Crying out for a creative midfielder!

[red under the bed]

Originally Posted by LWR

I don't agree.

Although Wedgebury and Carrington are very similar players, when we haven't got the ball, it's obvious we're set up this way for a reason. Playing with this structure, won't create many chances, but it's solid, and we're never going to get hammered by anyone.

At the same time, we're never going to stick 5 past anyone.

What we need is the fullbacks and wingers to get on the ball and push on. Mackreth still lacks at yard off the pace, from his injury pre season. And I'm not convinced Kelly is a winger. At the same time he's not a central midfielder in a 442, as displayed by the amount of times, he let players coast past him today.

What we need is Carrington and Wedgebury when we have got the ball, is drive forward and close that gap from them to the front 2.

Some good points- particularly about set up this way for a reason

[LWR]

Originally Posted by red under the bed

Although interestingly , Cardiff tonight played 4-2-4 at home..the two sitting deep.
Won 2-0.
Yet to concede a goal

Its how pretty much every team in the French league sets up.

Solid back 4. 2 holding central midfielders, with 2 wingers. Without the ball its a flat 4 across the middle, with the ball they become proper attaching wingers, who play deep into the opposition half.

With the strength at the back we have, I'd like to see more of this.

It's all good and well people say we need a creative attacking centre mid. But there is a trade off. You give something up defensively that way, and I think Deano wants us to be solid, and 'in' every game.

[red under the bed]

Originally Posted by LWR

Its how pretty much every team in the French league sets up.

Solid back 4. 2 holding central midfielders, with 2 wingers. Without the ball its a flat 4 across the middle, with the ball they become proper attaching wingers, who play deep into the opposition half.

With the strength at the back we have, I'd like to see more of this.

It's all good and well people say we need a creative attacking centre mid. But there is a trade off. You give something up defensively that way, and I think Deano wants us to be solid, and 'in' every game.

Definitely, I can see the advantage and flexibility ..For some reason over recent times we have assumed we need full backs who can get forward or play a wing back role...A back four who give little away seems to have been tactic of a few teams that gained promotion from this league....Cheltenham and Bristol R both organised and kept a line ..with an outlet of a winger and strong frontman...

[moynkeepthefaith]

Originally Posted by dixienormous

If he's sticking with 4-4-2 : Put Leo on the left, Kelly and Wedgbury in the middle and Mackreth on the right. It's a bloody joke playing two defensive midfielders at home, hardly going to entice the floating fan.

Thank god your not the manager

[TomWFC]

Originally Posted by moynkeepthefaith

Why are we so convinced he would be great in centre mid. Thought he was the worst player on the park tonight so why would moving him make him capable of tackling for example ? At least the much derided Carrington can tackle.
I thought we started slowly but in the end deserved the points. Reid for sure changed the dynamic of the game and Massanka seemed to wake up after Reid's introduction.
Bemused why Manny was not MOM. Excellent crowd who stuck with us. Poor decision not to reduce them to 10.

Kelly's tackling was poor tonight, but he was out-paced because he's not a winger and he was up against a pacy wide-man. He would be better in a central 3, but Keates wont change the formation. Despite this, I'd still prefer him alongside Wedgebury or Wright in a central two. One of the latter can sit deeper, break-up play and provide the more physical foundation for Kelly to influence play.

It's a nonsense playing two defensive midfielders in central midfield at home. Teams with aspirations of promotion would have a creative attacking outlet centrally who can control the flow of posession. The combination can be altered for away games or certain opposition, but making it a default option is both very frustrating and disappointing.

[krux]

Originally Posted by standingroomonly2

Don't see him as creative. He breaks play up but hardly played incisive through balls during this game or the majority of his time with us
Posted via mobile theme

he's a foot on the ball passer as demonstrated by his running the show first half.

he sits deep though rather than being behind the front two.

[krux]

Originally Posted by LWR

Its how pretty much every team in the French league sets up.

Solid back 4. 2 holding central midfielders, with 2 wingers. Without the ball its a flat 4 across the middle, with the ball they become proper attaching wingers, who play deep into the opposition half.

With the strength at the back we have, I'd like to see more of this.

It's all good and well people say we need a creative attacking centre mid. But there is a trade off. You give something up defensively that way, and I think Deano wants us to be solid, and 'in' every game.

sounds like that formation requires two superb wingers who can fulfil those roles. We don't have those.

[Iesty]

Kelly was played left attack for the majority of pre-season (normally subbing with Leo Smith). I would personally prefer to see both of them on the pitch at the same time as a three of Jennings, Kelly and Smith down the left would probably be the strongest we have had in a long long time

[moynkeepthefaith]

Originally Posted by TomWFC

Kelly's tackling was poor tonight, but he was out-paced because he's not a winger and he was up against a pacy wide-man. He would be better in a central 3, but Keates wont change the formation. Despite this, I'd still prefer him alongside Wedgebury or Wright in a central two. One of the latter can sit deeper, break-up play and provide the more physical foundation for Kelly to influence play.

It's a nonsense playing two defensive midfielders in central midfield at home. Teams with aspirations of promotion would have a creative attacking outlet centrally who can control the flow of posession. The combination can be altered for away games or certain opposition, but making it a default option is both very frustrating and disappointing.

Tom, I take all your points but am not sure. What we all agree is we have been missing is a spark up front and we got that tonight when Reid came on. If we can get Jennings and Roberts to roam forward a bit more then having a solid defensive midfield can be justified. As Clough once said if you don't concede you won't lose many games (paraphrase) In my opinion Kelly looks like a luxury we don't need - however it is of course early days and I don't want to discount the lad based on one poor game.
Contrary to other posters I still believe we did enough to win the game and there are reasons to be positive. Don't get me wrong- it's work in progress but there are 7 places this season and I will take 7th.