| Drop KWP too much of a liability 10:06 - Apr 25 with 2522 views | robcoe5 |
Need to play Bree and Jack Stephens instead of manning and KWP
Kwp gives us nothing defensively,
Play Armstrong and Che through the middle, Armstrong is making no runs when out wide
My team
McCartney
Bree
Bednarek
Bellis
Stephens
Downes
Charles
Small bone
Frazier
Adams
Armstrong
|  | | |  |
| Drop KWP too much of a liability on 10:43 - Apr 25 with 2472 views | Manhattan_Lynx |
You should delete this. |  | | |
| Drop KWP too much of a liability on 11:44 - Apr 25 with 2408 views | Butty101 |
yes, lets drop our only player deemed good enough for the championship team of the year |  |
| |
| Drop KWP too much of a liability on 12:31 - Apr 25 with 2381 views | TripleNiemi |
Whilst KWP didn’t have his best game in a Saints shirt v Leicester, are you being serious? |  |
| Ready and waiting to mop up those European places...... |
| |
| Drop KWP too much of a liability on 13:35 - Apr 25 with 2342 views | PatfromPoole |
I was scratching my head as to why Brighton Buddha played KWP at left-back when we were up against the best left-winger in the League in Mavadidi.
TBF Bree played pretty well on the whole, but if KWP was chosen to play at left-back because Brighton Buddha didn't think KWP would cope with Mavadidi, it's quite the statement.
Somewhat ironic that Leicester's right-sided attacker scored a hat-trick, with two of the goals being when KWP was back at right-back....
KWP has been excellent for this club, and we will greatly miss him when he goes.
It's a ridiculous opening post to have Shea Charles in the team but not our best full-back.
If Jack Stephens is going to be in the team it should be instead of Shea Charles, not KWP.
Charles is a liability with the ball at his feet. |  |
| |
| Drop KWP too much of a liability on 14:07 - Apr 25 with 2307 views | kingslandstand1 |
| Drop KWP too much of a liability on 13:35 - Apr 25 by PatfromPoole |
I was scratching my head as to why Brighton Buddha played KWP at left-back when we were up against the best left-winger in the League in Mavadidi.
TBF Bree played pretty well on the whole, but if KWP was chosen to play at left-back because Brighton Buddha didn't think KWP would cope with Mavadidi, it's quite the statement.
Somewhat ironic that Leicester's right-sided attacker scored a hat-trick, with two of the goals being when KWP was back at right-back....
KWP has been excellent for this club, and we will greatly miss him when he goes.
It's a ridiculous opening post to have Shea Charles in the team but not our best full-back.
If Jack Stephens is going to be in the team it should be instead of Shea Charles, not KWP.
Charles is a liability with the ball at his feet. |
"Charles is a liability with the ball at his feet."
He's pretty much a liability when on the pitch, as with him not on, we could have the likes of Ryan Fraser starting (not that centre mid position obviously!) although I nearly said Will Smallbone then |  | | |
| Drop KWP too much of a liability on 15:20 - Apr 25 with 2263 views | saint901 |
That team is not just (another) change in personnel but a change in the way they play.
If we want to pass and move, then why are Bree, Stephens, Downes, Adaws in that starting outfit?
The first three are essentially negative players designed to stall the oppostion but add nothgin to our pasing game
I've said elsewhere now is not the time for complete change of style. | | | |
| Drop KWP too much of a liability on 15:29 - Apr 25 with 2256 views | kingolaf |
Are you a Pompey supporter? | | | |
| Drop KWP too much of a liability on 15:54 - Apr 25 with 2235 views | robcoe5 |
Definitely a saints supporter, home and away
If you watch saints both full backs don’t mark a player, teams find it easy to leave a player wide and pull us apart
KWP is great at going forward but that is not what is required we have players we could use to attack
With the team I picked it might be a change slightly in the passing game, but we can’t keep letting in goals and win matches
We have enough players on the bench who could change the game if needed,but we must stop the goals we concede | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Drop KWP too much of a liability on 16:28 - Apr 25 with 2200 views | saint901 |
Then reason teams attack us down the wings is because the RM way sees the FBs pushed on. The space behind them is meant to be defended by the forward press (high block in the coaching manuals) and what is sometimes called the funnel, i.e. the FBs wide and in midfield mean that the opposition goes down the centre and into our CBs.
