who would be my first choice in that position.
Give Scowen a break, doesn't deserve the stick he gets |  |
| |
| Scowen and Cameron on 10:31 - Oct 29 with 1099 views | stevec |
| Scowen and Cameron on 10:04 - Oct 29 by paulparker |
For what it’s worth I would go 3-5-2
A back 3 of barbet, Leinster , Cameron
Wing backs BOS & manning
Hall as a holding midfielder
Eze & chair either side
With hugill and wells up top |
BOS as wing back might be interesting. As a forward I'm fast giving up hope on him. As good as Manning's been going forward, his defensive side leaves a lot to be desired. Wallace may have to come in if this level of goals conceded continues but may stymie the attacking options.
A conundrum. |  | | |
| Scowen and Cameron on 10:40 - Oct 29 with 1075 views | BrianMcCarthy |
| Scowen and Cameron on 10:11 - Oct 29 by RblockPrior |
I am getting a bit sick of all this Scowen bashing and people using him as a scapegoat, he is no where near as bad as people make out. Committed and someone who breaks up play well. People literally wait for the mistake and focus on that ignoring all the positive.
Scowen was much better than Cameron last night imo, however all this said I am not sure why Ball isn't getting a game who would be my first choice in that position.
Give Scowen a break, doesn't deserve the stick he gets |
I agree. I'm slow to criticise players who work hard. I think he needs to be pulled aside and spoken to about the challenge for the penalty last night, though. It was impetuous and foolish and it cost us the momentum at that stage of the game. |  |
| |
| Scowen and Cameron on 10:46 - Oct 29 with 1064 views | ed_83 |
Definitely need to change things up, Cameron and Scowen clearly don't work as a midfield 2.
If we're going with 4 at the back then I think we need just one of Cameron, Scowen or Ball protecting the back 4, then drop Chair deeper, move Manning across from left back or bring Amos / Smith in when fit to sit alongside them and do more of the creative stuff.
Or just stick with 3 at the back, which seems to suit us better but relies on all our central defenders staying fit & leaves us vulnerable down the flanks?
Another slightly more radical idea would be to drop one of our attacking midfielders from a 4231 back into a 433 - Cameron or Ball protecting the back 4, Amos or Chair pushing forward, Scowen or Manning doing a bit of both. Means we can't play someone just off the striker, but if we're playing Eze, our best number 10, on the left wing anyway then maybe that's not such a big loss?
Either way, I trust MW to work it out. Important to remember this is a relatively young team with a new manager, it's going to take a while to get right. [Post edited 29 Oct 2019 10:48]
|  | | |
| Scowen and Cameron on 11:50 - Oct 29 with 1011 views | BAWHoops |
The problem with those 2 in midfield is that neither of them are quick or clever enough to pick up the ball off the back and move it forward.
That's supposed to be what Amos is here to do. Be the pivot. |  |
| http://blogandwhitehoops.wordpress.com/ |
| |
| Scowen and Cameron on 12:11 - Oct 29 with 981 views | Watford_Ranger |
Scowen > Cameron in midfield for me. When Scowen is the one trusted to pass the ball then I can’t see what Cameron offers there that Ball can’t.
Amos looked the part earlier in the season but that cameo on Tuesday against a bottom six side was quite tragic. Probably needs a run but that’s a hell of a risk. | | | |
| Scowen and Cameron on 12:17 - Oct 29 with 970 views | smegma |
| Scowen and Cameron on 10:40 - Oct 29 by BrianMcCarthy |
I agree. I'm slow to criticise players who work hard. I think he needs to be pulled aside and spoken to about the challenge for the penalty last night, though. It was impetuous and foolish and it cost us the momentum at that stage of the game. |
Erm, he didn't make a challenge, it was Tom Daley-esque, but let's not criticise eh ?!! | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Scowen and Cameron on 12:18 - Oct 29 with 965 views | Benny_the_Ball |
| Scowen and Cameron on 23:37 - Oct 28 by BrianMcCarthy |
I think that Eze on the left is fine in a 532 with Manning bombing on as Eze then cuts in, but not wide on the left or right with a 4231, 442 or the 42211 we played today as the wide midfielders then have to stay wide to give us width and that isolates him.
I'd go back to the 4231 (with attacking full-backs) immediately with the central attacking midfielder much deeper to give us control in the centre-mid. We've been swamped there the last two games. |
Manning bombing forward leaves us horribly exposed at he back because Scowen and Cameron provide little protection and the centre-backs can't cope. The Kevin Keegan brand of football has been exposed by Reading's press and is not sustainable until QPR are in a position to recruit better centre-backs and defensive midfielders.
By the way, we played 4-2-3-1 last night to poor effect. [Post edited 29 Oct 2019 13:03]
|  | | |
| Scowen and Cameron on 12:20 - Oct 29 with 959 views | robith |
I was saying pretty much the same to my dad - you can't play a possession based game with both of those two in the middle, because when teams press us they can't move it quickly or accurately enough to beat it
If I was Dom Ball, I'd be knocking on Warbz door demanding a start.
