Post-Match Thoughts On Formations & Players

Nobody’s going to disagree with Nathan Jones’ post-match comments, including “it was as poor as we’ve been”. He, his staff, and the players have a week on the training ground to get things sorted, but is there anything useful that the rest of us can contribute, while acknowledging that the decisions and outcomes will be down to those who know vastly more about football than we do? No harm in trying.

First, the formation. Just why have we switched to a back five as the first choice option? For me there are only two reasons to play a back three/five with wing-backs. One, that you have real wing-backs available, players capable of getting up and down quickly and be comfortable both attacking and defending. Two, that you are up against it and want to park the bus. Sometimes that’s better done with a 4-4-2 but that’s another matter. I’d suggest that the former does not apply in our current situation and there was no good reason to go for the latter at Burnley or Watford.

Last season we struggled to secure a pair of proper wing-backs to play the formation. Experiments with Campbell and Apter were a (predictable) failure, Bree was able to play the part but he was recalled, Edwards worked well with TC in front of him going wide, but he got crocked. We ended up bringing in Clarke and Chambers in the January window, adding Fevrier (a true wing-back who I liked) for good measure. At the end of the season we allowed all three to return to their clubs, signed McNamara, a genuine full-back, all of which pointed to us being happy to switch to a back four.

It should have no effect, but I can’t help wondering if the sudden return from injury of defenders – Ramsay, Koumetio and Edwards – has influenced thinking. It has resulted in us, even without Burke and the unfortunate Sichenje, able to choose four or five from McNamara, Ramsay, Jones, Koumetio, Bindon, Bell, Edwards and Mesik. A back four and you have to choose between McNamara and Ramsay (or Mesik too), Koumetio and Bindon, and one from Bell, Edwards and Mesik, given that Jones is a nailed-on starter. I don’t see anything wrong with that, having good cover for each position.

Last season we played 3-5-2 (or 5-3-2 if you prefer). This time around we’ve gone to 5-2-3. And I don’t understand this either. Coventry and Skipp are coming in for a good deal of criticism, but the fact is that with 5-2-3 they are getting outnumbered when teams break forward in numbers and in possession they are quickly pressurised. Cardiff, Stoke and now Watford did that, steamrollering the defensive midfield and exploiting a poorly organised back line, in particular the spaces between the wing-backs and central defenders. That shouldn’t happen but is, with a confused look about us.

The fact is (IMO of course) that if you play with wing-backs, even though you don’t have the players for the formation, the last thing you want is a front three when two of the three expect to do their best work out wide. Against Watford Mesik was doing the wing-back role, getting forward to good effect, but that squeezed the space that Campbell would normally expect to move into. As a result not once did we see TC out wide with the ball at his feet looking to take on the defence, which has been our most potent attacking threat this season. Just the once, when moved to right-side wing-back, was he able to take on and beat for pace his opposite number.

As for the defensive midfield two, there has been disruption. Chalobah was excellent before his injury. That left Coventry, Ouma, Mwamba and then Skipp was added as Docherty (and Coady) were rejected. Ouma has looked accident-prone and there is speculation that we are looking to terminate his loan early. Mwamba is clearly a prospect, Skipp is no mean player. But the two in the formation in front of defence are not able to provide any coherent link to a front three. The play out from the back is too slow to utilise the wing-backs, especially when they are natural defenders.

In short, I find the return to a back three/five to not suit the players we have and to greatly reduce attacking options. Wing-backs who are really defenders, two in front of the defence getting overrun in and out of possession, and an isolated front three with little service and no space to operate in. Going to a back five and sticking with two in central midfield has (IMO) compounded the problem. Last season we had three, albeit with one (Carey) playing a more advanced role. Add into that mix a main centre-forward who currently can’t buy a goal – the headed chances against Burnley and Watford should have gone in – and you have, quite frankly, an impotent mess.

We started the season assuming as forward options, once Dykes opted to go somewhere else, Leaburn and Mbick as the big guys, Kelman and Godden as the goalscorers. Kelman got injured and is only just coming back, Godden is still out injured, and Mbick looks like a player asked to play at a higher level on his return from a long-term injury. Leaburn has done all that could be asked of him largely on his own, except put the ball in the net. There’s no easy answer to all this, except perhaps to go back to three behind the front man and bear the main responsibility for creating and putting away chances, as Grant did when fed by TC against Bristol City.

