derry Posted 8 February, 2009 Share Posted 8 February, 2009 I'm sitting watching Man Utd v West Ham, we play narrow, MU always have two or three wide one side and always one or two holding the line on the other side at the same time. It gives them the maximum width and the most options. Why can't we play with width, what makes the Saints players who are picked wide think we don't need to have wide players playing wide. We are currently one of the least successful teams in the four divisions. Surely trying to imitate the tactics of the most successful club side in the world would be better than playing the narrow, unsuccessful systems that are going to get us relegated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRobbie Posted 8 February, 2009 Share Posted 8 February, 2009 I'm sitting watching Man Utd v West Ham, we play narrow, MU always have two or three wide one side and always one or two holding the line on the other side at the same time. It gives them the maximum width and the most options. Why can't we play with width, what makes the Saints players who are picked wide think we don't need to have wide players playing wide. We are currently one of the least successful teams in the four divisions. Surely trying to imitate the tactics of the most successful club side in the world would be better than playing the narrow, unsuccessful systems that are going to get us relegated. We could on the right if we had Dyer back. He looked fantastic for Swansea yesterday, 2 assists for 2 goals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krissyboy31 Posted 8 February, 2009 Share Posted 8 February, 2009 Who needs width? We play our super-duper total football system with 4-3-3, 4-5-1, 4-2-1-2-1. And very successful it is too!! :rolleyes: :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanadaSaint Posted 8 February, 2009 Share Posted 8 February, 2009 We could on the right if we had Dyer back. He looked fantastic for Swansea yesterday, 2 assists for 2 goals. I just don't get this. Every time I've seen him he cuts inside and straight into blind alleys. We lose all our shape as players try to get out of his way, he loses the ball, and then we're struggling. He doesn't seem to have the courage to take a full back on down the line for fear of getting kicked. (It's like he went to the Fabrice Fernandes school of wing play!) It may well be down to how he's been encouraged to play, which I think is Derry's point. I think Derry's bang on. And the lack of width exposes players like James because he's got both wide midfielders and overlapping full backs coming at him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glasgow_Saint Posted 8 February, 2009 Share Posted 8 February, 2009 Look at the teams that have succeeded in this league last few years - Stoke, Derby, Sunderland, WBA and Wolves this season. What do they all common? They all have/had big physical no nonsense spines - non played majestic awarding winning 'total football' instead muscled/kicked/slapped and scratched there way to victories......we are and have been far to light weight for far too long! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derry Posted 8 February, 2009 Author Share Posted 8 February, 2009 I just don't get this. Every time I've seen him he cuts inside and straight into blind alleys. We lose all our shape as players try to get out of his way, he loses the ball, and then we're struggling. He doesn't seem to have the courage to take a full back on down the line for fear of getting kicked. (It's like he went to the Fabrice Fernandes school of wing play!) It may well be down to how he's been encouraged to play, which I think is Derry's point. I think Derry's bang on. And the lack of width exposes players like James because he's got both wide midfielders and overlapping full backs coming at him. You're obviously along with Alex Ferguson and myself and one or two others a football dinosaur. 13 successive clean sheets obviously nothing to do with playing wide, probably the Dutch connection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanadaSaint Posted 8 February, 2009 Share Posted 8 February, 2009 You're obviously along with Alex Ferguson and myself and one or two others a football dinosaur. 13 successive clean sheets obviously nothing to do with playing wide, probably the Dutch connection. Dinosaurs, indeed, Dave. In the modern game the price of failure is much greater than the rewards of success, so teams play this width-less, soulless crap that isn't a lot of fun to watch. And we're getting older by the day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
70's Mike Posted 8 February, 2009 Share Posted 8 February, 2009 Look at the teams that have succeeded in this league last few years - Stoke, Derby, Sunderland, WBA and Wolves this season. What do they all common? They all have/had big physical no nonsense spines - non played majestic awarding winning 'total football' instead muscled/kicked/slapped and scratched there way to victories......we are and have been far to light weight for far too long! please send this to wotte and lowe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kadeem Hardison Posted 8 February, 2009 Share Posted 8 February, 2009 I agree. Why aren't we more like Man United? I blame Lowe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teddy Nutkins Posted 8 February, 2009 Share Posted 8 February, 2009 The trouble with being a football dinosaur, is knowing that having wide player getting chalk on their boots getting to the bye-line and crossing gives a far better angle for players arriving in the box to hit the target.The best we have managed all season is Lloyd James chucking it in from 30 yards away, causing it to become fight ball with inevitably a decent centre half kicking it out. Trouble is Derry is this country's greatest hour was 1966 where Sir Alf played no wide players, beats me mate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintjinksie Posted 8 February, 2009 Share Posted 8 February, 2009 