Luton Outlaws - The Avenue of Evil

3 at the back

Posted by Herve Baquet on 13/8/2024, 9:02:29

We don’t have a plan b do we?

Felt like watching a Graeme Jones side at times last night.

The reason for walters and JJ playing was because he really wants to play out from the back. Both look so comfortable on the ball, but the movement ahead of them was non existent. And as they’re young kids they started to get panicked in possession and would lose it or pass it back to TK. We barely got out of our half for the first half hour.

Really thought we could’ve changed formation at 2-0. Gone 4 at the back, brought Pelly on in the middle and then Chong and Eli out wide.

Hope it was just a Birminghamesque blip, but I’m slightly worried about Saturday now.

Re: 3 at the back

Posted by homer on 13/8/2024, 10:52:56, in reply to "3 at the back"

We dont have a plan A yet

Re: 3 at the back

Posted by Music Critic on 13/8/2024, 9:56:39, in reply to "3 at the back"

I think that's a pretty fair assessment and I, too, was taken back to the Graeme Jones days/levels of stubbornness

I am still shaking my head as to why Pelly didn't play once we knew Clark was injured. I'd have played Pelly anyway even if Clark was available. Chong is more effective out wide rather than down the middle. That central midfield of a kid, a new signing and a wide man was equally as baffling as the decision not to start Pelly

Playing three centre halves when we have an injury crisis in that position was baffling and I don't know what our style was supposed to be. What were we trying to do?

Saturday will be telling. Portsmouth are going to be right up for that on and off the pitch. We wilted horribly last night... will it be the same on Saturday? The team sheet will reveal a lot before a ball is kicked

Re: 3 at the back

Posted by Herve Baquet on 13/8/2024, 10:02:41, in reply to "Re: 3 at the back"

I agree with every word, there.

I think we probably need to be a bit patient, we're always slow starters. I think we'll sign a new CM soon. Nakamba, Bell and Mads will be back, and things will look a lot rosier

Re: 3 at the back

Posted by Music Critic on 13/8/2024, 10:19:26, in reply to "Re: 3 at the back"

Yes, we haven't started a season well since 2017 (the behind closed doors season wasn't too bad) and it's not panic stations but we were so off it yesterday, it was a bit of a shock - even taking into account that Burnley will be one of the best sides in the league this season and our injury problems

What worries me is Edwards being so wedded to 5 at the back and to this high press, man-for-man style. No sign of tactical flexibility based on personnel available or opposition

The injured returning will feel like new signings but they will likely take a few games to get up to speed. We could be in November by then!

Re: 3 at the back

Posted by Herve Baquet on 13/8/2024, 10:24:23, in reply to "Re: 3 at the back"

I've not felt that concerned after a game for a while. Let's hope he sorts things out for Saturday.

I do wonder why he's often so reluctant to make substitutions, or change the shape, until it's too late, though.

Re: 3 at the back

Posted by Yeah on 13/8/2024, 11:08:24, in reply to "Re: 3 at the back"

Southgate esq!

Re: 3 at the back

Posted by Music Critic on 13/8/2024, 10:53:00, in reply to "Re: 3 at the back"

I do wonder why he's often so reluctant to make substitutions, or change the shape, until it's too late, though.

It's a strange one. He has to be more ruthless but I wonder if he's concerned more about being a friend to the players (which isn't necessarily a bad thing) than making some tough decisions. Then it is all too little, too late when he does make changes

I'm sure that's not it but I'd have hooked at least 3 at half time yesterday, changed the system and altered the style. But, hey, what do I know?!

Re: 3 at the back

Posted by MG on 13/8/2024, 12:51:06, in reply to "Re: 3 at the back"

We looked at our best in the game for a bit after half-time . . .

Could it just possibly be that not changing it was the best option?

Re: 3 at the back

Posted by Music Critic on 13/8/2024, 13:24:21, in reply to "Re: 3 at the back"

Dunno, possibly not making changes was the best option. But the final score would suggest not.

Or maybe it's a moot point and the final result more suggests he got it badly wrong from the start and half time changes (or not, as was the case) wouldn't/couldn't have made any difference as the damage was done. The 1st half was the worst we've played at this level for a while. Since Brum at home (0-5) probably

Re: 3 at the back

Posted by MG on 13/8/2024, 13:42:01, in reply to "Re: 3 at the back"

I wouldn't actually say it was. Don't get me wrong, Burnley were the better side, and they bloody well ought to be having spent countless millions more than us over the past few years. They brought a Dutch international off the bench . . .

