Post-Match Thread and Ratings Southend United 0-2 Portsmouth FC

[Grapevine]

The injuries are well documented so go back to basics and just play a 4-4-2 as that suits the players still fit

Does it though??

I don’t get this obsession everyone has with 442 and getting back to basics and it suiting what we have!!

Firstly getting back to basics is a mindset thing not a tactical formation thing. Players in this day and age are no more at home playing 442 than anything else. It’s not a go to formation for anyone at any age group, pro or grassroots anymore and these players are far more adaptable than needing to “keep it basic”!!

As for suiting what we have, how? Why?

Ok a back 4 now picks itself with only two for CBs and only two for FBs....but the one area where we have few if any injuries and actually some strength in depth is CM so why limit us to a formation where we can only pick two? Our wingers are possibly the most out of form players in the club and definitely the most frail defensively yet 442 means we play one either side in a 4 so 50% of our midfield is out of form and defensively poor? We have one for our and our CF...who is suspended...and one fit second striker yet you want to play two up front? How is that working out Saturday when we have just Cox available as a CF?

Honestly this beggars belief sometimes.

For a 442 to benefit to uneed the following :-

Two centre midfielders that are mobile strong and technically good enough to dominate the key part of the pitch up against an overload where most teams play an extra man.....

Two wingers who are fit pacy and can defend as well as attack. They will need to help their full backs defend as well as be good enough going forward to pin back the oppositions full backs to prevent them from pushing on and attacking themselves.....

Two centre forwards who can occupy the opposition centre backs physically and technically preferably one of who has pave and can stretch the opposition and one who is either a threat in the air and / or technically creative with the ability to exploit defensive frailties....

442 definitely does NOT suit us at this moment in time!!!

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Does it though??

I don’t get this obsession everyone has with 442 and getting back to basics and it suiting what we have!!

Firstly getting back to basics is a mindset thing not a tactical formation thing. Players in this day and age are no more at home playing 442 than anything else. It’s nkt a go to formation for anyone at any age group, pro or grassroots anymore and these players are far more adaptable than needing to “keep it basic”!!

As for suiting what we have, how? Why?

Ok a back 4 now picks itself with only two for CBs and only two for FBs....but the one area where we have few if any injuries and actually some strength in depth is CM so why limit us to a formation where we can only pick two? Our wingers are possibly the most out of form players in the club and definitely the most frail defensively yet 442 means we play one either side in a 4 so 50% of our midfield is out of form and defensively poor? We have one for our and our CF...who is suspended...and one fit second striker yet you want to play two up front? How is that working out Saturday when we have just Cox available as a CF?

Honestly this beggars belief sometimes.

For a 442 to benefit to uneed the following :-

Two centre midfielders that are mobile strong and technically good enough to dominate the key part of the pitch up against an overload where most teams play an extra man.....

Two wingers who are fit pacy and can defend as well as attack. They will need to help their full backs defend as well as be good enough going forward to pin back the oppositions full backs to prevent them from pushing on and attacking themselves.....

Two centre forwards who can occupy the opposition centre backs physically and technically preferably one of who has pave and can stretch the opposition and one who is either a threat in the air and / or technically creative with the ability to exploit defensive frailties....

442 definitely does NOT suit us at this moment in time!!!

The fans seem to struggle to adjust to formation changes far more than the players.

 

[Ayrshire Blue]

Does it though??

I don’t get this obsession everyone has with 442 and getting back to basics and it suiting what we have!!

Firstly getting back to basics is a mindset thing not a tactical formation thing. Players in this day and age are no more at home playing 442 than anything else. It’s not a go to formation for anyone at any age group, pro or grassroots anymore and these players are far more adaptable than needing to “keep it basic”!!

As for suiting what we have, how? Why?

Ok a back 4 now picks itself with only two for CBs and only two for FBs....but the one area where we have few if any injuries and actually some strength in depth is CM so why limit us to a formation where we can only pick two? Our wingers are possibly the most out of form players in the club and definitely the most frail defensively yet 442 means we play one either side in a 4 so 50% of our midfield is out of form and defensively poor? We have one for our and our CF...who is suspended...and one fit second striker yet you want to play two up front? How is that working out Saturday when we have just Cox available as a CF?

