Awful statistics

Before Coyle came we only ever played 451 with Davies up top, under both Allardyce and Megson.

Pratley was the man who was meant to play in the Nolan role, after all that is his natural position.

Initially he started in the hole, charging into the box, even having a shot.

The changes your saying should have been made were actually already in the process of being used.

Arsenal began to pile on more pressure which meant we dropped into a more defensive 451, meaning Davies was isolated, but also meant we were meant to be more protected at the back, unfortunately that wasn't the case, had Pratley pushed even further forward and kept the 4411 we were using, then we would have been even more open at the back and we may have gone in at half time with a deficit.

Poor defensive positioning cost the first goal and then Wheater got sent off.. With only 4 in midfield then we were even more open an has it not been for Jussi we soul have lost by a lot more than 3-0. Tactically I felt Coyle did well, but individual mistakes cost us in the second half.

We never played 4-5-1 under either Allardyce or Megson with two out and out wingers, also Davies was not playing in his 35th year back then either!

Arsenal ‘piled’ on the pressure because they were free to come forward from the back because Davies posed no open play threat what so ever.

We played two defensive midfielders NRC and Muamba to screen the back – and had two wide men in Eagles and Petrov – not pushing Pratley forward (and having an immobile Kevin Davies as a lone striker) virtually invited Arsenal to attack us.

If you were the manager would you be happy for our team to be under attack away from home for seventy odd minutes? Would you not try to make changes to stop that happening?

I would.

You thought tactically Coyle did well – I don’t think many others did!

I think we played a static, defensive 451 under Megson, which wasn't successful. Under BSA, I always felt he started 451, but when we were attacking, it looked more like 433, till we had to defend again. That style certainly gave us the most success we've ever enjoyed over the last 10 years or so. Owen's 442 isn't working for Bolton ATM ...but whether that's because we don't have the quality of players needed to make that system work, or whether it's just not gelling, I don't know .....

My views on this are well documented on Burnden Aces, namely it was the repetition of playing the same way, with basically the same players that meant opposition managers knew exactly what to expect and were able to plan to deal with it AND exploit our known weaknesses.

4-4-2 is not the problem in my opinion, but rather teams knew we would have Davies and Klasnic in attack who were extremely static; They knew we would have Petrov on the left who doesn't do tracking back and thus leave Robinson to attack; They knew Knight if he got the ball would more often than not punt the ball 83 yards to no one in particular, etc.

All the weakness we have seen game after game, were there also for other opposition managers to see and exploit too - simply because we did not vary our style or tactics at all.

Anyway hopefully we have now crossed that bridge and the way we set up and play will become less predictable to the opposition from now on.

Basically, we don't have the quality of players (overall) that we had when we were a top 8 team. Opposition managers even back then knew exactly what Bolton were going to do....... but, unlike now (and the past few seasons) they still couldn't handle it. You can play whatever system you like in football, as long as the players you've got are well drilled, organised and well motivated. When those 3 attributes are missing - you'll get turned over, no matter what formation you line up in.

I can see it’s going to be hard work on here!

We were a top 8 team because we had quality players (totally agree with you) but because we could play in more than one way.

I can only assume you must be quite young if you remember us being just a ‘long ball’ team as much of the sports media labelled us back then – the fact is that with the likes of Djorkaeff, Okocha, Stelios, Speed, Campo, etc, we were quite capable of playing attacking football on the ground too!

The opposition could not set up to nullify a long ball game because we played some attractive, attacking football through midfield too!

You can drill, organise and motivate an army but if you deploy the wrong tactics they will lose the war!

With many teams being much of a muchness outside the top 7 or 8 in the Premier, an ability to out think the opposition is a requirement to win games that you may otherwise not have.

Playing the same way, with much the same players (who aren’t as talented as the Djorkaeff’s, Okocha’s, etc) month, after month, after month is easy to plan for and exploit – the results prove it!

We may not be able to match the squad that Allardyce had but also I don’t believe our current squad is as bad as the results (since the turn of the year) suggest.

I believe we are underachieving and a naivety over tactics from our management team goes a long way to explain why this is the case.

We were a top 8 team because we had quality players (totally agree with you) but because we could play in more than one way.
****
Agreed - that's why I said (further up the thread) that we used to switch under BSA from 451 to 433 when attacking ... but teams did know that we played it that way ..they just couldn't nullify it most of the time! But now, we seem to be so predictable, without any other dimension ( the 442 system is partly to blame for that IMO) ..though again, comparative lack of quality on the pitch doesn't help. There must be a way to get the players to perform better as a team - tactics, as you say, come into that. I just don't know if OC has the tactical ability to unravel & solve the problems ....

"I just don't know if OC has the tactical ability to unravel & solve the problems ...."

Well done fella, you’ve caught up to what I said in my very first post on here -

“I would be more encouraged if Mr Coyle showed some cunning and savvy with his tactics and team selections – but to me he seems to be making one school boy error after another”.

…and what I’ve been saying for months on Burnden Aces (well before the Stoke game!).

Don’t get me wrong I want Coyle to succeed but he’s not shown much tactical awareness as far as I can see up to now, so I can’t suddenly see him becoming a grand master strategist over night, can you?

Don't talk to me about Grand Masters ... I once dined out in the company of Gary Kasparov, the former Russian chess Grand Master. We were sat at a table with a black n' white checked table cloth ....and it took him 2 hours to pass me the salt cellar!

Don't give up the day job fella!