TOPIC: Plymouth Tactics & Performance

Along with a few others from Carlisle I've never seen a win for us in Plymouth, but until last night I've never seen us concede 4 goals either.

Our first half performance was solid, bordering on accomplished, and we were playing like we were the home time until the 43rd minute when Plymouth scored - and in fairness Miller was giving his opponent so much room to run at him it was only a matter of time before someone ran past him and belted the ball past a helpless Gillespie.

Then it was a different game.

Second half Plymouth came to life, closed us down, harried our midfield and exposed the wide open spaces down the Carlisle flanks - most of our lads heads were down and we played like 11 strangers. Probably the most inept, toothless second half that I've ever seen a Carlisle team play and I've been watching them since 1956.

Under pressure our lads folded big-time and they clearly couldn't carry out Curle's tactics - if that's the right word for that shambolic mess.

Gillespie - 5 Nothing special
Miller - 3 Hopeless at times (Not all his fault I'm sure)
Raynes - 5 Couple of decent efforts on goal
Grainger - 3 As Miller really, can't really see him as quick enough to play his "usual" position of left back either.
Osei - 4 His performance fizzed out from good at times to virtually disappearing from the battle
Balanta - 4 Very much the same as Osei - It's clear that neither of them can defend
Kennedy - 4 Decent first half, scrappy second
Joyce - 6 Very good first half then faded
Dicker - 7 First half exceptional, our best player, closed down in the second
Wyke - 3 More of an inept Mark Beck type of performance, on this showing he shouldn't be anywhere near the first team
Ibehre -6 He certainly put the effort in but it wasn't his night

Asamoah - 4 Looked out of position playing out wide, look lightweight, get rid, move on
Thompson - 5 Nice to see him score, understandably couldn't do much about the result, ran about
Hery - 6.5 Looked lively, worked very hard for the cause, should have started the game

Curle - Were these the big-time tactics for a basement team? After we were rumbled and harried we had no plan B. I don't honestly know where he goes from here, he's no man-motivator like Ian Atkins, doesn't have the home-town passion of a Paul Simpson and in a million years he'll never get anywhere near the great Alan Ashman or Bob Stokoe. Trouble is the biggest obstacle to success at our club isn't Curle's tactics but the morons in the boardroom overseeing the gradual decline of our Club.

It would seem that his plan of playing out and out attackers in a nominal "wing back" role well ad truly backfired once the going got tough.

Shame really as up until half time I was enjoying listening and we sounded bright.

Curle said recently what his Plan B is - more of Plan A!

"Raynes - 5 Couple of decent efforts on goal"

If that's the only thing he did well as a centre half, i'm quite worried!

the issue is our patience is so thin we will not stand for any poor performances like that, Curle can argue til he's blue in the face but he's arguing against a few years of misery on and off the pitch, we were given a glimpse of light of how the club could be run and it was swiftly taken away, if a new regime was in charge this result may have been accepted more easily, unfortunately Curle, along with the owners will be given short shrift for any mistakes that happen, on and off the pitch.

You can see the tactics KC is trying to play... it is a variation of the wing back formation that is popular on the continent by the look of things. Judging by saturday the plan is that the wing backs push high up the field, to effectively be wide midfielders. The 3 defenders consist of two full backs and one centre back... they split, with the fullbacks moving wider and Joyce dropping into the centre to recieve the ball when attacking or filling the central gap to form a back 4 whenthe opposition win the ball. Nothing wrong with those tactics as such, and many teams use this abroad.

The issue is whether this can be succesfully translated into L2, which is much more physically demanding. The problem is that against direct teams then Joyce doesn't have time to get back and fill the central gap... and even when he does he isn't big enough physically to take on a L2 Striker in many cases. It is also a very unfamiliar role for the two full backs and single central defender... they appear to be struggling positionally to adapt to the system and Raynes is often left really exposed at the back. The question is , do we persist with these tactics and allow the players time to adapt? Knowing that we will ship goals in the short term. Or do we switch to the traditional version of wing backs, stick three centre halves in and two full backs in the wing back roles... it will be much better defensively in theory, but was a bit of a disaster for us last season under Kavanagh. The final option is to switch to a back 4... all the players are used to their positions and roles and the quality we have further up the pitch should ensure that we win our fair share of games if we can keep a clean sheet?

Personally I'd like to see a good old fashioned back 4. I don't care if it is 4-5-1, 4-4-1-1 or 4-4-2, as long as we have at least 4 defenders. Playing with 3 defenders is a flawed tactic for L2 in my opinion and will always lead to leaking a lot of goals, regardless of who plays. I fear that KC is too stubborn to change now... but he has to remember that the last manager started the season with wing backs, stuck withn it too long and lost his job. Hopefully we learn from the problems we have experienced in the last two games and put some more defensive cover in place for saturday.