Let’s not pretend that the 4-2-3-1 we started the season with has worked like a dream. We won the first three thanks to coming from behind at home to Derby, eeking out a one-goal win at home to Preston (two teams which have struggled so far this season), and had one magnificent backs-to-the-wall victory, at West Ham, helped by an overhead goal from a centre-back and a last-minute missed penalty. We struggled to link up play and in particular to find the right guy to play in the middle of the more forward three. We understandably started with Carey, but the role places an emphasis on coordinating play between the three, picking the right passes, rather than powering forward on your own. We tried Grant in the central role but that didn’t work. Jones has been reluctant to try either Knibbs or Rankin-Costello in the role. Perhaps it is now time to try (with Carey ready from the bench depending on the state of the game). One cliché is that the fastest eight individually do not always produce the fastest boat. If Knibbs is viewed as too lightweight then go for Rankin-Costello.

Another cliché is that every good team knows its strengths and plays to them. Right now we have lost sight of our strengths. Grinding out clean sheets served us well last season but I don’t think the answer right now is to pack the defence. Burnley scored twice with goals from around the edge of the area, Watford could have scored far more than two.

So my advice, for what it is worth, is abandon the back three/five. We don’t have the wing-backs to make it work. If we stick with a back three/five, we need to have a midfield three, not two, they are getting overrun. If we go with 5-3-2 bite the bullet and accept that it means no place for Campbell or Grant, with Carey brought back to a more natural role as he played last season (if his confidence has not been shot). Alternatively, go for the 4-2-3-1 with either Knibbs or Rankin-Costello in the centre of the three. Whether Leaburn needs a rest and whether Mbick or Kelman might start instead is another one for Jones and his team to look at and decide.

Added to all of this, we do need every player to play their hearts out against Norwich (and beyond of course). A week to get ready, no excuses.

 

Dispiriting Defeat

A six-day jolly around the UK (Givry-London, London-Whitehaven, Whitehaven-Burnley, Burnley-London, London-Givry) meant I was able to be at The Valley for the Bristol City game and at Turf Moor for the midweek clash with Burnley. Both games had pluses and minuses, both could have gone either way, but ultimately they meant two more added to the list of games without a win. That set up today’s game, against opponents seemingly on the ropes and probably low on confidence. This had all the hallmarks of one we needed to win, to stop the run, to show the ruthlessness necessary to thrive in this division.

Win? We came away beaten and our tails very much between our legs after a performance right out of the worst of last season. Played ugly and lost, to a team which didn’t match our expectations – although we seldom pressured them sufficiently to find out why they have conceded so many of late. They had a game-plan and stuck to it, breaking quickly and with numbers. We degenerated into a mess with curious substitutions and if Watford could shoot straight would have lost by more.

Ahead of the game there was uncertainty about the team/squad Jones would select, driven not least by whether we would revert to the 4-2-3-1 system or go with five at the back as against Burnley. It proved to be the latter, with Mesik rewarded for his glorious last-gasp strike with a start in place of Bell, with McNamara the right-side wing back and Ramsay, Jones and Koumetio the central three. Coventry and Skipp would be the midfield pair and Campbell, Leaburn and Grant as a kind of front three. So pretty much as you were, with the formation leaving a defensive bias and Knibbs, Carey and Rankin-Costello (he not in the squad) to bide their time, while Kelman and Mbick, plus Alli out wide, were the options from the bench.

We began the game sloppily, poor passes and miscontrol giving away possession and encouraging Watford. Rather out of the blue we almost took the lead on eight minutes. Moving out of defence Koumetio created space and played the ball wide for Mesik. He delivered an excellent cross to find Leaburn in space. But he finished like someone very low on confidence in front of goal, heading wide when he really should have scored. How different the game may have turned out if he had.

