McGhee got it very WRONG tonight...

[Kinky Gerbil]

Sorry why all the fuss about oatway??
we didnt lose because he didnt play as some people assume

 

[Trigger]

You see, I can do the matey, backslapping NSP stuff as well as random abuse, now that's what I CALL tactical flexibility

You're learning!

 

[Safeway]

You see, I can do the matey, backslapping NSP stuff as well as random abuse, now that's what I CALL tactical flexibility

****.

 

[London Irish]

who knows what might have happened.All we do know is that playing 1 up front didn't work we lost 2-0 and never looked like scoring that is FACT.If we had played 4-4-2 we might have drawn 2-2 ? You can not say that wouldn't of happened it is an opinion.

Of course I can't say categorically that 4-4-2 wouldn't have produced a better result! That was PRECISELY the reason I got so annoyed at the reaction of many people on NSC after the Plymouth defeat! Post after post after post I read people saying 4-4-2 would have produced a better result and McGhee had f***ed up. But where was the evidence for this CERTAINTY and CONFIDENCE?

Consider this important fact. McGhee's preferred system for Albion is 4-4-2, he's picked it in about 95 per cent of his Albion selections so far. So why didn't all the McGhee critics just pause for a second and ENGAGE THEIR BRAINS to think why he departed from his favoured formation? None of his NSC critics put themselves in his shoes and wrestled with the problems that playing 4-4-2 with the players at his disposal would have presented.

My main point is, if you are going to criticise McGhee, BE FAIR. Look at the reasons why he made his decision, don't just go off on one and have a CHEAP POP at him.

There has been constant reference on here that 4-5-1 was a timid option and that 4-4-2 was a more attacking option that had to be taken when you play at home. This is GROSSLY SIMPLISTIC.

Look at the postings that Turkey made to explain how this 4-5-1 can easily turn into an attacking 4-3-3 formation if practised successfully by players. The idea yesterday was that the 3 men in midfield would free Currie and Jarrett to get forward and play passes rather than hit-and-hope aerial balls to Molango. There was an attacking INTENT here. Conversely, 4-4-2 should not be caricatured as an "attacking" formation. It was in fact the system we employed to play out very defensive, counterattacking brand of football last season. 4-4-2 places important defensive chores on the flank players, which is why last season tenacious defenders like Jonah and OGH generally got selected over more attacking players like Piercy in midfield.

Now much as I admire the passion and good humour with which Trigger has argued his case, I feel he has fallen into the trap of not considering the problems of 4-4-2 played with the available players we have. It leaves us light in central midfield with players unfamiliar with that key battle area. And it also pairs two very similar players up front whose ability to hold the ball up and relieve pressure on midfield is open to big question.

Now credit to you Dodge, and also to an earlier post by Sullyshuffle, you do try and confront these issues and devise a 4-4-2 that could ameliorate these problems. Sullyshuffle calls for the restoration of our two tenacious flank players Jonah and OGH to add the bite in midfield that is missing Oatway and Chippy - this makes sense because both will help out Reid/Nicolas far more than the less mobile Currie or the lightweight Jarrett.

Dodge you would have just brought in Jonah for Jarrett but kept Currie.

Notice here how the adoption of 4-4-2 has already led to the sacrifice of what many McGhee critics thought was our most potent threat on the left, Jarrett. Recall the criticism of McGhee for taking Jarrett off! It underlines the fact that 4-4-2 is not necessarily a more attacking system than 4-5-1. Under the latter system, Jarrett can be accomodated, under 4-4-2 Jarrett is seen as a defensive liabilty in front of the left-back.

For me, while restoring Jonah and OGH in a 4-4-2 would create steadiness on the flanks and help protect the fullbacks, it still leaves the problem that the main ball-winning work is being left to a rookie pairing of Raid and Nicolas, the former of doutful fitness, the latter still learning to recognise his team-mates. This to me still cries out defensive weakness. That's why McGhee did not countenance it. The insurance of the third central midfielder was required to plug the gap here. The reasons were sound enough and the fact that the team lost 2-0 do not invalidate them.

The second crucial reason why McGhee's judgement took him to 4-5-1 was the lack of an obvious candidate to partner Molango. If McGhee had a player crying out to be selected up front, he might have swallowed his reservations about midfield fraility and hoped the front two could have taken pressure off midfield. But he had OGH, a player who has not looked sharp in pre-season, Lee, who is talented but inconsistent, and then Jake, another who has looked lost at times in pre-season and is inexperienced and lacks physical presence.

Dodge makes the sophisticated point that two up front would have held the Plymouth fullbacks from roaming forward. I disagree with that assessment of Tuesday, what I saw was that Currie and Jarrett playing in their advanced midfield positions did succeed in doing that. Plymouth played a very contained game, Currie got a lot of possession in the first half but was always frustrated because the Plymouth defence did hold back and check his progress. With the half-fit Reid and off-form Virgo offering poor support, Currie got isolated too often by safety-first Plymouth defending.

