• The forums will be unavailable for a few hours on Saturday 6th June, when they do return they will initially be in a degraded state with some features missing, but normal posting/reading will be possible. The main website will not be affected by these updates.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.
    Some other features of the forum are also currently disabled.

Mackday Meldrew - Huddersfield Town FC

Status
Not open for further replies.
AC Mack

AC Mack

Striker
A brief Meldrew tonight as I couldn't make the game but there were a few things I wanted to discuss a little bit.

Firstly, our shape. Lots of negative talk about our lack of central midfield cover. Understandable, but I think it could work if we think outside the box a little. Mind, it might not be the best time to discuss this after a disappointing draw, so I'll await the negativity if anyone bothers to read.

Imagine this as a basic shape:

Patterson

Hume O'Nien Batth Gooch

Neil

Roberts Amad Pritchard Clarke

Gelhardt​

Then as we transition, the full backs could invert and effectively become central midfielders themselves, giving us this sort of shape:

Patterson

O'Nien Batth

Hume Neil Gooch

Amad Pritchard

Roberts Gelhardt Clarke​

Then as we attack:

Patterson

O'Nien Batth

Hume Neil Gooch

Roberts Amad Gelhardt Pritchard Clarke​

In defence, the two attacking midfielders have a job to act as central midfielders as the full backs tucking back into their natural position, or we can easily transition into our more favourable 4-4-2. The shape lends itself to patient possession football, which is what our players are generally cut out for. We have all channels covered and cover too. Personally, I think there's legs in this idea, though you can see why it's risky and it didn't work out tonight.

As for the game tonight, we were poor. We turned up for about half an hour in the first half but were toothless in the second half and didn't deserve any more than a point. We were quite slow and laboured for a lot of the game and nobody really got hold of the game to give us a spark.

Our lack of midfield actually benefitted Dan Neil at times as he had much more space and freedom to dictate proceedings, however it was probably to the detriment of the more attacking players as the play was congested up there and none of them were really able to dominate the game. Roberts and Amad had off days, Pritchard was ineffectual and only Clarke (of the usual starters up top) can really come out with any credit as he caused problems but lacked a final product. Credit to Gelhardt for a really well taken goal, and even if he isn't quite on the same wavelength as his teammates yet, there is a player in there.

Defensively we were generally okay but occasionally sloppy with our passing and concentration. Patterson was at his commanding best and anticipated play extremely well all night, Batth continues to defend excellently and O'Nien continues to show that he's a good footballer even at Championship level, even if some were dissapointed with his overall performance.

Something that's annoyed me a little bit lately and it did again tonight. We play football from the back and also go back when there isn't an option. This always seems to generate groans from the crowd which I don't understand as it forces the opposition out and allows us to create space further up the pitch. Our goal came when we counter attacked after gaining possesion deep, and our best chance late on came from exactly the same situation. There's nothing wrong in playing around at the back, especially if it brings out a deep opposition.

No ratings tonight as the stream doesn't lend itself to seeing the game particularly well. Bah humbug.
 

Billy Fish said:
That formation would get slain on the counter attack
Click to expand...

Along with the personnel, it's risky. However the benefit of having the two full backs tucked in either side of the defensive midfield offers quite a bit of cover. The two wide midfielders would need to work hard on their flanks, too.

All I'm really trying to do is give an idea on how it could work.
 
It doesn't have to be so complicated though. You could see throughout the game certain players didn't know what they were supposed to be doing in certain situations. Just play a proper midfield and stick to it.
 
I felt it was all a bit confusing until we scored. But then pretty quickly we looked baffled with what to do with the ball. O9 looked like he shit himself every time Patto gave it him.
Then occasionally Patto would whack it up high to Quinny…except it wasn’t Quinny it was little Amad! 🤣
Gooch never did much overlapping - obeying orders?
I felt it was all a bit of a mess. however options were just severely limited. And - whaddya know - we really missed Michut!
 
AC Mack said:
Something that's annoyed me a little bit lately and it did again tonight. We play football from the back and also go back when there isn't an option. This always seems to generate groans from the crowd which I don't understand as it forces the opposition out and allows us to create space further up the pitch. Our goal came when we counter attacked after gaining possesion deep, and our best chance late on came from exactly the same situation. There's nothing wrong in playing around at the back, especially if it brings out a deep opposition.
Click to expand...
The flip side of this is that we get pressed really deep and we often give the ball away under pressure or end up just lumping it because the options are closed down. Gelhardt will be in his own half and so we've just surrendered possession. It's different when Stewart is up there as he's a good outlet who'll have a very good chance of holding the ball or exploiting the space.
 
AC Mack said:
A brief Meldrew tonight as I couldn't make the game but there were a few things I wanted to discuss a little bit.

Firstly, our shape. Lots of negative talk about our lack of central midfield cover. Understandable, but I think it could work if we think outside the box a little. Mind, it might not be the best time to discuss this after a disappointing draw, so I'll await the negativity if anyone bothers to read.

