TaiwanGas
Paul Bannon
Tom Ramasuts Left Foot.
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 1,530 
|
Post by TaiwanGas on Sept 13, 2020 12:28:41 GMT
Yes we did defend well. Yes we were better organised, Yes it was a better performance and happy with a point, and , very happy to get the Sunderland fixture out of the way early doors!.
|
|
|
|
Post by emperorsuperbus on Sept 13, 2020 12:38:44 GMT
we watched different games. Rovers put in a poor footballing performance in this one, which is the main sequence critics want to see broken. If Nicholson got pace and something about him, then it’s to come because he has not shown it yet. Maybe the performances and formation isn’t helping him to. The front three are not playing close to, and using each other. To be fair to guy who was rightly hooked on the day for more press and less expanse, maybe he’d more chance to shine in a 442. I think we saw plan B yesterday instead of the high press game that we got caught out too many times last week. Credit to Ben for having a plan b. The team has to play with adaptability, 3-4-3 is 5-2-3 or 5-4-1 when we haven't got the ball, then 3-3-4 when we have it. But yesterday they were at home and had a lot of possession but did nothing with it for long periods. We were defending a lead from the off and had to stick to that eventuality, even if unexpected. We saw the same game, just different opinions. I might be wrong, but I am a glass half full person with Rovers. I certainly like the idea of the 3 4 3, but we haven’t seen enough of it between whistles. In order to turn the 5 4 1 into a 3 4 3 you need to look after the ball a lot better than we have been doing, hold the ball whilst you transition the shape with Gain of more territory. Note on the tactics board: Exhibit A, England’s performance v Denmark. Exhibit B & C, gas v Ipswich, Gas v Sunderland. in the 3 4 3 I see the wb providing the width, effectively sitting in space. Garners error is playing the forward 3 too wide and apart from each other. For the ball retention there needs to be more tucking in. Out of the three disciplines, physical, technical, mental, this is mental development in players decision making more so than management strategy. The double whammy is, not only the forward 3 not interlinking up enough, but the wing backs are now sat too deep, so not sat in enough space further forward to be the out ball. The magic bullet here is the team in 5 4 1 gaining possession, and then holding it long enough to reshape into the 3 4 3. we won’t see the likes of Nicholson much hurting opponents until we master that ball retention whilst transitioning. quod erat demonstrandum any questions? |
|
crater
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 1,444
|
Post by crater on Sept 13, 2020 12:53:37 GMT
Liked how Garner tweaked the formation when we were looking vulnerable and ultimately got us something from the game...
DC rolls the dice and risks losing the game in pursuit of the victory whereas BG is more pragmatic and sees the value of not getting beat
|
|
|
|
Post by gasheadnaboo on Sept 13, 2020 18:03:33 GMT
Liked how Garner tweaked the formation when we were looking vulnerable and ultimately got us something from the game... DC rolls the dice and risks losing the game in pursuit of the victory whereas BG is more pragmatic and sees the value of not getting beat Hence: Darrell Clarke win percentage 45.7% Ben Garner win percentage 10.53% |
|
crater
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 1,444
|
Post by crater on Sept 13, 2020 18:52:15 GMT
Liked how Garner tweaked the formation when we were looking vulnerable and ultimately got us something from the game... DC rolls the dice and risks losing the game in pursuit of the victory whereas BG is more pragmatic and sees the value of not getting beat Hence: Darrell Clarke win percentage 45.7% Ben Garner win percentage 10.53% Give the bloke a chance, it's a new season, new players and a new system |
|
TaiwanGas
Paul Bannon
Tom Ramasuts Left Foot.
