Post by dannyboy on May 8, 2022 11:57:07 GMT
A song I remember from childhood sprang to mind while watching the Stevenage game, "Donald where's your troosers".
As it popped in my head while I was trying to figure out which position Love was playing then I guess it was my brain's way of rifling through its files of all Donald related items.
Now my dad is a big one for accusing managers - mainly Oldham ones, and Richie Wellens in particular - of failing because they use players out of position.
Not having watched Oldham regularly since my teens then I can't really comment on whether my dad has a point, but yesterday made me question what was going through GB's mind that saw him use Love in such an advanced position.
Now just what that position was takes some sorting through. Seeing a player mainly known for playing fullback and defensive midfield making regular third man runs into the Stevenage penalty area is just not what the doctor ordered.
On this very forum Crispy often points out Love's inability to judge the pace of a pass, so the idea that his shooting ,or ability to create a scoring chance, will be any better is a real stretch of the imagination.
Another role DL seemed to be tasked with was being involved in the link-up play in the final third. Now, this won't sound too kind but when Love was included in attacking moves he just immediately passed the ball back to where it came from, achieving precisely nothing. Forgive the comparison here but Mesut Ozil at his most ineffectual used to do much the same for Arsenal by adding nothing of value while happily recycling the ball to his nearest teammate. Maybe you can afford such a luxury in a strong team in the Premier League but the same doesn't apply at Salford in League Two. Every player has to add value and to do that they need to be played in a role that allows them to tap into their strengths. As maddening as I found watching Love playing so high then I can't really blame him as much as I can GB for coming up with the hare-brained scheme in the first place.
As an overview of the formation then it looked to me that Stephen Kelly was given sole responsibility to cover space in front of the back four, rather than the standard double pivot that we ordinarily see.
That accounts for the defensive half of the team which leaves five players ahead of them as the attacking portion of the outfit. The low hanging fruit starts with Matt Smith who operated slightly deeper then usual but played in a position not too far removed from one he has shown he can thrive in. Brandon and Shep looked to be wide forwards playing well in advance of the fullbacks.
That leaves the two "midfielders" unaccounted for in Watson and Love.
Well, the best I can come up with is that as neither was consistently partnering Kelly in a deeper role they were either box to box midfielders or a tandem of shadow strikers operating either side of Smith.
I think I can quash the box to box idea as the wide-open spaces that Stevenage often found on the break showed that both Watson and Love's responsibilities were less about protection and more geared towards chance creation. Strangely Love seemed to be playing higher than Watson yesterday so it may have been that Ryan was ploughing a lone furrow in orthodox central midfield just in front of Kelly.
However, the positions I noticed Watson popping up in most often were the Lampard -esque ones we've seen over the last few weeks. Visions of Frank in his prime came to mind when Ryan hit the post with a cracking shot just before halftime.
The real conundrum was Mr Love. I feel I can say with confidence that DL was shading toward the right-hand side of the pitch but with Shep wide on the flank then he had to stay infield to stop the two of them from getting under each other's feet.
The channel between Shep and Smith was the stretch of grass Love seemed to be patrolling, but for the life of me, I just have no idea what you would call such a position, or if one even exists.
I sometimes imagine to myself that if GB were to read any of my speculative attempts to decipher his tactics then he would be p***ing himself as I'm likely way off base most of the time. I would love (no pun intended) for him to shed a bit of light on his reasoning on two main points from yesterday's game. Firstly, what was he looking to achieve with moving Love to such an unfamiliar position and lastly why of the options available to him did he choose DL over other options in his squad.
One concept that may have been part of his thinking was to attempt to create an overload in that area, thereby causing havoc with Stevenage's defensive organisation on that side of the field. One point to consider though is if it's new to us as fans then this move also has a surprise element that has the potential for catching the opposition cold. All this has it's merits and can potentially be effective as long as your own players understand what is expected of them and can implement them effectively.
The Stevenage game showed that in an attempt to be too clever you can end up looking stupid as Love and Co appeared as clueless as anyone as to how they should be playing and what they should be doing.