We did okay possession-wise, looked defensively sound for the majority of it, just two awful lapses from young players. Burnley hardly made a chance otherwise.

I'm never going to talk myself into being comfortable with what I saw but some of the criticism is getting just a tad stronger than it really ought to be.

Re: 3 at the back

Posted by Notorious D on 13/8/2024, 14:08:13, in reply to "Re: 3 at the back"

‘Defensively looked sound for most of it’ - that’s a very ‘interesting’ take, to say the least.

We could easily have conceded 6 or 7; they seemed to carve us open at will. If it wasn’t for Kamisnkis reaction save from O’Shea and another save (don’t know the attacker) at the far post, we would have been 3-0 down, before Chong had scored.

Re: 3 at the back

Posted by Music Critic on 13/8/2024, 14:15:15, in reply to "Re: 3 at the back"

Think he was referring to the 1st half, where, to be fair, they didn't really create much. We looked quite comfortable at 0-1 but did absolutely nothing ourselves, of course.

The carving open came in the 2nd half!

Re: 3 at the back

Posted by MG on 13/8/2024, 15:10:18, in reply to "Re: 3 at the back"

I was, second half was a bit different when we tried to attack more.

Re: 3 at the back

Posted by Notorious D on 13/8/2024, 14:27:17, in reply to "Re: 3 at the back"

Fair summary.

I’m very surprised we haven’t utilised the loan market to cover the squad deficiencies. If the board aren’t prepared to do pay the market rates, then that’s fully justified (considering our history), if they are proactive in the loan market.

I think there’s an over reliance on the injured players returning and seamlessly hitting the ground running. It will take them several weeks to regain match fitness, and there’s every chance they could relapse or that we suffer other injuries in the interim, largely due to our style of play.

A very important couple of weeks left of the window; let’s see how we shape up on 1st September.

Re: 3 at the back

Posted by Music Critic on 13/8/2024, 14:33:16, in reply to "Re: 3 at the back"

I think there’s an over reliance on the injured players returning and seamlessly hitting the ground running. It will take them several weeks to regain match fitness

Yeah, I made a similar point to Herve higher up this thread

Re: 3 at the back

Posted by Music Critic on 13/8/2024, 13:57:14, in reply to "Re: 3 at the back"

What half of football (at C'ship level) was worse since the Brum game? Maybe Watford away in Oct 2022 (both halves

)? I thought we were flat, played too slow and didn't look like scoring. I concede Burnley didn't exactly carve us open at will but they didn't need to

Not starting Pelly and Holmes and throwing 3 kids in against that quality was strange. As was insisting on playing 3 centre halves when that's where our injuries mostly are

We have conceded far too many goals since February. A re-think is needed is all most people are saying. Don't think the sensible criticism is any stronger than that. No-one serious is calling for his head or getting abusive. It's just opinions on what went wrong

Re: 3 at the back

Posted by Well said on 14/8/2024, 9:28:31, in reply to "Re: 3 at the back"

But careful.

Re: 3 at the back

Posted by MG on 13/8/2024, 15:13:29, in reply to "Re: 3 at the back"

Well yes Watford but given the circumstances I don't think it would be reasonable to count them.

I'm sure there were plenty of times when we did little more than hold the opposition.

I will confess, living down here I am really not looking forward to Fratton Park based on what I have seen.

Re: 3 at the back

Posted by Music Critic on 13/8/2024, 15:29:52, in reply to "Re: 3 at the back"

Yes, I'd take a point Saturday if offered it now. Just to restore some confidence as much as anything

Re: 3 at the back

Posted by MG on 13/8/2024, 16:28:22, in reply to "Re: 3 at the back"

+100

Been here since 1986, seen every game down here since and that would double our points total!!!

Re: 3 at the back

Posted by Music Critic on 13/8/2024, 17:04:36, in reply to "Re: 3 at the back"

Ha!

We never beat Burnley at home and never win at Portsmouth!

We should have known a bad start was coming!

