Extended-PhenotypeSnowflake RoyalExtended-Phenotype With an AM you want a creative player, who understands space, with a good pass and a decent record for scoring goals outside of the box. I’m not sure why we wouldn’t put Wing in there.
I get that the old/current idea is to have Wing deep so he can “quarterback” long passes into the final third, but that’s not really working anymore. It’s not only wasting creative talent in a defensive position, I don’t actually think Wing is very good defensively.
My guess is that Hunt brought Doyle in for AM and sure, if you HAD to play Wing, Savage and Doyle in the middle, Doyle in AM with Wing and Savage behind him is probably the best arrangement. But I don’t think it’s the best arrangement when you make these players droppable.
Firstly, Doyle doesn’t need to walk into the starting 11 on fire to be a success. Let him try to make his mark from the bench. God knows we need a bit of quality coming on later in the game. And to be honest, I’m not sure why Doyle can’t be played on the wing if we really want him on the pitch at the same time as our captain.
Secondly, we have better options for DM than Wing, that don’t have to be perfect. Elliot has a lot of athleticism and has done a job there before. Ritchie has an outstanding understanding of positioning. If you wanted more defensive options, we seem to be rather saturated with FBs and CBs - could Yiadom do a job there? Burns? Ahmed? Dorsett? Garcia? And if any of those are a bit radical, there’s the player absolutely nailed on for DM when he’s fit: Liam Fraser.
What seems to happen with Reading in every game I have watched this season, is that everything gets pressed into a scrap and Wing and Savage fall backwards leaving a void in the middle that the players we have been asking to control it simply fail to. So why NOT try out best player in this hole, and bring in a better defensive option to boot. It just seems so obvious.
On Doyle out wide, his previous club were pretty adamant that he's far better centrally. He played wide in his first game for us and was poor. Although, I guess that's consistent performaces for us in both positions. You want a winger to be able to go past someone, Doyle doesn't.
On Wing playing AM, my argument has always been that he doesn't have the legs to beat someone and get away from them. He can turn someone and find space for a pass deep, because the space is less congested and there's usually only one player pressing him. Move him forward and everywhere he turns there'll be someone else nearby.
Added to that he gets pretty much all his goals by lurking deep and either running in late or finding space outside the press and defensive line. He won't have that if he plays forward, he'll be in the press.
Maybe he adapts and makes it work, but I don't think its the no brainer many think it is.
As for DMs, why try to get creative with Yids or Ritchie (Mr yellow card) when you can just play Rino?
Or Sackey or Spencer or Borgnis?
Wing: My impression is that “Wing is good at X” because that’s what he has been asked to do. Yes he “likes” to lurk from deep because that’s where he is being played. I’m not saying you are wrong about him perhaps finding it difficult to turn a player, or to find space effectively in a more contested position, but I personally haven’t seen evidence of this which is where my curiosity comes from. I’d like to see us at least try it, as centre midfield can’t get any worse. At the moment, it’s like a big cartoon fight cloud in the middle of the pitch that we either try to play around or ping the ball in there and hope it randomly pings out again in a favourable direction. A more disciplined DM line with a better passer in front of them could fix the machine.
DMs: Absolutely those players you suggested could do a job there. My argument is playing Wing more advanced might not only improve our creativity in attack, but also improve our stability in the middle.
433: I think a more free-flowing central midfield worked when we had players that understood each other. Last season it just seemed like we were almost running on pure understanding. After significant changes to personnel, this understanding has vanished. I’m not saying it won’t return, but right now I think our best bet is to go with a more rigid, role-defined midfield where players don’t have to interpret so much what their team mate might do - they just do more or less what their role dictates.
I’m a fan of simplicity. I don’t think you improve a struggling team by adding rules, complexity and flexibility. I think you build expectation in each other through discipline. Back four, holding DMs for protection and turnover, someone in the hole, a bit of width and a striker to put chances away. From there, build in flexibility. Don’t start with it and expect everyone to immediately gel and know what each other is thinking.
I have seen a few comments that claim we’d have won in we had Marriott on the pitch. But to my mind, teams win games and strikers break ties. We might have won on Saturday if Marriott received the rare chances MOM/Kelvin did, but that would be papering over the cracks of a poor performance.
There's a lot of sense in here. And I could well be wrong about Wing, he is after all a quality player.
Particularly agree about simplicity and role defined play, especially for struggling teams. My other big bugbear is teams succeed through the building of partnerships across the pitch. Something that's easier with simple clearly defined roles. And something that's not helped by constantlh asking players to switch position. Bad enough game to game, but doing it mid-game is bonkers imo.
