Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
chaddyrovers

Rovers new style of play and how we play it

Recommended Posts

On 11/09/2019 at 15:07, JoeHarvey said:

Percentage of passes made which are Long Balls:

Blackburn 19%
Preston 21%
Wigan 24%
Bristol City 20%
QPR 16%

Interesting to note that 42% of our attacks go down the right hand side, 25% middle and 33% left. 

Why ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JoeHarvey said:

For anyone who has an interest in statistics.

1304990224_TravisvJohnson1920.thumb.png.45874992fcb93e0b57970495ee7f9239.png

1938533601_DerrickWilliamsvsDarraghLenihan2019_20.thumb.png.345350fb6c43a398f2df9d204d35834c.png

More interested in how they work together and whether their combined stats deliver performances and results for BRFC than comparison them with each other.

Both are good partnerships, I just hope that Mowbray keeps them as our main pairings down the spine of the team instead of tinkering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Stuart said:

More interested in how they work together and whether their combined stats deliver performances and results for BRFC than comparison them with each other.

Both are good partnerships, I just hope that Mowbray keeps them as our main pairings down the spine of the team instead of tinkering.

I've got a feeling Mowbray has got it in for Travis. Though as the stats say he actually gives the ball away less than Johnson.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, joey_big_nose said:

I've got a feeling Mowbray has got it in for Travis. Though as the stats say he actually gives the ball away less than Johnson.

Could be misleading as Johnson might be playing the more positive, risky balls which have greater rewards if successful (its a theory)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Sparks Rover said:

Could be misleading as Johnson might be playing the more positive, risky balls which have greater rewards if successful (its a theory)

Well after watching a lot of both Johnson and Travis it's Johnson who continually gives away the ball in dangerous areas game after game. But Mowbray called Travis out on it after the Hull game which is weird, but consistent with how he seems to be critical with young players but not older ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, joey_big_nose said:

Well after watching a lot of both Johnson and Travis it's Johnson who continually gives away the ball in dangerous areas game after game. But Mowbray called Travis out on it after the Hull game which is weird, but consistent with how he seems to be critical with young players but not older ones.

But the counter argument is that Johnson has been fundamental to the recent clean sheets as he screens the central defenders better than any other player. I have been happy with the Johnson/Travis pairing so far and collectively and individually they are light years ahead of any other central midfielders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, arbitro said:

But the counter argument is that Johnson has been fundamental to the recent clean sheets as he screens the central defenders better than any other player. I have been happy with the Johnson/Travis pairing so far and collectively and individually they are light years ahead of any other central midfielders.

Very true. Compare Johnson & Travis to:

Corry Evans, Richie Smallwood, Danny Guthrie, Jason Lowe, Lee Williamson, Ryan Tunnicliffe, Chris Taylor, Elliott Bennett (when he played there for a while).

Not only that, but soon it'll be Downing, Johnson, Travis, Dack and Holtby competing for our central spots. Absolutely mental the high calibre of midfielder we have now compared to the last 5/6 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These comments somewhat worry me. Whilst I would agree that we of course have some decent competition, in particular in midfield, I think continuity and consistency is crucial. I realise that its a slog playing 46 games but we need players to know what they are doing, to develop a style and to develop partnerships.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Just now, roversfan99 said:

These comments somewhat worry me. Whilst I would agree that we of course have some decent competition, in particular in midfield, I think continuity and consistency is crucial. I realise that its a slog playing 46 games but we need players to know what they are doing, to develop a style and to develop partnerships.

 

"We might be playing with wingers..."

QeWoVGe.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, roversfan99 said:

These comments somewhat worry me. Whilst I would agree that we of course have some decent competition, in particular in midfield, I think continuity and consistency is crucial. I realise that its a slog playing 46 games but we need players to know what they are doing, to develop a style and to develop partnerships.

 

really worry you? I think its shows how flexible we are now in comparison to 2 years and we can adapt to different situations and tactics. We need to have the ability to play 2 or 3 different formations in my opinion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

really worry you? I think its shows how flexible we are now in comparison to 2 years and we can adapt to different situations and tactics. We need to have the ability to play 2 or 3 different formations in my opinion. 

We need to master one first. Consistency is key.

How does it show how flexible we are when we havent had any success in any other formation?

The 3 promoted teams played basically the same formation every week, Villa following the appointment of Smith.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

We need to master one first. Consistency is key.

How does it show how flexible we are when we havent had any success in any other formation?

The 3 promoted teams played basically the same formation every week, Villa following the appointment of Smith.