Imagine this as a basic shape:

Patterson

Hume O'Nien Batth Gooch

Neil

Roberts Amad Pritchard Clarke

Gelhardt​

Then as we transition, the full backs could invert and effectively become central midfielders themselves, giving us this sort of shape:

Patterson

O'Nien Batth

Hume Neil Gooch

Amad Pritchard

Roberts Gelhardt Clarke​

Then as we attack:

Patterson

O'Nien Batth

Hume Neil Gooch

Roberts Amad Gelhardt Pritchard Clarke​

In defence, the two attacking midfielders have a job to act as central midfielders as the full backs tucking back into their natural position, or we can easily transition into our more favourable 4-4-2. The shape lends itself to patient possession football, which is what our players are generally cut out for. We have all channels covered and cover too. Personally, I think there's legs in this idea, though you can see why it's risky and it didn't work out tonight.

As for the game tonight, we were poor. We turned up for about half an hour in the first half but were toothless in the second half and didn't deserve any more than a point. We were quite slow and laboured for a lot of the game and nobody really got hold of the game to give us a spark.

Our lack of midfield actually benefitted Dan Neil at times as he had much more space and freedom to dictate proceedings, however it was probably to the detriment of the more attacking players as the play was congested up there and none of them were really able to dominate the game. Roberts and Amad had off days, Pritchard was ineffectual and only Clarke (of the usual starters up top) can really come out with any credit as he caused problems but lacked a final product. Credit to Gelhardt for a really well taken goal, and even if he isn't quite on the same wavelength as his teammates yet, there is a player in there.

Defensively we were generally okay but occasionally sloppy with our passing and concentration. Patterson was at his commanding best and anticipated play extremely well all night, Batth continues to defend excellently and O'Nien continues to show that he's a good footballer even at Championship level, even if some were dissapointed with his overall performance.

Something that's annoyed me a little bit lately and it did again tonight. We play football from the back and also go back when there isn't an option. This always seems to generate groans from the crowd which I don't understand as it forces the opposition out and allows us to create space further up the pitch. Our goal came when we counter attacked after gaining possesion deep, and our best chance late on came from exactly the same situation. There's nothing wrong in playing around at the back, especially if it brings out a deep opposition.

No ratings tonight as the stream doesn't lend itself to seeing the game particularly well. Bah humbug.
Click to expand...
Or we could, you know, just play with a standard midfield 2, like 90% of other teams in world football do. Almost as if they do it for a reason…

Ekwah could have started for Pritchard (or any of the other attackers), or even onien in midfield and Anderson at the back.

But instead our tactical genius decides that because we usually get overrun with Michut and Neil vacating the midfield that it’d be even better to just play without one entirely! Then guess what - their goal comes from a shot outside the box that would otherwise have been closed down by a midfielder!!! Who would have foreseen that coming???

Warnock absolutely did Mowbray today - made him look like an absolute amateur.
 
Billy Batts said:
It doesn't have to be so complicated though. You could see throughout the game certain players didn't know what they were supposed to be doing in certain situations. Just play a proper midfield and stick to it.
Click to expand...

I’ve had a pop at Roberts on another thread but he looked lost at times mind
 
Billy Batts said:
It doesn't have to be so complicated though. You could see throughout the game certain players didn't know what they were supposed to be doing in certain situations. Just play a proper midfield and stick to it.
Click to expand...

There's nothing complicated about the above, it's just...well, different.
 
cluffy said:
I felt it was all a bit confusing until we scored. But then pretty quickly we looked baffled with what to do with the ball. O9 looked like he shit himself every time Patto gave it him.
Then occasionally Patto would whack it up high to Quinny…except it wasn’t Quinny it was little Amad! 🤣
Gooch never did much overlapping - obeying orders?
I felt it was all a bit of a mess. however options were just severely limited. And - whaddya know - we really missed Michut!
Click to expand...

As I alluded to in the OP, an overlap from Gooch wouldn't have really made sense considering we already very top heavy but light in the middle. Factor in Gooch playing on his unnatural side and a supportive underlap role makes more sense.
BumbleBee said:
We had 5 attacking players starting. It's an imbalance - midfield needs shoring up and Roberts, Amad and Clarke aren't being squeezed out by Gelhardt.
Click to expand...

Five attacking players can work as long as the system as a whole is correct and balanced. If anything, our overall style probably should be more cautious with five attackers which might explain the slow build up. If we played five attackers but our mentality was also attacking and high risk then we'd leave ourselves too open.
sick said:
The flip side of this is that we get pressed really deep and we often give the ball away under pressure or end up just lumping it because the options are closed down. Gelhardt will be in his own half and so we've just surrendered possession. It's different when Stewart is up there as he's a good outlet who'll have a very good chance of holding the ball or exploiting the space.
Click to expand...

That's a risk we'll need to take though otherwise the game can just become a stalemate - which is okay if we're happy with a point, but not really tonight.
 
Last edited:
BumbleBee said:
We had 5 attacking players starting. It's an imbalance - midfield needs shoring up and Roberts, Amad and Clarke aren't being squeezed out by Gelhardt.
Click to expand...
You could play roberts, Amad, Clarke and Geldhart and just drop Pritchard for a second midfielder and we’d be fine. 1 midfielder was an absolute joke tbh and was why we didn’t win the game.

Last 15 minutes we had 6-7 players all playing in the same 5 yards of grass around the number 10 position. Absolute embarrassment from Mowbray today and cost us a chance at playoffs
 
AC Mack said:
As I alluded to in the OP, an overlap from Gooch wouldn't have really made sense considering we already very top heavy but light in the middle. Factor in Gooch playing on his unnatural side and a supportive underlap role makes more sense.
Click to expand...
Good point. I actually forgot he was on the wrong side! Makes sense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top