Why do we never play through the middle???

[bWize]

80% of the time putting it out to the right wing and putting crosses over which no-one ever seems to get to. There have been countless opportunities to play it directly through the center but we seem scared to do it and always ends up back out on the wing.

 

[Chesney Christ]

Do you watch the games?

Teams pack the middle of the pitch against us, thus forcing us out wide cos they know we don't have any players big enough to head the ball in.

See also: Chelsea whenever they play Arsenal or Barcelona

Extract from: Football Tactics for Beginners.

 

[albion534]

What annoys me is that we are forced on the wings, yet have nobody on the left who is

 

[GingerBeerMan]

Do you watch the games?

Teams pack the middle of the pitch against us, thus forcing us out wide cos they know we don't have any players big enough to head the ball in.

See also: Chelsea whenever they play Arsenal or Barcelona

Extract from: Football Tactics for Beginners.

Did you watch the game? In the last 5 home games we've had over 100 crosses. One hundred! Our conversation rate is f***ing shite it's only natural for OP to ask if there is an alternative to the mind numbingly boring and predictable 'float a ball in and wait for it to be cleared'. IMO the answer isn't to play through the middle, but get a bigger lone striker who can win headers.

 

[bWize]

Do you watch the games?

Teams pack the middle of the pitch against us, thus forcing us out wide cos they know we don't have any players big enough to head the ball in.

See also: Chelsea whenever they play Arsenal or Barcelona

Extract from: Football Tactics for Beginners.

Yes I have watched every game of ours this season at home thanks! Do you watch them?

We seem unable to put anything down the center! I'm not sure if you just listen to the radio but if you attended the games you would understand this!

 

[bWize]

Did you watch the game? In the last 5 home games we've had over 100 crosses. One hundred! Our conversation rate is f***ing shite it's only natural for OP to ask if there is an alternative to the mind numbingly boring and predictable 'float a ball in and wait for it to be cleared'. IMO the answer isn't to play through the middle, but get a bigger lone striker who can win headers.

Thankyou! This is exactly what i'm saying! We could cross for 8 hours and still be lucky to get a goal!

Wasn't it like atleast 50 crosses and 16 corners tonight? and never even looked close? This is happening game after game... for the most part we dominate teams in the first 2/3rd s of the pitch, once we get infront of goal we are f***ing pathetic and just look clueless!

 

[Chesney Christ]

Did you watch the game? In the last 5 home games we've had over 100 crosses. One hundred! Our conversation rate is f***ing shite it's only natural for OP to ask if there is an alternative to the mind numbingly boring and predictable 'float a ball in and wait for it to be cleared'. IMO the answer isn't to play through the middle, but get a bigger lone striker who can win headers.

*sigh*

I'll try again....

The reason we don't play through the middle as much is because teams pack the middle of the pitch thus meaning no gaps to play through.... thus forcing us out wide. Okay?

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Why do we never play through the middle

Maybe because CMS is busy running about like a blue-arsed flea everywhere EXCEPT the middle?

 

[jackcgull]

The goal was through the middle

 

[bWize]

The goal was through the middle

Other than CMS offside effort It's the only other effort I can remember going through the middle. We just always seem to be relying on crosses with zero end product every time.

 

[Meade's Ball]

Who are these teams that play through the middle? We play it out wide for our dynamic fullbacks to rocket up and either put a ball in the box or slot a little close control triangle through for the wilier of central players to look to find their way to goal. it won't always work either way but we have options. Oppositions generally know if we're given space we'll scythe them apart in the most glorious of fashions.
It is that most expensive of commodities in the goal machine that eludes us, like it does many a club. Once we find that extra ingredient up front we're nigh on invincible.

 

[GingerBeerMan]

*sigh*

I'll try again....

The reason we don't play through the middle as much is because teams pack the middle of the pitch thus meaning no gaps to play through.... thus forcing us out wide. Okay?

Lots of sighing from you tonight. I didn't realise you were a tactical mastermind and anyone that doesn't agree with you is a spastic. So you're really saying you're fine with under 1% of crosses leading to goals? Do you think we should just carry on aimlessly crossing in balls and not evaluating better ways of playing?