To be fair you do need to find the right formation before you stick to it.

I don't really have an issue with what Mowbrays doing. 4231 has worked okay for us but not brilliantly. If he wants to try something different I can see why.

The big issue is always going to be how to fit Dack in the side. He's a very unconventional player in that he is nominally an attacking midfielder, but plays so far forward he's really a striker. 

Dare I say it, we could just go 442 and stick Dack and Gallagher alongside one another up front, Downing left wing, Chapman or JRC right wing, Johnson and Travis centre, Cunningham, Williams, Lenihan, Bennett or Nyambe across the back. Could suit us. Think it would definitely suit Dack and Gallagher.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe being hopelessly optimistic but Holtby could be the key to the jigsaw puzzle.

1) He makes competition for places that much more intense

2) His reported passing abilitycould make the sort of attack Mowbray dreams of feasible 

3) If he is as good as reported he will give us the sort of midfield resilience Villa had last season

4) just need to give Armstrong and Chapman brain transplants and we have an automatic promotion winning squad...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

We need to master one first. Consistency is key.

How does it show how flexible we are when we havent had any success in any other formation?

The 3 promoted teams played basically the same formation every week, Villa following the appointment of Smith.

Like I said we need flexible and play different formation. 

Well you arent going to have success in other formations if you dont play them and give them time. A number of teams last season marked Dack out of the game and stop us playing meaning we lost the game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

We need to master one first. Consistency is key.

How does it show how flexible we are when we havent had any success in any other formation?

The 3 promoted teams played basically the same formation every week, Villa following the appointment of Smith.

I agree, the dingles got out of this league easily on two occasions under Dyche playing the same 4-4-2 formation every week and more or less the same 11 players every week. Now and again they modified it for tough away games into a 4-4-1-1.  We're playing the likes of Reading and Luton not City or Liverpool. Football is a simple game but people like to over complicate it, why I don't. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@chaddyrovers you keep saying that these formations wont be successful if I dont give them time without realising the irony of you suggesting that we continiously rotate our formation from game to game, which is certainly not allowing any formation time to settle.

As I say, the key is consistency in terms of giving the players a system whereby they know their roles. Mowbray has come up with the infamous comments in the past about Oldhams attacking right back and Burys attacking left back, and whilst I appreciate that you have to study your opponent you cant fear them too much that you take something away from your own game.

@Tyrone Shoelaces youve given another example of a team whose consistency in system pays dividends. Everyone knows what they are doing. It doesnt mean you dont have scope to adjust and adapt to different opponents either. If you want to dominate you could play Holtby and Travis together, Rothwell and Downing wide, a very technical midfield. Johnson would be more suited to a bit more of a physical opponent etc.

I dont think weve mastered any formation therefore it seems bizarrely unrealistic to try and perfect 3 different ways of playing at once. 4231 we have played consistently but thats not been with the likes of Holtby, Downing, Johnson, even Rothwell playing on a regular basis, who would move us away from the direct way we have historically played in a 4231. I dont think 3 at the back is our best bet personally for a couple of reasons but if we are to play it we should give it a proper chance rather than playing it for bits of games occasionally. And the split striker Dack false 9 system I am yet to be convinced is anything but awful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, joey_big_nose said:

To be fair you do need to find the right formation before you stick to it.

I don't really have an issue with what Mowbrays doing. 4231 has worked okay for us but not brilliantly. If he wants to try something different I can see why.

The big issue is always going to be how to fit Dack in the side. He's a very unconventional player in that he is nominally an attacking midfielder, but plays so far forward he's really a striker. 

Dare I say it, we could just go 442 and stick Dack and Gallagher alongside one another up front, Downing left wing, Chapman or JRC right wing, Johnson and Travis centre, Cunningham, Williams, Lenihan, Bennett or Nyambe across the back. Could suit us. Think it would definitely suit Dack and Gallagher.

But from the sounds of it, Mowbray isnt repeatedly changing his formation to try and stumble across the winning formula, more to make us of his different options.

Even if he was trying to find that winning system, it will always be more problematic expecting players to keep trying different formations from game to game and even within games.

