Post
by claretspice » Tue Feb 18, 2025 3:37 pm
I think there is a point about substitutions and the extent to which we're we're willing to try and be a bit more expansive to try and win games.
Firstly, the analogy with the way Leeds set up doesn't really hold. They play a very aggressive and clearly defined 4-2-3-1, with two full backs who push very high, a defined number 10 who presses high but is primarily a creative outlet, and then a front 3. Whilst our set up is sometimes written as 4-2-3-1, it is really a 4-3-3/4-5-1 with a pretty orthodox back four and three orthodox central midfielders generally. We adopt more of a mid-block out of possession with our wide players dropping right in defensively and we aren't as aggressive in trying to dominate a game. In short, whilst we both play with a single central striker, our system is altogether more conservative than Leeds'. Debate the rights and wrongs of that, but it is what it is.
Secondly, I can't see that any change to a front 2 at any point during a game would result in our wide players doing more defending. We already adopt a very clear 442 shape out of possession with the wide forwards tucking back in alongside the two holding midfielders and the most advanced midfielder becoming the second striker. We don't do what the likes of Liverpool do (and what we often did 2 years ago) and ask a midfielder to cover one of the wide forwards out of possession at least early in an opposition attack. Arguably, I think we should do this more (and in fairness, against Hull at times Hannibal and Foster did swap).
Ultimately, Parker's changes are pretty safe. The last time he made changes that made the team more expansive was away at Norwich in early December. That happens to be the last time we went behind and the two things are linked. Since then we've drawn 0-0 with Stoke, Portsmouth and Preston in winnable games, and we also drew 0-0 with Derby immediately before the Norwich game - and in all those games the substitutions have been like for like and we haven't.
When Flemming signed, it seemed intuitive that we'd look to use Flemming as a number 10 with Foster ahead of him. That looked to get the best out of both - it deployed Flemming in the position he made his name in and was familiar with, whilst Foster has generally looked like a centre forward who benefits from having a bit more licence to roam wide in his movement because someone else (i.e. Flemming) is providing a focal point - Flemming's physicality and willingness to play with his back to goal seemed to make him an ideal 10 to compliment Foster. I can understand the logic of not starting in that set up, but it's decidedly odd that in games where we're expecting to win and we've been struggling for a break through, we've never tried it. It felt like an option on Saturday (because Preston had a clear back 5 and Flemming was struggling against 3 centre backs) but even after Foster came off, the option of dropping Flemming back one and bringing Barnes on appeared logical (particularly as we went increasingly direct given the state of the pitch).
Parker will undoubtedly have good reasons for his caution, but I'm not convinced it's helping us get the points we need to keep in touch with the top 2. 9 years ago, Sean Dyche kept faith with Ben Mee at left back and Michael Duff at centre half for longer than most supporters thought made sense, and indeed dropping Duff for Steven Ward then prompted a huge upturn in form.
These 7 users liked this post: kevinlasagne summitclaret dsr me01jh ksrclaret Murger k90bfc