Dodge calls for a repeat of last year's succesful tactic of playing the ball into the channels ploughed by an Albion front 2. The problem of this is that these balls were aimed at a striker with far more physical presence than any of our 4 lightweight strikers available for selection. The likelihood is that such long balls would have been easily picked off by the impressive Plymouth defence, who were far better organised and drilled than their Reading counterparts. Even if these long passes has found their men, both Maheta and Jake have not looked proficient at retaining possession and bringing others into the game. The likelihood that we would have created many more goalscoring chances than Tuesday is just a simple-minded hope rather than being based on any footballing logic. Then we would have faced the constant problem of the ball shooting back time after time into the holes created by our 2-man central midfield rather than McGhee's 3-man central midfield on Tuesday.

NSC should stop worshipping 4-4-2 like some backward natives worship the rising sun. It is not the saviour of all our problems, it's just a formation that has its strengths and its weaknesses.

Much more important than systems and formations are the PLAYERS. It is they who can make systems work and not work. In the first half against Reading, Oatway's workrate made the 4-5-1 work to plan. The players selected on Tuesday failed in that task.

Does McGhee have to take responsibility for that failure? Yes, of course he does, the buck stops with him. But does he have clear options open in front of him now for Coventry? The 4-4-2 worshippers would tell you he has. I maintain that all he has is the choice of a variety of evils.

We will certainly revert to 4-4-2 once Oatway is back, he plugs the defensive problem in midfield. We will certainly do so too when Leon is back, he can hold the ball for a few seconds and play intelligent lay-offs that can bring supporting team-mates into the game.

But without those 2 players back, there is only a marginal judgment call between the different formations. Each will leave us weakened and exposed in certain parts of the pitch whatever McGhee chooses.

I do not envy McGhee's choice - this is by far the toughest selection predicament he has had since arriving in Brighton. Whatever he chooses, I will support his decisions and will not look to simplify or to scapegoat either before or afterwards. I hope others will do likewise.

 

[TonyW]

I'll be even more grossly simplistic.
4-5-1 won't, can't and never bloddy has worked.

It is a completely defensive strategy adopted by managers who are running scared from something.
In this case presumably the fact that MM didn't believe he had the strike force to score any goals.

If that's the case, we might as well give up now!!

Any side playing 1 up front AT HOME against a team they came up with last season has lost the plot and the will to comptete.

If Robinson isn't ready for first team action, then he shouldn't be on the bench - full stop.
If he is good enough to be on the bench, then he is good enough for first team action, and should therefore have started the game in a 4-4-2 formation.

Just a thought... what's going to happen if Leon picks up an injury this season? Back to 4-5-1 and hope the defense can hold out for 90 minutes - bloody hell!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Get some bottle McGhee.

 

[Scoffers]

Why cant folks just accept that we played badly, lost the plot or whatever - it happens for feck sake.

Some people just like overdoing the situation.

McGhee will sort it. NOW CALM DOWN !!!

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

I'll be even more grossly simplistic.
4-5-1 won't, can't and never bloddy has worked.

It is a completely defensive strategy adopted by managers who are running scared from something.
In this case presumably the fact that MM didn't believe he had the strike force to score any goals.

If that's the case, we might as well give up now!!

Any side playing 1 up front AT HOME against a team they came up with last season has lost the plot and the will to comptete.

Just a thought... what's going to happen if Leon picks up an injury this season? Back to 4-5-1 and hope the defense can hold out for 90 minutes - bloody hell!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Get some bottle McGhee.

Well said sir

 

[Easy 10]

Bloody hell, print this thread off and I could wallpaper my front room.

 

[caz99]

Bloody hell, print this thread off and I could wallpaper my front room.

thats what i was thinking

 

[Garry Nelson's Left Foot]

O.K, seeing as everyone else has had a say i may aswell have mine.
firstly, i didnt see the game so i cannot comment on the performance. I cannot comment on the individual merits of the players either, as i've been out of the country for the last ten months. I've never seen 6 of the starting eleven play...

The arguments for and agaist 4-5-1 have been...interesting, some have been eloquent others have been, to paraphrase london irish, grossly simplistic. It seems to me that the arguments are 'theory' based. i.e how they work on paper.
Which is fair enough. BUT...
would people stop using us winning the third division playing 4-5-1 as a justification for us pllaying it now?! We won the third division because of the players that we had. We had a far better team(in my opinion) than anyone else. We had an incomparable striker, who was playing two, maybe 3, leagues below his ability. We had two pacy widemen who between them offered skill and tenacity(i'm sure you can work out which atrribute goes with which player ), who were able to support bobby, and cause the lumbering turd division defences plenty of problems in their own right- particularly Brooker when the mood took him. And then we had a very solid looking midfield, consisting of carpenter, oatway, and rodgers. who were capable of winnnig the ball, playing it and scored their fair share of goals. And of course, we had a solid defence and keeper. Then there was the very real threat that we posed from set pieces, provided by the now no longer trusty left foot of paul watson.