Unfortunately a long ball can undo all of that and leaves the space behind the FBs empty and with only two CB's they are reluctant to move across and cover. Add in the fact that KWP does charge forward but the left back is usually more hesitant and gets caught between attacking and defending and creates a dog leg making an offside play difficult, and the whole system can be undone.
Basically however the width in our team is up front and midfield and we are very narrow at the back.
That is not KWP's fault or even whoever is the favourite son at left back these days. It's a fault in the system and one that's been there all season.
The weaker teams cannot break the system (except of course for sunderland and Bristol) but the better teams can - and do.
Telling the FBs to stay put doesn't work either. Look at Boro at home and the Blackburn 0-0. Without them adding width up front our passing game stalls. Yes, we let in fewer goals but we have hardly any shots.
Radical change now is not the time to experiment.
Personally (and I know the only person RM listens to is the face he sees shaving) I would play three CBs - push the FBs on - play a proper strong holding mid (if we had one) and perhaps play with two up front (but would prefer three). | | | |
| Drop KWP too much of a liability on 18:37 - Apr 25 with 2124 views | Ifonly |
| Drop KWP too much of a liability on 16:28 - Apr 25 by saint901 |
Then reason teams attack us down the wings is because the RM way sees the FBs pushed on. The space behind them is meant to be defended by the forward press (high block in the coaching manuals) and what is sometimes called the funnel, i.e. the FBs wide and in midfield mean that the opposition goes down the centre and into our CBs.
Unfortunately a long ball can undo all of that and leaves the space behind the FBs empty and with only two CB's they are reluctant to move across and cover. Add in the fact that KWP does charge forward but the left back is usually more hesitant and gets caught between attacking and defending and creates a dog leg making an offside play difficult, and the whole system can be undone.
Basically however the width in our team is up front and midfield and we are very narrow at the back.
That is not KWP's fault or even whoever is the favourite son at left back these days. It's a fault in the system and one that's been there all season.
The weaker teams cannot break the system (except of course for sunderland and Bristol) but the better teams can - and do.
Telling the FBs to stay put doesn't work either. Look at Boro at home and the Blackburn 0-0. Without them adding width up front our passing game stalls. Yes, we let in fewer goals but we have hardly any shots.
Radical change now is not the time to experiment.
Personally (and I know the only person RM listens to is the face he sees shaving) I would play three CBs - push the FBs on - play a proper strong holding mid (if we had one) and perhaps play with two up front (but would prefer three). |
I agree with a lot of that, but you yourself are advocating the kind of radical change that you caution against. You want 3-4-3 (I think). Ok but that's a different way of playing than RM's 4-3-3. Also, it may not solve the problem. A traditional problem with playing 3 at the back is the space behind the wing backs. The system really depends on those 2 as they have to cover the whole length of the pitch. It needs 2 good wing backs and I don't think we've got them.
There's no single best formation, but if you've got a defensive problem in the full back areas then the usual way to solve it is with more support from midfield and that is best provided by a 442 or 4222 shape. But that's not going to happen because that's not RM's way. He's a very "brave" coach (although with a slow build up) and that can be a good thing against weaker sides, but when he's up against wingers like Leicester's, or anyone who breaks quickly, it leaves us very open. | | | |
| Drop KWP too much of a liability on 00:59 - Apr 26 with 1968 views | sledger |
kwp has always been lightweight as a defender,good going forward but you need a formation that limits his weakness and allows him to do what hes good at but we dont.Hes still in the championship with us for a reason. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
