Ronald Koeman discussion

[Steve Wigan]

Six Prem teams started with three at the back on Friday/Saturday. Systems have evolved and formations changed as long as I've been watching football, which is close to seventy years. I remember Don Revie and Raich Carter and the 'deep lying centre forward', with both 'inside forwards' advanced of the number 9 as 'twin strikers'. Thing is, you always have to have the personell who can adapt...and we don't have that yet. Two or three more signings and a settling period and we will be fine, with a basic system that can be adjusted based on circumstances.

 

[Martin G]

We had four players play yesterday that were not at the club last season. It will take a lot of time to get an understanding and chemistry of how we should play.

I dont remember us playing 3 at the back this pre-season, so how are the players supposed to get used to a formation if we dont play it week in and week out. Its as if we are a jack of all formations and a master of none. It is not a good sign when you have players looking clueless as to what they should be doing and arguing amongst themselves.

We play look better with 4 at the back so lets just keep with that until we are comfortable with the entire squad knowing what they need to do.

Its what puts a seed of doubt in my mind about Koeman is he makes some baffling decisions which over complicate things.

 

[d4kyxx]

I don't get this "what formation we are going to play".That will surely depend on the strength or weakness of the oppositiom.and is also likely to change in game due to circumstance.Unlees you want our Ron to give the rest of the Prem the heads-up?

No you stick to the same formation and buy players based on your chosen formation to fit it and make it happen. It's your style of play you change. Chelsea kept theirs the same and won the league

 

[Martin G]

Spurs kept their formation and finished second. The best two defences in the league finished first and second largely down to defensive continuity.

 

[The binman chronicles]

Maybe but I struggle to understand why you included Sandro in your OP. Without him we'd lose any dynamism in our team currently. I do think he'd be better on the left wing or up front in a two but he simply has to play.

You probably have a point about Sandro. He is the least pressing issue on the list. But if we do sign Sigurdsson and a big centre forward, I just can't see what he will bring. Maybe next season or if we rotate and play him as a 2 up front like you say.

 

[banno]

Chelsea after 5/6 games stuck to the same formation last season and won the league. Your talking rubbish

You seem so niave re: formations /tactics. Chelsea have basically got top players for each position and a bench good enough for selection team in any top six side. They can easily go toe to toe in any formation with anyone in the PL whereas we cannot. If we stuck to one formation for every game we would be in for a rude awakening. We have a manager looking at the strengths and weaknesses of other teams and trying to adapt to them so we have a better chance of success. Every manager in the division is looking for strengths and weaknesses of the opposition to either nullify them or exploit them. Sometimes it works other times it doesn't. All dependent on strength and weaknesses of our own team. So I apoligise for saying you do not have a clue.

 

[roydo]

We had four players play yesterday that were not at the club last season. It will take a lot of time to get an understanding and chemistry of how we should play.

I dont remember us playing 3 at the back this pre-season, so how are the players supposed to get used to a formation if we dont play it week in and week out. Its as if we are a jack of all formations and a master of none. It is not a good sign when you have players looking clueless as to what they should be doing and arguing amongst themselves.

We play look better with 4 at the back so lets just keep with that until we are comfortable with the entire squad knowing what they need to do.

Its what puts a seed of doubt in my mind about Koeman is he makes some baffling decisions which over complicate things.

Had 5 didnt we?

 

[scratchnsurf]

Had 5 didnt we?

Pickford
Keane
Klassen
Sandro
Rooney
Martina

Count carefully now lads.

 

[roydo]

Pickford
Keane
Klassen
Sandro
Rooney
Martina

Count carefully now lads.

Was going to say 6, but forgot Sandro's name ffs.

 

[scratchnsurf]

Was going to say 6, but forgot Sandro's name ffs.

That's OK mate, I'm like that on waking from my nap.

 

[roydo]

That's OK mate, I'm like that on waking from my nap.

lol

 

[Martin G]

lol Yeah i think i was more looking at the players who started the game when we had three at the back but missed Pickford.

I actually think if we are to play 3 at the back Martina would be better served as the RWB as he looks better going forward than defending.

 

[Blue Roo]

Chelsea did after 5/6 games last year and won the league. Whoops

You can't compare Chelsea to where we're at.

And look at what happen when Cahill got sent off yesterday and minus Hazard - didn't change and got beaten by Burnley.

We don't have a player like Hazard, we don't have players who can dribble, so you have to adapt.
Once Bolasie is back, Lookman has hopefully fought his way into the team and Sandro finds form
and we sign a Hazard type player who can do it through the middle, sure stick to a formation and try to dominate.
But if we did this now we'd be like Stoke, Burnley etc settling for mid table at best.

Y, need consistency at back, but what's he got - aging Baines and no Coleman. So he's tried Davies and CL, moved Baines higher and gone with 3 CBs.
What would you rather right now? - win 1-0 or lose 3-4

 

[Martin G]

You seem so niave re: formations /tactics. Chelsea have basically got top players for each position and a bench good enough for selection team in any top six side. They can easily go toe to toe in any formation with anyone in the PL whereas we cannot. If we stuck to one formation for every game we would be in for a rude awakening. We have a manager looking at the strengths and weaknesses of other teams and trying to adapt to them so we have a better chance of success. Every manager in the division is looking for strengths and weaknesses of the opposition to either nullify them or exploit them. Sometimes it works other times it doesn't. All dependent on strength and weaknesses of our own team. So I apoligise for saying you do not have a clue.

But its up to the manager to know the the strengths and weaknesses of his own players especially those that have been with the team last season its why starting Jags and Williams in a back three didn't work out.

The formation we changed to at half time is the right formation for us to begin with so we should work on making sure were effective with that first and then move onto something different later on in the year or when we have players to play the formation that he wants.

 

[Blue Roo]

The formation we changed to at half time is the right formation for us to begin with so we should work on making sure were effective with that first and then move onto something different later on in the year or when we have players to play the formation that he wants.[/QUOTE]

Your not getting what Koeman is about.
He's not a manager whose going organise the defence to park the bus.
Best defence is to have the ball. It may be boring, all the square balls and back passes, but its better than just sitting.
For feck sake he was part of the dream team.

He was not going to concede in the first half, not going to let the play get stretched, let a goal in and let Stoke completely set up camp.
I take the 'I got it wrong in the first half' with a grain of salt. It was Rooney's goal that bought the change early. He had got what he was hoping for, a goal with little risk.

The 3-5-2 allows you to be defensive and still control possession, easily dropping to 5-3-2 or 4-5-1 when needed, but usually being able regain control when getting the ball back, rather than just clearing.

Ok so did he need to be so defensive against Stoke. Probably not, but winning/not losing that game was crucial. Much more inportant, considering what coming up, than just having a go.

The other side to all this shows the paradox in contemporary football, through pressing without the ball, your more likely to get a chance to score, in the transition. But better take the risk, by committing players to the press and leaving yourself exposed, up the other end where you got time to recover.