[Backofthenet]

Well it looks like the slump could be over. Now is the time to really push on and get some big points on the board. Before the end of the year we can make a big statement and hopefully hold onto players that can get us over the line.
To be fair Leeds were rubbish but I always thought the would implode. I don't think there is another side in this league that could stand up to us playing like we did, and as well as making them make mistakes, being able to capitalise on them. That has been a failing of ours for too long but we did ourselves proud on Saturday. Long may it continue.

[BalisPen]

There was energy and impetus in that performance on Saturday I did not believe were capable of and MP appeared to set the tone with his (often missing) workrate, maybe more noticeable in his more central position.

The south American football correspondent Tim vickery said bielsa's team start off like a rocket and would have won him many leagues if the season only consistex of 19 games as his sides cannot maintain the pressing game they play over a long period.

That along with the mad sessions he had the Leeds players in pre season will see them fade imo, that and not having an out and out 20 plus goal striker.

[johnny Cash]

Just looked at our fixtures and I think the next 5 will shape our season. If we can come through playing well I think DM will have everyone right on side heading towards the transfer window.

[Backofthenet]

Agreed, although if we come through those 5 fixtures unscathed there will be some that hold the purse strings thinking we don't need strengthening in the window. It's a difficult one to forecast because we would all like to be sure of a positive outcome when May arrives and we all have ideas of how we should get there. What we really need is some consistency and balance.
I still see us very much as a work in progress and we might have to be patient. If we only rebuild to go back up that could be a backward step as we actually need to build to stay up which could prove a bit more difficult.

[Windmill Baggy]

I think it was a combination of things, including player availability.

There is no doubt that Darren Moore really wanted 3 at the back to work, and it did for a big chunk of the season at home in particular, with Barnes constantly ripping the opposition a new one every time we beat a press = Loadsagoals!  However, our goal scoring was compensating for just how vulnerable we looked at the back and once Gayle got injured and the goals dried up he had to change.

Mozza has been bought back gradually , but although at times his display was understated on Saturday due to the more direct style of play, he made a massive difference to the balance of the team.   Quick to turn on the ball, able to close down past the front three and fully aware of the space around him he just made us tick and for once Livermore was able to play as part of a balanced midfield team.  This solidity also allowed Phillips to get forward more and he had one of those days when he just looks a beast.

Regarding Johnstone, yep this looked to me like a tactical switch and he had been told to get rid up to the front three quickly often via the head of Phillips and Tosin who actually lost out once to the pipsqueak marking him but then won everything else.   However, this more direct route would not have worked withouth HRK and JRod having stoermers and this is where I do have to take off my hat to Darren Moore in the persistence with both.  We all had unhappy thoughts when we saw HRK on the team sheet and I thought JRod was done......but Darren Moore kept the faith and obviously saw they still had performances in them.

I'm still unsure if playing 3 at the back was DM's preference, or more of a case that the failure to sign the RB he wanted over the summer led to him trying to shoe-horn the players into a system which did not use an out and out RB. Early in the season we played a flat back 4 against Forest with Tosin at RB, but he did not look comfortable playing there if I recall, which led to the switch to a back 3. It has been a similar situation with Brunt playing centrally. If the attempted Dack transfer had come off I imagine Brunt playing CM would not have transpired, but DM has been trying to find the best solution until January with Morrison not match fit. Both these situations also caused DM to delve into the unattached market by bringing in Mears and Sako as cover for these positions.

I know many on here have regularly expressed views similar to my post below, which I made on the 5th, but I'll re-post it here anyway:

The 'back three' aren't playing well because they are playing as a back three and are being tasked with keeping possession and playing it out from the back, while also not having a suitable CM coming to take the ball and taking the pressure of them.