The players were good enough for the system. It appears that the players on tuesday weren't so its an empty argument. You can argue the merits of any system but if the players arent good enough or ar incapable of playing it, then its the wrong system plain and simple.

Having said that, there are some very good points put forward for it, that dont rely on the third division.

 

[m20gull]

The players (in div 3) were good enough for the system. It appears that the players on tuesday weren't so its an empty argument. You can argue the merits of any system but if the players arent good enough or ar incapable of playing it, then its the wrong system plain and simple.

Precisely, and as agreed by McGhee. So McGhee got it wrong on Tuesday. End of.

End of? Of course not. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

 

[Turkey]

Why cant folks just accept that we played badly, lost the plot or whatever - it happens for feck sake.

Some people just like overdoing the situation.

McGhee will sort it. NOW CALM DOWN !!!

Everyone has. We're just arguing the merits of the tactics. The players were woeful.

 

[Turkey]

Owould people stop using us winning the third division playing 4-5-1 as a justification for us playing it now?!

The reason I used it as an example is to show, very simply, you can play it as an attacking formation.

It doesn't matter if the players we have cannot play it. If someone wants to put across a point to say that 4-5-1 is a defencive formation I'll just provide evidence to show it doesn't have to be.

4-4-2 can be attacking or defencive. So can 4-5-1. I'm just pointing out that to say it's a defencive formation isn't a good enough argument.

 

[London Calling]

Of course I can't say categorically that 4-4-2 wouldn't have produced a better result! That was PRECISELY the reason I got so annoyed at the reaction of many people on NSC after the Plymouth defeat! Post after post after post I read people saying 4-4-2 would have produced a better result and McGhee had f***ed up. But where was the evidence for this CERTAINTY and CONFIDENCE?

Consider this important fact. McGhee's preferred system for Albion is 4-4-2, he's picked it in about 95 per cent of his Albion selections so far. So why didn't all the McGhee critics just pause for a second and ENGAGE THEIR BRAINS to think why he departed from his favoured formation? None of his NSC critics put themselves in his shoes and wrestled with the problems that playing 4-4-2 with the players at his disposal would have presented.

My main point is, if you are going to criticise McGhee, BE FAIR. Look at the reasons why he made his decision, don't just go off on one and have a CHEAP POP at him.

There has been constant reference on here that 4-5-1 was a timid option and that 4-4-2 was a more attacking option that had to be taken when you play at home. This is GROSSLY SIMPLISTIC.

Look at the postings that Turkey made to explain how this 4-5-1 can easily turn into an attacking 4-3-3 formation if practised successfully by players. The idea yesterday was that the 3 men in midfield would free Currie and Jarrett to get forward and play passes rather than hit-and-hope aerial balls to Molango. There was an attacking INTENT here. Conversely, 4-4-2 should not be caricatured as an "attacking" formation. It was in fact the system we employed to play out very defensive, counterattacking brand of football last season. 4-4-2 places important defensive chores on the flank players, which is why last season tenacious defenders like Jonah and OGH generally got selected over more attacking players like Piercy in midfield.

Now much as I admire the passion and good humour with which Trigger has argued his case, I feel he has fallen into the trap of not considering the problems of 4-4-2 played with the available players we have. It leaves us light in central midfield with players unfamiliar with that key battle area. And it also pairs two very similar players up front whose ability to hold the ball up and relieve pressure on midfield is open to big question.

Now credit to you Dodge, and also to an earlier post by Sullyshuffle, you do try and confront these issues and devise a 4-4-2 that could ameliorate these problems. Sullyshuffle calls for the restoration of our two tenacious flank players Jonah and OGH to add the bite in midfield that is missing Oatway and Chippy - this makes sense because both will help out Reid/Nicolas far more than the less mobile Currie or the lightweight Jarrett.

Dodge you would have just brought in Jonah for Jarrett but kept Currie.

Notice here how the adoption of 4-4-2 has already led to the sacrifice of what many McGhee critics thought was our most potent threat on the left, Jarrett. Recall the criticism of McGhee for taking Jarrett off! It underlines the fact that 4-4-2 is not necessarily a more attacking system than 4-5-1. Under the latter system, Jarrett can be accomodated, under 4-4-2 Jarrett is seen as a defensive liabilty in front of the left-back.

