Plan B?

[Dan Ellard]

Sorry to reiterate a point from another thread, but there is a BIG difference to playing in a back 4 to playing wing back in Lowe's system. You have to be better at marking, play narrower out of possession to stop underlapping runs, and therefore be at least reasonable in the air too - which Moore isn't. You also need to learn when to press and when to stay compact. Edwards MIGHT be ok at right back, but who plays there if he gets injured?!

Watts at left back absolutely screams Carl McHugh I'm afraid. Bradford fans told us in unity not to play him at left back, so of course Sheridan played him at left back, and surprise surprise, he was terrible. Watts would have the same issues imo. Just because he's a left footed centre back who is ok on the ball (as McHugh was), does not mean he can play left back.

In fact, the whole "let's go to a back 4" screams of Sheridan's spell as manager. No tactical insight at all, it was simply if things weren't working, switching between 4-4-2 and 3-5-2, which would bring a couple of results before we'd revert to type again.

We're past that stage now - I expect more tactical thought from Lowe. We need to play two DM's instead of one when we're under pressure, and we need to play more accurate long passes when we're struggling to pass out from the back.

Going to a back 4 would make us no better away from home than we are now.

 

[RKB]

Sorry to reiterate a point from another thread, but there is a BIG difference to playing in a back 4 to playing wing back in Lowe's system. You have to be better at marking, play narrower out of possession to stop underlapping runs, and therefore be at least reasonable in the air too - which Moore isn't. You also need to learn when to press and when to stay compact. Edwards MIGHT be ok at right back, but who plays there if he gets injured?!

Watts at left back absolutely screams Carl McHugh I'm afraid. Bradford fans told us in unity not to play him at left back, so of course Sheridan played him at left back, and surprise surprise, he was terrible. Watts would have the same issues imo. Just because he's a left footed centre back who is ok on the ball (as McHugh was), does not mean he can play left back.

In fact, the whole "let's go to a back 4" screams of Sheridan's spell as manager. No tactical insight at all, it was simply if things weren't working, switching between 4-4-2 and 3-5-2, which would bring a couple of results before we'd revert to type again.

We're past that stage now - I expect more tactical thought from Lowe. We need to play two DM's instead of one when we're under pressure, and we need to play more accurate long passes when we're struggling to pass out from the back.

Going to a back 4 would make us no better away from home than we are now.

One of the biggest issues with our current formation away from home is how isolated our CB's become when the wing-backs are pressed into our half and Fornah is closely marked. If you're an opposition manager watching Saturday's match, match those tactics and get someone on Danny Mayor, we're struggling. If teams start coming to Home Park and doing this, we're in for a very tough spell.
The move to 4 at the back, and 2 in front, is as much about options going forward as it is defensive solidity. The 3 attacking midfielders could all interchange at any point too, giving the opposition much more to think about.
As for Watts, I obviously disagree. He's much better running forward with the ball than McHugh, is an intelligent player who would know when to go forward and when to sit, and is good in the air. We do have Ryan Law as a more natural option there, granted, but very inexperienced.

 

[Graham Clark]

I thought Sam Finlay's post match comments on the Fleetwood website summed up it up neatly

"I thought we set the tone in the first ten minutes, the intensity from all the lads was brilliant. .... Run over all over, get in and around them, don’t give them time and space on the ball and I thought we did that, and it set the tone for the game.”

There is no question we are vulnerable to the selective high press. It was the same away at Northampton and Colchester last season where the games were over by half time. Thankfully, not all teams are capable of playing such a high intensity game for a sustained period but Fleetwood were aided by a deflection and a goalkeeping error in the first seven minutes.

As for a Plan B, Ryan Lowe tried to change it and stem the inevitable flow with two remarkably early tactical substitutions as he admitted in his interview with Drew Savage. We then gave away a soft third goal. So he changed tactics again and went 3-4-3 for the second half. He had tried this formation out with a degree of effectiveness v. Newport in the Papa John's Trophy. Then two players lose the goal scorer for the fourth and Moore's calamitous waft of the leg gifted a fifth.

