Sounds like they are going to do their main analysis on us after the break for anyone interested.

Well, that was an enjoyable couple of minutes.

Short and sweet. Garragher reckons we'll at least be competitive

Elizabeth wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 25, 2025 6:56 pm

Short and sweet. Garragher reckons we'll at least be competitive

Is that Gary and Jamie speaking at the same time?

Didn't do much analysis did they. I don't think they were right either, we didn't set uo with an orthodox 4, Larsen was definitely a more hybrid wing back type role. Second Half maybe.

ollieclarets8 wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 25, 2025 6:58 pm

Is that Gary and Jamie speaking at the same time?

To be fair, I can't stand either of them

Goliath wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 25, 2025 6:59 pm

Didn't do much analysis did they. I don't think they were right either, we didn't set uo with an orthodox 4, Larsen was definitely a more hybrid wing back type role. Second Half maybe.

I thought the same thing. Larsen spent a lot of time in the first half at right back with Walker more central.

ollieclarets8 wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 25, 2025 7:00 pm

I thought the same thing. Larsen spent a lot of time in the first half at right back with Walker more central.

We played 451 until Sonne replaced Larsen. Sure, the wingers were tracking back to allow the back 4 to narrow when we were out of possession (just as we always did under Dyche) but it was still a 451. It's perfectly correct to say we switched from 451 to 541 with those changes and there was a notable shift of set up when those changes came.

claretspice wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 25, 2025 7:31 pm

We played 451 until Sonne replaced Larsen. Sure, the wingers were tracking back to allow the back 4 to narrow when we were out of possession (just as we always did under Dyche) but it was still a 451. It's perfectly correct to say we switched from 451 to 541 with those changes and there was a notable shift of set up when those changes came.

That's how I saw it.

dougcollins wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 25, 2025 7:34 pm

That's how I saw it.

Larsen spent a hell of a lot of time in the first half at right back / right wing-back with Walker more right-central. I was watching Walker as he was barking out orders and working with Larsen on their attackers. When Larsen did attack down the right (well - just past the half way line), Walker was still more central but further back than Larsen.

claretspice wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 25, 2025 7:31 pm

We played 451 until Sonne replaced Larsen. Sure, the wingers were tracking back to allow the back 4 to narrow when we were out of possession (just as we always did under Dyche) but it was still a 451. It's perfectly correct to say we switched from 451 to 541 with those changes and there was a notable shift of set up when those changes came.

And there in lies the issue with using using basic '442' '451' as descriptions for how a teams playing.
Saying we played 451 implies Anthony and Larsen had similar roles and Hartmann too which isn't the case.

Our 'rest defence' as seems to be the trending term at the moment tended to be a 5 with Walker narrowing and Larsen dropping in imo.
In possession it then moved more to a 4 with Larsen pushing on.
The systems are interchangeable so I'm not sure there's a right or a wrong but it was a very basic analysis on MNF to suggest we'd moved to a more orthodox 4 at the back.

ollieclarets8 wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 25, 2025 7:48 pm

Larsen spent a hell of a lot of time in the first half at right back / right wing-back with Walker more right-central. I was watching Walker as he was barking out orders and working with Larsen on their attackers. When Larsen did attack down the right (well - just past the half way line), Walker was still more central but further back than Larsen.

Perhaps JBL was being asked to perform a role he didn't really understand, but I thought he was below average.

Goliath wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 25, 2025 7:50 pm

And there in lies the issue with using using basic '442' '451' as descriptions for how a teams playing.
Saying we played 451 implies Anthony and Larsen had similar roles and Hartmann too which isn't the case.

Our 'rest defence' as seems to be the trending term at the moment tended to be a 5 with Walker narrowing and Larsen dropping in imo.
In possession it then moved more to a 4 with Larsen pushing on.
The systems are interchangeable so I'm not sure there's a right or a wrong but it was a very basic analysis on MNF to suggest we'd moved to a more orthodox 4 at the back.

Agree with this, right from the kick off JBL dropped into the right back role, he was the one getting back and walker tucked in out of possession. It would be interesting to see an average position map.

Goliath wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 25, 2025 7:50 pm

And there in lies the issue with using using basic '442' '451' as descriptions for how a teams playing.
Saying we played 451 implies Anthony and Larsen had similar roles and Hartmann too which isn't the case.

Our 'rest defence' as seems to be the trending term at the moment tended to be a 5 with Walker narrowing and Larsen dropping in imo.
In possession it then moved more to a 4 with Larsen pushing on.
The systems are interchangeable so I'm not sure there's a right or a wrong but it was a very basic analysis on MNF to suggest we'd moved to a more orthodox 4 at the back.

Sorry that should have said Hartman *and Walker too

ollieclarets8 wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 25, 2025 7:48 pm

Larsen spent a hell of a lot of time in the first half at right back / right wing-back with Walker more right-central. I was watching Walker as he was barking out orders and working with Larsen on their attackers. When Larsen did attack down the right (well - just past the half way line), Walker was still more central but further back than Larsen.

That's how I saw it. I thought Walker was basically playing an inverted full back role in possession. So he could help is in the build up and then help in preventing counter attacks. But at that point it's basically the same as being a 3rd centre back.

Gordon’s got his slippy shoes on again.

dougcollins wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 25, 2025 7:51 pm

Perhaps JBL was being asked to perform a role he didn't really understand, but I thought he was below average.

He was below average from a creativity and attacking sense but he was playing far deeper than his replacement so either was Parker wanting us to be tight defensively in the first half or JBL was too passive.

Foshiznik wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 26, 2025 8:54 am

He was below average from a creativity and attacking sense but he was playing far deeper than his replacement so either was Parker wanting us to be tight defensively in the first half or JBL was too passive.

I think JBL was definitely that deep (making it a back 5) under orders.

ollieclarets8 wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 26, 2025 8:57 am

I think JBL was definitely that deep (making it a back 5) under orders.

Yes, that's my assumption too. With that in mind I do feel it is harsh to say JBL was poor. He was very good if doing what Parker wanted of him defensively.