• Welcome, guest!

    This is a forum devoted to discussion of Wolverhampton Wanderers.
    Why not sign up and contribute? Registered members get a fully ad-free experience!

O'Neil aka GONe

Deutsch Wolf said:
So let's play three at the back where <checks notes> we still conceded 2 a game from March onwards.

And where we habitually tap the ball around like a Mark McGhee team.

I dare say you will get your wish. I reckon it'll be a waste of time and nothing will change. And I fucking hate clinging on to stuff from 6-7 years ago, yes that was a good formation for us then, no it is not now. We don't have those players. We don't have that manager.
Click to expand...
See, this is where you are treating me like a moron.

I'm not "clinging to stuff from 6-7 years ago" you actually are by thinking it has any influence at all on my thinking.

The players we have don't suit 4atb we are conceding 3 goals a game and have 1 point.

We all agree that GON won't be able to coach the players to play in this current system, however we have seen some success with him playing 3 atb so why is my view being dismissed so readily? It's logical. Sticking with 4 definitely isn't logical, it's the definition of insanity.
 
Ok, well the players we have don't suit five at the back either.

I'm not treating you like a moron, I would not do that. I just don't understand your logic.

If I told you we had dogshit pie for tea then you wouldn't say "I don't like that, can we have catshit pie instead please".
 
Deutsch Wolf said:
Ok, well the players we have don't suit five at the back either.

I'm not treating you like a moron, I would not do that. I just don't understand your logic.

If I told you we had dogshit pie for tea then you wouldn't say "I don't like that, can we have catshit pie instead please".
Click to expand...
I believe they suit 5 better than 4. Particularly our full backs.

But yes, with this manager neither are going to see us romping up the league, he needs to go (Franksy)
 
I do think it’s somewhat odd to read “formation doesn’t matter” in an argument against changing formation.

Let’s be real, Gary has more or less shown at this point that he can’t make either formation solid defensively or consistently threatening the other way.
 
O'Neil could change the formation. Whether that will make any difference is doubtful. That is because he can't change the personnel. Too many players making bad decisions.
 
Alan said:
I do think it’s somewhat odd to read “formation doesn’t matter” in an argument against changing formation.

Let’s be real, Gary has more or less shown at this point that he can’t make either formation solid defensively or consistently threatening the other way.
Click to expand...
Context is everything.

Formation doesn't matter with GoN like it didn't with Saunders or Lage.
 
Johnny75 said:
Context is everything.

Formation doesn't matter with GoN like it didn't with Saunders or Lage.
Click to expand...
Of course, just feels like an argument that should cut both ways.

I don’t really disagree with EP that 5ATB doesn’t have to automatically be stodgy, but equally Dan isn’t wrong that there’s no reason to expect that change would improve basically anything right now.
 
Last edited:
I can see where EP is coming from but equally until we sort the midfield out and formation of the defenders we’ve got is doomed to fail. The evidence is pretty overwhelming that GO won’t/can’t do that as if he was going to do something we wouldn’t have had to endure Lemina running around like a headless chicken.
 
It’s going round in circles because @Elephant Pyjamas is ignoring every counter argument.

Well let’s go through some headed goals

Havertz - Lemina doesn’t do anything to stop a cross. Almost wills him to cross it. Two CBs right underneath it. GK in no man’s land. Not sure how a 3rd CB changes anything here. As they wouldn’t all be in the same 3 yards. We even had Doc as RB for this one who is “good in the air”.

Jackson - Chelsea have got to be one of the least physical teams in the league. Neither CB an aerial powerhouse and Jackson isn’t exactly Andy Carroll. It’s a set piece, our players just stand in the wrong place (and still are!). Putting an extra CB in the wrong place doesn’t change anything, they are standing where they are told to.

Wood - as above. We’ve just got everyone doing the wrong job again.

Konate - two CBs are 3 yards apart. A third CB doesn’t make them any closer. Lemina is in a third CB position anyway. Bueno steps forward under the ball - they guy who is apparently the saviour.

Collins - described it earlier. Toti just doesn’t follow Collins and decides to mark fresh air. It not even a good position to take up if Collins wasnt there.

Pinnock - another unmarked set piece…

So I don’t see how another CB changes any of that, it just doesn’t.

I’d also like you @Elephant Pyjamas To explain what happens when the LCB or whoever goes into the channel? Are we not still in the exact same position in the box? Because if the FBs are going walkabouts as it is, are they not more likely to be doing it when they are “unlocking their attacking talent”. Also what are you doing with your midfield 3 when we go to a back 5? Is this not more of an issue with Andre?
 
I think a third centre-back would allow us to stop the opposition wingers more effectively.

A problem we have right now is the lack of cover for our full-backs. Cunha is playing as a winger and not tracking back, and I don't know what's happening on the right flank at times.

A back three should allow the full-backs to get out quicker to stop crosses coming in, and stop wingers facing up our players in the box - such as Madueke, Saka.
 
WVWolf said:
I think a third centre-back would allow us to stop the opposition wingers more effectively.

A problem we have right now is the lack of cover for our full-backs. Cunha is playing as a winger and not tracking back, and I don't know what's happening on the right flank at times.

A back three should allow the full-backs to get out quicker to stop crosses coming in, and stop wingers facing up our players in the box - such as Madueke, Saka.
Click to expand...
That’s all well and good if we’re actually set in a block. On what basis will our WBs be in a flat 5? And if we are going back to that why can’t we just do the same in 4? If Cunha or whoever isn’t tracking back, surely that situation doesnt change and no tracks the FB overlapping still?

How will a back 5 help with wingers facing up our WB? Are you saying we are going to double team them out wide so they won’t actually be defending between the posts anyway? And that means the opposition have a spare man somewhere else.

A lot of our issues are in transition as it’s total chaos everywhere. How does a 5 help here. CBs will just get pulled out into channels. Again what happens to our midfielders?
 
In the five the starting position of the wing-backs are wider, so you're closing them down further away from goal - which should prevent goals like Madueke and Saka.

Then, if crosses do come into the box, you have three centre-backs trying to deal with them instead of two, which obviously helps.

I think a problem with our midfield is that they're covering too much ground, I want us to be set in that block, whether we would be, I don't know. I agree, we're chaotic, which is on the manager.

For the record, I would sack O'Neil and I also don't think this solves all of our problems. But, when you have 1 points from 7 games and conceded 21, you have to change something, so saying a back five is better isn't exactly a bold statement when we're on course to be worse than Derby.
 
Anyway to get back to the thread, when will the trigger be pulled, home loss to Palace? here’s hoping.
 
WVWolf said:
In the five the starting position of the wing-backs are wider, so you're closing them down further away from goal - which should prevent goals like Madueke and Saka.
Click to expand...
But our FBs haven’t been in FB positions half the time, so why will the WBs…
WVWolf said:
Then, if crosses do come into the box, you have three centre-backs trying to deal with them instead of two, which obviously helps.
Click to expand...
Doesn’t stop them standing in the wrong place or jumping under the ball. We didn’t concede any goals because we didn’t have enough players in there.
WVWolf said:
I think a problem with our midfield is that they're covering too much ground, I want us to be set in that block, whether we would be, I don't know. I agree, we're chaotic, which is on the manager.

For the record, I would sack O'Neil and I also don't think this solves all of our problems. But, when you have 1 points from 7 games and conceded 21, you have to change something, so saying a back five is better isn't exactly a bold statement when we're on course to be worse than Derby.
Click to expand...
Keeping your FBs as FBs. Playing a double pivot and not playing square pegs in round holes in midfield and forward positions are all far more important changes than putting an extra CB In.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top