For me, while restoring Jonah and OGH in a 4-4-2 would create steadiness on the flanks and help protect the fullbacks, it still leaves the problem that the main ball-winning work is being left to a rookie pairing of Raid and Nicolas, the former of doutful fitness, the latter still learning to recognise his team-mates. This to me still cries out defensive weakness. That's why McGhee did not countenance it. The insurance of the third central midfielder was required to plug the gap here. The reasons were sound enough and the fact that the team lost 2-0 do not invalidate them.

The second crucial reason why McGhee's judgement took him to 4-5-1 was the lack of an obvious candidate to partner Molango. If McGhee had a player crying out to be selected up front, he might have swallowed his reservations about midfield fraility and hoped the front two could have taken pressure off midfield. But he had OGH, a player who has not looked sharp in pre-season, Lee, who is talented but inconsistent, and then Jake, another who has looked lost at times in pre-season and is inexperienced and lacks physical presence.

Dodge makes the sophisticated point that two up front would have held the Plymouth fullbacks from roaming forward. I disagree with that assessment of Tuesday, what I saw was that Currie and Jarrett playing in their advanced midfield positions did succeed in doing that. Plymouth played a very contained game, Currie got a lot of possession in the first half but was always frustrated because the Plymouth defence did hold back and check his progress. With the half-fit Reid and off-form Virgo offering poor support, Currie got isolated too often by safety-first Plymouth defending.

Dodge calls for a repeat of last year's succesful tactic of playing the ball into the channels ploughed by an Albion front 2. The problem of this is that these balls were aimed at a striker with far more physical presence than any of our 4 lightweight strikers available for selection. The likelihood is that such long balls would have been easily picked off by the impressive Plymouth defence, who were far better organised and drilled than their Reading counterparts. Even if these long passes has found their men, both Maheta and Jake have not looked proficient at retaining possession and bringing others into the game. The likelihood that we would have created many more goalscoring chances than Tuesday is just a simple-minded hope rather than being based on any footballing logic. Then we would have faced the constant problem of the ball shooting back time after time into the holes created by our 2-man central midfield rather than McGhee's 3-man central midfield on Tuesday.

NSC should stop worshipping 4-4-2 like some backward natives worship the rising sun. It is not the saviour of all our problems, it's just a formation that has its strengths and its weaknesses.

Much more important than systems and formations are the PLAYERS. It is they who can make systems work and not work. In the first half against Reading, Oatway's workrate made the 4-5-1 work to plan. The players selected on Tuesday failed in that task.

Does McGhee have to take responsibility for that failure? Yes, of course he does, the buck stops with him. But does he have clear options open in front of him now for Coventry? The 4-4-2 worshippers would tell you he has. I maintain that all he has is the choice of a variety of evils.

We will certainly revert to 4-4-2 once Oatway is back, he plugs the defensive problem in midfield. We will certainly do so too when Leon is back, he can hold the ball for a few seconds and play intelligent lay-offs that can bring supporting team-mates into the game.

But without those 2 players back, there is only a marginal judgment call between the different formations. Each will leave us weakened and exposed in certain parts of the pitch whatever McGhee chooses.

I do not envy McGhee's choice - this is by far the toughest selection predicament he has had since arriving in Brighton. Whatever he chooses, I will support his decisions and will not look to simplify or to scapegoat either before or afterwards. I hope others will do likewise.

And your point is?

LC

 

[oapdodge]

LI we will have to agree to disagree and see what happens on Saturday.

 

[Zebedee]

I won't say much about Tuesday night other than I thought that we looked a very poor second best to Plymouth in all areas of the park. Mayo, in particular, was awful and looked out of his depth as did, although it pains me to say it, Virgo and Harding. I know it's only the second game of the season, and Knight and Chippy will be returning shortly, but it's difficult to find much to be optimistic about after this week's display. If we play like that again this Saturday and, especially at Wigan, we'll be torn to shreds. I just hope that my pessimism proves to be unfounded.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Can I be the first to say that win, lose or draw at Derby, playing 4-5-1 in the first home game of this season will be as wrong as it was last season. I trust people will make their feelings known on Tuesday if McGhee even THINKS about it...

 

[NMH]

Pedant alert !

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Pedant alert !

Please don't burn my house down. I'm no paediatrician.

Simply pointing out that Groundhog Day can and DOES happen, and that if McGhee comes out with a damage limitation formation against Reading, then some of us won't be best pleased. Rather get beat 4-2 than 2-0.

On the other hand, feckit, we've all gone WAY too long without meaningful football, and are reduced to pathetic misuse of the Search Engine.

 

[London Irish]

Can I be the first to say that win, lose or draw at Derby, playing 4-5-1 in the first home game of this season will be as wrong as it was last season. I trust people will make their feelings known on Tuesday if McGhee even THINKS about it...

Now, I wonder why you didn't you raise this on Wednesday at the Fans Forum?

Could it be you would have risked a bigger whiskey-soaked SLAP than even that poor bloke who whinged on to McGhee about Big Mac