I dont doubt that the options available to the manager especially in midfield are far better than they have been in the past. But theres always a risk that comes with too much of underestimating the need for consistency and familiarity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having different tactics to employ in certain situations (eg. away to a top team) is fine, but changing tactics regularly for most opposition is not. We should absolutely have a settled, standard formation and team which we use for most games. A tweak here and there is OK, a total change across the pitch not so much. I don't think the 4-2-3-1 really works to our strengths anymore so am in favour of trying other systems, but I kind of wish we'd been doing that in pre-season rather than when the campaign has already started.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, DE. said:

Having different tactics to employ in certain situations (eg. away to a top team) is fine, but changing tactics regularly for most opposition is not. We should absolutely have a settled, standard formation and team which we use for most games. A tweak here and there is OK, a total change across the pitch not so much. I don't think the 4-2-3-1 really works to our strengths anymore so am in favour of trying other systems, but I kind of wish we'd been doing that in pre-season rather than when the campaign has already started.

I personally think it does suit us in terms of it allows us to name 5 of our midfielders, an area which id say is our strongest now. Last season it was done conservatively, plodders like Evans, Smallwood and Bennett involved, ultimately we knew we couldnt dominate that area and had to bypass it. Now weve got Holtby, Johnson and Downing added to the equation, Travis and Rothwell hopefully playing regularly, Dack obviously in his favoured position, then beneath that, Armstrong, Chapman, Evans etc to add depth. Plenty of scope for technical midfielders dominating the ball. I dont think for 3 at the back, we have the defensive depth especially at CB (would need to change if any of them got injured), but what I think we would agree on is whatever system he wants to play, give it a chance rather than constantly changing it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

@chaddyrovers you keep saying that these formations wont be successful if I dont give them time without realising the irony of you suggesting that we continiously rotate our formation from game to game, which is certainly not allowing any formation time to settle.

As I say, the key is consistency in terms of giving the players a system whereby they know their roles. Mowbray has come up with the infamous comments in the past about Oldhams attacking right back and Burys attacking left back, and whilst I appreciate that you have to study your opponent you cant fear them too much that you take something away from your own game.

@Tyrone Shoelaces youve given another example of a team whose consistency in system pays dividends. Everyone knows what they are doing. It doesnt mean you dont have scope to adjust and adapt to different opponents either. If you want to dominate you could play Holtby and Travis together, Rothwell and Downing wide, a very technical midfield. Johnson would be more suited to a bit more of a physical opponent etc.

I dont think weve mastered any formation therefore it seems bizarrely unrealistic to try and perfect 3 different ways of playing at once. 4231 we have played consistently but thats not been with the likes of Holtby, Downing, Johnson, even Rothwell playing on a regular basis, who would move us away from the direct way we have historically played in a 4231. I dont think 3 at the back is our best bet personally for a couple of reasons but if we are to play it we should give it a proper chance rather than playing it for bits of games occasionally. And the split striker Dack false 9 system I am yet to be convinced is anything but awful.

Look at today game, we had to switch to 4-2-3-1 formation today cos of the late injury to Tosin and Rothwell being ill but the players mastered the system and the style we had to play together. I believe in having 3 different systems we can play if injuries happen or lost of form or Opposition tactics on Rothwell or Dack. 

I agree I wouldn't be changing it for Oldham attacking right back or Bury attacking left back. I would change it if we were playing a team like Millwall if they were playing 2 big target mans up front or if the opposition had a weakness in full back or centre back areas in terms of pace, 

@Tyrone Shoelaces I think you made good points on Dyche and Burnley but I have watched Bruce at Newcastle who has tried to employed the same system as Benitez but he doesn't how to play it like him. They would be better playing 4-3-3 or 4-2-3-1. Potter at Brighton has played different formations but the same style apart from Man City away game

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

Look at today game, we had to switch to 4-2-3-1 formation today cos of the late injury to Tosin and Rothwell being ill but the players mastered the system and the style we had to play together. I believe in having 3 different systems we can play if injuries happen or lost of form or Opposition tactics on Rothwell or Dack. 

I agree I wouldn't be changing it for Oldham attacking right back or Bury attacking left back. I would change it if we were playing a team like Millwall if they were playing 2 big target mans up front or if the opposition had a weakness in full back or centre back areas in terms of pace, 

@Tyrone Shoelaces I think you made good points on Dyche and Burnley but I have watched Bruce at Newcastle who has tried to employed the same system as Benitez but he doesn't how to play it like him. They would be better playing 4-3-3 or 4-2-3-1. Potter at Brighton has played different formations but the same style apart from Man City away game

How does today prove your point? We won playing the formation we have played today for a couple of years. 

You also mention Millwall but we kept 2 clean sheets against them last season playing 4231 didnt we?

Like I said, consistency is seemingly underrated in your world but its so important. Players need to know their roles, something that was certainly true of all 3 teams last season. 

