Away v Grimsby Town

Why sign Ishmael then to add to Scannell. He said he wants us to be adaptable which is fine if he acts quicker than he did on Saturday

 

He tried the formation with DVD in the behind closed doors friendly against Bolton and again at Rochdale. Because Bowyer believed it was a success, he continued working on it in training. I wasn’t surprised he started with it again on Saturday. Once a coach gets it into their head that they have seen enough to be happy with, they tend to persevere. In my opinion it was always the wrong choice.

But the biggest issue I had is that he refused to change it until the last 10 or so mins

 

I never said it wasn’t his preferred formation, simply stating there’s not much chance of plan B and C due to personnel.

 

You answered your own question mate. He signed Ishmael to give us a different option. Doesn’t mean Bowyer won’t start most games with his preferred formation and only change it up if he feels the need

 

You suggested he only went with 4-3-3 as a result of players available. I disagreed as he had enough players to play 4-4-2 but chose not to. Remember, he’s been working on this formation and tactics ALL pre-season

 

Nothing about Saturdays dominant performance suggested the tactics were wrong.

We were pretty obviously let down by poor finishing.

On another day, Vaughan could have had 2.

 

Don’t agree we were far to narrow against a packed midfield and defence and we will face the same problem many times this season. We need width. If we are to continue playing that way we need a proper number 10

 

Bowyer only played 4-3-3 because that's his preferred formation. The fact City don't have enough quality players to fulfil that is irrelevant. WHY else would he chance Doyle as a #10, or otherwise ?

As another poster suggested (like you) ........ Pick your system to suit the players, rather than guess the players to suit a system!

Further - GB stated in late May (I think) .... He wanted height and pace - We have the height, but where's the pace ?
GB is also a fan of a 'creative' midfield ! WHAT midfield ? It's an area he's neglected from day one, bar Palmer.

 

Bugger being a follower of fashion, Park.

The hoof was 'outlawed' in the PL years ago ......... But tell me - who won the FA Cup - Liverpool or Wimbledon ?
Every team has it's system, just as they have their place. One thing will never change .... Playing to your STRENGTHS !

 

Disagree, we created 20+ chances, dominated the game, rarely gave a chance away, Cambridge couldn't have complained if we won 4-0.

 

[

i must have missed those 20+ chances, partly diue to falling asleep. A couple of half chances from what i remember and Vaughan hitting the bar. Theres a difference in the stats between 20+ shots and 20+ chances.

 

You’re right I did but nowhere did I say it isn’t his preferred formation, just that he had little other option as our midfield is to weak to play 4-4-2 as some posters want.

I’ll leave it there as you seem to be disagreeing with me even though we aren’t saying much different.

 

Yes, attempted spin by @Ricc

The reality is we had 3 shots on target and that should be the focus of 90 minutes football, not pot shots going 20 yards wide.

 

And yet their keeper didn’t have a save to make? Not sure where these stats have come from that we had 20+ shots. I certainly didn’t see 4 on target to justify your claim that they’d not have anything to complain about had they been beaten 4-0.

 

I didn't say we created 20+ gilt edged, perfect opportunities.

But we did see:

Eoin Doyle shooting wide early
Donaldson flicked header to Vaughan, wide
Palmer shot wide
Vaughan shoots wide (40 minutes)
Vaughan overhead
Vaughan header
Save at Donaldson's feet
Scannell cross-shot just wide
Gibson shot at the keeper
Richards-Everton smashing well wide

We had a few blocked shots as well.

We were so dominant in terms of possession we should have created better opportunities, but Cambridge were only there to defend

 

Perhaps if the poor finishing had led to some of the shots that were off target being on target, that would explain this great mystery

 

That is the focus.

Those shots need to be on target, from higher percentage positions.

Nobody would disagree.

But saying the reason we missed the target 18 times is because of our formation is dozy at best.

 

Why don’t you throw corners and free kicks in as well you might be lucky and get near 20. I guess its what your interpretation of a chance is, if its Richards Everton smashing well wide then i think we need to redefine what a chance is.

 

The kick off went forward, didn't it?

Add another one on.

 

No, the laws state the kick off must go backwards