• 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

GLASGOWOLF said:
That sums you up, calling someone a Hun, which by the way in Scotland's against the law.
Click to expand...
No depends on the context of you use it in sectarian way then yes if it’s an abbreviation of “honey” then you wont
 
My 2 bobs worth, we had 3 straight games Palace, Liverpool and Luton where he thought too much about the opposition and either set us up poorly pre game or the in game changes were negative. From City onwards he's focused more on what we can do and we look a better side for it. I think that change in mentality is more important than the change in formation which it coincides with.
 
I don't think we should have started with three centre halves yesterday and we definitely should have changed it sooner, even before the red card.

I hope he's more flexible with his thinking on that front, again we should not play that shape against Sheff Utd or Fulham.
 
Tony Towner said:
My 2 bobs worth, we had 3 straight games Palace, Liverpool and Luton where he thought too much about the opposition and either set us up poorly pre game or the in game changes were negative. From City onwards he's focused more on what we can do and we look a better side for it. I think that change in mentality is more important than the change in formation which it coincides with.
Click to expand...
Can't agree with that at all. The change in formation and tactics (as in there are some) has made us a completely different team.
 
Deutsch Wolf said:
I don't think we should have started with three centre halves yesterday and we definitely should have changed it sooner, even before the red card.

I hope he's more flexible with his thinking on that front, again we should not play that shape against Sheff Utd or Fulham.
Click to expand...
Yep, as per the build up thread, I'd hope if Semedo was available, we'd have gone with a back 4. Once Doherty is playing though, particularly with an injury, I think he had to start the game with the formation he did.
 
Deutsch Wolf said:
I don't think we should have started with three centre halves yesterday and we definitely should have changed it sooner, even before the red card.

I hope he's more flexible with his thinking on that front, again we should not play that shape against Sheff Utd or Fulham.
Click to expand...
Can't agree, Gomes was the problem yesterday not the formation and as soon as he was replaced we completely controlled the game. The change to 5 at the back is why we've seen a considerable improvement in form. Dawson and Kilman look infinitely better as part of a 5.
 
Deutsch Wolf said:
I don't think we should have started with three centre halves yesterday and we definitely should have changed it sooner, even before the red card.

I hope he's more flexible with his thinking on that front, again we should not play that shape against Sheff Utd or Fulham.
Click to expand...
I don't mind the 3 at the back set up but when the opposition go down to 10 you have to change it.

I think they have it wrong with Gomes trying to do the Neves/ creative role and glad he changed that.

I don't think we have the CB's to go 4 at the back against anybody unless they have 10 men.
 
Elephant Pyjamas said:
Can't agree, Gomes was the problem yesterday and as soon as he was replaced we completely controlled the game. The change to 5 at the back is why we've seen a considerable improvement in form. Dawson and Kilman look infinitely better as part of a 5.
Click to expand...
Cause and effect.

In some games I absolutely get it, in others we're wasting our own time. The centre halves aren't good enough on the ball (any of them) to approximate what we had under Nuno, nor do we have a viable RWB.
 
The impact of not having Semedo and Lemina available was significant enough, changing formation too would have been a risk.

Also, Doherty isn't a great wingback anymore, but he's far worse as a fullback, which is where he'd play in a 4.

Jonny is way off unfortunately as we saw against City.

5 at the back was entirely the right thing to do, you just can't legislate for Gomes putting in such a crap performance - which underlines how important Lemina is.

Also Dawson's passing against Villa was excellent - far better than i thought he was capable of, and you're never going to give Kilman any credit for his passing, but he's dropped in some lovely balls to Neto in the last few games.
 
Elephant Pyjamas said:
The impact of not having Semedo and Lemina available was significant enough, changing formation too would have been a risk.

Also, Doherty isn't a great wingback anymore, but he's far worse as a fullback, which is where he'd play in a 4.

Jonny is way off unfortunately as we saw against City.

5 at the back was entirely the right thing to do, you just can't legislate for Gomes putting in such a crap performance - which underlines how important Lemina is.
Click to expand...
I don't think Lemina would've been much more effective in the role Gomes was asked to do. He wasn't crap but he isn't creative and GoN asked him to do that role and that's a mistake as it would be with Lemina.
 
Johnny75 said:
I don't think Lemina would've been much more effective in the role Gomes was asked to do. He wasn't crap but he isn't creative and GoN asked him to do that role and that's a mistake as it would be with Lemina.
Click to expand...
Me either, but I think Gomes was severely effected by Lemina's absence.
 
Against weaker opposition you could easily go:

------------------Sa---------------------

Semedo----Dawson----Kilman----Ait-Nouri

----------------Lemina---------------------

----------Doyle----Bellegarde--------------

-------Hwang---Cunha---Neto---------------

I will be disappointed if we stick with the current belt and braces set up at Bramall Lane against a team who are likely to have 1 point from 10 games at that point.
 
Elephant Pyjamas said:
Me either, but I think Gomes was severely effected by Lemina's absence.
Click to expand...
As a pair of spoilers/ box-to-box midfielders I think they're excellent and against good teams I think we need them. Against the weaker teams we will need somebody more creative.

In a 3 with a Bellegarde/ Doyle type I think they'd be very effective but that means we need to buy 2 new CB's.

Maybe next season for that one.
 
Deutsch Wolf said:
Against weaker opposition you could easily go:

------------------Sa---------------------

Semedo----Dawson----Kilman----Ait-Nouri

----------------Lemina---------------------

----------Doyle----Bellegarde--------------

-------Hwang---Cunha---Neto---------------

I will be disappointed if we stick with the current belt and braces set up at Bramall Lane against a team who are likely to have 1 point from 10 games at that point.
Click to expand...
That's how we set up v Luton?

Having 5 at the back doesn't have to be negative, I don't understand why you're so against it particularly given our points haul with 5 v 4


It mitigates the weaknesses in our team (CBs) and gives more freedom to our forward players (and wingbacks)
 
It doesn't have to be negative, it frequently is though.

We had 4 shots on target vs City and Villa combined, not sustainable. Why do we need three centre halves and wingbacks who rarely score or assist against Sheff Utd?

Putting the improvement down to the formation alone and writing everything else off is very Matt Hill, King of PPG.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top