Thought they were doing that at will before then, hence the subs.
MOR was blowing, thought that was probably the right decision.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Albion] Matt O Riley [26/08/24 - sings on a 5-year deal]
- Thread starter Seasider78
- Start date
MOR was blowing, thought that was probably the right decision.
Wardy's twin
Well-known member
- Oct 21, 2014
- 9,169
I would have left him on and taken Wellbeck off as MOR at least got into some great positions then put another midfield on.To be honest I thought they were as poor as each other (I know we discussed it).)
Both were sloppy, both missed chances.
Both had good moments
Both got in great positions.
I think MOR needs to play further forward, as he simply offers little support in the middle and Ayari got through a mountain of work, as he was often covering MOR.
Understand why, but he played as though he had Lallana’s shooting boots on.
I wasn’t surprised he started post-Palace, because he played well up there, but was surprised he started in that position, because he doesn’t have enough positional discipline, which puts pressure on his midfield partner.
- Oct 17, 2008
- 17,021
Made a bad mistake leading to their first goal.
Robinjakarta
Well-known member
David O'Really?
Sorry Suzy
sussex_guy2k2
Well-known member
- Jun 6, 2014
- 4,876
But we didn’t really play him as an 8. We reverted to Ayari as the 6 and then two 10s pushed him when going forward.
It was pre-Forest all over again.
I really don't get all this "play him as a 6" and "two 10s" stuff. In my day a 6 was a left half and a 10 an inside left. No one has explained the new numbering system. Really would appreciate an explanation. In modern football parlance what actually is a 10? What is an 8? What is a 6? Is it only midfield roles that have these random numbers associated with them? Where did they originate? Serious question.
But it’s without possession is the issue, because he doesn’t tuck in, certainly not quickly enough.
[Football] - A number 6 is...
I reckon how people answer is largely determined by their age.
www.northstandchat.com
It is odd how this has suddenly crept into the game. Old school numbering with modern day squad numbers. I don't like it.
Missed that thread. Thank you. Asks a lot of questions, but couldn't see many clear answers. And in particular, how did the new "numbering" develop?
GT49er
Well-known member
No worries, I understand how difficult it is for you.
Mackenzie
Old Brightonian
A number 6 is the old number 4 (I think).
GT49er
Well-known member
....and what happened with changing the order in which the teams are listed? Who decided to do that and why? In the days of 1 - 11, we listed 1 GK, 2 RB, 3LB, 4 RH, 5 CH etc. RW was always 7, LW 11. Going to a back four complicated it a little - so it went 1 GK, 2 RB, 5 CB, 6 (or4) CB, 3 LB, etc.
Last season a few oddballs started messing with this, now everybody (even the BBC) is doing it, listing the LB (no.3) before the RB (2), so if we were playing the old 1 - 11 formation the team list would now be 1, 3, 2 (GK and FBs), 6, 5, 4 (LH, CH, RH), 11, 10, 9, 8, 7. Doesn't make sense. Why was it changed?
sussex_guy2k2
Well-known member
- Jun 6, 2014
- 4,876
Essentially, under FH when attacking we play with one holding player and two attacking midfielders, often pushed right up against the defence, often alongside the wingers and the central striker.
The difference is positionally - 8s tend to be more box to box players, making runs from deep but with clearer defensive duties, 10s often appear to play with less defensive duties, albeit that doesn’t happen much at the top level now.
Either way, both JP and MOR played these two roles on Saturday, either side of Welbeck, and because they’re so high up the position when the opposition win the ball, it makes us really open to the transition. It’s fine if they win the ball back quickly, but when they don’t, as they often didn’t second half, then it can take one or two passes for our sole holding player to be exposed.
Which is fine if that holding player is Baleba, but less so when it’s anyone else as they don’t have the physicality to cover the width of the pitch when they’re often facing 2-3 men breaking against them at once.
sussex_guy2k2
Well-known member
- Jun 6, 2014
- 4,876
But it’s the starting position that’s the issue.
Post-Forest, that second player was deeper giving them more chance to stop the transition / counter.
Against Villa and Leicester, we’ve been back to the old way with them being higher up.
Greg Bobkin
Silver Seagull
- May 22, 2012
- 17,522
As bad as Dunk's?
But the point remains, I like MOR further up, but (unless instructed), he seems to absolve himself of tucking in when out of possession.
Last edited:
Klaas
I've changed this
- Nov 1, 2017
- 2,754
Was pretty poor. In real time I kind of missed Dunk's mess up as I was tearing my hair out over O'Riley losing the ball.