Serious val question

[DaveP67 is back!]

I’d take Bruce every day of the week over Val.

If Val persists with three at the back he’s not a manager, he’s a zealot who’s rooted to one system only.

Any manager who only has one plan isn’t a good manager.

The runt won’t wait long, if we drop out of the top six and are not in touch with the top two in the coming month he’ll be gone.

Simple as!

Val is making himself look a fool by digging in so firmly on this 3-4-3.

I would agree, we simply don’t have players of the quality to play 3 at the back, had we paid the 5million for Yokuslu and held on to Diagne I think despite the weakness in pace at the back we would be romping the league. FOL needs to invest some serious money in January and back Val if he isn’t going to do this we need a pragmatic manager with experience.

[WBA123]

Three at the back is exactly the problem.

Opposing managers are openly saying it’s where they are exploiting us.

It’s obvious from the comments some are making that they themselves have never played the game themselves at a competitive level, I have and the latter part of my playing life was as a right back.

The manager then decided to try 3-4-3 and I ended up as the right sided player in the 3.

It’s hard to describe just how different the game becomes, positionally you are left with a constant headache and the space on your flanks is so easy to exploit.

I hated my life in that position!

You need unbelievable pace and a real ability to read the game to play that role and you also need full backs who NEVER switch off abs always work back which invariably they don’t.

Even my local non league side Stourbridge tried it and ditched it because we kept getting torn apart down the flanks.

The problem starts with the back three and then gets worse when the front three run out of energy to close down.

Football is a simple game made difficult by managers overthinking it.

You can play 4-4-2 or 4-4-1-1 or 4-5-1 and still press.

Lack of flexible thinking is just plain ridiculous.

I don't agree with that, and I don't buy into this 'you have to play at a decent level to understand football' argument. I've played at an okay-ish level in my younger days, in a 3-5-2 and 4 at the back. Albeit mostly in midfield (when I was a lot younger and fitter).

Football is a pretty simple game. Its really all about the players, their fitness levels and their footballing intelligence.

Ajayi has generally been poor this season. Bartley definitely has a mistake in him. So do Townsend and Furlong, as we saw last night. We were playing a dangerous game last night with the line so high, it would have made more sense to drop the defensive line deeper rather than change formation. That's footballing intelligence, and should probably have come from Bartley. We would still have been playing a high line even by dropping back 10 yards.

If the defensive line is as high as where we were playing it, then you need your midfielders and strikers to press the ball so their players don't have the space to play it in behind the line. And we looked shattered 2nd half.

Generally this season we've been quite hard to score against, Other than Stoke, I don't think any side has caused us loads of problems. Even Swansea only had 3 shots on target last night, so I don't think we're over exposed in this system.

I just don't get why the line was so high, when we were 1-0 up away from home at a difficult place to go to. That's naivety. Even with 4 at the back, if the line stayed there it wouldn't have made any difference, especially for their first goal.

[mickd1961]

I don't agree with that, and I don't buy into this 'you have to play at a decent level to understand football' argument. I've played at an okay-ish level in my younger days, in a 3-5-2 and 4 at the back. Albeit mostly in midfield (when I was a lot younger and fitter).

Football is a pretty simple game. Its really all about the players, their fitness levels and their footballing intelligence.

Ajayi has generally been poor this season. Bartley definitely has a mistake in him. So do Townsend and Furlong, as we saw last night. We were playing a dangerous game last night with the line so high, it would have made more sense to drop the defensive line deeper rather than change formation. That's footballing intelligence, and should probably have come from Bartley. We would still have been playing a high line even by dropping back 10 yards.

If the defensive line is as high as where we were playing it, then you need your midfielders and strikers to press the ball so their players don't have the space to play it in behind the line. And we looked shattered 2nd half.

Generally this season we've been quite hard to score against, Other than Stoke, I don't think any side has caused us loads of problems. Even Swansea only had 3 shots on target last night, so I don't think we're over exposed in this system.

I just don't get why the line was so high, when we were 1-0 up away from home at a difficult place to go to. That's naivety. Even with 4 at the back, if the line stayed there it wouldn't have made any difference, especially for their first goal.

King of the misquote as usual.

Where did I say “play at a DECENT level”?

I said at a “competitive level”, the two things are totally different.

My point is that if you only every kicked a ball around on a playground or on your local fields you can’t possibly understand the way it feels to be part of a certain formation.

There’s plenty of sports I can’t offer a tactical opinion on because I’ve not played them.

You mention playing in midfield......that’s got nothing to do with my observations about being in a back 3.

The left abs right sided players in the 3 have a very difficult job especially if they don’t have searing pace and athleticism.

The central player in the 3 has the slightly easier job on paper but as soon as the bloke either side gets dragged across a few feet the central player himself becomes quite exposed.

You pretty much have to play a high line in val’s system because it’s all about compressing the space for close passing in the opposition half so you can win the ball back as we did for the first goal.

I agree that we should’ve dropped deeper as energy sapped but that’s the point at which he should change to a back 4.

As much as anything, us changing formation messes around with the opposition.

The back 3 with the squad we have will get him an early sacking, make no mistake about that.

[WBA123]

King of the misquote as usual.

Where did I say “play at a DECENT level”?

I said at a “competitive level”, the two things are totally different.

My point is that if you only every kicked a ball around on a playground or on your local fields you can’t possibly understand the way it feels to be part of a certain formation.

There’s plenty of sports I can’t offer a tactical opinion on because I’ve not played them.

You mention playing in midfield......that’s got nothing to do with my observations about being in a back 3.

The left abs right sided players in the 3 have a very difficult job especially if they don’t have searing pace and athleticism.