Re: 3 at the back

Posted by Doctor Ince on 13/8/2024, 9:50:13, in reply to "3 at the back"

Let's all calm the fuck down though, eh?

Yesterday was incredibly obvious to a lot of people. I don't know if you do discord but plenty on there were predicting we'd let in at least 4 as early as last week.

Cuba has been saying it here as well. We've looked miles off all pre season, the tactics are absolutely fucking mental and we haven't replaced half the first team starters we've lost. We've had two really poor transfer windows, and combined with a manager who will not compromise, it's only going to go one way

Re: 3 at the back

Posted by Herve Baquet on 13/8/2024, 10:08:46, in reply to "Re: 3 at the back"

I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest people have been overreacting and fielding conspiracy theories all summer (not sure why you're so caught up on the fact I said the F word)

The likelihood is we had targets and they went to clubs like Sheff U who are prepared to throw money around like there aren't consequences (like a 7 figure loan fee for an unproven teenager). You want the board to rip up everything they've laid down in the last 15 years just to sign CB cover for two weeks?

I wholeheartedly agree we need another CM of substantial quality. It's a shame we haven't been able to sign one before last night. If we still haven't signed someone by the end of the window, then I'll be worried.

Re: 3 at the back

Posted by Doctor Ince on 13/8/2024, 10:14:55, in reply to "Re: 3 at the back"

I couldn't care less about you saying fuck, it's just that's what you said so I included it.

No, I don't, but I do think they have to move with the times a bit. We are going to get quoted higher prices, if we don't want to pay then fine, but we have to adjust our targets accordingly. No point going after champaign players when we're only willing to pay coca cola money.

We need 2 midfielders of starting quality as we can't rely on Baptiste (who looked good last night) to play all season. We need back up for Alfie of sufficient quality. We need a starting RWB as Ogbene is wasted there. Andersen might be the commanding centre back we need but we need another as he hasn't played for almost a year.

These are the issues people have been pointing out all summer. As I say, last night wasn't unexpected.

Re: 3 at the back

Posted by Herve Baquet on 13/8/2024, 10:18:49, in reply to "Re: 3 at the back"

Hashi was signed at that RWB.
I agree cover for Alfie is needed, as well as a CM.
And if he's not going to play Pelly, then yes, we probably need 2.

Re: 3 at the back

Posted by Doctor Ince on 13/8/2024, 10:20:51, in reply to "Re: 3 at the back"

I know, but he's not exactly set the world alight and is now injured for god knows how long. What's Bree doing? Best rwb we've had since Foley

Re: 3 at the back

Posted by Herve Baquet on 13/8/2024, 10:27:33, in reply to "Re: 3 at the back"

I'd 100% take Bree back. He took a lot of unwarranted flack, imo.

Seemed like RE was a fan as well, so I really thought we may have made a move for him.

Re: 3 at the back

Posted by Notorious D on 13/8/2024, 10:08:23, in reply to "Re: 3 at the back"

+1. Writing was on the wall, but some chose not see it, and then became aggressive to anyone that did.

Agreed

Posted by mmee on 13/8/2024, 11:29:34, in reply to "Re: 3 at the back"

The ‘2020 are perfect and can’t be questioned’ are all very quiet today.

Re: 3 at the back

Posted by HH on 13/8/2024, 9:55:48, in reply to "Re: 3 at the back"

with a manager who will not compromise

Completely agree with you here but I just don't understand why he can't see it. Is he really convinced this is the way we [i]must play, despite nearly all the evidence to the contrary? Perplexing and frustrating.

Re: 3 at the back

Posted by Doctor Ince on 13/8/2024, 10:00:59, in reply to "Re: 3 at the back"

While he still thinks it worked last season he'll stick with it.

It didn't work last season aside from catching arsenal and Liverpool by surprise and the first half at Newcastle. Brighton was the Lockyer effect.

Re: 3 at the back

Posted by HH on 13/8/2024, 10:07:11, in reply to "Re: 3 at the back"

Indeed.

TBH, the only game it really worked was Liverpool.

As we both know, Arsenal and Newcastle still put 4 past us. And he thinks it works because Pep said some nice things after putting 13 goals past us in three matches.

