In all fairness the criticism of our pitch is justifiable. Even the groundsman agrees that it has been nearly impossible to keep it up to standard due to all the wet weather etc. and not having a hybrid one or undersoil heating plus not enough arc lights to compensate for lack of sunlight. It does however make me wonder why on earth, even when it as rained for most of the week, they have usually then given it an artificial soaking before start of play with the sprinklers.
Matchday Thread PNE v The Plastics - 17/02/24 - KO:3PM - Championship
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2011
- Messages
- 6,011
Thought he was poor in the first half, similar to the last game, but was much better in the 2nd half. Think he gets hyper analysed now because he is that player that people don't like, so people will naturally focus more and remember the negatives than the positives, and will react more to his negative actions compared to other players.
It's not his best performances in a Preston shirt, as I thought he was much better in that first 2-3 months when he joined us, but he has been better so far in 2024 than he was for pretty much all of 2023.
If he can keep building on these performances, and getting better, then he can prove to be a good squad player for us at this level. But I don't think it should be as a LWB either. Certainly not a LWB with no winger in front of him.
The pitch might recover quicker if the same areas were not used during the warm up every week, goal areas excepted.
People may disagree but I think Potts could be converted into a very good overlapping RCB. The guy could probably adapt to any role.
Shame we have no other RWB option to try it out.
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2011
- Messages
- 6,011
This should mean absolutely nothing. People keep saying Potts is not a RWB/RB purely because he was initially a midfielder, but his traits make him more of a RB than anything else. Which is why @SF is suggesting he could be converted to a RCB in a three.
Full backs that aren't the kind of super attacking, quick wing backs, suit playing as the wide CBs in a three. Helps be more progressive and likely have more pace, than just having 3 typical CBs. Like Earl should've been given a go at this spot on the other side before we gave up on him.
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2021
- Messages
- 6,315
A few physical attributes (ok pace, strong, tall) doesn’t mean you will automatically be good in a back three.
Potts has done ok when played RB in a back four. But it doesn’t mean he’d make a good RCB.
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2011
- Messages
- 6,011
He's a more defensive RB than he is attacking one, and more defensive full backs can make for good wide CBs. If you're wanting to be more defensive and secure, then yes, a natural CB would be better there. But if you're wanting to play more on the front foot, and progressive, then a full back that's a decent defender, like Potts, suits the role more.
Last edited:
I'm talking about the here and now really, I think he would probably do better than Storey in the role. But then there's no one to replace him at RWB.
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2021
- Messages
- 6,315
Or, like I said in the first place, sign an actual defender who is decent on the ball.
I don't think it's particularly outlandish to say it shouldn't be hard to find a RCB who would be better there than both Brad Potts and Jordan Storey.
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2011
- Messages
- 6,011
Of course that's an option, but I think it's easier to find what I think the ideal traits for that wide CB position in a full back or a CB that can also play FB, than it is in an out and out CB.
All the natural CBs we have, none of them are suited for the wide CB spot.
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2004
- Messages
- 27,777
May I remind everyone that Potts having pace, size and a decent shot also didn't make him a striker?
Blackburn came with a game plan and for 20/25 minutes it worked a treat. Why oh why they dropped 5 yards after the second goal and ho into protect mode i do not know. We at that point were there for the taking.
Rovers game plan was fairly simple but effective. Press high, knowing we have 3 CB’s who have poor distribution and 2 of whom are uncomfortable on the ball generally. Once possession is gained play it in behind quickly. The warning signs were there before they scored and yet again our management team cannot see it - which ultimately gave us a 2 goal deficit. For the first 25mins our midfield was totally overrun (outnumbered) yet again which is why Rovers had their success and dominance, they unlike Boro have a forward in form!
From the second goal however, Rovers dropped back and we were the better side from then on in and were deserving of going in at HT level.
Second half was a bit of a slog, we huffed and puffed but the final ball or cross just wasn’t good enough. For all our territory we just could create a real opening of note.
Decent game, good result considering where we where after half an hour but also feels a little bit of what could have been too. I would certainly have taken 4 points from Boro and Rovers at home beforehand and the performance yesterday was a marked improvement on what we witnessed on Wednesday.
I can’t help feeling this 3 centre back formation is something of an achilles heel for us. We ship lots of goals in despite the numbers back there, we can’t get the ball forward fast because we have 3 central defenders therefore whiteman/Browne often have to pass backwards as thats where our numbers are.
