Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

2,044 profile views

Walt's Achievements


Experienced (11/14)

  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Posting Machine
  • Conversation Starter
  • Week One Done

Recent Badges



  1. Yes that’s true but then again we saw against Barnsley how the front three all worked brilliantly together, when the two ‘wingers’ got close enough to Fletcher to make a difference and not leave him isolated.
  2. I suppose the argument is (in a front 3) that you want your wingers / inside forwards cutting in on their stronger foot.
  3. Remember reading a piece from Simon Grayson (sp?) when we signed Reach. Grayson wanted to sign him for Preston (but couldn’t afford the fee) who he had been on loan at. Said they played Reach at left wing, left wingback and role in behind the striker. Edit: Not at the same time!
  4. Edit: FF has more often played left wing during his time here where his best performances have been.
  5. You need to read what I had written and look what happens on the pitch during games. If you couldn't see that we often ended up with a back three in CC's first season either by design or otherwise despite us always setting up 442 I don't know what you were watching. If you couldn't see that FF more often played left wing then I give up.
  6. Don't watch Man City - can't comment. We are going around in circles. I never said we lined up with a back three (always a four under CC) although it probably would have suited the players we had in that first season. We ended up imo playing with a back three though in many games in that first season, whether that be Hutch, Lopez or whoever dropping deep. Harris was doing what a winger should do when the ball is on the opposite flank. We aren't going to agree, so be it. I have FF down as playing mainly wide left in his time here especially in the second season and then again until Bruce arrived, who first thought he was better as number 10 and gave him a few games there. Jos briefly got FF playing like his old self in that run at the back end of his first season. Funnily enough Jos was mainly playing a back 3/5. Where would you play him in the current set up? I can't see a place for him as he can't play the lone striker, we don't play with a no.10 and Harris is on fire on the left at the moment. I'd always have him on the bench though as he is more versatile than Rhodes or Winnall.
  7. I know that is how we mainly lined up on paper until Hooper joined (CC's first season) and how we started games with FF up front - 442. Look what happened during most games though, like I said we generally evolved from a back four (*442) to a back three after a cagey narrow 442 in the first half. Look at the players we had on the pitch (at various times), Bannan playing left mid is always going to come central - he just can't help it, Hutch naturally drops deep and then there's Lee, Wallace and Lopez. Wallace was the one who you'd call a natural wide player but even he was asked to play narrow 'compact' Again whether by design or coincidence we ended up with a back three, the full backs then pushed high up the pitch to provide the width as all our midfielders were central / interchanging, then you had FF imo who played from out to in despite him being down as a central striker on the team sheet. Second season and we've got Fletcher, Hooper, FF, Joao, Nuhiu and then later Winnall and Rhodes all wanting to play central. FF mainly found himself on the left of a 442 and it generally stayed a dour 442 without the movement from the first season.
  8. FF despite his bellyaching did track back. Yes we did play three at the back. Don’t just look at the line on the team sheet. In CC’s first season Hutch regularly dropped deep onto the centre half’s toes and our full backs pushed high up the pitch. FF then wandered inside from the wing. Like I said earlier whether by design or not we most definitely did this. It was generally in the second half’s of matches after a cagey narrow 442 first half. Second season teams sussed this out.
  9. Simple. Because we get better results when he plays on the left hand side as opposed to when he’s central. FF mainly played left wing in a *442 under Carlos where he had to track back or if he didn’t track back the opposition right back had a decision to make whether or not to stay at home. Would you want FF unmarked if your the opposition? *Also whether by design or not we often ended up something like 343 (first season) under Carlos when we got the best out of FF The formation now looks like a 4231 to me which allows a bit more freedom for FF’s more natural attacking game from the LHS of a front three (whether FF likes it or not). There’s no way he’s getting in in front of Harris on current form but he’d always be an option from the bench for me as he can play a number of roles unlike the rest of our forwards.
  10. Not really bothered what FF thinks, it’s what’s best for the team. It is blatantly obvious that his best displays have come as a forward on the left hand side. He quite clearly is not as good when he plays central. Can not see how anyone who watches us can see it any differently tbh.
  11. His best position is blatantly obvious. Either left wing in a 442 or LHS forward in a 433. He’s pretty versatile mind and could probably do a number of jobs along the front line. Makes no sense whatsoever to leave a player like this out of the match day squad (unless he’s not trying in training), even more so when you select a purely one dimensional player like Rhodes or on the evidence of Tuesday night an either unfit or injury damaged Winnall.
  12. Those wingers rarely get a look in if the ball is not sticking up front which it won't do imo if Rhodes is playing that role. So the service will not be anything like when Fletcher is playing and the 'wingers' are up with play. You also lose Fletcher's off the ball defensive work big time, something that Rhodes lacks. So if I am right we will have to find a different way of playing when Fletcher is out and Rhodes is the stand in, and it appears that Rhodes is the first choice. For me he'd be the last choice to play that role from the strikers we've got at the club.
  13. ...and she's been dead for years. Are usually the next few words. *Apologies to Nannan Bigblueowl and her family for any upset caused.
  14. Even with a fit and scoring Rhodes I just can't see him doing the job that Fletcher does. He may well benefit from having wingers in the side but for those wingers to work someone needs to hold the ball up and do the dirty work for this system to work. With the best will in the world Rhodes isn't going tp do that as he can not battle with centre halves, his hold up play is poor and his work when out of possession is a major flaw. He's made a career out of being 'selfish' in a good way meaning that his goals allow him to just get on with what he does / did? best - score goals and not contribute much else. It looks like he is the first choice to replace Fletcher so it will be interesting to see how we adapt to accommodate him (I think it will have to be us adapting as he can't imo). The most obvious choice to replace Fltetcher would have been Nuhiu imo but then he lacks the mobility, so you are left with Winnall. Maye a fit Winnall back when we signed him cold have done the job as I seem to remember an energetic all action type of player when he was at Barnsley and I think he played that role in a 433?
  15. He was exactly the same last season where he was the fittest I’ve seen him. Difference yesterday was that he had willing runners getting up in support of him. Lost count of the times I’ve watched him battle on his own against a back four / five with little help as the rest of our lot were sat too deep. Said in another thread that I don’t think we’ve got anyone to replace him in that role.
  • Create New...