There's nothing wrong with the system were using it's just wrong to ask lower league cloggers to carry out the plan. It will not be successful until he brings in players who are tactically aware and good on the ball who can also defend. (So we're not asking for much)

Good luck trying to get players like that to come to L2.

Wukkie wrote: Exactly, you can see the logic behind it at higher levels, with top quality players... I'd question whether it can work for a L2 team, with L2 standard players though.

Northumbrian wrote:
Did Kavanagh not drop the wingbacks at half time in the Luton match last season?

sirjimmyglass wrote: If memory serves my right he tried it a few more times after that game though. he did base the entire pre-season and player recruitment on a wing back formation though. I'd love to know what our record is like playing wing back's compared to a flat back 4... in my mind we have usually failed with the wing back experiment... could be wrong though.

do we gloss over the fact we were apparently excellent for the first 40 mins looking like the home team at times and controlling possession until an unfortunate slip ??
or do we dwell on the 2nd half collapse away from home against very decent opposition after a massive away trip on a Tuesday night

I'm gonna look forward to seeing us try and play like we did first half

granted we may be jeckle and hyde at the moment but I think we have the basis of a useful outfit

I could be wrong but the last time i remember Carlisle playing successfully with wing backs was with Mervin Day. Pounewachy et al.

Zebby wrote: Unfortunately we don't get any points for playing well for 40 minutes.

However you try to gloss over, You can't polish a turd and Carlisle have been that fr years, Run by the very same....TURDS....

Northumbrian wrote:
not saying you do but I cant remember off the top of my head over last couple of seasons where we kept hold of ball and played competent accomplished football for a full half especially away from home
We have at last a genuine goalscorer who looks the real deal
we are trying to play with a bit of width and attacking style
we have already this season put in a couple of good performances
imo we are only one player short of a more than decent team a CB and we seem to be trying to ship a couple out and looking to bring at least one in

I can see improvements and one half away from home after a ridiculous journey for a midweek game against a good team isn't gonna blind me

I'm not saying we the finished article by any means but I'm far more hopeful than previous seasons

I don't think anyone is saying we need to rip up all the pre-season planning and start again. We just need to play more accomplished players back there, stop playing about with the ball unnecessarily in stupid areas where one mistake can result in us conceding,stop making stupid mistakes and play better players there when you have two not in the side either sat in the stand or on the bench. We have the makings of a decent side if this can be rectified.

Three at the back can work if you have the players comfortable enough to do it. Bristol City practically ran away with L1 last season playing that formation granted they have much better individuals than what we currently possess.

Northumbrian wrote:
Very good reasoned post Northumbrian, now phone KC and tell him or drop him a line

"You can see the tactics KC is trying to play... it is a variation of the wing back formation that is popular on the continent by the look of things. Judging by saturday the plan is that the wing backs push high up the field, to effectively be wide midfielders. The 3 defenders consist of two full backs and one centre back... they split, with the fullbacks moving wider and Joyce dropping into the centre to recieve the ball when attacking or filling the central gap to form a back 4 whenthe opposition win the ball. Nothing wrong with those tactics as such, and many teams use this abroad.

The issue is whether this can be succesfully translated into L2, which is much more physically demanding. The problem is that against direct teams then Joyce doesn't have time to get back and fill the central gap... and even when he does he isn't big enough physically to take on a L2 Striker in many cases. It is also a very unfamiliar role for the two full backs and single central defender... they appear to be struggling positionally to adapt to the system and Raynes is often left really exposed at the back. The question is , do we persist with these tactics and allow the players time to adapt? Knowing that we will ship goals in the short term. Or do we switch to the traditional version of wing backs, stick three centre halves in and two full backs in the wing back roles... it will be much better defensively in theory, but was a bit of a disaster for us last season under Kavanagh. The final option is to switch to a back 4... all the players are used to their positions and roles and the quality we have further up the pitch should ensure that we win our fair share of games if we can keep a clean sheet?

Personally I'd like to see a good old fashioned back 4. I don't care if it is 4-5-1, 4-4-1-1 or 4-4-2, as long as we have at least 4 defenders. Playing with 3 defenders is a flawed tactic for L2 in my opinion and will always lead to leaking a lot of goals, regardless of who plays. I fear that KC is too stubborn to change now... but he has to remember that the last manager started the season with wing backs, stuck withn it too long and lost his job. Hopefully we learn from the problems we have experienced in the last two games and put some more defensive cover in place for Saturday."


