Re: Stoke Reaction
 

You could tell the difference when the Stoke 1st team came on in the 2nd half, but I was chuffed with our performance before then. JJ Hooper did great work to get the ball for the goal to a Bobby Grant who looks completely differnt to last season. Harris looked good too. Some good stops from Dibble. I'm unconvinced by Barton he seems lightweight, and Ruthers seemed out of his depth.

Summerfield was probably our best player on the pitch today.

We look decent though. Look far more dangerous in the final third compared to last season.

Re: Stoke Reaction
 

[QUOTE=benwilliams;2274804]Pagl you are one of very few naysayers whose opinion I respect so can I ask you whether you really think it's fair to reach all those conclusions given we were playing stoke not Maidenhead and we are experimenting with a new formation?
[size=1][i]Posted via mobile theme[/i][/size][/QUOTE]

Seems a reply is justified. Naysayer! I just say what I think thats all.
Your right the quality of the opposition has to be considered and the gulf to the league games is massive. BH seems to be experimenting with a 523 or something close. Probably trying to be a bit more fluid on the pitch.

I think defensively were going to be sound but not convinced Barton is a 3rd CB.
Get a RB sorted as Ruthers/Carra are not right wing backs.
We still lack a midfield general who can hold the ball and dictate the pattern of play. Plenty of effort in the midfield though.
Forward wise I think it will be a bit hit and miss.

Looking at it positively then we have added pace and should certainly score more goals. Its now about the best 11 that work together. Effort and commitment looks there with every player and we should be capable of dominating games this season.

However as a warning we know last years combinations dont work together so the new players are key, otherwise why bring them in. The difference between a Ruthers, Oswell, Grant front 3 and Hooper, McIntosh, Harris will be huge IMO.
Its therefore critical we dont try and revert to the core from last year otherwise we will get the same and be clinging onto games at the end rather than making it 2,3,4 etc.

The ratings/opinions debates will be pretty lively with the usual scapegoat comments rather than a real critique of performance.
QR is usually spot on with his summary and analysis and keeps it performance based and about the game. He has no agenda, scapegoat or anything else its a pure game/player review.

Foxy always makes some good observations and his 2 main concerns over formation and reverting to pumping the ball forward are IMO spot on.

The missing pieces of the jigsaw are still needed now - RB with pace that can get forward and cross a ball and the midfield general that we need.

:)

Re: Stoke Reaction
 

Hughes may well drop 3-4-3 but a pre-season friendly is entirely the right time to be trying it.

Re: Stoke Reaction
 

[QUOTE=Alan Attack;2274845]Hughes may well drop 3-4-3 but a pre-season friendly is entirely the right time to be trying it.[/QUOTE]

Yeh.
Foxy seems to indicate were isolating the midfield 2 which means the wing backs are too far forward. Hopefully we can see the front 3 start to emerge in these games. Ruthers isnt a wing back that seems clear.

Re: Stoke Reaction
 

We look like we finally have the players to play a 4-3-3, with a fairly quick and strong front line. So start playing it now.

Re: Stoke Reaction
 

[QUOTE=pagl;2274848]Yeh.
Foxy seems to indicate were isolating the midfield 2 which means the wing backs are too far forward. Hopefully we can see the front 3 start to emerge in these games. Ruthers isnt a wing back that seems clear.[/QUOTE]

Alan is right - its a friendly and we must all remember that BH is also learning each and every game.

I had to smile at Foxy's last comment:

'All in all, I am much less hopeful than I was a few hours ago, '

Foxy - Hopeful ? Seriously ? :)

Re: Stoke Reaction
 

[QUOTE=moynkeepthefaith;2274851]Alan is right - its a friendly and we must all remember that BH is also learning each and every game.

I had to smile at Foxy's last comment:

'All in all, I am much less hopeful than I was a few hours ago, '

Foxy - Hopeful ? Seriously ? :)[/QUOTE]

It’s all relevant though. Hopeful for me is probably incredibly pessimistic to someone like Alan Attack. I was somewhat hopeful based on the fact that all Hughes’ signings are 6 foot or over . At last , I thought, a manager who realised what is needed. But then he starts using this 343 system when he hasn’t spent the summer procuring centre halves or wing backs to play in it.

Re Pagl’s comment , the two in midfield were outnumbered because the “wing backs” were effectively playing full back . That is , the system was 523.

Re: Stoke Reaction
 

[QUOTE=pagl;2274848]Yeh.
Foxy seems to indicate were isolating the midfield 2 which means the wing backs are too far forward. Hopefully we can see the front 3 start to emerge in these games. Ruthers isnt a wing back that seems clear.[/QUOTE]

I wouldn’t listen to a word foxy says about anything.

Any system which puts 3 at the back takes time and, more importantly, the right players.

If I was Hughes, I’d be reluctant to change from a back 4 as it was our strength last season and we’ve shipped out the weakest link of that back 4 so should be stronger this season.

Maybe with the inclusion of Barton, he could be deployed in a similar manner to Chris Blackburn so in possession he drops deeper to allow both full backs to push on so we’re not left with just two at the back. It’s a fairly common tactic but supporters will accuse Barton of not being attack minded or being a crab. That sort of thing.

Re: Stoke Reaction
 

[QUOTE=Foxy;2274854]It’s all relevant though. Hopeful for me is probably incredibly pessimistic to someone like Alan Attack. I was somewhat hopeful based on the fact that all Hughes’ signings are 6 foot or over . At last , I thought, a manager who realised what is needed. But then he starts using this 343 system when he hasn’t spent the summer procuring centre halves or wing backs to play in it.

Re Pagl’s comment , the two in midfield were outnumbered because the “wing backs” were effectively playing full back . That is , the system was 523.[/QUOTE]

Only joking man and I always appreciate your comments. I personally favor 532 and coach it but it only works if you have the right players and the right opposition. The disadvantage always of 5-2-3 is if you get overrun by the opposition and get pegged back and then have little outlet due to only having 2 in the middle. What Liverpool for example have is Mane who drops back into midfield and even assists defense when they are under pressure thus giving options. I think BH may be analyzing the versatility of his players and I do think friendlies are meant for this but soon we have to get close to our standard formation.
Off to Curzon Saturday where I think we will start to see something like stat of season formation so lets see.