Post-Match Thread and Ratings Southend United 2-3 Peterborough United

[Willie Coulson's Red Cheeks]

Would we better in the long run with a 3-5-2 formation? There are a number of factors why this might work:

1. It would strengthen the middle of the defence, perhaps enabling us to defend set pieces better as well as potentially making us stronger at our own set pieces.
2. It would enable our full backs to have more licence doing what they do best - getting forward.
3. It would allow us to play 3 central midfielders, 2 holding and one with more freedom to support the 2 forwards. The more attacking midfielder could be Dru / Kightly / Cox...…...
4. It would allow us to play with 2 up top - I would play Hopper and McCoulsky at the moment.

I do not pretend to be a tactical expert but I am just wondering whether this might be worth a go because, let's face it, the results so far do not demand we continue with the current system.

 

[Dubai]

Would we better in the long run with a 3-5-2 formation? There are a number of factors why this might work:

1. It would strengthen the middle of the defence, perhaps enabling us to defend set pieces better as well as potentially making us stronger at our own set pieces.
2. It would enable our full backs to have more licence doing what they do best - getting forward.
3. It would allow us to play 3 central midfielders, 2 holding and one with more freedom to support the 2 forwards. The more attacking midfielder could be Dru / Kightly / Cox...…...
4. It would allow us to play with 2 up top - I would play Hopper and McCoulsky at the moment.

I do not pretend to be a tactical expert but I am just wondering whether this might be worth a go because, let's face it, the results so far do not demand we continue with the current system.

Problem is currently we are struggling to pull 2 decent CB’s together...3 would be hard!

 

[The Big Dady]

Steve Evans view of the game

https://www.theposh.com/news/2018/september/video--gaffer-delighted-with-character-to-win-the-game/

 

[wiggy]

IMO........these players are worthy of getting us promotion........Dieng, Mantom, Yearwood, Bunn, Hopper, Cox played properly, Coker?!........the rest including Oxley and Kightly are borderline average and may get us over the line but are all very improvable on!

 

[united we stand]

Would we better in the long run with a 3-5-2 formation? There are a number of factors why this might work:

1. It would strengthen the middle of the defence, perhaps enabling us to defend set pieces better as well as potentially making us stronger at our own set pieces.
2. It would enable our full backs to have more licence doing what they do best - getting forward.
3. It would allow us to play 3 central midfielders, 2 holding and one with more freedom to support the 2 forwards. The more attacking midfielder could be Dru / Kightly / Cox...…...
4. It would allow us to play with 2 up top - I would play Hopper and McCoulsky at the moment.

I do not pretend to be a tactical expert but I am just wondering whether this might be worth a go because, let's face it, the results so far do not demand we continue with the current system.

Not sure a certain formation helps at set pieces? The clues in the name “set piece”

 

[defender05]

My take on the game.

The defense looks like we will leak goals every time a team attacks us with pace so I would like to see the loanee from Bristol City playing.

The fact we are playing two center midfielders who are not fully fit and a winger who has been playing below par for most games this year is our biggest problem.

Upfront Hopper has been a lot better than I expected but Cox looks at his most effective when the midfielders run past him so he can play through balls but we only seem to do this at the start of the game or once we are a couple of goals down and everybody is bombing forward.

I thnk our lack of pre season games has cost us the chance to try players in different positions along with CP not being willing to change the first team along with taking to long to make subs. One game Hendrie was waiting to come on for nearly 10 minutes with the forth official being told no every time the ball went out of play, I think he got on for two minutes in the end.

 

[Zeuss]

IMO........these players are worthy of getting us promotion........Dieng, Mantom, Yearwood, Bunn, Hopper, Cox played properly, Coker?!........the rest including Oxley and Kightly are borderline average and may get us over the line but are all very improvable on!

Yes,agree with you on all 7 plus Oxley— Turner could be the dominant centre-half we need but he’d have to have someone quick and astute alongside him.
Moore and McCoulsky also look distinctly promising,tho not when they’ve been glued to the subs bench.

 

[Wickford Blue]

We need to look at changing in defence - going forward we are looking good no matter who is playing! Love John White but do we need to try a different combination! Having said that the 3rd goal was due to midfield not following the run! Anyway still better than the defensive minded stuff Mr Brown gave us! COYB

 

[wiggy]

Yep forgot them two as don't know enough about Moore but fairly sure McCloulsky fits the promotion candidates as well.

 

[fbm]

Stockdale - 4
Elvis - 5
Turner - 4
White - 4
Coker - 5
Macca - 5
Dieng - 6
Mantom - 6
Bunn - 6
Cox - 5
Hopper - 7

Subs - n/a

Well I guess we all see it differently. I think some people are in danger of letting the result taint the performance... we absolutely dominated Peterborough in the first half and the fact that we didn't make more of our chances is what is letting us down, game after game after game. Our forwards need to find their shooting boots and quickly because we have had more goal attempts so far than most teams across the 4 divisions and it us the defence for me which is a worry.

Your marks also show that but they are extremely harsh and I don't think too many people played poorly. I wouldn't have expected scores like that unless we had lost heavily at home against the team at the bottom, let alone coming back from 2 down against the leaders and being within 2 minutes of a well deserved point.
Ask yourself... If it had stayed at 2-2, would your scores be the same? Mine probably would, but I would feel distinctly less fed up!

 

[WESTY_SUFC]

A traditional 4-4-2 in truth is a poor formation, which is why very few top teams bother with it anymore, it only really worked in the past because everyone else used it as well. As soon as clubs started adopting other formations it became very apparent that 4-4-2 is weak. It is vital to control the midfield in a football match and if you've only got 2 players in the middle whilst the other team has 3 then you're going to get outnumbered, at which point the extra striker you have on the pitch isn't going to count for much because he'll rarely get the ball.