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 1,530
|
Post by TaiwanGas on Sept 13, 2020 21:03:42 GMT
Liked how Garner tweaked the formation when we were looking vulnerable and ultimately got us something from the game... DC rolls the dice and risks losing the game in pursuit of the victory whereas BG is more pragmatic and sees the value of not getting beat Rolling the dice to get the win get's my vote, keeps it exciting, but I appreciate that others will also be fans of a more pragmatic approach. Regarding DC, best leave that alone, He won his opening day League fixture. |
|
1883
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 83
|
Post by 1883 on Sept 14, 2020 7:10:56 GMT
I think we saw plan B yesterday instead of the high press game that we got caught out too many times last week. Credit to Ben for having a plan b. The team has to play with adaptability, 3-4-3 is 5-2-3 or 5-4-1 when we haven't got the ball, then 3-3-4 when we have it. But yesterday they were at home and had a lot of possession but did nothing with it for long periods. We were defending a lead from the off and had to stick to that eventuality, even if unexpected. We saw the same game, just different opinions. I might be wrong, but I am a glass half full person with Rovers. I certainly like the idea of the 3 4 3, but we haven’t seen enough of it between whistles. In order to turn the 5 4 1 into a 3 4 3 you need to look after the ball a lot better than we have been doing, hold the ball whilst you transition the shape with Gain of more territory. Note on the tactics board: Exhibit A, England’s performance v Denmark. Exhibit B & C, gas v Ipswich, Gas v Sunderland. in the 3 4 3 I see the wb providing the width, effectively sitting in space. Garners error is playing the forward 3 too wide and apart from each other. For the ball retention there needs to be more tucking in. Out of the three disciplines, physical, technical, mental, this is mental development in players decision making more so than management strategy. The double whammy is, not only the forward 3 not interlinking up enough, but the wing backs are now sat too deep, so not sat in enough space further forward to be the out ball. The magic bullet here is the team in 5 4 1 gaining possession, and then holding it long enough to reshape into the 3 4 3. we won’t see the likes of Nicholson much hurting opponents until we master that ball retention whilst transitioning. quod erat demonstrandum any questions? Nice. Although with the weakness of this formation (3/4/3) being the lack of numbers in central midfield, it’s difficult to see how we’re going to get to stage where we can keep the ball a lot better & allow our wingbacks time to get up the pitch etc. After all, teams moved away from 4/4/2 because they couldn’t retain possession well enough with only two CMs on the pitch, and that’s the situation we find ourselves in. It’s slightly strange to me that a manager who’s so keen on dominating the ball has chosen to go with 3/4/3 and not something like 4/3/3 - which is the system played by the majority of possession-based sides these days due to the numbers in midfield. |
|
|
|
Post by mangogas15 on Sept 14, 2020 9:19:30 GMT
I certainly like the idea of the 3 4 3, but we haven’t seen enough of it between whistles. In order to turn the 5 4 1 into a 3 4 3 you need to look after the ball a lot better than we have been doing, hold the ball whilst you transition the shape with Gain of more territory. Note on the tactics board: Exhibit A, England’s performance v Denmark. Exhibit B & C, gas v Ipswich, Gas v Sunderland. in the 3 4 3 I see the wb providing the width, effectively sitting in space. Garners error is playing the forward 3 too wide and apart from each other. For the ball retention there needs to be more tucking in. Out of the three disciplines, physical, technical, mental, this is mental development in players decision making more so than management strategy. The double whammy is, not only the forward 3 not interlinking up enough, but the wing backs are now sat too deep, so not sat in enough space further forward to be the out ball. The magic bullet here is the team in 5 4 1 gaining possession, and then holding it long enough to reshape into the 3 4 3. we won’t see the likes of Nicholson much hurting opponents until we master that ball retention whilst transitioning. quod erat demonstrandum any questions? Nice. Although with the weakness of this formation (3/4/3) being the lack of numbers in central midfield, it’s difficult to see how we’re going to get to stage where we can keep the ball a lot better & allow our wingbacks time to get up the pitch etc. After all, teams moved away from 4/4/2 because they couldn’t retain possession well enough with only two CMs on the pitch, and that’s the situation we find ourselves in. It’s slightly strange to me that a manager who’s so keen on dominating the ball has chosen to go with 3/4/3 and not something like 4/3/3 - which is the system played by the majority of possession-based sides these days due to the numbers in midfield. 3-4-3 isn't rigid, the full backs tuck in if they need to and the Centre backs come into midfield when we have the ball, but all bar one get back if needed. |
|
1883
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 83
|
Post by 1883 on Sept 14, 2020 10:04:45 GMT
Nice. Although with the weakness of this formation (3/4/3) being the lack of numbers in central midfield, it’s difficult to see how we’re going to get to stage where we can keep the ball a lot better & allow our wingbacks time to get up the pitch etc. After all, teams moved away from 4/4/2 because they couldn’t retain possession well enough with only two CMs on the pitch, and that’s the situation we find ourselves in. It’s slightly strange to me that a manager who’s so keen on dominating the ball has chosen to go with 3/4/3 and not something like 4/3/3 - which is the system played by the majority of possession-based sides these days due to the numbers in midfield. 3-4-3 isn't rigid, the full backs tuck in if they need to and the Centre backs come into midfield when we have the ball, but all bar one get back if needed. That’s fair. The sides I’ve seen that use 3/4/3 most effectively always have 1 or 2 centre backs who can bring the ball into midfield and act as a third midfielder when in possession, as well as the two #10s dropping into midfield when the play is building & then taking positions higher up as the move progresses. Not sure we’ve nailed either of those areas yet, but it’s early days and hopefully those bits will come with time. |
|
|
|
Post by rowdenhill on Sept 14, 2020 11:35:49 GMT
Who'd have thought it?