Honestly this beggars belief sometimes.

For a 442 to benefit to uneed the following :-

Two centre midfielders that are mobile strong and technically good enough to dominate the key part of the pitch up against an overload where most teams play an extra man.....

Two wingers who are fit pacy and can defend as well as attack. They will need to help their full backs defend as well as be good enough going forward to pin back the oppositions full backs to prevent them from pushing on and attacking themselves.....

Two centre forwards who can occupy the opposition centre backs physically and technically preferably one of who has pave and can stretch the opposition and one who is either a threat in the air and / or technically creative with the ability to exploit defensive frailties....

442 definitely does NOT suit us at this moment in time!!!

I'm saying a 4-4-2 currently gets as many of our players in their natural position than a 3-5-2 or a 4-5-1 or whatever other concoction he can throw together

 

[Grapevine]

Bishop

Elvis - White - Turner - Hendrie

Dru - Dieng

McClaughlin - Cox - Bunn

Robinson

Ok so this is a 4231. Who’s not in their natural position?

Ask Macca and Bunn to drop 20 yards deeper and you have 4411. Ask Cox to stay 10/15 yards higher you have 442.....

Bit Robinson is suspended so now find me another forward to play in the 442? Whereas I can offer you several options to slip back into the 4231 with only Cox being asked to play slightly differently as a No 9

 

[AndyT]

Heads go down at the first sight of adversity, and those more knowledgeable than moi will tell me how many times we've won this season from a losing position.

In the league, the answer is once - at Burton Albion.

We've also only picked up one other point and that was at Plymouth.

More alarmingly, when the oppo have scored in a league game at RH, we've lost every single match!

 

[AndyT]

I'm with Ayrshire on 4-4-2 as our ideal set-up, but I'm always an advocate of this and it's the system that's served us in our most successful years under Webby and Tilly.

Last season, we used it at home and no-one could touch us at RH. SCP changed it away at Blackburn and we started to get in a bit of a mess away from home. Prior to this, we'd kept clean sheets on a number of occassions away.

PB's best system was 4-4-2 and he only came unstuck when he tried to match up with Sheffield United that day at RH, by changing up. He also got in a mess playing three centre-halves. Most famously at Rochdale.

Cox is a natural striker, but needs someone up there with him. Macca, Kites and Bunn are natural wide players, so tucking in is no good for them. Elvis needs cover on the right, so a diamond doesn't help him.

By all accounts, playing 4-4-2 last night wasn't the problem, it was the lack of desire and heart that cost us.

 

[Grapevine]

But the question wasn’t what worked best for us last season, it was that it best suited us right now. It clearly doesn’t and your own points very much back that up!

Last season there was a different CM partnership. There were two wingers very much in different form to what they’re in now. We have one forward because the other one is suspended....and when he’s not suspended he’s pretty much universally unfairly (imo) castigated!!!!

 

[AndyT]

I wasn't answering any question.

I was advocating the system we should aim to play as a team, week in, week out.

 

[Zeuss]

Southend United......... nul points. SCP must be livid that his team were played off the park by Pompey's reserves. Surely this was an opportunity to give some keen U-23 players a start...?

Only Yearwood sounded interested.

He may well have been interested but I don’t think anyone would be in a hurry to sign him after that performance.
I thought Bunn was the only one who looked as if he might do something.

 

[Grapevine]

There’s a degree of hair splitting going on here as question or not the discussion was based on a statement that 442 best suits us now!

It clearly doesn’t if only for the reason that we don’t have 2 CFs!!

 

[AndyT]

Depends what now is.

This season or this Saturday?

 

[Grapevine]

Well call me old fashioned but unless we have a game this afternoon I’m going with now as Saturday......and I’m going with “for now” as until there is a change in circumstance ie we sign a forward or people accept and value what Theo brings...

 

[AndyT]

The last sentence is my view.

