Rubin Colwill

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rjk

well we played better football than Forest

---

Debatable. While I know we won the game and had more attempts at goal than them, including having one more on target attempt, their passing was better, they kept the ball better than us and also created more chances from open play than we did. It was almost ironic that we scored two goals from open play given that our best chances had, once again, come from set pieces.

I do get the fact that we play to our strengths. I get the fact that McCarthy likes to grind things out. But it's not saying much for our footballing ability when there are few claims that we played better football than the side bottom of the division and have been void of confidence ever since they threw away a playoff spot in the last game of the 2019/20 season.

The crux of the matter is we play with a back 3 who can’t pass the football. They have other strengths but passing isn’t one and they set the tone in the formation we play.

Yes the 2nd goal was a cracker but it wasn’t as a result of a period where we were playing good football. It was more down to individual skill from Moore to turn a basic pass into a defence splitting chance for Colwill and Colwill with a piece of magic. The ball into Moore was just a straight ball into feet from NG, it was hardly pulling forest all over the place with pass and move.

What was evident to me first half is we could not get our midfielders or forwards into the game because the centre half’s were just hoofing it. Sam Bowen was showing for the ball and was constantly ignored.

I don't think we're ever going to step on the toes of the pretty sides but we were only one or two changes from being fully balanced between brutes and ball-players on the weekend.

The one or two changes left to make are introducing a ball-playing CB and probably a Wintle type coming in for Ralls/Vaulks - can't be expected to play pretty football if you're engine room still fully stocked by Warnock.

Still, we used our physicality to earn the right to play and then scored two different but beautiful goals, Collins had a chance created to add a third, while only conceding one and with three/four young players getting significant minutes. Majority of the league (all but four clubs?) would have taken our weekend if offered a swap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dml1954

The facts were that it was a great goal

---

Actually that's an opinion :sherlock:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J R Hartley

The crux of the matter is we play with a back 3 who can’t pass the football. They have other strengths but passing isn’t one and they set the tone in the formation we play.

What was evident to me first half is we could not get our midfielders or forwards into the game because the centre half’s were just hoofing it. Sam Bowen was showing for the ball and was constantly ignored.

---

100% agree with this. This is undoubtedly our single biggest problem.

Flint, especially, is extremely frustrating in this regard, smashing balls aimlessly into touch when there is a simple 10 yard pass on. People (rightly, at times) criticize the midfield, but when the ball is flying over their heads constantly, what real impact can they have with the ball?

As you say, there were so many times on Sunday when Bowen and Pack were showing and the centre backs would either shit themselves and hoof it or give it to the keeper who would then hoof it. And that's not me being a snob - there's a difference between a targeted long ball into Moore, for example, and an aimless hoof. We play far too many of the latter, and it takes all of our attacking threats out of the game.

I really liked the idea of Pack at CB for this reason and, as good as he's been in midfield this year, I think he'd solve a bigger problem playing in a back 3.

I don't really see Mick changing anything though. I just hope that the youngsters coming in can positively influence our style of play, rather than our style of play influencing them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FormerlyJohnnyBreadhead

100% agree with this. This is undoubtedly our single biggest problem.

Flint, especially, is extremely frustrating in this regard, smashing balls aimlessly into touch when there is a simple 10 yard pass on. People (rightly, at times) criticize the midfield, but when the ball is flying over their heads constantly, what real impact can they have with the ball?

As you say, there were so many times on Sunday when Bowen and Pack were showing and the centre backs would either shit themselves and hoof it or give it to the keeper who would then hoof it. And that's not me being a snob - there's a difference between a targeted long ball into Moore, for example, and an aimless hoof. We play far too many of the latter, and it takes all of our attacking threats out of the game.

I really liked the idea of Pack at CB for this reason and, as good as he's been in midfield this year, I think he'd solve a bigger problem playing in a back 3.

I don't really see Mick changing anything though. I just hope that the youngsters coming in can positively influence our style of play, rather than our style of play influencing them.

