All Activity

We will lose.

In a 4-2-3-1 you're not actually that reliant on the full backs being strong defensively, as the central midfielders are the first line of defence. CDMs are a protective layer for the defenders, and recycle the ball for the attackers. They're not necessarily expected to contribute much to the latter. At the top, top level you may have some that can play box-to-box and, say, chip in with goals. But it's a bonus rather than necessity. Scienza, Azaz, Fellows and Armstrong are our prime sources of goals and assists. So let them get on with that. If nothing else Fellows would more frequently find himself in better positions to get on the attack, rather than starting deep - as he sometimes has to. Seems a better, more pragmatic fit to the personnel we currently have, rather than trying to shoehorn a club philosophy at all costs.

Do we get to hear from the gaffer pre match?

I doubt there is an edict from RA stating “five at the back at all times”, but there could well be an expectation that managers have to commit to data driven decisions and one of those is a commitment to this particular system? I think there is too much attention on five at the back, we have bigger problems but we do seem very much wedded to this system regardless of how each game pans out.

Sweden

Back 4 all the, simple to understand and simple to execute. Any other formation needs a player directing things all the time

Sport Republic know best. Apparently. For an “organisation” that is so stat driven I’m amazed they haven’t clocked the fact that if you have the worst GK in the league three years in a row you’ll continue to ship goals. Likewise having five at the back doesn’t mean you concede any less goals than when you have four at the back.

I’m not sure the full backs are good enough. We don’t really know what Jelert is like, and nobody is suggesting a left back. A back 4 without decent full backs will result in our progressive players having to help out defensively. Azaz & Leo in particular are poor defensively and will be impacted with extra defensive responsibilities placed on them. If we’ve got full backs that will keep getting beat in one on ones, they’ll need protection. If the central midfielders shuffle over, we’ll get out numbered in the middle. It’s inevitable that 2 of the attacking 3 will end up helping the full backs out. There’s also the prospect of 1 less big man defending set pieces, as poor as we are doing so, I don’t see 1 less improving that. Im not dismissing it out of hand, but I’m not convinced it will make much difference overall. I don’t think we will play any better than we did a few games ago, and I’m not sure we’ll defend any better.

Bin strike still on going, probably a few more years to go. At least Saints fans can sing 'live in a shit hole, you f@ckin live in a shit hole' If we are losing let's hope a few hundred of the 2ft super rats invade the pitch and get game abandoned.

Glad somebody is finally asking this question. There’s a lot on this thread and others about SR and RA in particular pulling the strings and insisting we do things in a way which, on the evidence available before us, won’t work and won’t lead to promotion. Why would they do that? Why actively and knowingly work not to achieve the thing that would make them richer? It’s entirely illogical and ridiculous. And even if it isn’t self-destructive malice, but rather sheer incompetence…..how could RA or anyone else not see that the plan simply isn’t working?

Things are that dicey that he would be an improvement at the moment.

No reason that a back four would mean that can’t happen. A 4231 would have two of Jander/Downes/Charles, then Fellows Azaz and Leo as the 3 with Armstrong up top. If anything I think it would add more to midfield rather than take anything away.

I disagree. I believe playing with 3 or 5 at the back demands more of our shit defenders (and wing-backs). None of our lot is up to the task. We play with three sweepers, out of position, marking thin air most of the time. I do agree with you that when it was working, it gave us the benefit of playing our best attackers, but that little bonus has stopped working, so I think we would be better off switching between a 4231 and a 433 depending on the game and opposition.

McCarthy Jelert THB Quarshie ? Downes Jander Fellows Azaz Leo AA So you can clearly fit them in playing a 4, also if the 3 are a bit offensive then move Jander into Azaz position, then Bragg/Charles/Romeu(if fit) can fill in. Granted we need a bigger better 9 and a fit Jelert/Roeslav to attempt to have a couple of fb's

Is the bin strike still ongoing in Birmingham? Asking for a friend.

I think Nic has a playlist for you

Was it their priority? Doesn’t look like it as Starmer stood up as leader of the opposition and criticised their efforts to get him released. It beggars belief him and his officials didn’t check this guys history before rushing to show how virtuous they are….

Can only speak for myself, but it is because I hold SR in such low regard. In my eyes they keep making the same mistakes over and over. Most football related decisions they make are either wrong or poor, at best. I don’t think they are deliberately trying to fuck up, because they genuinely believe in what they are doing, which is the real problem. Every time they make a change, we somehow end up back at the exactly same place, or worse.

Why do some people persist in calling it a back 5. FFS Fellowes & Manning are not playing FB. We haven’t got the full backs to play in a 4, and if anyone thinks THB & the rest of the gang would be any better at defending with only 2 centre halves they’re pretty optimistic. Baz will be Baz in a 4 as well, so it’s doubtful it’ll make much difference. Shite defending is shite defending, you can’t put lipstick on a pig. If having 3 centre halves enables us to play Fellowes, Azaz, AA & Leo whilst not giving up acres in the midfield then I edge in that direction.

Was it not 'out there' that he said the data supports 3/5atb

Yep. Was very much the topic of conversation at Oxford on Friday. The way teams beat us at their ground will suit them lot perfectly. Add in all the bus nonsense and early start and it's going to be awful.

Yeah we should go to a back four. We desperately need another body in the midfield so that we don't get overrun. It will also enable Fellows to be in his more favoured attacking forward position on the right. We have to get back to basics in order to start keeping clean sheets

I still can't for the life of me figure out what people think RA's motive is for insisting we play five at the back. Especially when we've played a couple of games this season with a four. Why, of all the weird things to insist on, would playing a back five be mandatory? What does it gain anybody associated with SR, financially or otherwise?

Rumour has it he wants R. Ankerson as assistant to the head coach, Rasmus A as defensive coach and someone with the initials RA as the new set peice coach.

For me he's ok; good crosser, good deadball delivery, gets into good positions and occasional good shots from range, but frustratingly can't beat a man and often makes poor decisions that lead to us losing the ball.