Schofield buckled?

[Thorney]

DS when come in has played with 1 striker with Hurst and molly wide out.
Against carlisle in the last home game we probably was the best we have been all season. Against orient and Mansfield though we got beat we did play some nice stuff though we didn't score.

So after all the pressure to play 2 up top he did. And it didn't work. We was less threatening than previous games.

Is that a weakness? Should he have stuck to the formation that he knows.?

[Reg of the Rovers]

He still went five at the back with two holding in midfield though, so we we're still far too deep. I'm not sure who dreamed up this formation but it's awful to watch, I can't bear to watch England for this reason, and we (Rovers) are terrible it at, and it's terrible to watch.

They beat us by playing a 'quarterback' who just sat in deep and mopped up anything we sent forward, as we couldn't get numbers up the pitch and we couldn't dominate midfield (as we don't have one).

I like the look of Lakin and Lavery and Hurst was bright, but as other threads are saying we have no quality and no fight, and no managerial nous to set us up to be hard to beat or entertaining. It's a tough time to be a Rovers fan right now, there's not much light at the end of the tunnel at the moment.

[streathamdave]

I saw him being prepared to play 2 up top as the only light at the end of the tunnel. He needs to stick with this. For simplicity I'd go 4-4-2 but I'm not against 4-3-3 or even a 4-3-2-1 if the 2 are genuinely close to the 1. 5 at the back is not right in this league with the players we have got.

[DonnyOsmond]

We conceded yesterday when we went to 4 at the back.

[streathamdave]

We concede almost every single game with 5 at the back. Conceding a goal with 4 at the back still gives us one more player further forward and more of a chance of scoring ourselves. Let the opposition start to worry about us rather than us always worrying about them. 5 at the back can work with top teams with top management. At this level it simply invites teams onto us and reduces our control in midfield and limits our opportunities going forward. At our level it quickly becomes Anti-football which you could argue for if we were any good at it but we aren't.

[ravenrover]

We conceded yesterday when we went to 4 at the back.

How much time did Riwe actually spend as a defending player? We actually went 2 at the back.

[Reg of the Rovers]

We concede almost every single game with 5 at the back. Conceding a goal with 4 at the back still gives us one more player further forward and more of a chance of scoring ourselves. Let the opposition start to worry about us rather than us always worrying about them. 5 at the back can work with top teams with top management. At this level it simply invites teams onto us and reduces our control in midfield and limits our opportunities going forward. At our level it quickly becomes Anti-football which you could argue for if we were any good at it but we aren't.

I absolutely agree with this. The Keegan-era Newcastle model - we're probably gonna concede so let's go out and score more. Any even if we do lose, actually it's been a good watch and we've had some excitement and endeavor! And actually we seem to have more success at the moment when we go at teams, rather than try and keep it tight. 

[Alan Southstand]

IF we had a decent midfield, we wouldn’t be so concerned about the defence!

[ForsolongaRover]

It's a pity that none of the journalists who interview him don't question him in (I was going to say) "more depth", but actually apart from the 1 or 2 striker question, they never get him down to the detail of his formations. Yet his speciality is supposedly coaching. They should be pressing him for a proper analysis of his tactics and individual player performance within the game plan. You could conclude that they don't really understand any of the technicalities. Hoden is now batting for the home team and Goodwin seems to have been sidelined. And the best thing you could say about the local radio presenter last week is that she is still new to the profession.

Perhaps a welcome innovation would be a guest interviewer drawn from the VSC. I'm sure there would be no shortage of volunteers. Whether you still have faith or not it would at least coax him telling us something meaningful. Add even those sympathetic would surely want to draw him in out in a way that might bring round some of the sceptics. I'm sure that they are frustrated at having to make assumptions about what they believe he is trying to do when they defend him. He would make it so much easier for everybody if he was more open.   

 
 

[Canadian Rover]

Or similar to UFC press conferences allow YouTube hosts to ask questions. The days of modern journalism have changed.

[DonnyBazR0ver]

Jesus wept. He's the coach. We all have different opinions on formations etc, but we all know the players performing play a massive part, whatever formation we play. Many were calling for two up top so Miller doesn't get too isolated and just because he played two up top doesn't mean he's abandoned his principles.

For me, on Saturday, Biggins kept running away from the ball carrier, often the centre half's, instead of offering himself up as an easy option for the pass. Seemed he was more interested in getting into positions to have a crack at goal. This left Close doing the hard graft to find space and a least make an option, and cover back defensively. 

I hoped DS would either sub Biggins for Lakin or at least put Lakin in there to help Close out a bit.

That all said, particularly second half we moved the ball well up to the final third and created chances. Yes, we didn't show enough determination or guile in that final third to convert good territory into goals but that's down to the individual players not the formation.