 

[Hamilton]

*sigh*

I'll try again....

The reason we don't play through the middle as much is because teams pack the middle of the pitch thus meaning no gaps to play through.... thus forcing us out wide. Okay?

That's far too simplistic. In my opinion our central defenders and midfield lack the foresight required to turn defence into attack with clever passes through the middle.

Take a look at tonight. Just one offside call I believe. I think this shows a lack of creativity through the middle - I mean this was not a top of the table side we were playing.

 

[Bladders]

There's no one in the middle, for a team that plays 5 in there it looked very empty at times last night. We had 5 up front though all pushed onto their back 4 most of the time.

Its looked tactically quite simple, as soon as Hammond gets the ball off the back four everyone just run up front and Buckers will cross it in.

We're supposed to be a passing team but everyone is 20 yards apart making it easy for the opposing team just to hold their lines. Good passing teams play in small triangles with short quick passing drawing defenders out of position. We set up too spread out and lack any real movement off the ball.

That's why shit teams are turning up and going away witha result.

 

[The Large One]

The played five across the back, three in the middle of midfield and two up front. In other words, in trying to play in the gaps, they'd packed the midfield. That gave us space down the wings, which Buckley exploited handsomely.

After Crofts went off, Barnes got far more into the game, and with Dobbie looking lively, we were able pierce throught the middle better.

Just because most crosses came to little (Crofts' early howling miss aside), it doesn't mean you change your stance to play to your opposition's strengths. There was little they could do about Buckley, so we took full advantage. The problems last night were not the wide players.

Complaining about an approach that was working well (it was the central players who were guilty of the worst 'crimes' - i.e. missing simple chances) seems potty. And very typically NSC.

 

[APACHE]

We can't play through the middle for the simple reason the 3 central players are too slow going forward, lack the skill to carry the ball at pace and do not combined well as a unit . Opposition coaches can see this, last night's Posh setup 5-4-1, so they can easily stop the m/f and make us play down the wings, we throw in crosses which we don't convert.

 

[cocamalia]

The crucial point is the ball doesn't go wide fast enough. We work the ball wide very slowly and as such defences can organise and clear our crosses easily. Especially since we have little ariel threat.

Agree however that there needs to be more play down the middle and I disagree that we're simply crowded out. There is often space to run into, but players take the easy option and work the ball wide (I'm thinking Hammond, Bridcutt, Dicker and to some extent Crofts). Speed of play is crucial and that is probably the main difference when you step up the levels. The players need to be braver - as Gus would say.

PS. Dunk looked immense last night. So calm and assured.

 

[perseus]

The played five across the back, three in the middle of midfield and two up front. In other words, in trying to play in the gaps, they'd packed the midfield. That gave us space down the wings, which Buckley exploited handsomely.

After Crofts went off, Barnes got far more into the game, and with Dobbie looking lively, we were able pierce throught the middle better.

Just because most crosses came to little (Crofts' early howling miss aside), it doesn't mean you change your stance to play to your opposition's strengths. There was little they could do about Buckley, so we took full advantage. The problems last night were not the wide players.

Complaining about an approach that was working well (it was the central players who were guilty of the worst 'crimes' - i.e. missing simple chances) seems potty. And very typically NSC.

This an effective system by Peterborough. A system that would enable Sunderland to draw at home to Arsenal. Their full backs can even push up and give them an extra man in midfield and make it appear attacking. It is very inflexible though.

If we have two holding midfielders there is only one to pass to and he will be marked by two. So it makes sense to push it wide.

I favour only on defensive midfielder for all home matches and quite a few away as well. One box-to-box and one creative, as well as one winger. The box-to-box or central midfielder , presumably Crofts, would be better if he can really keep hold of the ball and not lose it which why I do not like Dicker so much.

 

[Tony Meolas Loan Spell]

Noticing Palace crosses last nite amongst others (even tho the have FFS Murray upfront) seem to be HARD and LOW similar to a Kazenga cross right across the 6 yard box for the striker/midfielder to get a touch on and maybe even an oggy from a defender or goalkeeper.

Therefore my question is: why do we not do that?

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

The only way to play through the middle is by having a player of Vicente's ability to waltz right through.