Matchday Thread: Peterborough v Derby

[MadAmster]

Senior moment, MA? Think Rooney was only seven when Lineker hung up his England boots.

Otherwise...nutshell time. Totally agree.

Senior moment indeed. He started with Michael Owen. Faux pas but the point still stands.

[Geoff Parkstone]

Senior moment indeed. He started with Michael Owen. Faux pas but the point still stands.

Even bigger senior moment MA - Rooney's debut was as a half time sub (an Erickson 11 man swap game) vs Australia and in effect he came on in place of Michael Owen.

His fellow strikers in that half were, wait for it:

Darius Vassell and Francis Jeffers, who scored. Two legends of the England game, worthy of mentioning in the same breath as Lineker and Owen

[MadAmster]

Even bigger senior moment MA - Rooney's debut was as a half time sub (an Erickson 11 man swap game) vs Australia and in effect he came on in place of Michael Owen.

His fellow strikers in that half were, wait for it:

Darius Vassell and Francis Jeffers, who scored. Two legends of the England game, worthy of mentioning in the same breath as Lineker and Owen

Did I mention debut? At the start of his career he often played up top with MO (when MO wasn't injured). Those 2 were mustard together.

[swaledale]

The more I think about it, with the players we have, 2 DMs, 3 AMs and a single striker are the wrong tactics.

We got away with it, once we started to play, against Salford because the front 6 plus the 2 full backs were all attack minded. The 1st XI is starting with 7 defensively minded player plus we then see 2 of our 3 AMs spending half the game deeper than the DMs..... The collective mindset seems safety first and that merely serves to beg the oppo on to close us down and force errors. It works.

What should we do?

Starting up top, I still firmly believe that strikers hunt in pairs. Look what happened when Rooney burst into the England team at 17 and partnered Lineker up top. They scared defenders to death. Now we have had half a dozen seasons where we've had Martin or Vydra or Kazim on their own and it hasn't given us success although we did get close a couple of times. Let's give Kazim (Strets in the next few game I think) a partner to work with. Go 1-4-1-3-2 with Festy and Buchanan at full back, Watson and Sibs as the 2 wide players in the 3. Kaz and Strets up top. Middle of the 3? Lawro and Ravel woud have a fight on their hands to keep the other one out I'd hope. Bird and Shinnie fighting for the DM spot..... and we have Bielik to return......

1-3-5-2 might suit us better than the current system.

I agree we have to change tack on tactics too. Nothing wrong in playing out from the back WHEN YOU HAVE FOOTBALLING CENTRE HALVES. If we had modern day Roy Macs or Stimacs or Wrights at CH we could do it. We haven't so we shouldn't. We started to faff about at the back, Posh put us under pressure and we made mistakes. It was that simple. Too often players dribbled slowly upfield and seemed shocked that an oppo ran in robbed us of the ball. All too slow and ponderous. It has to change. Davies to Roos at a goal kick? Asking for trouble. We got away with it against Posh. There are many sides where we wouldn't. Drop that routine.

We all have our own ideas. Some will have different ones to mine. Be nice to see them.

Can't ague with much of that but do wish you'd drop the pointless inclusion of the keeper in your formations, whatever the Dutch youth handbook says, nobody in professional football or the media quotes the keeper position in a formation for one simple reason, its superfluous, the keeper is always in goal, his (or her) position never changes and adult players don't seem to give a toss about being included in the formation.

All it does is make it more difficult to decipher what formation your actually suggesting, due to having to discount the keeper.

Seeing as you know full well its not used by professional coaches, or the media when describing formations I am at a loss as to why you keep doing it?

[MadAmster]

Can't ague with much of that but do wish you'd drop the pointless inclusion of the keeper in your formations, whatever the Dutch youth handbook says, nobody in professional football or the media quotes the keeper position in a formation for one simple reason, its superfluous, the keeper is always in goal, his (or her) position never changes and adult players don't seem to give a toss about being included in the formation.

When this discussion first arose a couple of years back I posted pages from FA coaching manuals including the keeper in formation notations. Why do you insist on sticking to your thoughts that it's only a Dutch thing?

[swaledale]

When this discussion first arose a couple of years back I posted pages from FA coaching manuals including the keeper in formation notations. Why do you insist on sticking to your thoughts that it's only a Dutch thing?

I don't dispute that its in youth coaching manuals, Dutch or english or whatever, it is not however widely used within professional football, indeed I have yet to hear or see a manager, coach, media source or pundit use this everyday use, either in professional, semi professional or amateur adult football.

So I just wonder why you use it, other than in an attempt to appear knowledgeable and different? I mean you successfully scored a point over me by demonstrating it is used in youth coaching, fine, but your everyday use just smacks of someone trying to be clever, but appearing to be pedantic and actually being the only person I've seen using it!

[MadAmster]

I don't dispute that its in youth coaching manuals, Dutch or english or whatever, it is not however widely used within professional football, indeed I have yet to hear or see a manager, coach, media source or pundit use this everyday use, either in professional, semi professional or amateur adult football.

So I just wonder why you use it, other than in an attempt to appear knowledgeable and different? I mean you successfully scored a point over me by demonstrating it is used in youth coaching, fine, but your everyday use just smacks of someone trying to be clever, but appearing to be pedantic and actually being the only person I've seen using it!

A couple of days after you posted this I was watching a Dutch late night chat show. 3 pundits were discussing the rapidly approaching new season. One of them mentioned a formation notation excluding the 1 for the keeper. He was immediately admonished by the other 2.

Yesterday, in his post match press conference, Louis van Gaal commented that it's difficult to beat such a well disciplined, massed defence the way Norway plays, gambling on a counter and, especially when you play 1-4-3-3 like we did you have to be more creative and we weren't.

Is this the start of the "new" moving in to replace tjhe "old"?

[Geoff Parkstone]

Can't ague with much of that but do wish you'd drop the pointless inclusion of the keeper in your formations, whatever the Dutch youth handbook says, nobody in professional football or the media quotes the keeper position in a formation for one simple reason, its superfluous, the keeper is always in goal, his (or her) position never changes and adult players don't seem to give a toss about being included in the formation.

All it does is make it more difficult to decipher what formation your actually suggesting, due to having to discount the keeper.

Seeing as you know full well its not used by professional coaches, or the media when describing formations I am at a loss as to why you keep doing it?

Yawn, where have I heard this before repeatedly? For someone so keen on diversity and inclusiveness, you are very anti-goalie Swale. GOALKEEPERS LIVES MATTER

[Andy_Faber]

do wish you'd drop the pointless inclusion of the keeper in your formations, I am at a loss as to why you keep doing it?

Sadly MA is adopting an aproved if little used convention, I was hoping his answer would be 'to piss you off'.

[MadAmster]

...... and it was used in the English Football Association Level 3 (UEFA course I did with the Staffordshire FA some 15 years ago.