|
|
|
|
Post by mangogas15 on Sept 14, 2020 14:55:07 GMT
3-4-3 isn't rigid, the full backs tuck in if they need to and the Centre backs come into midfield when we have the ball, but all bar one get back if needed. That’s fair. The sides I’ve seen that use 3/4/3 most effectively always have 1 or 2 centre backs who can bring the ball into midfield and act as a third midfielder when in possession, as well as the two #10s dropping into midfield when the play is building & then taking positions higher up as the move progresses. Not sure we’ve nailed either of those areas yet, but it’s early days and hopefully those bits will come with time. Harries made 13 clearances as Ehmer made 8. Grigg had no shots in the whole game, Graham had 7 touches. Sunderland made no through passes behind our back line. This is very encouraging. Hanlons touch is good as well. His hold up play was missed when subbed. He won a free kick brilliantly in the first half by a deft touch round a defender. Looks promising. |
|
muppet
Predictions League
Joined: July 2014
Posts: 401
|
Post by muppet on Sept 14, 2020 15:22:39 GMT
Sunderland made no through passes behind our back line?
When they scored there was a ball inside our full back.
|
|
|
|
Post by o2o2bo2ba on Sept 14, 2020 15:51:11 GMT
Hence: Darrell Clarke win percentage 45.7% Ben Garner win percentage 10.53% Give the bloke a chance, it's a new season, new players and a new system He's had a new season (last), new players (signed in January, Timmy Abraham anyone?) and a new system (Stevenage, Southend away,?) He's now had over 20 chances, how many more? |
|
|
|
Post by mangogas15 on Sept 14, 2020 16:06:13 GMT
Sunderland made no through passes behind our back line? When they scored there was a ball inside our full back. According to the report, might be down the middle |
|
|
|
Post by mangogas15 on Sept 14, 2020 18:16:01 GMT
Give the bloke a chance, it's a new season, new players and a new system He's had a new season (last), new players (signed in January, Timmy Abraham anyone?) and a new system (Stevenage, Southend away,?) He's now had over 20 chances, how many more? Not with all his own signings |
|
|
|
Post by o2o2bo2ba on Sept 14, 2020 18:33:18 GMT
He's had a new season (last), new players (signed in January, Timmy Abraham anyone?) and a new system (Stevenage, Southend away,?) He's now had over 20 chances, how many more? Not with all his own signings Maybe, but what manager does go in and fire every player that wasn't his own? BG had the January transfer window and brought in (amongst others) Timmy Abraham. His signing. A risk, that BG chose to accept to take. I don't think anyone is arguing every single player at the club is a BG player, but strangely enough those whom support BG ignore that Jaak isn't his signing yet happy to plageurise the pre existence of last season! |
|
|
|
Post by mangogas15 on Sept 14, 2020 20:27:39 GMT
Not with all his own signings Maybe, but what manager does go in and fire every player that wasn't his own? BG had the January transfer window and brought in (amongst others) Timmy Abraham. His signing. A risk, that BG chose to accept to take. I don't think anyone is arguing every single player at the club is a BG player, but strangely enough those whom support BG ignore that Jaak isn't his signing yet happy to plageurise the pre existence of last season! Maybe my response was a bit flip and not thought through. Jakkiola was a big miss and had GC been in charge I wonder how he would have resolved that nightmare. He saved us a point on Saturday no mistake. You are also right in the fact that BG will be held accountable for his signings, tactics and most importantly, the results. He chose to approach last season the way he did when I am sure he could have done it differently to finish higher. He needs to start delivering consistently, for me Saturday was a big step, all the Sunderland reports have forgotten the blatant red card that was missed and have slagged Rovers off. I like the underdog and siege mentality, I hope we continue to be underestimated this Saturday. At least a point and I will he happy. 1 game at a time. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2020 20:54:57 GMT
We played sunderland away and we battled for a point.
Whats the problem? its a great result.
They are full of players with championship experience and some with premier league appearances.
|
|
|
|
Post by mangogas15 on Sept 15, 2020 6:48:27 GMT
We played sunderland away and we battled for a point. Whats the problem? its a great result. They are full of players with championship experience and some with premier league appearances. I think our squad average ages were quite different too |
|
Igitur
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 2,294
|
Post by Igitur on Sept 15, 2020 11:12:05 GMT
Sunderland to be the cry babies of L1?
After the game, Black Cats manager Phil Parkinson slammed Ben Garner’s side, claiming they “just came to timewaste [sic]”, and his skipper has followed suit by taking a dig at the Gas.
Obviously looking to make excuses for not being to beat such a poor side (in their eyes) and they have obviously forgotten the added 8 minutes.
|
|