Saturday is only a one match temporary situation and even then, we could play 4-4-2 and give one player a try at centre-forward as a one-off or heaven forbid, try one of our own young strikers!

 

[Grapevine]

Just out of interest, I’m presuming people’s fascination with a 442 is that apart from square pegs and square holes (which is the case with all formations) we believe that we are only setting out with an attacking purpose if we use two up front?

Can I ask if anyone thinks Tottenham are negative in any way? After all they only play Harry Kane as a CF.....

Liverpool anyone? I mean they just have Firminho.....

Man City maybe with just Aguero?

These are the three top scoring most attacking sides in the Premier league yet they all play with one recognised CF. How do they do this??? It’s ridiculous!!

They do it by the way they play and they do it by having a balance of attacking players and defensive players in any given formation....

A 4231 is effectively a 6/4 def/att ratio

3241 is 5/5

541 is more likely 6/4 but maybe 7/3 but could be 5/5

A 442 is likely a 6/4 and very unlikely 4/6!!!!

Our side last night could easily in any form whatsoever have translated from 442 to 4411 to 4231 the nos are irrelevant. Look at the personal.....Kightly / Bunn / Cox / Theo are the attacking players in a 6/4 ratio....at 2-0 down subs were dictated by injury a little but Hutchinson / Macca / Bunn / Theo meant that the ratio didn’t change at all.....but someone commented angrily that 2-0 and we went to one up front....?‍?‍

The other week when losing to Rochdale (??) we ended up with 4/6 and got back in the game...but then it backfired not having a defensive balance and we all went mad at conceding late and losing!!!!

There has to be balance in any formation and if we start with just Cox as a CF Saturday out of necessity then let’s please look at who’s around him and weigh up the balance......my feeling it in some form or other it’ll be 4231 / 4411 but I’m sure it’ll mean we still have 4 attacking players in the side which is no different to lining up with two CFs and two wingers......

 

[Captainwickrum]

i would also like to add, i don't think it would have mattered what formation SCP used yesterday, if the players don't bring the heart and desire, we would have lost regardless.

 

[AndyT]

One upfront works fine at the top levels of football these days, because of the 'total football' world we now live in with pass and move, rather than cross and head or dribble and shoot of yesteryear. Also, we are talking about people capable of playing on their own. World class players.

What we have at our level are some more old fashioned style sets of play and as such, it works better, in my view, with this in mind.

Of course, Leicester City won the league playing 4-4-2 to buck the trend.

 

[Grapevine]

My point is 1 up front is NOT 1 up front!! ?‍?‍?

 

[Seaside Shrimper]

I don't buy the whole 'players not motivated for this competition' as a reason for why no one performed last night.

I would expect players to show more in a behind closed doors training match vs the under 23's and if that is unreasonable then why do any clubs bother with those types of games? It is not an excuse.

The 1st half was so poor. Almost every touch we had in the attacking half was 1st time, trying to flick the ball round the corner without, it seemed, knowing where or if a SUFC player was there to attempt to receive the 'pass'

Either that or it was hoofed.

2nd half wasnt any different really, apart from Dieng was putting himself a bit more than the others seemed capable of, so there was a bit more sustained possession in the attacking half but it didn't once lead to anything.

Hutchinson at least looked like he always wanted the ball to feet and was prepared to try something different, including one fantastic cross field pass.

Theo is obviously low on confidence but he certainly wasn't any worse than any other player out there.

If Hyam wasn't on the pitch I doubt I would of noticed.

Thankfully this was a rare occurrence of all players on the pitch having a stinker rather than just a few of them.

Most of those players will be involved on Saturday so a marked improvement is required.

I do agree with the comments suggesting that SCP picks a formation and sticks with it for a little bit, even if form/fitness requires players to be rotated while he sticks with whatever that formation is

 

[Grapevine]

I think we can all agree on one thing......

Today’s comments on SZ by all involved have been much more entertaining than the game was ???

 

[Seaside Shrimper]

Oh and i was so disappointed with Kightly. He was not interested at all.