Go 2 at the back (Dawson and Hegazi) with 3 in the midfield (any 3 from the plethora of options we have excluding Brunt), to 1. give the defence more protection and 2. give us more bodies in midfield so we can more readily get control of it possession wise more frequently; move Brunt to the left (or drop him all together); and allow the defenders to move the ball up the pitch more quickly and things will improve pretty rapidly. Changing to a more suitable system and style of play from what we have may just lead to Dawson seeming a bit less 'half-arsed' as well as if most of the fans can see the system is badly flawed then I'm sure many of the players can as well. It's the set-up and tactics that is beginning to kill the team, not the standard of the players.

I am confident that the squad of players we have is good enough to challenge for an automatic space, and with one or two (RB and CM, no more) key signings in January there should be no excuses for not being able to finish in 1 of those two spots.

[Standaman]

I still think people are under estimating the work Darren has done with this group of players to move from the regimented structures of Pulisball to something more fluid that is capable of scoring goals from open play.

It is not just tactics and team shape that is the easy bit. Getting the players to buy into a wholly different approach and take responsibility for it and the risks that come with it is a lot harder. Moore has done something no coach has even attempted to do in ages with the possible exception of Pepe Mel which is push the players outside their comfort zone.

Having gone to a 3-4-1-2 Moore couldn't abandon it as soon as we hit the first bump in the road because the players are looking for easy and safe options and it was critical if Moore wanted to change that the players saw that he was serious about the changes he was implementing. 

In any event while we were getting results he could work on the issues that were fairly obvious but following the Derby game and more importantly the reaction in the following two games he had to acknowledge that maybe he was being over ambitious.

However the performance against Leeds was still more fluent than this team would otherwise have delivered under Pulis. It wasn't hit and hope and particularly when we got ahead there were passages of play which required the players to risks in possession.

Moore has genuinely changed the way the team plays whether 3-4-1-2 ever sees the light of day again is debatable but the lessons learnt from it are very much part of the process of building a different style of play.   

[seteefeet]

I still think people are under estimating the work Darren has done with this group of players to move from the regimented structures of Pulisball to something more fluid that is capable of scoring goals from open play.

It is not just tactics and team shape that is the easy bit. Getting the players to buy into a wholly different approach and take responsibility for it and the risks that come with it is a lot harder. Moore has done something no coach has even attempted to do in ages with the possible exception of Pepe Mel which is push the players outside their comfort zone.

Having gone to a 3-4-1-2 Moore couldn't abandon it as soon as we hit the first bump in the road because the players are looking for easy and safe options and it was critical if Moore wanted to change that the players saw that he was serious about the changes he was implementing. 

In any event while we were getting results he could work on the issues that were fairly obvious but following the Derby game and more importantly the reaction in the following two games he had to acknowledge that maybe he was being over ambitious.

However the performance against Leeds was still more fluent than this team would otherwise have delivered under Pulis. It wasn't hit and hope and particularly when we got ahead there were passages of play which required the players to risks in possession.

Moore has genuinely changed the way the team plays whether 3-4-1-2 ever sees the light of day again is debatable but the lessons learnt from it are very much part of the process of building a different style of play.   

Great post mate. I think it's worthwhile adding that both Pulis and Pardew's inability to change from a failing system cost them their jobs. The fact that Moore has, by going 4 at the back, practically admitted the 352 experiment hasn't worked, is further testament to his character and evidence that he may just have a bit more about him than some credit him for.

[Albionic]

Darren said at the start of the season it would be horses for courses, implying he would be flexible, he has also been loyal to the senior players (too much?? will be a point we can debate ad infinitum).

However Bartleys suspension and Brunts injury / form have meant loyalty ended and flexibility had to be used. The great performance that this resulted in was a joy when a lot of us were starting to doubt Darrens ability, yes it could be argued that circumstances caused the changes in personnel, but it was Darren that changed the system, so fair play to him.

I hope we start with an unchanged team / formation or at the very most bring in Gayle for either of HRK or JRod, to do any more than that would be de-motivating IMO.

[darbolina]

I still think people are under estimating the work Darren has done with this group of players to move from the regimented structures of Pulisball to something more fluid that is capable of scoring goals from open play.

