Is now a very important match because it is where we have to put out a side that reflects our best possible set of options and which can hopefully make the selection for the next and succeeding matches more successful - it could be the pivot point for the season. Any idea of a 'second string' side has to be junked.
Now let's try to work out how we have got where we are. We coped quite well in the first three league game without Maguire and Bodin because we kept the shape we would have used had they been available and apart from the first half at Swansea where we seemed to be overawed by their recent Premiership status played well enough to have got more points than we did. Then the wheels fell off at Norwich in league games at least and apart from the first half hour or so against Bolton, the same against Reading and 15 minutes in the second half yesterday we have floundered.
Have we 'suddenly' become a poor team or have previously good players 'suddenly' become poor ones? Contrary to what some people seem to believe both those things can happen and they quite frequently do in a new season to teams and players who have just missed out in the previous one. One of SG's unremarked achievements was to maintain momentum after we just missed out in 14. I think something of that sort has happened to an extent with some of our players but just as a team's performances can suddenly flip from good to bad they can do so the opposite way as well. There has been just enough in recent weeks - the League Cup performance at Leeds and our second half goal flurry yesterday - to suggest that we can do that as well.
What went wrong at Norwich was easy to see from the kick-off - AN's decision to cope with Gallagher's suspension by adopting a flat 4.4.2 with Browne and Pearson in the centre and Barkhuizen and Barker hugging the flanks. Only Pearson looked at all at home in that formation otherwise Browne seemed hamstrung and two of them together could not provide any real creativity while Barker and Barkhuizen - when he can be bothered - need more freedom to roam to be effective. Meanwhile at Derby Browne's absence robbed us of experience though having reverted to our normal shape we at least had a bit of movement and purpose till they scored. At Leeds in the league and yesterday we tried to stifle things by going five at the back and though we hung on in both cases for a while it was only a question of time before we conceded because we simply lacked the ability to exert any consistent pressure on our opponents in their half.
In short and this has to be said AN's decisions to try to counter the absence of key players by improvising formations that were unfamiliar to the players he did have available simply did not work. Yes he had bad luck when Pearson, Browne and Ledson were all unavailable at the same time but he was still guilty of rank bad management.
Now what about particular players:
*Clarke and Huntington have not become liabilities. The still have useful attributes - strength and determination in Clarke's case, and an ability to get between ball and goal in Huntington's. But they have both been becoming visibly that bit slower and less mobile over at least the last 12 months and maybe there has been a slight step change downwards in both their cases since last season - frankly I think there has. Playing both of them together makes us very leaden at the back and we have to avoid that if we can. There is still a case for having one or the other in a matchday squad and there may be times when in an otherwise more mobile defence there will be a case for starting one of them. But perhaps change is now needed. Maybe come January at least one of them should be offloaded to allow for a younger recruit to be brought in - both would still be outstanding a division lower.
*Gallagher has been a massive disappointment this season. You would not expect him to run all over the pitch for 90 minutes but the case for giving him another 12 months was that he could provide a bit of guile and also some leadership for our younger players. He has failed to do that. More than that he was guilty of an act of utter crassness against Stoke that not only got him suspended but led directly to AN's decision to cope by altering the basic structure of the side. At the moment the decision to extend his contract is looking like a triumph of sentiment over sense.
*Barkhuizen apart from odd flashes just looks a shadow of his former self. It reminds me of the way Chaplow played after he came back from injury. I have no idea why this is the case. I still think that Barkhuizen can again become a real threat but there is a problem there - he looks demotivated. I just do not understand why this should be the case but right now there is simply no case for starting him.
So how do we get out of this situation?
As I've indicated I think we need to revert to our proven formation and get a bit more pace in defence. Basically that has to mean a defence of:
Maxwell
Fisher, Storey, Davies, Earl or Hughes
The Earl/Hughes decision is a tough one. Hughes looks a useful acquisition but as I've said before I think Earl ultimately has a bit more class. But with one or the other starting and the one left out on the bench plus one or other of Clarke and Huntington in reserve then that is the best we can manage at the moment.
That leaves six outfield places and based on performances this season five players select themselves automatically. They are I would say Pearson, Browne, Johnson, Robinson and Barker. If Maguire was available and at his best then he would select himself as well and we would have a front six of:
Pearson, Johnson
Barker, Browne, Robinson
Maguire
Well apart from Maguire we can do all those things now. If we do then we might be well clear of the lower reaches of the table by the time the New Year arrives. Obviously we need to do something in the meantime to compensate for Maguire's absence - there are only two options either play Moult upfront or move Robinson upfront and use someone else in the midfield in his place in which case I think Harrop given a roving role would be the best option. An alternative might be Johnson operating from - note I said from not on because he is not a winger - a tucked-in position on one side of the 3 with Ledson alongside Pearson. I thought Ledson looked promising yesterday - he played some good long range passes from deep and showed willing to put himself about. Yes he needs more experience but as well as being a back-up for Pearson he could also be a more defensive foil for him than Johnson might be if required.
Anyhow there we are. Both the season and AN's managership are now in balance. I have no idea what will happen but what does seem certain is that wrenching the basic formation of the team out of shape and persisting with obviously out-of-form players is a surefire recipe for disaster. It is a disaster that has not yet happened but if AN persists with his failed tactics of the last several games it will do. But it is not inevitable and need not happen if AN makes some very basic decisions now and sticks with them.