One point I found interesting was that Donald got subbed for Ndai after an hour, and despite the youngster not ripping up trees in the game he looked far more suited technically in this advanced role than the converted fullback ever did.
As an overarching point - and hopefully without getting too existential about it - the rumours about GB being replaced at the end of the season make me think "what's the point to it all" in the sense that anything that he, and we, have learnt through his time at the club are possibly on the brink of going up in flames.
Many a poster on here has already pointed out that the arrival of a new manager means going right back to square one as it makes a large clear out of players more likely as well as signalling the start of a new learning curve with the new man's footballing philosophy.
I like to think I know when a manager has run his course, as I did at the Bristol Rovers home game earlier this season, but that is not my assessment of GB at this current moment.
He has proved two important things which I feel should allow him more time in the job.
The first is that despite having a terrible run of the results it never felt like he lost the dressing room, as the players never stopped playing for him. In hindsight, the players he had at his disposal before the January shopping spree were simply not up to scratch, so poor results with a poor team are par for the course.
Secondly, he has shown that when he has got better resources at his disposal he actually knows what to do with them. His success with the 4-2-3-1, which admittedly got a little jaded towards the end, demonstrates he can - Love against Stevenage excepting - fit round pegs in round holes. Going back to my dad's comment about Wellens then that is not something that should be taken for granted as it is a rarer quality amongst managers than you might think.
GB is a pragmatist, and he has applied that problem-solving ability to the Salford squad. Apart from the odd quibble here and there he has given first-team opportunities on merit and unlike other managers, he doesn't seem to discriminate against younger players. Thankfully in his eyes, if you're good enough then you're old enough.
Going back to my youth when my dad took me to Oldham games I remember certain managers flat out refusing to play younger players, instead preferring to offload them to make room for grizzled journeyman to fill out their squad.
The fact a few of these academy products went on to forge careers in higher leagues made me wonder what stopped the manager from wanting to utilise them in his team, as surely he wanted the best players in his team to make it more likely he would earn good results. I think it comes back to the unconscious biases that we all tend to have which influence our decisions more than we realise.
As a kid I had the polar opposite view of these Latics managers who valued time served veterans over anything else as due to watching the reserve team as well I was massively excited by the youth products at the time. In a sense I was just as set in my ways as these managers as I would have liked the vast majority of the starting eleven to be made up of these kids, which looking back now would have been a disaster as they weren't exactly the Class of '92.
I'm just trying to point out that most people, be they managers or fans have their own rose-tinted sunglasses that they use to see the world around them. GB, as I've already said, is a manager who appears to only care about what a player can offer on the field while paying little heed to how far in they are into their footballing career.
This links directly to a point I've hinted at in recent posts when I've pointed out the level of fatigue that seems to have crept into several players' performances of late.
With GB and his order of merit, playing his best players in each game, this leaves those first-team regulars susceptible to burning out.
There is no like for like replacement for Smith so it's totally understandable why he is constantly selected. The same is true with Ryan Watson, Corrie Ndaba and Stephen Kelly. They are all significantly better than any other option in the squad that could be used in their position, so while the carrot of promotion was still dangling within reach it's no surprise that they've been featured in almost every game.
The more experienced pair of Smith and Watson have remained pretty consistent throughout whereas the younger element has had a few more wobbles, especially of late. Corrie has had a game or two where he looked off his food, which is no issue considering how positive his contribution has been this year. Despite Kelly's high level of impact then his form seems to have become a bit more spotty in the last month which I can only think is a result of the physical toll of playing regularly the league.
Just to get this out in the world I would implore both Stephen and Corrie to consider returning here on loan again next season as I feel the environment, and opportunity to develop, is better here than in many other places they could be. It's obviously selfish to want players of their calibre to stay with my team but I genuinely think that what they would gain by recommitting here would stand them in great stead for their future careers.
Before I forget, a quick apology if I'm behind with any changes that have already taken place as any club related news or match related posts are put on hold until I've put my ideas together for my post-game piece.
