Credit where credit's due. A switch to 352 yesterday show's there's a plan B in Cowley's head and something less predictable for the oppositiion to ponder.
Or does it?
The absence of the usual injured parties coupled with the withdrawal of Dale and Scarlett by their parent clubs meant there was really little option for the manager. Just look at that bench with four kids who aparently had already played in an academy game that morning.
Remember when England struggled for form in Italia 90 until injuries forced Bobby Robson into a tactical change that steered us through to the semis?
Maybe it's a moot point - no-one will care if Cowley has stumbled across a design that brings out the best in his players, particularly Mingi, but I wonder if we can expect a return to the stagnant 442 once more players become available.
He could easily have played 442 with the players available yesterday with Reeco & Curtis (or Koroma) as the wide men, so don't think you can say the change was forced on him.
What worried me was that our defence was so easy to split open on the first half, and only better in the backs to the wall second half becasue of the numbers back there, so I'd think I'd rather see 352 kept as a plan b rather than a plan a, like it was last season.
If we are changing away from 442 I'd rather see a return to 4231 because that gives us the opportunity to play Jacobs effectively if he really is returning to fitness.
(27-11-2022, 01:34 PM)DeepBlue Wrote: [ -> ]He could easily have played 442 with the players available yesterday with Reeco & Curtis (or Koroma) as the wide men, so don't think you can say the change was forced on him.
What worried me was that our defence was so easy to split open on the first half, and only better in the backs to the wall second half becasue of the numbers back there, so I'd think I'd rather see 352 kept as a plan b rather than a plan a, like it was last season.
If we are changing away from 442 I'd rather see a return to 4231 because that gives us the opportunity to play Jacobs effectively if he really is returning to fitness.
Recco seems to be quite effective through the middle at the moment
And gives far more energy the Jacobs can. I don’t think we will see much of him in a Pompey shirt again.
(27-11-2022, 01:34 PM)DeepBlue Wrote: [ -> ]He could easily have played 442 with the players available yesterday with Reeco & Curtis (or Koroma) as the wide men, so don't think you can say the change was forced on him.
What worried me was that our defence was so easy to split open on the first half, and only better in the backs to the wall second half becasue of the numbers back there, so I'd think I'd rather see 352 kept as a plan b rather than a plan a, like it was last season.
If we are changing away from 442 I'd rather see a return to 4231 because that gives us the opportunity to play Jacobs effectively if he really is returning to fitness.
I don't know why it has taken so long for him to show a little more flexibility. It's one thing keeping faith in a system or player (e.g. Scarlett) but I think he has a stubborn streak when it comes to decisions. And why wait for Jacobs when we have a fully fit Pigott?
Jacobs & Pigott play in totally different positions so not sure what you mean there.
Pigott is a strange one, I can only guess he is not showing much in training or maybe is carrying an injury. He certainly has not made a unanswerable case for inclusion in the few minutes he has had, but noether has he been awful.
I can just about understand why an in-form Scarlett is preferred to him, because of his pace, but not why Curtis should get the nod as a striker over him (for all that I thought Curtis had one of his better games there yesterday). But the same thing happened thing happened to Pigott last year at Ipswich, so maybe there is some reason that we are just not being told about.
When was Scarlett last in form? 3 goals and zero assists in how many league appearances?
The big thing to me is a left sided player with a left foot meant we could go outside to stretch the pitch.
Hume's said he has played left wing in his past, so that ha to be an option with Dale on the other side, at home that would make the pitch bigger and create more problems for the opposition.
But I share the concern about how open we were to fast breaks.
Not sure we played 352 yesterday , I thought it was more 3421
or even 3412
Hackett seemed to be playing in the hole behind the front 2, certainly in the first half.
And looked very good in there