Now let's try to work out how we have got where we are. We coped quite well in the first three league game without Maguire and Bodin because we kept the shape we would have used had they been available and apart from the first half at Swansea where we seemed to be overawed by their recent Premiership status played well enough to have got more points than we did. Then the wheels fell off at Norwich in league games at least and apart from the first half hour or so against Bolton, the same against Reading and 15 minutes in the second half yesterday we have floundered.
Have we 'suddenly' become a poor team or have previously good players 'suddenly' become poor ones? Contrary to what some people seem to believe both those things can happen and they quite frequently do in a new season to teams and players who have just missed out in the previous one. One of SG's unremarked achievements was to maintain momentum after we just missed out in 14. I think something of that sort has happened to an extent with some of our players but just as a team's performances can suddenly flip from good to bad they can do so the opposite way as well. There has been just enough in recent weeks - the League Cup performance at Leeds and our second half goal flurry yesterday - to suggest that we can do that as well.
What went wrong at Norwich was easy to see from the kick-off - AN's decision to cope with Gallagher's suspension by adopting a flat 4.4.2 with Browne and Pearson in the centre and Barkhuizen and Barker hugging the flanks. Only Pearson looked at all at home in that formation otherwise Browne seemed hamstrung and two of them together could not provide any real creativity while Barker and Barkhuizen - when he can be bothered - need more freedom to roam to be effective. Meanwhile at Derby Browne's absence robbed us of experience though having reverted to our normal shape we at least had a bit of movement and purpose till they scored. At Leeds in the league and yesterday we tried to stifle things by going five at the back and though we hung on in both cases for a while it was only a question of time before we conceded because we simply lacked the ability to exert any consistent pressure on our opponents in their half.
In short and this has to be said AN's decisions to try to counter the absence of key players by improvising formations that were unfamiliar to the players he did have available simply did not work. Yes he had bad luck when Pearson, Browne and Ledson were all unavailable at the same time but he was still guilty of rank bad management.
Now what about particular players:
*Clarke and Huntington have not become liabilities. The still have useful attributes - strength and determination in Clarke's case, and an ability to get between ball and goal in Huntington's. But they have both been becoming visibly that bit slower and less mobile over at least the last 12 months and maybe there has been a slight step change downwards in both their cases since last season - frankly I think there has. Playing both of them together makes us very leaden at the back and we have to avoid that if we can. There is still a case for having one or the other in a matchday squad and there may be times when in an otherwise more mobile defence there will be a case for starting one of them. But perhaps change is now needed. Maybe come January at least one of them should be offloaded to allow for a younger recruit to be brought in - both would still be outstanding a division lower.
*Gallagher has been a massive disappointment this season. You would not expect him to run all over the pitch for 90 minutes but the case for giving him another 12 months was that he could provide a bit of guile and also some leadership for our younger players. He has failed to do that. More than that he was guilty of an act of utter crassness against Stoke that not only got him suspended but led directly to AN's decision to cope by altering the basic structure of the side. At the moment the decision to extend his contract is looking like a triumph of sentiment over sense.
*Barkhuizen apart from odd flashes just looks a shadow of his former self. It reminds me of the way Chaplow played after he came back from injury. I have no idea why this is the case. I still think that Barkhuizen can again become a real threat but there is a problem there - he looks demotivated. I just do not understand why this should be the case but right now there is simply no case for starting him.
So how do we get out of this situation?
As I've indicated I think we need to revert to our proven formation and get a bit more pace in defence. Basically that has to mean a defence of:
Maxwell
Fisher, Storey, Davies, Earl or Hughes
The Earl/Hughes decision is a tough one. Hughes looks a useful acquisition but as I've said before I think Earl ultimately has a bit more class. But with one or the other starting and the one left out on the bench plus one or other of Clarke and Huntington in reserve then that is the best we can manage at the moment.
That leaves six outfield places and based on performances this season five players select themselves automatically. They are I would say Pearson, Browne, Johnson, Robinson and Barker. If Maguire was available and at his best then he would select himself as well and we would have a front six of:
Pearson, Johnson
Barker, Browne, Robinson
Maguire
Well apart from Maguire we can do all those things now. If we do then we might be well clear of the lower reaches of the table by the time the New Year arrives. Obviously we need to do something in the meantime to compensate for Maguire's absence - there are only two options either play Moult upfront or move Robinson upfront and use someone else in the midfield in his place in which case I think Harrop given a roving role would be the best option. An alternative might be Johnson operating from - note I said from not on because he is not a winger - a tucked-in position on one side of the 3 with Ledson alongside Pearson. I thought Ledson looked promising yesterday - he played some good long range passes from deep and showed willing to put himself about. Yes he needs more experience but as well as being a back-up for Pearson he could also be a more defensive foil for him than Johnson might be if required.
Anyhow there we are. Both the season and AN's managership are now in balance. I have no idea what will happen but what does seem certain is that wrenching the basic formation of the team out of shape and persisting with obviously out-of-form players is a surefire recipe for disaster. It is a disaster that has not yet happened but if AN persists with his failed tactics of the last several games it will do. But it is not inevitable and need not happen if AN makes some very basic decisions now and sticks with them.
Last edited:
