It seems as if the season has barely started, but this probably reflects the impression that we are still a work in progress and that a lengthy injury list will work against us firing on all cylinders for a further period. Fact is the season is already more than a quarter over – and by this stage the table doesn’t lie. Overall 19 points from 13 games is obviously not a return that can get us promoted while breaking it down throws up such mixed conclusions and implications.
The 13 games have included three successive wins at the start and three consecutive defeats. Strip out both – if you treat them as exceptional - and you get 10 points from seven games, still well short of what is required. Take out just the start and 10 points from 10 games would put us in a relegation scrap if extended over a full season. A total of 15 goals in 13 games is clearly not enough – unless you have an impregnable defence. We thought we did when we rattled off three clean sheets to start the campaign, but nobody needs reminding that including the Southend cup game we’ve shipped 11 in the last six, utilising a different formation from the opening 5-3-2/3-5-2, even though we’re unbeaten in the last five. I’d add to this as previously highlighted the stark difference in our points return in the first half of games and in the second. And for every Bolton and Birmingham there’s a Bristol Rovers and a Stevenage (no disrespect intended, they earned those wins, as did we).
Throw in an injury list which now includes Ramsay, Jones, Potts, Watson, Aneke, Kanu, and it seems Campbell(T), partially redressed by the return of Ahadme and Asiimwe and the improving match fitness of Leaburn, and you can understand that any assessment of our current position and immediate outlook is likely to centre on the impossibility of fielding a first-choice squad and the absence as yet of a real spine to the team as well as lack of clarity on our best formation.
Injuries and suspensions aside, and accepting Jones’ complaints that keyboard pundits don’t see what goes on in training (or for that matter devote sufficient time to studying the opposition) I’d suggest that a successful team contains perhaps six that if available you expect to start week in, week out and a pool of say 12 from which to make up the other five and the substitutes (with another half dozen sometimes included on the bench). I’d say right now shoo-ins to start are only Mannion (despite a hiccup or two of late and Maynard-Brewer’s excellent display against the Chelsea U18s), Mitchell(A), Edwards, and Godden; if Ramsay and Jones were available they would be added.
Before thinking of who fits the bill for the other spots, you have to decide on the formation. We currently seem to be alternating during games between a 4-4-2 (with the ‘box’ midfield) and a 3-5-2/5-3-2 as and when we need to chase the game. For me, the way we play 4-4-2 is best kept as an option for particular games. It was a superb call by Jones for the Birmingham game, especially with Kanu running their back line ragged. If you are looking to stifle opposition especially adept at playing through the middle it is undoubtedly an option to call on. But it is inherently defensive and negative, in general (but not always) working against actually scoring and winning games. It stifles space and movement for us with the ball as well as the opposition. Is it really the best we can muster against lesser (on paper) teams?
The loss of Ramsay and Watson does undermine the case for now for 3-5-2. For it to work well you need specialist wing-backs on both sides. Whether Jones considers Edmonds-Green, or Asiimwe, as ready to fill the slot on the right, or indeed whether one of the left-sided options might be able to change over, I’ve no idea. The problem is compounded by not having Jones the player (and Potts) available and being stretched in central defence for a back three if Edmonds-Green plays wing-back, even including Mitchell(Z). I am hoping that nobody’s thinking in terms of Campbell(T) playing wing-back, if he is available. Did we learn nothing from trying that with Blackett-Taylor?
I’d at least consider a more traditional 4-4-2, dropping the box midfield and using players more comfortable in wide positions. If Campbell(T) isn’t available to play wide (and/or Jones sticks to the view that wingers need to be converted into central forwards, as also with Rylah against Chelsea) that might suit playing Small in front of Edwards on the left (and conceivably Asiimwe in front of Edmonds-Green on the other side). Given our current injury list it looks like a waste of a very useful asset for Small not to be involved. We know he can work the line well and deliver good crosses.
Would this leave us too exposed in central midfield? Potentially, but nothing is without risks, pros and cons, and the choice would also set problems for the opposition, perhaps obliging them to change their approach. Also, it’s not as if a midfield four with wide players has never worked for us. Remember Newton and Robinson either side of Kinsella and Jones? Or the central partnership of Parker and Jensen? For sure if it’s a central two the emphasis is more on their tackling and defensive cover abilities than forward play; ideally you have a real box-to-box option like a young Bowyer. Of course it’s a question of what is available, but I refuse to believe that there are perfect formations, just styles.
For me the two main disappointments of the season so far are: first, the failure to sustain the dogged and aggressive approach to defending our box evident in the early games (and to be fair when it was needed against Birmingham), perhaps it just isn’t sustainable; and second, the failure to date to craft effective central midfield partnerships. Perhaps it’s too early, but I did expect more collectively from Docherty, Berry (obviously his goals are a balancing factor) and Campbell(A). Add in Coventry, Taylor, Anderson, possible Edun too, and you have the numbers, for either the box midfield four or a central three, but not to date the quality and effectiveness to make midfield numbers the determinant of formation (IMO of course).
Up front, our immediate options have changed with the return of Ahadme and the settling back in of Leaburn, plus the recent inclusion of Hylton, but also the unavailability of Kanu and perhaps Campbell(T), plus Aneke (for who knows how long). At the moment if two start up front and we have two on the bench it’s a case of four from four, unless Mbick and/or Dixon are added. It really is a case of play it by ear for now in consultation with the physio team.
Any chance of a conclusion? If pushed, I’d say if everyone was available my preference would be for 3-5-2 and a starting X1 of something like: Mannion, Ramsay, Jones, Mitchell(A), Gillesphey, Edwards, Coventry, Taylor (not least for the set pieces), Berry, Leaburn and Godden, with Maynard-Brewer, Edmonds-Green, Small, Docherty, Campbell(A)/Anderson, Ahadme/Aneke and Kanu/Campbell(T) on the bench. Of that starting line-up only two are currently unavailable (Ramsay and Jones), along with one who would be a replacement (Watson). Be ready to go with 4-4-2 and the box midfield for selected games. Be ready to consider a more traditional 4-4-2 depending on the opposition’s strengths and weaknesses. And pray to whatever might be available to you that the injury list shrinks in the weeks ahead.
On other fronts it goes without saying that we’re all delighted by another gong for Sir Chris, saddened by news of the death of Albert Uytenbogardt, who was I believe the oldest former player (now Eddie Firmani?). We all know his record of six appearances in around five years in the thankless role of understudy to Sam Bartram, which earns him a special place in our affection. And you’ve got to love this offer:
Get a wall print of Uytenbogardt making a save in the game at Blackpool in September 1952. Given that we lost the game 8-4 a picture of an actual save by him is truly a collector’s item.
No comments:
Post a Comment