---

Other sides play out from the back, we play into it. Often, we have decent possession of the ball in midfield, it then goes back to the back three who may play a pass or two between themselves before it goes back to the keeper who then whacks the ball up field thus turning it into a fifty/fifty scrap for possession when we had control of it a few seconds earlier.

I definitely want to see us play more football, but, playing Devil’s Advocate a bit, I’d say would changing two of the current back three to bring in a couple of better footballers who would get us playing out from the back make up for the greater number of goals we would concede, arguably, and the lower number of goals we would score, certainly, if, say, Morrison and Flint suddenly dropped out of the side?

Mick McCarthy describes himself as a pragmatist and, as such, it was probably a bit naive of someone like me, who hoped we may see a switch to a more attractive style of play over the summer, to expect him to change things much - I think the best indicator we’ll get as to how we'll proceed over the next season or two will come when we learn whether we want to renew Morrison and/or Flint’s contract.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FormerlyJohnnyBreadhead

...

I really liked the idea of Pack at CB for this reason and, as good as he's been in midfield this year, I think he'd solve a bigger problem playing in a back 3.

...

---

Where in the back 3 would you play him? Goal at Forest highlighted risk of having slow RCB and Pack is probably slower than Morrison, Pack could move into Flint's role but Flint's numbers have been really good so far this season and Pack wouldn't be good at LCB.

Counter argument to changing back 3 at this time being that Mick has used it to provide minutes for young players because he's confident we're not going to concede many and have great chance of scoring set-pieces. Would you be happy to see less of Bagan, Sang, Bowen, Giles, Colwill if it meant seeing more of Denham/another?

It's likely that at least one of our current CB's leaves this summer which could mean a position change or, youth having had a year's experience, Mick being more confident playing youth at CB.

Tl:Dr Manager has a reason for what he's doing. Fans on internet calling for more progressive style should try to see the reasoning and pros/cons to both it and changing to more pleasing style on the eye.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FormerlyJohnnyBreadhead

100% agree with this. This is undoubtedly our single biggest problem.

Flint, especially, is extremely frustrating in this regard, smashing balls aimlessly into touch when there is a simple 10 yard pass on. People (rightly, at times) criticize the midfield, but when the ball is flying over their heads constantly, what real impact can they have with the ball?

As you say, there were so many times on Sunday when Bowen and Pack were showing and the centre backs would either shit themselves and hoof it or give it to the keeper who would then hoof it. And that's not me being a snob - there's a difference between a targeted long ball into Moore, for example, and an aimless hoof. We play far too many of the latter, and it takes all of our attacking threats out of the game.

I really liked the idea of Pack at CB for this reason and, as good as he's been in midfield this year, I think he'd solve a bigger problem playing in a back 3.

I don't really see Mick changing anything though. I just hope that the youngsters coming in can positively influence our style of play, rather than our style of play influencing them.

---

I don't think any of our players are incapable of playing a simple pass into midfield, but they are clearly being asked to launch it long. We win a lot of aerial duels compared to the other teams in this division, so I guess we are trying to play to our strengths.


Sides who play it out from the back, focus a lot of their training and drills on being able to do that instinctively without thinking, so there's always someone ready to receive it and players are making quick decisions about where to play it next rather than just hoof it.

Most football people I've seen writing on the subject always stress how important it is when playing with a back 3 that at least one of the 3 is quick, and at least one is capable of bringing the ball out, and one is capable of passing the ball into midfield. We are clearly doing something a bit different compared to the perceived wisdom on the topic, and it isn't entirely unsuccessful. Ultimately though it feels like there is a limit to how far we can get just trying to bludgeon our way through teams, and perhaps in time we can add a few more strings to our bow. I'd like to see McGuiness and perhaps some of the other younger guys (Denham or Bakare) getting some game time - but I can understand Mick wants to keep a solid foundation while he beds in players in the rest of the team.