For the best part of 18 months Ryan Lowe and his coaching team have instilled a way of playing into the teams throughout the club that has resulted in two promotions in consecutive seasons for team's he has managed. For Argyle his League win ratio (thank you GoS) is 51% - the highest for any manager in 80 years. Occasionally, there will be a blip - it happens at the highest level - look at Liverpool, Manchester United and City and even Germany this season. Most supporters would have expected a mid-table position at this stage of the season and that's exactly where we are - deservedly so.

What is important now is how the team responds. The records show that Ryan Lowe has not suffered two consecutive defeats at his tenure at Home Park. That will be tested at London Road tomorrow. I agree with Dan Ellard that switching to a back four is not the answer - the team are drilled to play a certain way and half a day on the training pitch will not change that. If I was to offer a solution I would prefer to play a 5-3-2 from the start to stop the high intensity press. That will mean better balls in channels and to feet rather than trying to play through the thirds. Once a foothold has been established then a more expansive game can be introduced.

Ultimately, it will require greater defensive concentration, more energy and combativeness in midfield and an ability to hold onto the ball up top to bring advancing players into the game. What we have to do is to continue to work on patterns of play that elude and defend robustly an effective high press. The 3-5-2 system has served Lowe well at Argyle - so why change it? When it is deployed effectively we are an attractive goal scoring team to watch. On three or four occasions (if you include Exeter last season) out of 49 League games it clearly hasn't worked and we have been beaten comprehensively. I don't think that, in itself, justifies a complete change of tactical approach. Hopefully, like the Exeter game last season the Fleetwood game will be a turning point and a reminder that sticking to long held principles can deliver success over time emboldened by continued hard work on the training pitch and application on match day.

 

[slingsbypobble]

I thought Sam Finlay's post match comments on the Fleetwood website summed up it up neatly

"I thought we set the tone in the first ten minutes, the intensity from all the lads was brilliant. .... Run over all over, get in and around them, don’t give them time and space on the ball and I thought we did that, and it set the tone for the game.”

There is no question we are vulnerable to the selective high press. It was the same away at Northampton and Colchester last season where the games were over by half time. Thankfully, not all teams are capable of playing such a high intensity game for a sustained period but Fleetwood were aided by a deflection and a goalkeeping error in the first seven minutes.

As for a Plan B, Ryan Lowe tried to change it and stem the inevitable flow with two remarkably early tactical substitutions as he admitted in his interview with Drew Savage. We then gave away a soft third goal. So he changed tactics again and went 3-4-3 for the second half. He had tried this formation out with a degree of effectiveness v. Newport in the Papa John's Trophy. Then two players lose the goal scorer for the fourth and Moore's calamitous waft of the leg gifted a fifth.

For the best part of 18 months Ryan Lowe and his coaching team have instilled a way of playing into the teams throughout the club that has resulted in two promotions in consecutive seasons for team's he has managed. For Argyle his League win ratio (thank you GoS) is 51% - the highest for any manager in 80 years. Occasionally, there will be a blip - it happens at the highest level - look at Liverpool, Manchester United and City and even Germany this season. Most supporters would have expected a mid-table position at this stage of the season and that's exactly where we are - deservedly so.

What is important now is how the team responds. The records show that Ryan Lowe has not suffered two consecutive defeats at his tenure at Home Park. That will be tested at London Road tomorrow. I agree with Dan Ellard that switching to a back four is not the answer - the team are drilled to play a certain way and half a day on the training pitch will not change that. If I was to offer a solution I would prefer to play a 5-3-2 from the start to stop the high intensity press. That will mean better balls in channels and to feet rather than trying to play through the thirds. Once a foothold has been established then a more expansive game can be introduced.

Ultimately, it will require greater defensive concentration, more energy and combativeness in midfield and an ability to hold onto the ball up top to bring advancing players into the game. What we have to do is to continue to work on patterns of play that elude and defend robustly an effective high press. The 3-5-2 system has served Lowe well at Argyle - so why change it? When it is deployed effectively we are an attractive goal scoring team to watch. On three or four occasions (if you include Exeter last season) out of 49 League games it clearly hasn't worked and we have been beaten comprehensively. I don't think that, in itself, justifies a complete change of tactical approach. Hopefully, like the Exeter game last season the Fleetwood game will be a turning point and a reminder that sticking to long held principles can deliver success over time emboldened by continued hard work on the training pitch and application on match day.

