Scots wha hae wi Wallace bled

[der Berliner 3,815]

Our aim, or Warburton's aim, is obviously outscore rather than out-defend the opposition. Methinks it was said that this was his approach at Brentford too. You would hope that our centre halfs adapt to the style of Wallace and Tavernier, and that the wingers do cover them in times of need. Likewise, a clever defensive midfielder is still required, as Halliday himself is rather attack-minded and might get caught as well.

[Frankie 8,665]

Our aim, or Warburton's aim, is obviously outscore rather than out-defend the opposition. Methinks it was said that this was his approach at Brentford too. You would hope that our centre halfs adapt to the style of Wallace and Tavernier, and that the wingers do cover them in times of need. Likewise, a clever defensive midfielder is still required, as Halliday himself is rather attack-minded and might get caught as well.

 

When you're 1-0 up with a few mins to go, you don't need to outscore anyone.

 

Obviously, neither should that mean you park the bus but there can and should be a middle ground to any approach depending on the situation. Yes, we were quite right to try and score more goals but IMO we left too many gaps so the attacking risk wasn't always worth taking.

[craig 5,199]

The defence is still working its way into the new system. What really SHOULD be happening is that when Wallace gets forward the two CB's plus Tavernier should be "shifting" across to cover the exposed space, and the sitting midfielder should be looking to close down any counter attack and hold up play till Wallace recovers. Likewise when Tavernier gets forward Wallace shouldn't be as advanced as Tavernier and be ready to get back to cover the space as soon as play breaks down.

 

What I saw on Sunday was our 2 CB's playing singularly in their positions, effectively leaving the exposed space to Wallace & Tavernier to get back themselves and cover, on top of that the full back who wasn't assisting the attack wasn't getting back quick enough to plug the exposed space - it meant we left chasms of space at the back which were exposed by Hibs (better finishing could have meant a different result).

 

But I'm not going to get too bothered by it as it is fairly clear Warburton & Weir will have them working on this in the coming weeks.

 

Funnily enough, the RFC coach that had my kid's team in Canada last week spoke exactly about this when utilizing the "U shape" formation at the back, using 2 wing backs.

[Frankie 8,665]

Yep, that pretty much sums it up, Craig.

 

No-one wants to stop the team attacking but if we're to avoid conceding cheap goals then we still need to work hard and defend in numbers when required.

 

I think what annoyed me more than the system failing was that the players didn't work hard enough in tracking back. Neither Wilson or Kiernan are all that fast, so that left us open to the counter far too easily.

 

Well worth bearing in mind as QotS will play exactly the same way this weekend and they did so to good effect last year - no matter if both teams have significantly changed for this season.

[der Berliner 3,815]

That is actually what IMHO Warburton was saying when he said that we did not play that good, despite winning. We essentially have 4 players on the wings in a 4-3-3 and you would hope that at least one on each side drops back when the full-back is in attack-mode. Which was not happening every time on Sunday.

[Rousseau 10,823]

The defence is still working its way into the new system. What really SHOULD be happening is that when Wallace gets forward the two CB's plus Tavernier should be "shifting" across to cover the exposed space, and the sitting midfielder should be looking to close down any counter attack and hold up play till Wallace recovers. Likewise when Tavernier gets forward Wallace shouldn't be as advanced as Tavernier and be ready to get back to cover the space as soon as play breaks down.

 

What I saw on Sunday was our 2 CB's playing singularly in their positions, effectively leaving the exposed space to Wallace & Tavernier to get back themselves and cover, on top of that the full back who wasn't assisting the attack wasn't getting back quick enough to plug the exposed space - it meant we left chasms of space at the back which were exposed by Hibs (better finishing could have meant a different result).

 

But I'm not going to get too bothered by it as it is fairly clear Warburton & Weir will have them working on this in the coming weeks.

 

Funnily enough, the RFC coach that had my kid's team in Canada last week spoke exactly about this when utilizing the "U shape" formation at the back, using 2 wing backs.

 

Maybe, but you want the width. Maybe, split the CB and drop the DM into a third CB slot like Busquets at Barca; that would get add defensive cover and allow us to have the width.

[Bluedell 5,679]

Of course but, like I say, sometimes there's nothing wrong with saying I'm going to sit in for a bit when required.

 

There is if it's against the manager's orders, which is what it appears to be.

 

I'm not saying I agree with it, but it does seem to be MW's approach, and Brentford had similar issues last season.

[Zappa 0]

Maybe, but you want the width. Maybe, split the CB and drop the DM into a third CB slot like Busquets at Barca; that would get add defensive cover and allow us to have the width.

 

That would probably be my preferred way of this system working, but with Holt, Halliday & Law in midfield I don't see any of those 3 as being a holding midfielder perfectly suited to dropping back as a 3rd CB.

Edited August 25, 2015 by Zappa

[craig 5,199]

Maybe, but you want the width. Maybe, split the CB and drop the DM into a third CB slot like Busquets at Barca; that would get add defensive cover and allow us to have the width.

 

But that's kind of the point. Halliday wasn't doing that either. If you are going to have a true DM and only playing with two CB's and expecting width from your full backs then the DM MUST be prepared to sit - Halliday wasn't just sitting but was also pushing forward - and when play broke down it went beyond him fairly quickly, which meant the two CB's had no cover at all, thus creating huge chasms on either flank as they couldn't give up the space through the middle.

 

I think this might be why Warburton wants Eustace in, because he will have the proper discipline (plus his legs wont hold up being box-to-box) to play right in front of the back 2.

[Rousseau 10,823]

But that's kind of the point. Halliday wasn't doing that either. If you are going to have a true DM and only playing with two CB's and expecting width from your full backs then the DM MUST be prepared to sit - Halliday wasn't just sitting but was also pushing forward - and when play broke down it went beyond him fairly quickly, which meant the two CB's had no cover at all, thus creating huge chasms on either flank as they couldn't give up the space through the middle.

 

I think this might be why Warburton wants Eustace in, because he will have the proper discipline (plus his legs wont hold up being box-to-box) to play right in front of the back 2.

 

I agree with you. I thought you were suggesting that a fullback hold back while the other bombs forward, but, like I said, that results in less width; it works best when you have two going forward stretching the pitch, which then allows a lot more space for the wingers. Halliday is not a DM; he is an attacking midfield player (he even played winger on occasion at previous clubs!). We do need a sitting midfielder.