I also love Amos and I think he'll be the key long term to making us tick |  | | |
| Scowen and Cameron on 12:21 - Oct 29 with 956 views | robith |
I have also not been totally sure about him, but wow last night showed how important Hugill is to how we want to play. | | | |
| Scowen and Cameron on 12:22 - Oct 29 with 955 views | Benny_the_Ball |
| Scowen and Cameron on 10:40 - Oct 29 by BrianMcCarthy |
I agree. I'm slow to criticise players who work hard. I think he needs to be pulled aside and spoken to about the challenge for the penalty last night, though. It was impetuous and foolish and it cost us the momentum at that stage of the game. |
Taking nothing away from Brentford who deserved the victory but that was never a penalty in a month of Sundays. | | | |
| Scowen and Cameron on 12:31 - Oct 29 with 935 views | ParkRoyalR |
| Scowen and Cameron on 10:11 - Oct 29 by RblockPrior |
I am getting a bit sick of all this Scowen bashing and people using him as a scapegoat, he is no where near as bad as people make out. Committed and someone who breaks up play well. People literally wait for the mistake and focus on that ignoring all the positive.
Scowen was much better than Cameron last night imo, however all this said I am not sure why Ball isn't getting a game who would be my first choice in that position.
Give Scowen a break, doesn't deserve the stick he gets |
I agree, blaming these 2 is a distraction / diversion from our core weakness, evident from pre-season, which is our Centre Backs. These 2 were not at fault for any of the 3 goals conceded last night or the goal scoring chances Brentford missed, our Centre Backs were.
Giving a free header for that 1st goal last night was just beyond pathetic.
Scowen was the only 1 of 8 players in our Half who chased back to defend the 3rd goal, although Rangel also made some effort, which was the real gutter last night.
Fair play to Scowen to show that level of desire, whereas others who are deemed to be the 'right sort', could not even be bothered to break into a jog.
Warburton will get this right as he has clearly shown from Day 1 he knows what this team needs. | | | |
| Scowen and Cameron on 12:33 - Oct 29 with 934 views | BrianMcCarthy |
| Scowen and Cameron on 12:18 - Oct 29 by Benny_the_Ball |
Manning bombing forward leaves us horribly exposed at he back because Scowen and Cameron provide little protection and the centre-backs can't cope. The Kevin Keegan brand of football has been exposed by Reading's press and is not sustainable until QPR are in a position to recruit better centre-backs and defensive midfielders.
By the way, we played 4-2-3-1 last night to poor effect. [Post edited 29 Oct 2019 13:03]
|
I agree.
On the first half, though, Chair was far too far forward. So what we played seemed to be in effect 42211. I think the central of the midfield three should stay in midfield so we match up with the oppo in that area.
The last two games we've been swamped in midfield. We need to match up there to win more ball, to take more pressure off the backs. We need to go back to setting up to try and control possession and control midfield.
If we play a proper 4231 or a 532 we can allow Manning and Angel/Kane to go forward knowing that we have the bodies in midfield to break up counter-attacks and also to spread our remaining defenders to cover for Manning and Angel/Kane when they attack. | |
| |
| Scowen and Cameron on 12:35 - Oct 29 with 927 views | BrianMcCarthy |
| Scowen and Cameron on 12:22 - Oct 29 by Benny_the_Ball |
Taking nothing away from Brentford who deserved the victory but that was never a penalty in a month of Sundays. |
Maybe, but there was plenty cover back and Scowen didn't need to charge in. Close him down by all means but not charge in all the way. He's around long enough to know how dangerous that is. | |
| |
| Scowen and Cameron on 12:39 - Oct 29 with 921 views | BrianMcCarthy |
| Scowen and Cameron on 12:17 - Oct 29 by smegma |
Erm, he didn't make a challenge, it was Tom Daley-esque, but let's not criticise eh ?!! |
He did make a challenge, Smeg, to be fair. I don't think it was a penalty, but Scowen did make a challenge.
There's an angle that they showed last night from roughly the ref's angle and it shows that he made contact. The Brentford player was clearly happy to throw himself up in the air and cheat but Scowen shouldn't have charged in like a lunatic - get close, stand him up and jockey, but no need to dive in with so many hooped shirts around. | |
| |
| Scowen and Cameron on 12:41 - Oct 29 with 913 views | Benny_the_Ball |
Couldn't agree more, Hunter. Against both Reading and Brentford, QPR played the ball around in defence before ultimately resorting to the long ball via Kelly which defeats the point of playing out from the back.
Opposition teams are going to counter our style with the high press so it's imperative that the defensive midfielders are comfortable with receiving the ball in tight areas and are able to pass through the lines. Do that and you immediately take 5-6 opposition players out of the game.