It is not just tactics and team shape that is the easy bit. Getting the players to buy into a wholly different approach and take responsibility for it and the risks that come with it is a lot harder. Moore has done something no coach has even attempted to do in ages with the possible exception of Pepe Mel which is push the players outside their comfort zone.

Having gone to a 3-4-1-2 Moore couldn't abandon it as soon as we hit the first bump in the road because the players are looking for easy and safe options and it was critical if Moore wanted to change that the players saw that he was serious about the changes he was implementing. 

In any event while we were getting results he could work on the issues that were fairly obvious but following the Derby game and more importantly the reaction in the following two games he had to acknowledge that maybe he was being over ambitious.

However the performance against Leeds was still more fluent than this team would otherwise have delivered under Pulis. It wasn't hit and hope and particularly when we got ahead there were passages of play which required the players to risks in possession.

Moore has genuinely changed the way the team plays whether 3-4-1-2 ever sees the light of day again is debatable but the lessons learnt from it are very much part of the process of building a different style of play.   

Yep well said. Moore is trying to turn around a defensive juganaut whilst still moving. If he achieves a change in style with more fluidity whilst being defensively stronger it coukd mean a top four place which I think would be a great achievement. A top two place should see him talked about like Megson or Mowbray because make no mistake we were in utter turmoil a few months ago.

[GREGMT]

The jury is still out on Moore i believe.

The unavailabilty of Bartley and Brunt forced his hand v Leeds and we had a much more mobile / fluid team.  We should be one of the leading lights in this division.  I don't understand the horses for courses statement, we should be imposing our will on teams not the other way around.

Do we teally want to back to a slow dsyfunctional midfield which resulted in recent disjointed performances.  Theres a lot to be said for finding your best 11 and standing by it.  Yes there will be 15min cameos by the support cast but poor performances should not be tolerated.

[Atomic]

The jury is still out on Moore i believe.

The unavailabilty of Bartley and Brunt forced his hand v Leeds and we had a much more mobile / fluid team.  We should be one of the leading lights in this division.  I don't understand the horses for courses statement, we should be imposing our will on teams not the other way around.

Do we teally want to back to a slow dsyfunctional midfield which resulted in recent disjointed performances.  Theres a lot to be said for finding your best 11 and standing by it.  Yes there will be 15min cameos by the support cast but poor performances should not be tolerated.

I'm with you. The "horses for courses" thing is slightly concerning. Yes, for sure, at times we will need to tinker with things during a game to cope with different situations but any good team should do that that should be a given. I hope that's what Darren means by "horses for courses", or maybe it's a polite and diplomatic way of deflecting the fact that he changed the system against the primary wishes of Graeme Jones. What I hope "horses for courses" doesn't mean is that he is going to keep chopping and changing the system, I don't want to see that at all.

We've found the system that suits us now in the 4-3-3, the Leeds performance was better than any of the sixteen or so games that we've played another way. We've found our default system now I expect us to stick with it. Not only does it suit the players we have but it's also advantageous in the modern game and that system should enable us to deal with almost anything the opposition do.

You can vary the way you play the 4-3-3, you can pull the wide men inside and slightly deeper for certain situations which then becomes more a 4-3-2-1. You can also play with a direct "number 9" than looks to run in behind rather than the J Rod type who will drop in and receive the ball to feet facing goal, almost like a false number 9 at times. Instead of using Robson-Kanu wide who you can hit directly, you can employ another option either a Gayle type who will need the ball played along the ground or a Burke type with blistering pace that you can use in behind. You can even play two through the middle and give the third forward a freer role. In the middle of the park you can do away with the attacking component (Phillips vs Leeds) and use a more pragmatic option (Barry, Harper, Field depending on how you play him) if you feel the need. At the back you can alter you full backs. You can use a more pragmatic left back rather than the marauding Gibbs or a more attacking option rather than the stay back option of Adarabioyo (not that we're blessed with other options).

All of the above are options in a 4-3-3 but what stays the same is the 4-3, the shape of the defence and midfield. This gives you stability and a strong platform every game and should result in a more consistent level of performance and a far better defensive record even when coping with the loss of first choice personnel.

In short, I don't want to see us deviate from the 4-3. Every good team has a default system and a way of playing that the players are a) comfortable with and b) familiar with. If we keep changing things we will lose that familiarity and consistency.

Jury is out on Darren Moore for me but the jury would be out with anyone they are judged on what they do at the time and how we are progressing.

[Standaman]

The "Horses for Courses" comment can be taken any number of ways. I doubt whether there is a split in the Moore/Jones relationship it goes way back and is based on genuine mutual respect they are on the same page when it comes to coaching philosophy.

The 4-3-3 isn't so far removed from the 3-3-1-2. In possession Gibbs gets into far more advanced positions than Adarabioyo so at some points we are playing with 3 Centre Backs. Equally Leeds are a unique challenge in that they are probably the only team in the Division whose default style is the high press. Some teams have adopted the style specifically against us e.g. Derby and Bristol one worked well the other didn't.

 The key difference was not the shape of the team but the fact that they we didn't dwell on the ball at the back specifically to counter Leeds high press. The same style might not work against a deep sitting team trying to chisel out a point because they will get numbers back behind the ball in a deep sitting block. At this point we need to move the ball around to work positions. I suspect the first test of this is Ipswich next Friday. 

The games come thick and fast through Christmas we won't get through the programme without being forced to rotate out some players. Team selection will be a juggling act but on the back of the International break it will be interesting to see if Darren keeps the team that beat Leeds.

[GREGMT]

The "Horses for Courses" comment can be taken any number of ways. I doubt whether there is a split in the Moore/Jones relationship it goes way back and is based on genuine mutual respect they are on the same page when it comes to coaching philosophy.

The 4-3-3 isn't so far removed from the 3-3-1-2. In possession Gibbs gets into far more advanced positions than Adarabioyo so at some points we are playing with 3 Centre Backs. Equally Leeds are a unique challenge in that they are probably the only team in the Division whose default style is the high press. Some teams have adopted the style specifically against us e.g. Derby and Bristol one worked well the other didn't.

 The key difference was not the shape of the team but the fact that they we didn't dwell on the ball at the back specifically to counter Leeds high press. The same style might not work against a deep sitting team trying to chisel out a point because they will get numbers back behind the ball in a deep sitting block. At this point we need to move the ball around to work positions. I suspect the first test of this is Ipswich next Friday. 

The games come thick and fast through Christmas we won't get through the programme without being forced to rotate out some players. Team selection will be a juggling act but on the back of the International break it will be interesting to see if Darren keeps the team that beat Leeds.

I think formations are overrated.  The number one factor for determining how successful a team is the overall quality of the players.  And as we have arguably close to the best set of players this division has to offer than we should be targeting top 2 and nothing less.

The appalling losses to Wigan and Hull originated from a desperately slow midfield that was shut down from kick off.  The game was turned into a scrap and we were bullied into submission. 

As you alluded to the best way of combating inferior opposition is with quality possession and moving them around the pitch to tire them out.  That is why Moore has to get the midfield selection correct as number 1 priority.  As I see it, Morrison is just coming to the fore he has missed the first 3 months so in theory shouldn’t need a break.  Barnes has young legs and will always want to play.  Livermore is the one that should be under threat, but he does have more energy than Brunt, Barry and Hoolahan.

Not getting promoted will probably cost this club about £80m next season alone.  Moore needs to pull out all the stops and that means picking the best players.  Horses for courses maybe at Xmas when the games are thick and fast?

[mulliganstired]

You can afford one "back row forward" player like Livermore to do the slogging as long as the other midfielders can be more procative and mobile.

[Atomic]

The "Horses for Courses" comment can be taken any number of ways. I doubt whether there is a split in the Moore/Jones relationship it goes way back and is based on genuine mutual respect they are on the same page when it comes to coaching philosophy.