It all depends what type of players a club has, Man U have quality wingers (and team in general) who can cause trouble. If their best players were their centre midfielders it would go through them. When Le Tiss was playing, we wouldn't have been calling for him to pass it out wide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Baz Posted 8 February, 2009 Share Posted 8 February, 2009 Even if we did play with width & put in some decent crosses, we would still struggle to score. I have lost count the amount of times the ball has been entered high into the box with no Saints player attacking it. McGoldrick being lazy & not being able to jump higher than a beer mat doesn't help & Saga isn't the tallest of players. We need a tall, strong player to work alongside Saga for that extra diamension. TBF Romano Denneboom of FC Twenty fits that bill perfectly, although McClaren is reluctant to let him leave. In the mean time Saints, when the ball comes in the box, fvcking attack it!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bailey Posted 8 February, 2009 Share Posted 8 February, 2009 Look at the teams that have succeeded in this league last few years - Stoke, Derby, Sunderland, WBA and Wolves this season. What do they all common? They all have/had big physical no nonsense spines - non played majestic awarding winning 'total football' instead muscled/kicked/slapped and scratched there way to victories......we are and have been far to light weight for far too long! And yet we have picked up 5 red cards this season! Weird really isn't it? I agree entirely with your post by the way, we really do need to start fighting our way to victories. Forget the 'total football', what we need is results. If we have to play ugly and kick lumps out of the oppo then so be it. If it means we maintain our Championship status then I'll take a win however it comes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VectisSaint Posted 8 February, 2009 Share Posted 8 February, 2009 Look at the teams that have succeeded in this league last few years - Stoke, Derby, Sunderland, WBA and Wolves this season. What do they all common? They all have/had big physical no nonsense spines - non played majestic awarding winning 'total football' instead muscled/kicked/slapped and scratched there way to victories......we are and have been far to light weight for far too long! Why did you leave out Reading? They have succeeded in this division twice, and hardly fit the description above. Not saying I disagree, but there is more than one way to skin a cat. But playing lightweight tippy tappy football directed by a totally inexperienced 3rd rate coach (or 4th rate if you include JP) is not going to give puss to much to worry about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintwarwick Posted 8 February, 2009 Share Posted 8 February, 2009 I'm sitting watching Man Utd v West Ham, we play narrow, MU always have two or three wide one side and always one or two holding the line on the other side at the same time. It gives them the maximum width and the most options. Why can't we play with width, what makes the Saints players who are picked wide think we don't need to have wide players playing wide. We are currently one of the least successful teams in the four divisions. Surely trying to imitate the tactics of the most successful club side in the world would be better than playing the narrow, unsuccessful systems that are going to get us relegated. It does help having a decent bank balance to purchase the best players and manager to play this type of football. Until then what we should be doing in this league is as Original_Bournemouth_saint pointed out and that is have big physical players lumping it upfield to even bigger physical players who grind out results by hook or by crook. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 9 February, 2009 Share Posted 9 February, 2009 It does help having a decent bank balance to purchase the best players and manager to play this type of football. Until then what we should be doing in this league is as Original_Bournemouth_saint pointed out and that is have big physical players lumping it upfield to even bigger physical players who grind out results by hook or by crook. I think Derry is spot on really, though.... we might not have the same quality, but we should ceratinly be trying to expolit the flanks a lot more.... our last successful period? When we played Mazza and Bridge overlapping down the left - no coincidence that Beattie scored a hatful with the verity of crosses that came in.... what we see today is that even when there is space or its obvious the wide player should go down the line, we see them cutting back in (or passing backwards) for a cross field pass, back into the conjestioed mid field... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corky morris Posted 9 February, 2009 Share Posted 9 February, 2009 I agree. Why aren't we more like Man United? I blame Lowe. I thought someone once said "We are the Man Utd of the South" ? Winder who that was? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom28 Posted 9 February, 2009 Share Posted 9 February, 2009 Look at the teams that have succeeded in this league last few years - Stoke, Derby, Sunderland, WBA and Wolves this season. What do they all common? They all have/had big physical no nonsense spines - non played majestic awarding winning 'total football' instead muscled/kicked/slapped and scratched there way to victories......we are and have been far to light weight for far too long! I agree that Stoke and Derby played no nonsense football, terrible to watch but effective. However, Sunderland and WBA certainly cannot be put in that bracket. I remember when Sunderland came to St Marys the year they got promoted and they played us off the park. Their football was incredible, they had width, one touch flowing passing, composure on the ball, and you could've counted the number of times they hit the long ball on one hand. I went away from that game a closet