Cameron lacks the legs and Scowen (by his own admission) doesn't enjoy the role. Unfortunately Amos and Smith mk 2 are yet to step up so Warburton's options are limited to introducing Ball or once again asking Manning to fill in. | | | |
| Scowen and Cameron on 12:46 - Oct 29 with 900 views | robith |
| Scowen and Cameron on 12:22 - Oct 29 by Benny_the_Ball |
Taking nothing away from Brentford who deserved the victory but that was never a penalty in a month of Sundays. |
I was directly in line with it in west paddocks.
a more egregious dive you'll struggle to find | | | |
| Scowen and Cameron on 12:47 - Oct 29 with 895 views | TheChef |
| Scowen and Cameron on 12:39 - Oct 29 by BrianMcCarthy |
He did make a challenge, Smeg, to be fair. I don't think it was a penalty, but Scowen did make a challenge.
There's an angle that they showed last night from roughly the ref's angle and it shows that he made contact. The Brentford player was clearly happy to throw himself up in the air and cheat but Scowen shouldn't have charged in like a lunatic - get close, stand him up and jockey, but no need to dive in with so many hooped shirts around. |
He gave the referee a decision to make, Brian.
Ultimately the wrong decision. |  |
| |
| Scowen and Cameron on 12:52 - Oct 29 with 883 views | Benny_the_Ball |
| Scowen and Cameron on 12:39 - Oct 29 by BrianMcCarthy |
He did make a challenge, Smeg, to be fair. I don't think it was a penalty, but Scowen did make a challenge.
There's an angle that they showed last night from roughly the ref's angle and it shows that he made contact. The Brentford player was clearly happy to throw himself up in the air and cheat but Scowen shouldn't have charged in like a lunatic - get close, stand him up and jockey, but no need to dive in with so many hooped shirts around. |
To be fair to Scowen I thought he stopped himself from making the challenge and it was the Brentford player who made contact with him. Tellingly, not a single Brentford player appealed for the penalty. | | | |
| Scowen and Cameron on 12:53 - Oct 29 with 876 views | BrianMcCarthy |
| Scowen and Cameron on 12:52 - Oct 29 by Benny_the_Ball |
To be fair to Scowen I thought he stopped himself from making the challenge and it was the Brentford player who made contact with him. Tellingly, not a single Brentford player appealed for the penalty. |
I saw it differently, but fair enough. [Post edited 29 Oct 2019 12:54]
| |
| |
| Scowen and Cameron on 12:58 - Oct 29 with 851 views | Benny_the_Ball |
| Scowen and Cameron on 12:33 - Oct 29 by BrianMcCarthy |
I agree.
On the first half, though, Chair was far too far forward. So what we played seemed to be in effect 42211. I think the central of the midfield three should stay in midfield so we match up with the oppo in that area.
The last two games we've been swamped in midfield. We need to match up there to win more ball, to take more pressure off the backs. We need to go back to setting up to try and control possession and control midfield.
If we play a proper 4231 or a 532 we can allow Manning and Angel/Kane to go forward knowing that we have the bodies in midfield to break up counter-attacks and also to spread our remaining defenders to cover for Manning and Angel/Kane when they attack. |
Actually I think you've hit on a good point here. What's sometimes advertised by MW as 4-2-3-1 sometimes looks something different in reality. Against Reading the official match report stated that we started with a 4-2-2-2 which, if true, is barmy.
Whatever the formation, I completely agree that the midfield has been overrun lately and Warburton needs to regain control of this area as well as provide the defence with better protection. Only then should the full-backs be allowed to push forward. [Post edited 29 Oct 2019 13:04]
| | | |
| Scowen and Cameron on 13:02 - Oct 29 with 837 views | ParkRoyalR |
| Scowen and Cameron on 12:53 - Oct 29 by BrianMcCarthy |
I saw it differently, but fair enough. [Post edited 29 Oct 2019 12:54]
|
If you freeze frame it on Sky their player starts his dive about 2 feet in front of Scowen and is fully airborne about a foot before contact with Scowen.
A terrible decision as the Ref was in line no more than 10 yards away and it was clear and obvious simulation. | | | |
| Scowen and Cameron on 13:14 - Oct 29 with 806 views | The_Mole |
For me, given what I've witnessed over the last two home games, the only real formation that will suit our style of play and fit our current crop of players is 3-5-2. This allows the following;
* Two strikers - Wells needs Hugil and vice-versa
* A three man midfield - if we are to persit with Cameron and Scowen, Eze MUST play in the 10!
* Three at the back - Leistner only plays well when in a three
* Wing Backs - we need width and Manning generally performs better when at a LFB |  | | |
| Scowen and Cameron on 13:14 - Oct 29 with 806 views | Benny_the_Ball |
| Scowen and Cameron on 13:02 - Oct 29 by ParkRoyalR |
If you freeze frame it on Sky their player starts his dive about 2 feet in front of Scowen and is fully airborne about a foot before contact with Scowen.
A terrible decision as the Ref was in line no more than 10 yards away and it was clear and obvious simulation. |
I agree. Scowen realises that he can't make the challenge so he stops. The Brentford player flicks the ball up, jumps up in the air and then makes contact with Scowen's standing leg. However, Brian is correct in that from the referee's angle it looks suspicious and unfortunately he bought the dive. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