I think you've got that almost spot on there 'Northumbrian', however I think Curle will simply be too pig headed to change back to the traditional back 4. at the end of the day we have 4th tier players, trying to get them to play any other way than they traditionally know, is always going to be a hard task. A traditional back four with two central defenders and two orthodox full backs is the way I would go, Raynes and Troy at Centre Half and Miller and Grainger as the full backs. Heaven knows why we were playing Miller as a centre half when we had Troy on the bench??

Grainger? You're having a giraffe surely. He's worse at full-back than centre-half!

I know what you mean but I meant Grainger or 'A N Other'

If Curle would be willing to play our best centre half then we have the personnel at the club to play his preferred formation;

RWB - Miller
RCB - Atkinson
CB - Raynes
LCB - TAH/Grainger
LWB - Brough/McQueen

However as it appears blatantly obvious he will not play TAH I guess we will struggle to stop conceding bag loads of goals each week.

The tactic of playing the ball out of defence in the Premier is good because you have players who can play a pass and if you punt it the opposition attacks immediately. Other than Dicker none of our players are good enough to pass and the ball just comes back in the air so we haven't lost anything by going more direct. As for tactics we can talk about numbers but several goals have come because players are caught in possession, lost the ball and the opposition runs through and scores. Joyce does not make space and release the ball well enough to play that role as a playmaker. Previous defensive midfielders like Prokas and Billy have been used purely as breakers to defend. Joyce doesn't tackle or read the game well enough for that either. I'm also surprised that Gllespie has escaped criticism as well, very poor against Cambridge,

Markovitch wrote: Harsh on Gillespie who made several excellent saves against Cambridge.... he somehow got the blame on the radio for the first, but I fail to see how... the fault was entirely Raynes, who was 5 yards away from the man he was marking... yes Gillespie's dive was awkward but the bloke was unmarked and headed it down and into the corner... I was right in line with it an certainly didn't think he had ant chance of saving it. He has looked uncomfortable with the passing but then he is a keeper and is being asked to play like an out field player at times. It also has to be remembered that he has had zero protection from a pretty useless back 3 so far. Your points on Joyce I totally agree with though.

That was a good header for Cambridge's first as Barry Corr headed it into the ground and it was the bounce that beat the keeper if anything. If anyone was at fault it was Raynes who was nowhere near him (which actually happened all day).

The formation can work at this level, it did with Gallimore Valintyne Deano, pounawatchy edmondson. Edmo and tally being the 2 wing backs.

We just need 3 central defenders to play as the central 3 rather than one and 2 full backs. Also need the 2 wing backs to be former full backs who can attack rather than wingers pretending to defend.

Just come out of rehab due to the disappointment of Tuesday cause it was going so well for 40 minutes to the extent that a number of Plymouth fans even asked where it all went wrong whilst making that walk back around back to the car park. One even said we blew them away the first half (without getting any reward.. My bit).
So after reading the posts, Northumbrian has it spot on and is ably backed up but Wukkie.
A couple of points from me however
Millers ( ?) slip for the first was unfortunate ( but nevertheless still contained an element of what I say below) which enabled the goal scorer to run against Raynes and shoot past him. A well taken goal, despite all and no fault of Gillespie or Raynes, as may have been suggested. We were all sadly right behind the goal.
The real problem started in the second half when Plymouth became far more aggressive in chasing our passing play and closing in on tackles more quickly such that errors arose in passing and we got caught in possession more often. Those slips for the third and fourth were a direct consequence. What happened for the second, I still don't know but has to be some mistake and was a real killer goal. Game over then, I thought.
So as to tactics; the problem was in really only having three at the back or rather no cover along the back line (at an away game, that is my big issue). With three at the back , the get out pass was generally along or slightly behind the defensive line. Mainly it was to Raynes from either of the full backs as play often went through or came back to the two wide channels however any slip by the full backs resulted in a full exposure on goal which was indeed exploited.
So really, I have to question whether the tactics on Tues were appropriate for an away game (I consider them to have been overly aggressive) and to wonder whether these tactics will reap the intended rewards given the robustness of Div 4 compared with our intended finess. Time will tell.
As to a couple more thoughts:
We were back on top in the last 10 mins with the into of Hery especially and Asamoah. Asamoah provided much needed speed and Hery was the guile. They were our goal. Hery is class and why he/they weren't in the starting line up on Tues beats me.
Is KC playing politics with the players??

Think Curle said Hery was struggling after three consecutive full games so I'd expect him straight back into the team tomorrow.

PS Might I suggest some form of sweeper. Old hat I know, but at least for the meantime to stem the goals against

At the end of the day it doesn't matter what formation he plays.... The players he picks in defence aren't good enough and will always concede goals! It's no good having to score 3/4/5 a game to win it!

I don't care what anyone says Troy would not give away the chances we've seen gift wrapped in the last couple of games! Raynes terrifies me by the way... Not convinced one bit!