Sunderland fan. The same can be said of WBA - of all the teams to get promoted last season, I wanted them to. They too didn't resort to the long ball tactics you'd expect to see from Stoke or Derby. They tried to play football, and admirably, are trying to do the same this year in the Prem. My point is this; yes the long ball, no nonsense, big centre forward style of play can be effective, but equally, so can good football, on the floor, and short passing. So stop peddling your agenda with non-factual statements. I agree entirely with the point of this thread though - the best thing about Sunderland that day a few years ago was their simplicity. When they had the ball, they got wide; as soon as they lost the ball they all got narrow and kept it tight. So simple, so effective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derry Posted 9 February, 2009 Author Share Posted 9 February, 2009 We aren't talking about the quality of the players, we are talking about players in their relative leagues with relevant skills playing wide. It is a philosophy, and one that is proven from time immemorial. After the match last night Jamie Redknapp made the comment that the real secret of Man Utd's success is their "fantastic width" It is not rocket science, thinking that compacting the team is making things tight, whilst allowing the opponents to go down our flanks and score most of the goals we concede, is stupidity on the part of the management and to a lesser extent the players. Pressure doesn't win matches, mostly because it is the sort tactic that ends up brainlessly tossing balls into the penalty area for either the centre backs or the goalkeeper to easily deal with. Any decent central defender that is dominant in the air will tell you, that is how they like the opposition to play. What terrifies them is teams that get to the byeline and cut the ball back or drive it into the box hard and low. The reason we don't get to the byeline, don't score enough goals and concede too many is that we stupidly surrender the width and play narrow. I don't subscribe to the my big lump is bigger than your big lump style of football, it doesn't work against teams that keep the ball on the floor and attack down the flanks. It might get you out of the division but it won't keep you in the premier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derry Posted 9 February, 2009 Author Share Posted 9 February, 2009 Dinosaurs, indeed, Dave. In the modern game the price of failure is much greater than the rewards of success, so teams play this width-less, soulless crap that isn't a lot of fun to watch. And we're getting older by the day. The trouble with being a football dinosaur, is knowing that having wide player getting chalk on their boots getting to the bye-line and crossing gives a far better angle for players arriving in the box to hit the target.The best we have managed all season is Lloyd James chucking it in from 30 yards away, causing it to become fight ball with inevitably a decent centre half kicking it out. Trouble is Derry is this country's greatest hour was 1966 where Sir Alf played no wide players, beats me mate. Bill, Colin, you both have played football at different times for the club, you both understand what I keep banging on about. I actually think it would be the difference between getting relegated or maybe staying up. Why we persevere with as you rightly describe it Bill, soulless crap, beggers belief. The players in themselves, on the whole aren't half bad, it's the bloody stupidity and application of the so called numbers game that is going to get us relegated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scudamore Posted 9 February, 2009 Share Posted 9 February, 2009 Did you not start this exact same thread last month Derry? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derry Posted 9 February, 2009 Author Share Posted 9 February, 2009 Did you not start this exact same thread last month Derry? Sure, because it's still the same problem at SMS, the football doesn't seem to mean much to many on here, they'd rather get into an argument about three tenths of F all, or talk about rumors. This is the biggest problem this club has, but can't see it. If they played with width they would get a lot more points IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scudamore Posted 9 February, 2009 Share Posted 9 February, 2009 Sure, because it's still the same problem at SMS, the football doesn't seem to mean much to many on here, they'd rather get into an argument about three tenths of F all, or talk about rumors. This is the biggest problem this club has, but can't see it. If they played with width they would get a lot more points IMO. Do Arsenal rely on width? There's more than one way to skin a monkey... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derry Posted 9 February, 2009 Author Share Posted 9 February, 2009 Do Arsenal rely on width? There's more than one way to skin a monkey... Yes they do, they are another side that always have wide options, together with keeping attackers wide to attack the far post, they do it in a slightly different way but have great width, using fullbacks and midfielders with central attackers also going wide, They look like they are missing Walcott who did play out on the line. All good sides use the width and get to the byeline, even when we have men wide they come inside, and we never have anybody attacking the far post. The defensive shortcomings with James exposed all the time is because we don't have players wide to block the full backs breaking as per Tate of Swansea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonah Posted 9 February, 2009 Share Posted 9 February, 2009 I don't know if the problem is width so much as ability - all the top teams play 4-5-1 (or 4-3-3 according to the PR departments!), so in theory they're all playing with extra width. But it seems to me that the demise of the traditional winger over the last couple of decades has led to a dearth of winger talent... to be fair to him, JP talked a lot about needing the width and how important Holmes and Smith were (but not Dyer, go figure). Yet even when we play with both of them they seem incapable of getting to the by-line - and what use is having width if you don't do that? Telfer and FF used to do a good job between them, but that was down to Telfer's fitness - James looks like he can do a similar job helping from fullback but then he gets left exposed as the midfield never seems to cover his runs forward. Correction, midfield never seem to cover full-stop! I also wonder whether it's a lack of pace... wingers always seem "tricky" nowadays rather than "pacey". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintDonkey Posted 9 February, 2009 Share Posted 9 February, 2009 Man U play with width but they rarely play 4-4-2. Even yesterday with Berbatov and Tevez up front it was more of a 4-1-4-1 without the ball and 4-2-4 with it. I agree with the original post though we do need to be playing more with width. And I think even without Dyer we've got the players to do it. James has shown he's more than capable of playing that right wing role (better than he's shown at right back) and Holmes or dare I say it Smith (on his correct side) can do the left wing (Skacel drifts inside to much). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krissyboy31 Posted 9 February, 2009 Share Posted 9 February, 2009 Dyer is the only player with true 'winger' pace that we have but obviously he is elsewhere and therefore unavailable. Who else do we play out wide? Holmes (when fit), Smith, BWP, Surman, Gobern or McLaggon. IMO Gobern and McLaggon aren't yet ready to be thrust into those positions full-time and of the others, probably only Holmes is able to get to the by-line using skill (but even then, on many occasions he has been played on the 'wrong' wing meaning he has to cut inside all the time). We therefore have a series of crosses coming in from our pseudo wide midfielders and our full-backs, from at least 25 yards out. These are the type of cross, that if you are a Central Defender, you are delighted to defend because you can see the whole flight of the ball and the position of its potential targets within your peripheral vision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scudamore Posted 9 February, 2009 Share Posted 9 February, 2009 Sounded like Jake Thomson was having a good game when i was listening to Solent on Saturday Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david in sweden Posted 9 February, 2009 Share Posted 9 February, 2009 You're obviously along with Alex Ferguson and myself and one or two others a football dinosaur. 13 successive clean sheets obviously nothing to do with playing wide, probably the Dutch connection. I think it has something to do with the great wall of China that represents theri back four. The midfielders are also capable of becoming extra defenders and so Van der S. has SO much to do , re: saves etc, and of course as we know he hardly ever has to face a penalty kick, either. ('cos almost no-one gets awarded penalties v.Man U. - but they win one every other week !) like it or not 13 clean sheets is impressive ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david in sweden Posted 9 February, 2009 Share Posted 9 February, 2009 I'm sitting watching Man Utd v West Ham, we play narrow, MU always have two or three wide one side and always one or two holding the line on the other side at the same time. It gives them the maximum width and the most options. Why can't we play with width, what makes the Saints players who are picked wide think we don't need to have wide players playing wide. We are currently one of the least successful teams in the four divisions. Surely trying to imitate the tactics of the most successful club side in the world would be better than playing the narrow, unsuccessful systems that are going to get us relegated. mind you .......Man.Utd do have a squad of players capable of doing that ..... Giggs seems to be approaching his THIRD childhood, did you see that goal ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skintsaint Posted 9 February, 2009 Share Posted 9 February, 2009 Giggs seems to be approaching his THIRD childhood, did you see that goal ? some good old Saints style defending for that one!! Wasnt as good as the media make out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red_No_7 Posted 9 February, 2009 Share Posted 9 February, 2009 I think it has something to do with the great wall of China that represents theri back four. The midfielders are also capable of becoming extra defenders and so Van der S. has SO much to do , re: saves etc, and of course as we know he hardly ever has to face a penalty kick, either. ('cos almost no-one gets awarded penalties v.Man U. - but they win one every other week !) like it or not 13 clean sheets is impressive ! another media myth you'd obviously like to believe... penalties awarded in the premiership this season... wigan & blackburn 5 villa, everton, stoke & newcastle 4 fulham, hull, man city, west brom, p'mouth & boro 3 arsenal, liverpool, UNITED, west ham 2 chelsea, sunderland, spurs, bolton 1 and considering the amount of attacking teams like united and arsenal do, its quite surprising really. back to the point there are plenty of players at the club who could play wide, but you need solid players in the middle of the park to be able to play that way. wotton and schneirderlin(sp?)???