You can adjust tactics based on personnel within the parameters of an existing formation. For example, weve got a striker in Graham who we can play off, maybe more so at home, whereas away we have faster strikers to counter attack. You can do either of them things within a 4231. (Or whatever formation we choose to use) Alternatively, we may feel like we can play a Holtby or a Downing in a midfield 2 in a home game that we see as fairly winnable, ie next week, whereas away from home it may be wiser to include them in the 3 in front and have Johnson and Travis screening the midfield.

All I am saying is I think we should make sure we master one formation first rather than trying to master 3 at once. And that one main formation does not mean you cannot amend your team and tactical approach dependant on the game,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

I personally think it does suit us in terms of it allows us to name 5 of our midfielders, an area which id say is our strongest now. Last season it was done conservatively, plodders like Evans, Smallwood and Bennett involved, ultimately we knew we couldnt dominate that area and had to bypass it. Now weve got Holtby, Johnson and Downing added to the equation, Travis and Rothwell hopefully playing regularly, Dack obviously in his favoured position, then beneath that, Armstrong, Chapman, Evans etc to add depth. Plenty of scope for technical midfielders dominating the ball. I dont think for 3 at the back, we have the defensive depth especially at CB (would need to change if any of them got injured), but what I think we would agree on is whatever system he wants to play, give it a chance rather than constantly changing it!

I would agree that if we play our best personnel in all positions then there's nothing wrong with the 4231, if we persist with playing strikers on the wings then not so much. Today I believe we had Armstrong/Downing on the wings, which is OK. Armstrong technically a striker but I think it's fair to say he has much more impact playing LW. Keep Gallagher/Graham up front, Dack behind them and a combination of Downing/Armstrong/Rothwell/Chapman in the wider areas and that's a formation we can work with. Holtby can probably play anywhere across that attacking midfield three as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

How does today prove your point? We won playing the formation we have played today for a couple of years. 

You also mention Millwall but we kept 2 clean sheets against them last season playing 4231 didnt we?

Like I said, consistency is seemingly underrated in your world but its so important. Players need to know their roles, something that was certainly true of all 3 teams last season. 

You can adjust tactics based on personnel within the parameters of an existing formation. For example, weve got a striker in Graham who we can play off, maybe more so at home, whereas away we have faster strikers to counter attack. You can do either of them things within a 4231. (Or whatever formation we choose to use) Alternatively, we may feel like we can play a Holtby or a Downing in a midfield 2 in a home game that we see as fairly winnable, ie next week, whereas away from home it may be wiser to include them in the 3 in front and have Johnson and Travis screening the midfield.

All I am saying is I think we should make sure we master one formation first rather than trying to master 3 at once. And that one main formation does not mean you cannot amend your team and tactical approach dependant on the game,

That's wasn't the formation we were going to start with today tho. Have you not listened to Mowbray's post match comments after Reading game? 

We were very lucky against Millwall last season at home but away from home we were very solid at home. 

The Players knows their roles in the 4-2-3-1 and its a formation we have mastered. but we need a couple of more for me. Give you adaptable and variety in different situations. These players are more than capable of doing this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, chaddyrovers said:

That's wasn't the formation we were going to start with today tho. Have you not listened to Mowbray's post match comments after Reading game? 

We were very lucky against Millwall last season at home but away from home we were very solid at home. 

The Players knows their roles in the 4-2-3-1 and its a formation we have mastered. but we need a couple of more for me. Give you adaptable and variety in different situations. These players are more than capable of doing this

How is that relevant? You pointed to todays game as proof of your argument, ie needing 3 systems, when we won using the formation we have used for the last couple of years. How we might have played if other players had been available is irrelevant! (albeit one central defensive injury meant that we couldnt play 3 CBs, proving one of my main pitfalls of that formation) If we had played with 3 at the back or with "split strikers" then we dont know how we would have even got on.

Do you not attach any importance to consistency then, to understanding your roles, developing partnerships and familiarity? Do you not realise that all of these qualities were ones belonging to recently promoted sides?

And would you not agree that you can be adaptable and flexible within the parameters of a consistent formation? I gave examples of personnel changes that will allow different tactical approaches.

Do you not think it is an incredibly big ask of the players to master 3 formations all at the same time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think Burnley went up with a squad  of 17 players they played a 4,4,2  everyweek and the team was well drilled all there players new there job. And there fitness levels where very high . Can we say that about our team but it was a good result  today

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.