Midfield is key

[jackal2]

A few posters have been saying that O'Brien and Doyle haven't been as good in the last two games, which is true, but it's mainly because the opposition have sussed out that they are where the danger starts and so (to use Neal Ardley's terminology) they are "swarming" them. Add to that the fact that you are relying on a 31-year-old and a 37-year-old to control the centre of the park three times in the space of seven/ten days, and it's not hard to see why we've struggled.

This problem is compounded by the fact that we don't have a single forward at the club who can hold the ball up properly when we choose to bypass midfield, so it just comes back at us.

In order to dominate games and create chances, we're going to need to win midfield and ensure the opposition can't just concentrate on Doyle and O'Brien. That means employing a system with three midfielders, and for my money the best answer with the players we've got is a 4-3-3 system, because the likes of Boldewijn, Mackail-Smith and Hemmings are all forwards who prefer to come inside and shoot rather than play as orthodox wide men.

It's no coincidence that yesterday we were losing control of the game - against a poor side - until Lewis Alessandra came on to be the third midfielder, albeit an attacking one. Ardley took far too long to make the change and seems a bit too rigidly committed to 4-4-2, but when he did, we were much better in the final 15 minutes or so. If we had started the game with a third midfielder to help O'Brien and Doyle, we probably would have had enough to win.

[freemuzzy]

Agree with this. Although our system with four attackers (two strikers and two wingers, at least one of which would consider himself a striker) looks attacking - in reality it’s blunting us. You could drive a bus between the midfield two and front two, there’s nothing between the lines and little cohesion overall. The whole thing is incredibly static and easy to defend against.

Sacrificing a striker for a midfielder might look like a negative move but I genuinely believe it’d freshen us up and give us more attacking intent.

An interchangeable front three of CMS, Hemmings and Enzio would be my preference with either Alessandra, Vaughan or (IMO) the under-rated Kellett coming into a three man midfield, depending on the opposition/circumstances.

[jackal2]

Agree with this. Although our system with four attackers (two strikers and two wingers, at least one of which would consider himself a striker) looks attacking - in reality it’s blunting us. You could drive a bus between the midfield two and front two, there’s nothing between the lines and little cohesion overall. The whole thing is incredibly static and easy to defend against.

Sacrificing a striker for a midfielder might look like a negative move but I genuinely believe it’d freshen us up and give us more attacking intent.

An interchangeable front three of CMS, Hemmings and Enzio would be my preference with either Alessandra, Vaughan or (IMO) the under-rated Kellett coming into a three man midfield, depending on the opposition/circumstances.

I'd almost forgotten about Kellett, but I agree with you, he's a decent little footballer. On the few occasions he's played he's looked like a bright spark capable of creating something, but managers just seem to view him as a luxury player.

[jscarr]

I agree and hopefully Ardley will try something different in the next match. It's clear what we're currently doing isn't working.

[Rainbowpie]

Personally I would stick Mitch Rose in the middle of midfield with tootle at right back.

[nw6pie]

Agree about the midfield being key. I think Kellett would bring a lot of energy and provide a link to the forwards, and Mitch Rose can cover the yards. We definitely to change things around for Cheltenham, for sure. I’d be tempted to go 3-5-2 and bring Bird back.