That moment was the exception to the rule in the first half as we allowed a succession of Watford chances and ended with McNamara, Skipp and Campbell all on yellow cards (followed early in the second half by Coventry), Skipp going on to test the ref’s patience with further fouls. On 14 minutes the shot from another player cutting inside drew a good save from Okonkwo; on 21 Ramsay misjudged a ball forward only for their guy to shoot wastefully wide from a good position; on 26 minutes it took a perfectly timed flying challenge from Koumetio to prevent what looked a probable goal; and on 29 a simple one-two put another Watford player in, his effort saved by Okonkwo.

We did get more of a foothold in the game later in the half, with a scuffed effort from Campbell after a corner was headed out turned only just wide by Koumetio; and on 46 minutes Campbell might have done better when let in by a Watford mistake. But at the break you felt that Watford had nullified our threat with their 5-3-2 formation, with Campbell and Grant barely in the game, and made use of their extra man in central midfield to create more openings. The stats at the break showed they had 53% possession with eight efforts on goal, three on target, against five and one for us. Bottom line was we had to play better.

Jones kept the formation unchanged for the start of the second half, but replaced Skipp with Mwamba, with a possible red card for the former probably in his mind. The game continued in a similar fashion, although we did have another chance to take the lead. On 53 minutes Leaburn got the better of his marker on the right and took the ball on. His low cross was delivered just behind the incoming Grant, who was unable to control the ball and put it away. And in the next minute it was almost Watford as a break saw them with three on two. The guy was played in on goal but put his shot wide. It proved to be a temporary reprieve as Watford did finally score on 57 minutes. One of theirs was allowed to advance unchallenged into the box. His shot was parried by Okonkwu but only into the path of their forward who scored.

Going behind sparked a triple substitution by Jones on 61 minutes with Knibbs, Carey and Kelman replacing McNamara, Coventry and Grant. We kept to the three/five at the back but with Campbell moving to right wing-back, while Kelman joined Leaburn up front and we were left with a midfield three of Knibbs, Carey and Mwamba. Basically both defensive midfielders had been replaced – and it showed.

Watford dropped deeper but continued to pose a threat on the break. From our free kick on 68 minutes (after Jones was clearly elbowed in the face, one which VAR would have had a good look at) they went up the other end. Okonkwo blocked the first effort and another put the rebound over the bar. We huffed and puffed and created a scramble or two, most notably on 78 minutes as Alli, who had replaced Campbell, was pulled back and the resulting free-kick went in to the mix. Ramsay almost got on the end of it, finally Kelman did, but his effort from close range was blocked by their keeper on the line and then cleared.

On 81 minutes it took a late challenge by Ramsay to prevent Watford scoring again, then Okonkwo made an excellent save from a flicked header at the near post from a corner. On 84 minutes Watford missed another, while our afternoon was summed up by a horrible Carey shot. In five minutes of stoppage time Mwamba picked up a yellow and then Watford finally finished things off as a pass inside caught us out and their guy chipped Okonkwo to put, for them, the icing very much on the cake.

It was a depressing afternoon. We chose what was in essence a defensive formation (as at Burnley as McNamara and Bell/Mesik are not natural wing-backs, although Mesik did get forward well), supposedly keeping things tight, against opponents we thought would be worse than they proved to be (but hardly worldbeaters). We failed to impose ourselves on the game and were caught on the break by passing and movement so often it was embarrassing. We needed to score first but didn’t take the best chance of the first-half, or another early in the second. Then having gone behind we made changes which left us even more open – and confused me at least. Who thought that bringing on both Knibbs and Carey would work (one or the other would have done)? And Campbell as right-side wing-back?

The only positive for me was another excellent display by Koumetio. Jones will have a lot of thinking to do before Norwich come visiting next Saturday. Top of the list is surely that playing with wing-backs and having a sort of front three with Campbell and Grant stymied for space is not playing to our strengths. Not once today did TC have the ball at his feet on the left wing while Leaburn's lack of a goal is looking increasingly a burden. Why have we reverted to five at the back from the start? Is it the result of suddenly having more defenders back and available (such that some have to be dropped)? We badly miss Chalobah back fit to partner Coventry. All is not well and needs sorting out before this becomes an outright crisis.