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintjay77 Posted 9 February, 2009 Share Posted 9 February, 2009 I just don't get this. Every time I've seen him he cuts inside and straight into blind alleys. We lose all our shape as players try to get out of his way, he loses the ball, and then we're struggling. He doesn't seem to have the courage to take a full back on down the line for fear of getting kicked. (It's like he went to the Fabrice Fernandes school of wing play!) It may well be down to how he's been encouraged to play, which I think is Derry's point. I think Derry's bang on. And the lack of width exposes players like James because he's got both wide midfielders and overlapping full backs coming at him. Every time I have seen him play for us I have seen the same as you. He is 4 foot nothing and thinks he can run through huge defence men time and time again. I dont get why he never knocked the ball on towards the touch line and chased it. He surly has more speed than most of the full backs in the league. And if the defender blocked him off it would be a foul and he would soon be on a yellow because of such actions. Failing that a short pass inside for a 1-2 would easily get round the back of the full back again drawing the foul or attempting to get a cross in? Why is it no-marks like us that can see this as a very simple tactic to at least try and probably get allot more success out of? Why did we have managers that were happy to watch him constantly trip over the ball when ever he was faced with a big defender? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 9 February, 2009 Share Posted 9 February, 2009 What a futile argument. The best team in the world plays however it wants because it is composed of 30 or so of the world's best players. Assembled at a cost of about 500 million pounds there's no point in comparing it to our bunch of odds and ends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derry Posted 9 February, 2009 Author Share Posted 9 February, 2009 What a futile argument. The best team in the world plays however it wants because it is composed of 30 or so of the world's best players. Assembled at a cost of about 500 million pounds there's no point in comparing it to our bunch of odds and ends. This has nothing to do with the ability of the players, it's a way of playing. It can be played from parks to internationals. Utd were an example to use, the argument is far from futile, unless we sort that element of our game, we are going to continue to concede goals and struggle to win matches. In short, we will be relegated unless they get some width into their play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1976_Child Posted 9 February, 2009 Share Posted 9 February, 2009 news flash...this just in... The best players in the land have two feet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 9 February, 2009 Share Posted 9 February, 2009 This has nothing to do with the ability of the players, it's a way of playing. It can be played from parks to internationals. Utd were an example to use, the argument is far from futile, unless we sort that element of our game, we are going to continue to concede goals and struggle to win matches. In short, we will be relegated unless they get some width into their play. It has everything to do with the ability of the players, that's the whole point. Great players can impose their will on the game by their finesse and technical ability. Lesser players may want to go down the wing or through the middle or deliver raking 50 yard crossfield passes but they don't have the ability to do so, thus the opponents impose their style on the game with ruggedness and force.If we had Ronaldo,Berbatov and Rooney we'd do whatever we wanted as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanadaSaint Posted 9 February, 2009 Share Posted 9 February, 2009 It has everything to do with the ability of the players, that's the whole point. Great players can impose their will on the game by their finesse and technical ability. Lesser players may want to go down the wing or through the middle or deliver raking 50 yard crossfield passes but they don't have the ability to do so, thus the opponents impose their style on the game with ruggedness and force.If we had Ronaldo,Berbatov and Rooney we'd do whatever we wanted as well. I see your point but I don't agree with you, WindowCleaner. All these guys have skill to some degree or other, certainly enough to pass the ball around as long as the pass options are there. They haven't been for us because we play too compressed, don't run well enough off the ball, and waste the wing space. This plays right into the hands of the big, physical guys because they're not being pressured to turn, cover a lot of real estate, and keep pace with fast attacks. It also makes our defence more vulnerable to wide counter attacks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derry Posted 9 February, 2009 Author Share Posted 9 February, 2009 (edited) I see your point but I don't agree with you, WindowCleaner. All these guys have skill to some degree or other, certainly enough to pass the ball around as long as the pass options are there. They haven't been for us because we play too compressed, don't run well enough off the ball, and waste the wing space. This plays right into the hands of the big, physical guys because they're not being pressured to turn, cover a lot of real estate, and keep pace with fast attacks. It also makes our defence more vulnerable to wide counter attacks. Don't waste your time Bill, he isn't on the same wavelength. The importance of width is not realised by many, or that teams can improve drastically by playing the whole width rather than twenty yds inside the touchlines. As far as Saints are concerned the wings could be a ploughed field. Sadly they are paying the price for playing the way they are. Edited 9 February, 2009 by derry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danbert Posted 9 February, 2009 Share Posted 9 February, 2009 Why did you leave out Reading? They have succeeded in this division twice, and hardly fit the description above. Not saying I disagree, but there is more than one way to skin a cat. But playing lightweight tippy tappy football directed by a totally inexperienced 3rd rate coach (or 4th rate if you include JP) is not going to give puss to much to worry about. Bit harsh on WBA too. It's nothing to do with the formation. Our players are sub-standard - end of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now