Thanks for this, a well argued answer and can't disagree with it. My question is - surely all opposition teams now know the weakness(es) that Fleetwood exploited? Or are Fleetwood an exceptional team with players perfectly suited to counter Argyle's passing out from the back?

 

[Graham Clark]

Fleetwood were exceptional in the application of the selective high press - they did not have to sustain it over an extended period as the game was won. they can also mix it physically and Rossiter looked the type of midfield enforcer we need. Whether they can sustain that game plan over a season now they have all their best players remains to be seen. like last season. I think they will be there or thereabouts.

Although it is difficult to fully appraise through the prism of a single camera we seem to struggle away as the home team are more liable to operate a three man attack (normally 4-3-3) which facilitates the high press. Sometimes they will stand off and let us lackadaisically play it across the back three and then launch it under pressure with the resultant loss of possession.

At home often away teams do not always employ the same tactic. Blackpool did in the season opener to some effect and nervousness for any Argyle supporter but we got the decisive goal. Away it is a different story and I think it fundamentally underpins the divergence in our home and away form. We have to address it and will require more work at Harpers Park and perhaps a Rossiter type ball winner / enforcer for the central role in the January window.

 

[jimsing]

Argyle coaching staff need to find a way of providing a safe outlet for the back three when they have the ball and are being pressed.

The old one-two with a defensive midfielder can do the trick, but quick accurate passing to feet is the key.

Once the opposition find their pressing is inadequate, they will lose their interest. If they continue to press successfully (as per Fleetwood) they will continue to do it.

The coaching staff need to find a way of preventing this from happening, and quickly before other teams catch on.

Easier said than done in these times of limited time on the training ground.

 

[PL2 3DQ]

The long ball to beat the press has some merits.
If the opposition press our back three the long ball into the channels will leave three or four opposition players stranded up the pitch and out of the game.

The key is the quality of the long ball into the strikers, Watts is quite good at it but Aimson isn't and will often find touch, hence why he was probably subbed against Fleetwood.
Wootton is surprisingly good at clipping the ball forward into the channels without over hitting the pass.

Once we beat the press and get the long ball into our strikers we can play from there and get Mayor involved.

In this league we might have to develop into a long ball team for certain games, although not as the traditional Wimbledon type of long ball team.

 

[Balham Green]

The long ball to beat the press has some merits.
If the opposition press our back three the long ball into the channels will leave three or four opposition players stranded up the pitch and out of the game.

The key is the quality of the long ball into the strikers, Watts is quite good at it but Aimson isn't and will often find touch, hence why he was probably subbed against Fleetwood.
Wootton is surprisingly good at clipping the ball forward into the channels without over hitting the pass.

Once we beat the press and get the long ball into our strikers we can play from there and get Mayor involved.

In this league we might have to develop into a long ball team for certain games, although not as the traditional Wimbledon type of long ball team.

The long ball did find the strikers at times on Saturday. However none of them(least of all Hardie) are able to hold the ball up. Their first touch was terrible. They cant win a header either.
The alternative is for players to take responsibility and bring the ball forward, take on and commit players. Midfield players need to come looking for the ball and accept it with their back to goal - where Camara came unstuck. The passing around the back also needs to be quicker to move opposition players around. Like watching paint dry at times.
Posh will be interesting. I don't hold out much hope of a result but hopefully an improved performance and will be interesting to see any changes. This was really a week where we needed to get back to the training ground. As others above said you can't change a system in one training session.
Looking at the League table the bottom 3 are currently cast adrift. Unfortunately 4 go down! We all saw how bad Burton and Wigan were, even though we failed to beat the latter! The warning signs were there then. So hopefully at least 2 places are taken care of. IF (big if) we maintain our home form we will be alright. We seem capable of beating the lesser teams at home.

 

[lyndhurst]

I may be wrong here, but the way I saw it Fleetwood did not aggressively press the back 3(4), they closely marked the midfield (and wing backs); this completely shut off any accurate outlet and resulted in seemingly endless,uncontested, passes between the back 3. Eventually, the only option was to hoof it. Aimson is beginning to live up to his "aimless" tag and seems incapable to hitting an argyle shirt. Watts is better but the control of our front 2(3) was terrible and our midfield was non-existant.