The 4-3-3 isn't so far removed from the 3-3-1-2. In possession Gibbs gets into far more advanced positions than Adarabioyo so at some points we are playing with 3 Centre Backs. Equally Leeds are a unique challenge in that they are probably the only team in the Division whose default style is the high press. Some teams have adopted the style specifically against us e.g. Derby and Bristol one worked well the other didn't.

The key difference was not the shape of the team but the fact that they we didn't dwell on the ball at the back specifically to counter Leeds high press. The same style might not work against a deep sitting team trying to chisel out a point because they will get numbers back behind the ball in a deep sitting block. At this point we need to move the ball around to work positions. I suspect the first test of this is Ipswich next Friday. 

The games come thick and fast through Christmas we won't get through the programme without being forced to rotate out some players. Team selection will be a juggling act but on the back of the International break it will be interesting to see if Darren keeps the team that beat Leeds.

Can't agree with this at all. I think the shape was the critical difference. The 3 in midfield transformed us into a different team. You state that we didn't dwell on the ball at the back but the last few games have seen us do less of that anyway. I haven't seen a couple of the away games but the homes I have and I noticed this change before the Leeds game.

[FallOutBoy]

Just seen this on the Express and Stir, and got really annoyed...

https://www.expressandstar.com/sport/football/west-bromwich-albion/2018/11/21/darren-moore-reveals-75-game-golden-rule-for-youngsters/

They aren't going to get to 75 games unless you give them 1 to 74.

I thought Dave would be better for the kids than this. As it is the only two consistently in the team aren't even ours. Edwards played against Reading and looked decent, hasn't been seen since. Field looks to have been hung out to dry because he came in for the games where Moore's formation and tactics were completely caught out. And Harper, Leko, and Burke have yet to see any real league football.

We've got another dinosaur; experience is king. But James McClean has played more games than Harvey Barnes, doesn't make him a better player.

[seteefeet]

Just seen this on the Express and Stir, and got really annoyed...

https://www.expressandstar.com/sport/football/west-bromwich-albion/2018/11/21/darren-moore-reveals-75-game-golden-rule-for-youngsters/

They aren't going to get to 75 games unless you give them 1 to 74.

I thought Dave would be better for the kids than this. As it is the only two consistently in the team aren't even ours. Edwards played against Reading and looked decent, hasn't been seen since. Field looks to have been hung out to dry because he came in for the games where Moore's formation and tactics were completely caught out. And Harper, Leko, and Burke have yet to see any real league football.

We've got another dinosaur; experience is king. But James McClean has played more games than Harvey Barnes, doesn't make him a better player.

Barnes is playing though so i don't think he's saying you can't get in the team until you have 75 apps, rather that you will still be a bit of an unknown quantity.
If you look at it differently, you could interpret it as, if you are good enough, you'll play, if you're not, you probably won't ,but that doesn't mean you never will as, as your experience builds, so will your ability and identity.

[baggiebof]

Barnes is playing though so i don't think he's saying you can't get in the team until you have 75 apps, rather that you will still be a bit of an unknown quantity.

Exactly this, not quite sure why people have viewed it differently and jumped on Moore's back.

[Hunnington Baggie]

Just seen this on the Express and Stir, and got really annoyed...

https://www.expressandstar.com/sport/football/west-bromwich-albion/2018/11/21/darren-moore-reveals-75-game-golden-rule-for-youngsters/

They aren't going to get to 75 games unless you give them 1 to 74

I thought Dave would be better for the kids than this. As it is the only two consistently in the team aren't even ours. Edwards played against Reading and looked decent, hasn't been seen since. Field looks to have been hung out to dry because he came in for the games where Moore's formation and tactics were completely caught out. And Harper, Leko, and Burke have yet to see any real league football.