The central player in the 3 has the slightly easier job on paper but as soon as the bloke either side gets dragged across a few feet the central player himself becomes quite exposed.

You pretty much have to play a high line in val’s system because it’s all about compressing the space for close passing in the opposition half so you can win the ball back as we did for the first goal.

I agree that we should’ve dropped deeper as energy sapped but that’s the point at which he should change to a back 4.

As much as anything, us changing formation messes around with the opposition.

The back 3 with the squad we have will get him an early sacking, make no mistake about that.

Decent/competitive, I'm not sure the difference but okay.

If I was playing in midfield in my younger days and I thought the defensive line was too deep or too high, I would tell them. Why wasn't this done?

And I agree we have to play a high line in this system, but that was stupidly high last night. And in the circumstances, we weren't chasing the game - we were 1-0 up. We could have easily dropped 10 yards and still have classed ourselves as playing a high line.

I just disagree with you. I don't think its anything to do with having a back 3 or 4. We were over exposed constantly playing a back 4 with Bilic, in the Championship - with largely the same defenders.

I also disagree with you about having Bruce over Val. Bruce would be an absolute disaster for us in my view. I'd much rather a young and hungry manager, who might be naïve and make mistakes. Rather one than has been around the block like a Pardew, Pulis or Bruce looking for their final payday in the game.

[renno]

I agree we need patience, the football isn't great and its a needs must at the moment. I also think he hasn't got the squad he wants, so he needs to buy at least 2 or 3 who can improve the first XI right away.

One thing I though about last night was this, last year the Championship allowed 5 subs. In a high intensity team where you can change half of the outfield players that would have been a big advantage. This year being only 3 subs, do you think that would negatively affect a Val team?

I think to a degree it would do, but on the other hand if your fitness levels are higher then you can argue its the same for everyone and a level playing field. I think he probably has to be more selective about who comes off rather than just the front 3. That said he is getting the results and I'll swap you positions!

[baggieal]

I think to a degree it would do, but on the other hand if your fitness levels are higher then you can argue its the same for everyone and a level playing field. I think he probably has to be more selective about who comes off rather than just the front 3. That said he is getting the results and I'll swap you positions!

Lets hope West Brom beat Barnsley 5-0 in December Renno as for some West Brom supporters anything less won't be good enough!

At least I admit it's the absolute worst West Brom squad ever and Val was given nothing! It says something that Mowatt is our best player by far in my opinion and he came from you guys! Last night Mowatt was sadly missed as he makes two of Livermore!

[WBA1955]

Stay.

[mickd1961]

Lets hope West Brom beat Barnsley 5-0 in December Renno as for some West Brom supporters anything less won't be good enough!

At least I admit it's the absolute worst West Brom squad ever and Val was given nothing! It says something that Mowatt is our best player by far in my opinion and he came from you guys! Last night Mowatt was sadly missed as he makes two of Livermore!

It’s not the worst squad ever though, not by a distance.

The mid 80’s onwards saw some of the worst ever players to wear the Albion shirt, the Gould era, Smith, Buckley, Little et al......utter f u c k I n g rubbish.

The squad that took us into division three etc, Ampadu and all that lot.

I can’t believe this lot are being described as worse than that lot, it simply isn’t the case.

[Leicesterbaggie]

It’s not the worst squad ever though, not by a distance.

The mid 80’s onwards saw some of the worst ever players to wear the Albion shirt, the Gould era, Smith, Buckley, Little et al......utter f u c k I n g rubbish.

The squad that took us into division three etc, Ampadu and all that lot.

I can’t believe this lot are being described as worse than that lot, it simply isn’t the case.

Totally agree mick. I've reiterated this on another thread. How anybody can state that this is the worst Albion squad in living memory is beyond me. Yes, there are weaknesses but, the worst squad? Never in a month of Sundays.

[baggiematt]

Three at the back is exactly the problem.

Opposing managers are openly saying it’s where they are exploiting us.

It’s obvious from the comments some are making that they themselves have never played the game themselves at a competitive level, I have and the latter part of my playing life was as a right back.

The manager then decided to try 3-4-3 and I ended up as the right sided player in the 3.

It’s hard to describe just how different the game becomes, positionally you are left with a constant headache and the space on your flanks is so easy to exploit.

I hated my life in that position!

You need unbelievable pace and a real ability to read the game to play that role and you also need full backs who NEVER switch off abs always work back which invariably they don’t.

Even my local non league side Stourbridge tried it and ditched it because we kept getting torn apart down the flanks.

The problem starts with the back three and then gets worse when the front three run out of energy to close down.

Football is a simple game made difficult by managers overthinking it.

You can play 4-4-2 or 4-4-1-1 or 4-5-1 and still press.

Lack of flexible thinking is just plain ridiculous.

With respect Mick, I think your experience as a competitive footballer is about as useful as my time in the Stourbridge conkers team, in terms of evaluating performance of a system. By your logic VI knows a heck of a lot more than you do about systems as he played at the very highest level - and therefore your point is as moot as mine.

Many managers have implemented a 3/5 at the back system successfully. Megson wouldn't shift from it and was very successful for us. All with Igor Balis at right wing back. 3/5 at the back is now more common than 442 in the top three leagues. You often find defences used to playing at 4 at the back need some time to work out how 3/5 at the back will work. We've only just settled on what seems to be a stable back 3 since Clarke has returned. Our two defeats have been against teams that play 3 at the back.

I agree with other posters, the very high line is a defensive issue. I can't tell if VI is working on addressing the defensive issues or just passive enough to think these issues are one off's. I hope it's the former or we work out ways of scoring more goals to compensate.