It was a simple yet clever tactic by Fleetwood that we couldn't counter.

 

[slingsbypobble]

I may be wrong here, but the way I saw it Fleetwood did not aggressively press the back 3(4), they closely marked the midfield (and wing backs); this completely shut off any accurate outlet and resulted in seemingly endless,uncontested, passes between the back 3. Eventually, the only option was to hoof it. Aimson is beginning to live up to his "aimless" tag and seems incapable to hitting an argyle shirt. Watts is better but the control of our front 2(3) was terrible and our midfield was non-existant.

It was a simple yet clever tactic by Fleetwood that we couldn't counter.

I can see your point, it didn't seem to be so much the back 3 that were pressed, as much as the midfield outlet being so tightly marked there were no options for back 3 to pass to - other than each other, and keeper. Our long ball game suffers from both the shortcomings you've described - no long-pass accuracy and no ability to pick up or hold the ball once received.

 

[oldage]

I wonder what the players do in training? How can you stop players making stupid mistakes? How do you train players to make accurate passes?
Perhaps the players aren't up to it. The next transfer window will open shortly. In the present climate do you get rid of players and spend money on replacements or stick with what we have in the hope they are good enough to keep us in this league?

 

[Balham Green]

I may be wrong here, but the way I saw it Fleetwood did not aggressively press the back 3(4), they closely marked the midfield (and wing backs); this completely shut off any accurate outlet and resulted in seemingly endless,uncontested, passes between the back 3. Eventually, the only option was to hoof it. Aimson is beginning to live up to his "aimless" tag and seems incapable to hitting an argyle shirt. Watts is better but the control of our front 2(3) was terrible and our midfield was non-existant.

It was a simple yet clever tactic by Fleetwood that we couldn't counter.

I can see your point, it didn't seem to be so much the back 3 that were pressed, as much as the midfield outlet being so tightly marked there were no options for back 3 to pass to - other than each other, and keeper. Our long ball game suffers from both the shortcomings you've described - no long-pass accuracy and no ability to pick up or hold the ball once received.

I think was a bit of both. When the back 3 are not being pressed they should be able to bring it forward and have more time to pick passes.

 

[Dan Ellard]

Sorry to reiterate a point from another thread, but there is a BIG difference to playing in a back 4 to playing wing back in Lowe's system. You have to be better at marking, play narrower out of possession to stop underlapping runs, and therefore be at least reasonable in the air too - which Moore isn't. You also need to learn when to press and when to stay compact. Edwards MIGHT be ok at right back, but who plays there if he gets injured?!

Watts at left back absolutely screams Carl McHugh I'm afraid. Bradford fans told us in unity not to play him at left back, so of course Sheridan played him at left back, and surprise surprise, he was terrible. Watts would have the same issues imo. Just because he's a left footed centre back who is ok on the ball (as McHugh was), does not mean he can play left back.

In fact, the whole "let's go to a back 4" screams of Sheridan's spell as manager. No tactical insight at all, it was simply if things weren't working, switching between 4-4-2 and 3-5-2, which would bring a couple of results before we'd revert to type again.

We're past that stage now - I expect more tactical thought from Lowe. We need to play two DM's instead of one when we're under pressure, and we need to play more accurate long passes when we're struggling to pass out from the back.

Going to a back 4 would make us no better away from home than we are now.

One of the biggest issues with our current formation away from home is how isolated our CB's become when the wing-backs are pressed into our half and Fornah is closely marked. If you're an opposition manager watching Saturday's match, match those tactics and get someone on Danny Mayor, we're struggling. If teams start coming to Home Park and doing this, we're in for a very tough spell.
The move to 4 at the back, and 2 in front, is as much about options going forward as it is defensive solidity. The 3 attacking midfielders could all interchange at any point too, giving the opposition much more to think about.
As for Watts, I obviously disagree. He's much better running forward with the ball than McHugh, is an intelligent player who would know when to go forward and when to sit, and is good in the air. We do have Ryan Law as a more natural option there, granted, but very inexperienced.