Really sad that the season is over but I plan to write a few detailed pieces over the coming months as there's always something to get my teeth stuck into.
Thanks for reading.
As it popped in my head while I was trying to figure out which position Love was playing then I guess it was my brain's way of rifling through its files of all Donald related items.
Now my dad is a big one for accusing managers - mainly Oldham ones, and Richie Wellens in particular - of failing because they use players out of position.
Not having watched Oldham regularly since my teens then I can't really comment on whether my dad has a point, but yesterday made me question what was going through GB's mind that saw him use Love in such an advanced position.
Now just what that position was takes some sorting through. Seeing a player mainly known for playing fullback and defensive midfield making regular third man runs into the Stevenage penalty area is just not what the doctor ordered.
On this very forum Crispy often points out Love's inability to judge the pace of a pass, so the idea that his shooting ,or ability to create a scoring chance, will be any better is a real stretch of the imagination.
Another role DL seemed to be tasked with was being involved in the link-up play in the final third. Now, this won't sound too kind but when Love was included in attacking moves he just immediately passed the ball back to where it came from, achieving precisely nothing. Forgive the comparison here but Mesut Ozil at his most ineffectual used to do much the same for Arsenal by adding nothing of value while happily recycling the ball to his nearest teammate. Maybe you can afford such a luxury in a strong team in the Premier League but the same doesn't apply at Salford in League Two. Every player has to add value and to do that they need to be played in a role that allows them to tap into their strengths. As maddening as I found watching Love playing so high then I can't really blame him as much as I can GB for coming up with the hare-brained scheme in the first place.
As an overview of the formation then it looked to me that Stephen Kelly was given sole responsibility to cover space in front of the back four, rather than the standard double pivot that we ordinarily see.
That accounts for the defensive half of the team which leaves five players ahead of them as the attacking portion of the outfit. The low hanging fruit starts with Matt Smith who operated slightly deeper then usual but played in a position not too far removed from one he has shown he can thrive in. Brandon and Shep looked to be wide forwards playing well in advance of the fullbacks.
That leaves the two "midfielders" unaccounted for in Watson and Love.
Well, the best I can come up with is that as neither was consistently partnering Kelly in a deeper role they were either box to box midfielders or a tandem of shadow strikers operating either side of Smith.
I think I can quash the box to box idea as the wide-open spaces that Stevenage often found on the break showed that both Watson and Love's responsibilities were less about protection and more geared towards chance creation. Strangely Love seemed to be playing higher than Watson yesterday so it may have been that Ryan was ploughing a lone furrow in orthodox central midfield just in front of Kelly.
However, the positions I noticed Watson popping up in most often were the Lampard -esque ones we've seen over the last few weeks. Visions of Frank in his prime came to mind when Ryan hit the post with a cracking shot just before halftime.
The real conundrum was Mr Love. I feel I can say with confidence that DL was shading toward the right-hand side of the pitch but with Shep wide on the flank then he had to stay infield to stop the two of them from getting under each other's feet.
The channel between Shep and Smith was the stretch of grass Love seemed to be patrolling, but for the life of me, I just have no idea what you would call such a position, or if one even exists.
I sometimes imagine to myself that if GB were to read any of my speculative attempts to decipher his tactics then he would be p***ing himself as I'm likely way off base most of the time. I would love (no pun intended) for him to shed a bit of light on his reasoning on two main points from yesterday's game. Firstly, what was he looking to achieve with moving Love to such an unfamiliar position and lastly why of the options available to him did he choose DL over other options in his squad.
One concept that may have been part of his thinking was to attempt to create an overload in that area, thereby causing havoc with Stevenage's defensive organisation on that side of the field. One point to consider though is if it's new to us as fans then this move also has a surprise element that has the potential for catching the opposition cold. All this has it's merits and can potentially be effective as long as your own players understand what is expected of them and can implement them effectively.
The Stevenage game showed that in an attempt to be too clever you can end up looking stupid as Love and Co appeared as clueless as anyone as to how they should be playing and what they should be doing.