Rovers game plan was fairly simple but effective. Press high, knowing we have 3 CB’s who have poor distribution and 2 of whom are uncomfortable on the ball generally. Once possession is gained play it in behind quickly. The warning signs were there before they scored and yet again our management team cannot see it - which ultimately gave us a 2 goal deficit. For the first 25mins our midfield was totally overrun (outnumbered) yet again which is why Rovers had their success and dominance, they unlike Boro have a forward in form!
From the second goal however, Rovers dropped back and we were the better side from then on in and were deserving of going in at HT level.
Second half was a bit of a slog, we huffed and puffed but the final ball or cross just wasn’t good enough. For all our territory we just could create a real opening of note.
Decent game, good result considering where we where after half an hour but also feels a little bit of what could have been too. I would certainly have taken 4 points from Boro and Rovers at home beforehand and the performance yesterday was a marked improvement on what we witnessed on Wednesday.
I can’t help feeling this 3 centre back formation is something of an achilles heel for us. We ship lots of goals in despite the numbers back there, we can’t get the ball forward fast because we have 3 central defenders therefore whiteman/Browne often have to pass backwards as thats where our numbers are.
There seems to be a consensus that in the absence of Potts playing Millar on the right and Brady on the left is a false policy - Millar's attacking potential is reduced without any particular compensatory advantage being gained by slotting Brady in. That set-up may 'look' right but the reality is that we find ourselves with fairly average capabilities down both flanks.
So if we restore Millar to the left in order to maximise his attacking potential then we have to accept that whatever we do on the right flank will be compromise of some sort. Frankly playing Brady on the right would then probably be as good as any - if he cuts back and finds the time and space then he can put in nice angled crosses and maybe unleash a few more thunderbolts like the one yesterday. If he were fit then Holmes might give us some energy and pace there - he can't be faulted for effort but it must be obvious by now that he lacks the guile and creativity to be a central midfielder. Otherwise perhaps we should find out what Seary can do.
Playing McCann there is pointless - he simply hasn't got the pace - while playing him in the centre and pushing Browne wide would just compromise the formula we have hit on in recent weeks. The fundamental principle has to be that of avoiding any further disruption to that formula. So until Potts returns then Brady, Holmes and Seary seem to be the options.
So if we restore Millar to the left in order to maximise his attacking potential then we have to accept that whatever we do on the right flank will be compromise of some sort. Frankly playing Brady on the right would then probably be as good as any - if he cuts back and finds the time and space then he can put in nice angled crosses and maybe unleash a few more thunderbolts like the one yesterday. If he were fit then Holmes might give us some energy and pace there - he can't be faulted for effort but it must be obvious by now that he lacks the guile and creativity to be a central midfielder. Otherwise perhaps we should find out what Seary can do.
Playing McCann there is pointless - he simply hasn't got the pace - while playing him in the centre and pushing Browne wide would just compromise the formula we have hit on in recent weeks. The fundamental principle has to be that of avoiding any further disruption to that formula. So until Potts returns then Brady, Holmes and Seary seem to be the options.
They have normally won the Championship by February 😂
* Optimist
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2021
- Messages
- 4,492
Had similar thoughts during the game. In games like this where we're likely to have the majority of possession, we get quite ponderous on the ball with three at the back. We don't have enough men forward so we end up just passing the ball around the back. When the opposition hits us on the counter, all we've got back is our three centre backs and they are all slow. It's better suited for games where we need to fill our box and try and do the countering ourselves.
Interesting reflections. I was saying yesterday that a change of shape would have given us more chance to open them up, and we probably should have done it before they went 1 or 2 up. It's easy to say in hindsight so I'm not being critical as the game did open up for us - I just think that happened partly because they settled for a draw at half time, rather than us being really proactive. I understand why Lowe didn't change the shape, but I wonder what might have happened if we'd managed to have Riis, Keane, Osmajic and Mads all on the pitch for the last 20 or so.
Decent match for a derby. Observations. We were the better team. Millar is so exciting and much more threatening on the left. Riis is getting back to his form before injury. Keane looks a £2 mill player and Ozzie looks a free transfer. Mads has the X factor. Alan Browne was the best player on the pitch imo.