Re: 3 at the back

Posted by Doctor Ince on 13/8/2024, 10:16:51, in reply to "Re: 3 at the back"

Ast point is bang on. I said further down the board, we were only getting praise because they were beating us.
If we had beaten the bigger clubs it would've been

'3rd world ground'
'fans are rude'
'anti football tactics with two big men up top'

Re: 3 at the back

Posted by Music Critic on 13/8/2024, 10:29:05, in reply to "Re: 3 at the back"

Yep, agreed

I didn't want us to be liked last season, especially by the bigger clubs. I wanted to get up people's noses. Stoke had years in the Prem pissing off the 'big'/rich clubs

Re: 3 at the back

Posted by HH on 13/8/2024, 10:35:00, in reply to "Re: 3 at the back"

It's also the antithesis to how we were in the Championship. We had years of the likes of Middlesbrough and Sunderland getting fucked of with us, and then suddenly we're everyone's best friend.

Re: 3 at the back

Posted by Music Critic on 13/8/2024, 11:05:26, in reply to "Re: 3 at the back"

Yes, good point

Re: 3 at the back

Posted by Lutonian on 13/8/2024, 9:16:44, in reply to "3 at the back"

Walters and JJ do look comfortable on the ball but you also have to be really smart and disciplined out of possession to go man for ma and press high - something that JJ in particular is currently missing. It will come, but Bell’s return will be huge.

Would like to see a back three of Mengi, Homes and Bell with Walters and Doughty wing backs next game. Ogbene is half the player in the RWB role.

Re: 3 at the back

Posted by Herve Baquet on 13/8/2024, 9:33:31, in reply to "Re: 3 at the back"

I totally agree. Their second came from JJ getting caught up the pitch and he got outpaced. Alfie really should've helped him out better all game tbf as well.

It's odd that we're playing 2 up front again considering so many of our attacking players suit a front three: Ogbene, Chong, Andros, Brown.

Re: 3 at the back

Posted by Carroll’s elbow on 13/8/2024, 9:36:20, in reply to "Re: 3 at the back"

Agree, it’s a strange switch. Chong is best when he drifts wide and works with Alfie. Kind of need Morris to hold the right flank or, being really bold, play one of Eli or Morris and have Andros, Chong, Ogbene as the width.

Re: 3 at the back

Posted by Herve Baquet on 13/8/2024, 9:37:30, in reply to "Re: 3 at the back"

Yes, I thought we looked at our best last season when Carlton was wide of Eli.

Re: 3 at the back

Posted by Ramridge Raider on 13/8/2024, 9:14:30, in reply to "3 at the back"

This formation got us out of the league so I totally understand why RE has started the new season with it.

Think its fair to say though, the personnel really struggled to make it work yesterday and maybe we should have gone with a four at the back at half-time.

I'm sure though we will bounce back in no time and will be in the mix at the end of the season.

Re: 3 at the back

Posted by The Dutchman on 13/8/2024, 9:11:54, in reply to "3 at the back"

3 at the back in the Championship should mean 3 big strong athletic men who can defend the box and occasionally carry the ball forward, bully the forwards and be smart. Not three kids.

Re: 3 at the back

Posted by Shutupya on 13/8/2024, 9:16:57, in reply to "Re: 3 at the back"

Modern football ... I am an old git and think a defenders first job is to be able to defend.

I think the reason we play 3 at the back is that RE believes we do not have anyone that can play in the fullback position in a flat back 4

Re: 3 at the back

Posted by Ramridge Raider on 13/8/2024, 9:24:33, in reply to "Re: 3 at the back"

We play 3 at the back as that has always been RE's favoured formation throughout his coaching career.

Re: 3 at the back

Posted by HH on 13/8/2024, 9:05:32, in reply to "3 at the back"

It's been a while since we've looked so lost.

Re: 3 at the back

Posted by Ches Fordroad on 13/8/2024, 9:05:24, in reply to "3 at the back"

Yeah, it did feel like a case of fitting the players to the formation not the other way round.

Re: 3 at the back

Posted by Trainspotter on 13/8/2024, 9:12:12, in reply to "Re: 3 at the back"

Why I liked Horvath in goal, we never fannied about at the back when he had the ball.

« Back to index

[ Luton Outlaws - The Avenue of Evil ]

Luton Outlaws - Independent Message Board for Luton Town FC