We've got another dinosaur; experience is king. But James McClean has played more games than Harvey Barnes, doesn't make him a better player.

you haven’t actually read what he said, have you?

[costa blanca baggie]

Just seen this on the Express and Stir, and got really annoyed...

https://www.expressandstar.com/sport/football/west-bromwich-albion/2018/11/21/darren-moore-reveals-75-game-golden-rule-for-youngsters/

They aren't going to get to 75 games unless you give them 1 to 74

I thought Dave would be better for the kids than this. As it is the only two consistently in the team aren't even ours. Edwards played against Reading and looked decent, hasn't been seen since. Field looks to have been hung out to dry because he came in for the games where Moore's formation and tactics were completely caught out. And Harper, Leko, and Burke have yet to see any real league football.

We've got another dinosaur; experience is king. But James McClean has played more games than Harvey Barnes, doesn't make him a better player.

It may have escaped your notice, but Leicester are using us to gauge Barnes’ potential before making a decision on him. The only way our youngsters are going to get sufficient games under their belts, is us doing the same thing.

[CL3MO]

The real disappointing thing for me is that he isn’t loaning these young players out. This is the third season with Leko and Field where the fans have asked this question. If they’re not playing, their progress is being severely stalled.

[tlms-p23]

The real disappointing thing for me is that he isn’t loaning these young players out. This is the third season with Leko and Field where the fans have asked this question. If they’re not playing, their progress is being severely stalled.

Second this. There comes a point where potential starts to dwindle and you just don't become the player you could have been - can't be a prospect forever. It's no way to manage your youngsters and it just feels like a waste. It's crazy that Sam Field hasn't been on loan and has only played 29 games for us - almost all off the bench.

Hopefully Field and Leko can go out on loan in January and get 20 games on the spin until the end of the season.

[zippyandbungle]

Exactly this, not quite sure why people have viewed it differently and jumped on Moore's back.

Because it's easy, because people spend £49 on FIFA and become experts , because some don't actually understand the game .

[LiamTheBaggie]

I think some need to refer to the forum rules again

Instant 7 day ban for any member abusing players on the forum. We do not want posts where players or any officials are called wa**er, pricks etc. This forum is better than that.

Criticism is fine, abuse is not.

http://westbrom.com/forum/index.php?topic=48.0

[FallOutBoy]

you haven’t actually read what he said, have you?

I have read what he's said, but I don't think people have understood what he's said.

I’ve got a golden rule in my head with any youngster. Until you’ve played 75 games, you then become a product, we then know what we’re getting. Until he’s played 75 games, you don’t know what you’re getting. It’s a demanding industry to be in at every level. If you’re going to become a product, you’ll have to play 75 games.

This is the justification that managers in England have been using for 10 to 15 years, if not longer, for not giving chances to academy products. 'We don't know what we're going to get from them' is basically 'they could make a mistake while they're learning, and we can't afford that. So it's better that Gareth Barry gets a start because we know what he can do, and won't get any mistakes'. It's why we've ended up with players going out on loan at all levels of the game - we don't know what they're capable of, but we don't want to run the risk of finding out they're not good enough, so let them be somebody else's problem, and we'll have them back if they're good enough.

We’ve got wonderful young talented players within our club. Nobody has a crystal ball in terms of how they’re going to develop.

I'll praise them so they don't get downhearted, and then make a comment that hints that if they turn out to be really good, it's because they've stepped up, not because I won't give them a chance.

Those are the direct quotes from the article, and how they should be interpreted. It's the same old story at every club; we can't give the youngsters a chance because they may make mistakes, they need time to learn, and the manager is under pressure to get results here and now - not just from the board, but from the fans too. How short tempered have the Hawthorns been at times already this season? The crowd was already getting restless with Field against Derby, because he kept playing it backwards and sideways - often because there was nothing on ahead of him, so he was being careful and making sure we at least retained possession.

Basically if we want these lads to get to his magical 75 game mark, they're going to have to prove themselves somewhere else - either on loan, or being let go and then bought back.