I had this issue with my mates on Saturday, who seem to be nit picking now, always looking for the negative. I think some folk are being overly harsh on DS and the players.

[Bessie Red]

It's a pity that none of the journalists who interview him don't question him in (I was going to say) "more depth", but actually apart from the 1 or 2 striker question, they never get him down to the detail of his formations. Yet his speciality is supposedly coaching. They should be pressing him for a proper analysis of his tactics and individual player performance within the game plan. You could conclude that they don't really understand any of the technicalities. Hoden is now batting for the home team and Goodwin seems to have been sidelined. And the best thing you could say about the local radio presenter last week is that she is still new to the profession.

Perhaps a welcome innovation would be a guest interviewer drawn from the VSC. I'm sure there would be no shortage of volunteers. Whether you still have faith or not it would at least coax him telling us something meaningful. Add even those sympathetic would surely want to draw him in out in a way that might bring round some of the sceptics. I'm sure that they are frustrated at having to make assumptions about what they believe he is trying to do when they defend him. He would make it so much easier for everybody if he was more open.   

 
 

Trouble is he is a modern day coach who has no indepent thought and just follows what is in the latest coaching manual. He is like a robot and is only capable of giving the answer that has been inputted through the FA training manuals.

[DonnyOsmond]

For anyone who takes an interest in xG and stuff like that see below, anyone who thinks its black magic/b*llocks don't read (even though currently over-achieving clubs like Brentford and Brighton use it).


Over the course of the season WyScout has us down as 9th on Expected Points. On Expected Goal Difference we are 10th. Both show we are under-achieving based on are performances.

We have scored 31 goals from an xG of 34.75 and conceded 40 from an xGA of 33.05.

Under McSheffrey we had scored 18 from an xG of 17.15 from 14 games (so not the biggest data set). We had conceded 19 from an xGA of 21.89. xG per game of 1.23 (11th highest in the league), xGA per game of 1.56 (4th lowest), xGD per game has us 5th bottom.

Under Schofield we have scored 13 from an xG of 17.59 from 13 games (again, a fairly small data set). We have conceded 21 from xGA 11.16 (those individual mistakes are really letting us down!). xG per game of 1.35 (8th highest in the league), xGA per game of 0.86 (best in the league), xGD per game has us 3rd.

So although the results currently don't show it the performances are better under Schofield than under McSheffrey and usually the results do end up following suit. I'm not suggesting we'll finish in the play-offs but the right choice currently is to stick by Schofield. Hopefully with better recruitment (which I'm doubtful of), we might do pretty well next season.

[Spilsby Red]

Interesting DonnyOsmond. I never can understand that. Thanks for taking the time. I am hopeful that things can turn around in Schofield. We have to give him time

[ForsolongaRover]

For anyone who takes an interest in xG and stuff like that see below, anyone who thinks its black magic/b*llocks don't read (even though currently over-achieving clubs like Brentford and Brighton use it).


Over the course of the season WyScout has us down as 9th on Expected Points. On Expected Goal Difference we are 10th. Both show we are under-achieving based on are performances.

We have scored 31 goals from an xG of 34.75 and conceded 40 from an xGA of 33.05.

Under McSheffrey we had scored 18 from an xG of 17.15 from 14 games (so not the biggest data set). We had conceded 19 from an xGA of 21.89. xG per game of 1.23 (11th highest in the league), xGA per game of 1.56 (4th lowest), xGD per game has us 5th bottom.

Under Schofield we have scored 13 from an xG of 17.59 from 13 games (again, a fairly small data set). We have conceded 21 from xGA 11.16 (those individual mistakes are really letting us down!). xG per game of 1.35 (8th highest in the league), xGA per game of 0.86 (best in the league), xGD per game has us 3rd.

So although the results currently don't show it the performances are better under Schofield than under McSheffrey and usually the results do end up following suit. I'm not suggesting we'll finish in the play-offs but the right choice currently is to stick by Schofield. Hopefully with better recruitment (which I'm doubtful of), we might do pretty well next season.

It would be interesting Donny to know whether these formulae are proven to apply to soccer at all levels and whether there are any variable factors which distinguish between the abilities of the individual players and their capability to combine to improve effectiveness. Do they produce more predictable results as the skill standard rises?

And are there particular patterns of play, the execution of which define the way in which the numbers making up the "x"s?

Put basically, what I am driving at is whether someone whose emphasis is on coaching theory might succeed in schooling his players in systems which might not entirely suit the level of their skill. Simplistically you might suggest that what you tell us of the data vs DRFC results rather tends to prove that. Put another way, they are doing the right things by the book, but it won't happen reliably 
because they are not good enough at it.     

[Sammy Chung was King]

We are not scoring enough goals and are conceding too many. We haven’t formed a functioning team. The manager still doesn’t know his best eleven.