When Cox is on the pitch it's more of a 4-4-1-1 from what I can tell, which is why he doesn't run into the box a lot. I think it's why we pass it around so nicely when he's playing, and then end up resorting to hoofball when he isn't.

Thats simply not true. Pretty much any tactic works well if you have the right players to fit it. Leicester majorly over achieved using a traditional 442 as it suited their team perfectly. English teams were Europe's finest years ago playing 442 while foreign teams used other formations. Alex Fergusons Manchester United were consistently one of the best on world. He spent the whole managerial career using 442 as his main choice.

 

[southendkid]

Thats simply not true. Pretty much any tactic works well if you have the right players to fit it. Leicester majorly over achieved using a traditional 442 as it suited their team perfectly. English teams were Europe's finest years ago playing 442 while foreign teams used other formations. Alex Fergusons Manchester United were consistently one of the best on world. He spent the whole managerial career using 442 as his main choice.

You're right it worked for Leicester, although their tactics basically revolved around playing long balls for Vardy to run on to, so it was less important that they retained the ball in midfield because they usually bypassed it (and when they didn't they hit teams on the break so players were out of position). 4-4-2 works for counter attacking sides (Atletico Madrid are another side that use it) but it's rarely used outside of that anymore.

Fergie abandoned 4-4-2 from about 2000 onwards, the fans actually got quite wound up with him for a few years because they weren't happy that he was trying to play formations other than 4-4-2, he was much more keen on playing 4-3-3 or 4-2-3-1 in his later years. In 2005 his assistant manager Quieroz contraversially had this to say about the people calling for 4-4-2 to come back in response to the complaints:

'“People have been crying out for us to use a 4-4-2 formation but in the Blackburn game we tried the system and we lost. That’s why football is a game in which imagination and, on many occasions, stupidity has no limits.”'

 

[Evening Echo]

A GAME of conflicting and contrasting twists and turns ultimately ended in familiar frustration for Southend United on Saturday.

More...

 

[WESTY_SUFC]

You're right it worked for Leicester, although their tactics basically revolved around playing long balls for Vardy to run on to, so it was less important that they retained the ball in midfield because they usually bypassed it (and when they didn't they hit teams on the break so players were out of position). 4-4-2 works for counter attacking sides (Atletico Madrid are another side that use it) but it's rarely used outside of that anymore.

Fergie abandoned 4-4-2 from about 2000 onwards, the fans actually got quite wound up with him for a few years because they weren't happy that he was trying to play formations other than 4-4-2, he was much more keen on playing 4-3-3 or 4-2-3-1 in his later years. In 2005 his assistant manager Quieroz contraversially had this to say about the people calling for 4-4-2 to come back in response to the complaints:

'“People have been crying out for us to use a 4-4-2 formation but in the Blackburn game we tried the system and we lost. That’s why football is a game in which imagination and, on many occasions, stupidity has no limits.”'

You must be too young to remember but the long ball game is nothing like how Leicester play. Get some old footage and watch some games of 'long ball teams'.

Your using one period as example. Over the majority of time Ferguson used 442 adopting 4 defenders 4 midfielders and 2 strikers throughout his managerial career. Quieroz wasn't around that long. I can pull up countless teams showing that over years.

 

[Richard Hearn]

You must be too young to remember but the long ball game is nothing like how Leicester play. Get some old footage and watch some games of 'long ball teams'.

Or get a second hand copy of "John Beck's Bumper Book of Footy Fun".

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Or get a second hand copy of "John Beck's Bumper Book of Footy Fun".

Ha! I remember his Cambridge side used to run to take (long) throw ins.

 

[LBBlue]

Well for the second week running we conceded a goal in 87th minute to lose a home game. How often does that happen?

A home record of played 4 won1 lost 3 and conceding 8 goals looks pretty appalling however we should really have won three of those games, including Saturday, and drawn against Charlton.

I thought we looked the much better side, but then the stats for Peterborough games show that to be the case every game they play. They just score more from far fewer opportunities and their keeper has made more saves than any other in the Division. Their luck will run out soon I think. They have had 72 shots 35 on target and scored 19. Their opponents have had 130 shots 39 on target and scored just 7.

Godden they signed from Stevenage, Dembele from Grimsby who I thought was excellent and ran the show, the keeper Chapman from Accrington and Woodyard from Lincoln. Fry still knows how to spot a decent lower league player.


Our two goals again came from crosses from the left hand side, however we do seem to be conceding mainly from down our left had side as well.

As well as Cox plays and he is a good footballer his finishing is a poor. He missed a sitter just after their first goal and blasted over from close range possibly after our first goal.

I suspect that Dieng, Bunn and Mantom ran out of puff in the last 15 minutes due to lower fitness levels.

 

[blue pilot]

Couple of thoughts:
Our centre backs were exposed today, if you play 2 older and slower CB's they need protection in front and I thought that was missing at times, first half of last season we had Lenny constantly bailing out CB's by covering back, we miss that a lot. We need fit midfielders back asap.
Elvis worries me, was caught out of position a few times, he's a good kid but prob not ready for a run of first team games yet.

Their No.10 was best player on the pitch and yet had the freedom of the park, someone should have been tasked to watch him closer.
Their bench were an absolute disgrace, challenged every decision and constantly in the ear of the officials, always hated Evans.

I worry that CP doesn't 'see' things in games and tends to react rather than pro-act, should have made at least one , maybe 2 changes as soon as they put Toney on around 80mins, could have turned the screw and increased the pressure as we were getting back on top, feel like he missed the chance to finish them off.