I really hope we use a similar ploy to when Luongo played a Libero role, as three centre backs can leave us too depleted further up the pitch against Wycombe's 4-2-3-1. The reason 3-5-2 went out of vogue in the early 2000s was precisely because teams turned to lone front men.
Three defenders in a line against one striker means space elsewhere for the attacking team.
So unless we tep it up, we'll be heavily outnumbered when we're on the ball, if Wycombe pad central areas like they did in their successful game against Watford:
Here's how it may look when we defend if both teams set up formationwise as they have recently:
No Wycombe pace threat in central areas, but Kashket will have the beating of Reach pace-wise on their right. Unless we, as we have been doing during games, switch the wingbacks around, and then have Iorfa as RCB and Harris as LWB defending any counter threats from Kashket+Horgan
I'd like to see us more on the front foot and press more than we have done recently. Whether the players are all there fitness-wise to do so is an open question. We've definitely looked a bit lethargic to say the least.
Something like this in established play, when we're looking to keep the ball and look for space and moving their structure around to set up overloads. Both Bannan and Pelupessy will need to be brave(r) on the ball than recently, linking Paterson, Windass, Marriott's movement.
Here are the two teams by the numbers. Wycombe have created better quality chances, had as much play in attacking areas, and had as many (few) shots as Wednesday so far this season - and even more than Wednesday's very low 20 shots on target:
Wednesday's impotence going forward has to some degree been covered by a capable defence, whereas Wycombe's attacking play has come at the expense of defence that has been extremely porous.
Prime opportunity for Jack Marriott to finally punch the goalscorers card for Wednesday?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Some interesting discussion (if you're a footy data 🤓 like me at least!) Thursday on the use of Expected Goals (xG), which Reading's wild start to the season has brought a spotlight on.
That's the data I've used in the rest of the tweet thread.
A word of caution, of course, that xG and non-shot xG data aggregated at match level *can* be misleading:
In a probalistic sense, ie. "how likely is the win?", it's better to have one shot all game that is 0.5 xG, a 50% probability of a goal, than 20 shots that are 0.025 xG each
#swfc are the bookies' second favourites for relegation behind only Wycombe (oddschecker.com/football/engli…), because of our 12 points deduction (pending appeal (yeah, not really)).
How high is the mountain we have to climb in historical terms then?
I've been as critical as anyone of the (lack of) leadership at our club, but there HAVE been steps made to change things (albeit too small)
[2/?]
1) We have a recruitment setup, the two people brought in by Bruce, that works in tandem with the infamous "transfer committee" (which is now apparently just Paixao) and our manager.