Those are fair points and difficult to dispute. However, I just think that we need to try tweaking the 3-5-2 first before switching to a back 4 - as Graham Clark said, it'd be a very big ask to bring it in successfully off the back of just 1 or 2 training sessions. Watts... he might be slightly better at dribbling than McHugh was but I don't see him adapting to it - maybe we'll see.

As Balham suggests below, we need one of the back 3 to bring the ball out when the midfield are being so well marshalled. When we've been at our fluid best this season, we've seen the outside centre backs underlap well and contribute to the attack - such as Watts' goal against Leyton Orient. If we played 2 DM's ahead of a back 3, then one can drop back to cover when a centre back makes an attacking run.

 

[RKB]

Sorry to reiterate a point from another thread, but there is a BIG difference to playing in a back 4 to playing wing back in Lowe's system. You have to be better at marking, play narrower out of possession to stop underlapping runs, and therefore be at least reasonable in the air too - which Moore isn't. You also need to learn when to press and when to stay compact. Edwards MIGHT be ok at right back, but who plays there if he gets injured?!

Watts at left back absolutely screams Carl McHugh I'm afraid. Bradford fans told us in unity not to play him at left back, so of course Sheridan played him at left back, and surprise surprise, he was terrible. Watts would have the same issues imo. Just because he's a left footed centre back who is ok on the ball (as McHugh was), does not mean he can play left back.

In fact, the whole "let's go to a back 4" screams of Sheridan's spell as manager. No tactical insight at all, it was simply if things weren't working, switching between 4-4-2 and 3-5-2, which would bring a couple of results before we'd revert to type again.

We're past that stage now - I expect more tactical thought from Lowe. We need to play two DM's instead of one when we're under pressure, and we need to play more accurate long passes when we're struggling to pass out from the back.

Going to a back 4 would make us no better away from home than we are now.

One of the biggest issues with our current formation away from home is how isolated our CB's become when the wing-backs are pressed into our half and Fornah is closely marked. If you're an opposition manager watching Saturday's match, match those tactics and get someone on Danny Mayor, we're struggling. If teams start coming to Home Park and doing this, we're in for a very tough spell.
The move to 4 at the back, and 2 in front, is as much about options going forward as it is defensive solidity. The 3 attacking midfielders could all interchange at any point too, giving the opposition much more to think about.
As for Watts, I obviously disagree. He's much better running forward with the ball than McHugh, is an intelligent player who would know when to go forward and when to sit, and is good in the air. We do have Ryan Law as a more natural option there, granted, but very inexperienced.

Those are fair points and difficult to dispute. However, I just think that we need to try tweaking the 3-5-2 first before switching to a back 4 - as Graham Clark said, it'd be a very big ask to bring it in successfully off the back of just 1 or 2 training sessions. Watts... he might be slightly better at dribbling than McHugh was but I don't see him adapting to it - maybe we'll see.

As Balham suggests below, we need one of the back 3 to bring the ball out when the midfield are being so well marshalled. When we've been at our fluid best this season, we've seen the outside centre backs underlap well and contribute to the attack - such as Watts' goal against Leyton Orient. If we played 2 DM's ahead of a back 3, then one can drop back to cover when a centre back makes an attacking run.

I definitely cannot argue that it would be very difficult to adapt quickly to a back 4, nor do I even for one second expect us to start a match with a back 4 at any point in Lowe's tenure. But when the wheels have come off at Northampton, Exeter, Colchester and Fleetwood, it was as clear as day what needed to change, before the game was out of sight, and each time it didn't happen. I guess I refer back to the fact that there is no Plan B, the point of the OP. It's a very enjoyable debate, mind.

 

[RKB]

"If we played 2 DM's ahead of a back 3, then one can drop back to cover when a centre back makes an attacking run."

Maybe this is the simple tweak away from home. 3-2-3-2, rather than 3-1-4-2. Grant and Fornah to sit, and despite Camara's debacle on Saturday, he could play there too.
I fondly remember our League 2 (Division 3 at the time) title-winning tactics under Paul Sturrock. 4-4-2 at home, with Stonebridge or Keith up front with Trigger. 4-5-1 away from home, with Trigger on his own up top, and Adams or Wills making an extra man in midfield. Fondly remembered not for the formations, but the fact that Luggy sussed out early what the issue was away from home, and we adapted things quickly.