One point I found interesting was that Donald got subbed for Ndai after an hour, and despite the youngster not ripping up trees in the game he looked far more suited technically in this advanced role than the converted fullback ever did.
As an overarching point - and hopefully without getting too existential about it - the rumours about GB being replaced at the end of the season make me think "what's the point to it all" in the sense that anything that he, and we, have learnt through his time at the club are possibly on the brink of going up in flames.
Many a poster on here has already pointed out that the arrival of a new manager means going right back to square one as it makes a large clear out of players more likely as well as signalling the start of a new learning curve with the new man's footballing philosophy.
I like to think I know when a manager has run his course, as I did at the Bristol Rovers home game earlier this season, but that is not my assessment of GB at this current moment.
He has proved two important things which I feel should allow him more time in the job.
The first is that despite having a terrible run of the results it never felt like he lost the dressing room, as the players never stopped playing for him. In hindsight, the players he had at his disposal before the January shopping spree were simply not up to scratch, so poor results with a poor team are par for the course.
Secondly, he has shown that when he has got better resources at his disposal he actually knows what to do with them. His success with the 4-2-3-1, which admittedly got a little jaded towards the end, demonstrates he can - Love against Stevenage excepting - fit round pegs in round holes. Going back to my dad's comment about Wellens then that is not something that should be taken for granted as it is a rarer quality amongst managers than you might think.
GB is a pragmatist, and he has applied that problem-solving ability to the Salford squad. Apart from the odd quibble here and there he has given first-team opportunities on merit and unlike other managers, he doesn't seem to discriminate against younger players. Thankfully in his eyes, if you're good enough then you're old enough.
Going back to my youth when my dad took me to Oldham games I remember certain managers flat out refusing to play younger players, instead preferring to offload them to make room for grizzled journeyman to fill out their squad.
The fact a few of these academy products went on to forge careers in higher leagues made me wonder what stopped the manager from wanting to utilise them in his team, as surely he wanted the best players in his team to make it more likely he would earn good results. I think it comes back to the unconscious biases that we all tend to have which influence our decisions more than we realise.
As a kid I had the polar opposite view of these Latics managers who valued time served veterans over anything else as due to watching the reserve team as well I was massively excited by the youth products at the time. In a sense I was just as set in my ways as these managers as I would have liked the vast majority of the starting eleven to be made up of these kids, which looking back now would have been a disaster as they weren't exactly the Class of '92.
I'm just trying to point out that most people, be they managers or fans have their own rose-tinted sunglasses that they use to see the world around them. GB, as I've already said, is a manager who appears to only care about what a player can offer on the field while paying little heed to how far in they are into their footballing career.
This links directly to a point I've hinted at in recent posts when I've pointed out the level of fatigue that seems to have crept into several players' performances of late.
With GB and his order of merit, playing his best players in each game, this leaves those first-team regulars susceptible to burning out.
There is no like for like replacement for Smith so it's totally understandable why he is constantly selected. The same is true with Ryan Watson, Corrie Ndaba and Stephen Kelly. They are all significantly better than any other option in the squad that could be used in their position, so while the carrot of promotion was still dangling within reach it's no surprise that they've been featured in almost every game.
The more experienced pair of Smith and Watson have remained pretty consistent throughout whereas the younger element has had a few more wobbles, especially of late. Corrie has had a game or two where he looked off his food, which is no issue considering how positive his contribution has been this year. Despite Kelly's high level of impact then his form seems to have become a bit more spotty in the last month which I can only think is a result of the physical toll of playing regularly the league.
Just to get this out in the world I would implore both Stephen and Corrie to consider returning here on loan again next season as I feel the environment, and opportunity to develop, is better here than in many other places they could be. It's obviously selfish to want players of their calibre to stay with my team but I genuinely think that what they would gain by recommitting here would stand them in great stead for their future careers.
Before I forget, a quick apology if I'm behind with any changes that have already taken place as any club related news or match related posts are put on hold until I've put my ideas together for my post-game piece.
Really sad that the season is over but I plan to write a few detailed pieces over the coming months as there's always something to get my teeth stuck into.
Thanks for reading.