Jump to content

Recommended Posts

18 hours ago, Owling said:

Suppose Reach would be the left wingback.

 

If ever Monk does play wing-backs, then yes our best (our only) natural left-footer with the stamina and speed to carry it out is Reach.

 

Is he perfect for the role? No. But if it’s between him, Palmer and Harris, in the land of the blind the one-eyed man is King.

 

However, I don’t see we will play it. How do you get a LWB and Harris into the same side?

  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm in the thinking that Bullen was going with how Bruce was lining us up to play this season and our dealings. Forgetting to sign an improvemt at left back aside our recruitment echoed that 4-5-1 defending, 4-3-3 attacking formation. 

2 new wingers, an attacking right back and another mobile midfielder. 

I can't really see monk reverting to 4-4-2 on a permanent basis, as apart from Fletcher none of our other forwards seem consistent enough to play in a regular pair. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bannan and Hutch score barely any goals. 

 

Lee and Luongo would likely get more. 

 

List our goal threats in order and it’s probably Fletcher, Iorfa, Harris. 

 

IMO our best performance was Barnsley at home. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kopparberg said:

Bannan and Hutch score barely any goals. 

 

Lee and Luongo would likely get more. 

 

List our goal threats in order and it’s probably Fletcher, Iorfa, Harris. 

 

IMO our best performance was Barnsley at home. 

I think a Lee/ Luongo midfield would be more dynamic and competitive and score more goals. 

 

But no manager would drop Bannan. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎02‎/‎10‎/‎2019 at 12:20, Beholder said:

Just trying to put this one to bed for everyone trying to shoehorn Iorfa Lees and Borner into a back 3. 

 

For a start, Lees was never comfortable in that role under Joss

 

Who plays wingback? We only have odubajo who really fits. Palmer / fox not good enough going forward and suit full back far better. Penney out on loan. 

 

What happens with the wingers? 

 

It does open the possibility of two up front but apart from Fletcher our strikers are starting to look average. 

 

Surely it's gotta be 442 or 433 .

 

In that case the only think that needs sorting is the midfield 2.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


It only really worked when it did because of Fred imo. Even then as you say Lees was way too uncomfortable.

We simply don't have the players to play 3 at the back.

 

It's a rotation of 4-4-2, 4-3-3, 4-2-3-1 as required for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎02‎/‎10‎/‎2019 at 13:20, pazowl55 said:

4-5-1 for me. We haven't got two strikers good enough at the moment to play with two up front.

 

We don't have one good enough to go up top on their own either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Kopparberg said:

Bannan and Hutch score barely any goals. 

 

Lee and Luongo would likely get more. 

 

List our goal threats in order and it’s probably Fletcher, Iorfa, Harris. 

 

IMO our best performance was Barnsley at home. 

 

Hutchinson covers the many defensive shortfalls, whilst Bannon is the catalyst for goals scored by others.
I'd like Lee and Luongo (especially) get more game time, but can see why the other two are often prefered. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Somewhat like Chelsea of a few years ago. They had Hazard operating behind Diego Costa.

 

Fletch

Harris - Nando

Palmer - Bannan - Hutch - Odubajo

Borner - Lees - Iorfa

Westwood

 

Can throw Reach in til Nando is available. And if we need to gain more control, you bring off one of the attacking mids for Lee or Luongo to put 3 across the middle.

 

Not saying it's the best plan, but it's an option.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 at the back all season. Happy to vary the formation in midfield and attack. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Five at the back causes more problems than it solves, to my mind anyway. Lees doesn’t ever look comfortable, there are no left side options. Fox and Palmer, certainly don’t benefit from playing in a five, and there is no evidence whatsoever, to suggest that Reach will be a success at left wing back. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lees only looked uncomfortable because he was being asked by Jos to play on the right hand side of a back 3. 

This is obviously nonsense. Lees has neither the mobility nor football ability to do that. 

Play him in the middle , with Iorfa right, Borner left and I think it would be fine 

Reach played left wing back all the time at Preston and Obubajo has also played there.

 

It’s alright saying we don’t have the players for 352, but we don’t have them for 442 or 433 either.

 

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, oldishowl said:

Lees only looked uncomfortable because he was being asked by Jos to play on the right hand side of a back 3. 

This is obviously nonsense. Lees has neither the mobility nor football ability to do that. 

Play him in the middle , with Iorfa right, Borner left and I think it would be fine 

Reach played left wing back all the time at Preston and Obubajo has also played there.

 

It’s alright saying we don’t have the players for 352, but we don’t have them for 442 or 433 either.

 

 

True, but I suppose 4-3-3 presents less problems

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, gurujuan said:

True, but I suppose 4-3-3 presents less problems

 

It’s a bit like the argument for remaining in the EU.

Everybody very keen to tell you the problems with leaving while pretending there are no problems with staying as we are.

 

We ain’t getting promoted or relegated playing 433.  

352 has risks but rewards might be great if we are brave and go for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Beholder said:

I think a Lee/ Luongo midfield would be more dynamic and competitive and score more goals. 

 

But no manager would drop Bannan. 

If we're talking about the Lee of 2 years ago then you may be right; unfortunately at the moment he's a shadow of his former self.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, oldishowl said:

It’s a bit like the argument for remaining in the EU.

Everybody very keen to tell you the problems with leaving while pretending there are no problems with staying as we are.

 

:ghoulguy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, oldishowl said:

 

It’s a bit like the argument for remaining in the EU.

Everybody very keen to tell you the problems with leaving while pretending there are no problems with staying as we are.

 

We ain’t getting promoted or relegated playing 433.  

352 has risks but rewards might be great if we are brave and go for it.

I just don’t see it, 3-5-2 negates more of our better players, No place for Palmer, Harris or Forestieri, and Reach shoehorned into a role that fails to make the most of his attributes. All that, so we can basically pair Fletcher with one of our dud strikers. 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, gurujuan said:

I just don’t see it, 3-5-2 negates more of our better players, No place for Palmer, Harris or Forestieri, and Reach shoehorned into a role that fails to make the most of his attributes. All that, so we can basically pair Fletcher with one of our dud strikers. 

 

Meanwhile we can’t play anything but long ball using 442 or totally flog Fletcher to death as our only possible lone striker in a  otherwise goal shy front 3 .

 

Waiting for the inevitable repeats of games like Preston and QPR where we don’t have a clue how to try and get hold of the ball to play a bit of football.

 

Do you think we will get in the top 6 playing 433, that’s assuming we don’t continue with 442 which seems more likely at the moment?

 

If not what have we got to lose by changing?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're doing that thing again... making exotic formations to mask the players deficiencies.. there's no future in it..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, gurujuan said:

I just don’t see it, 3-5-2 negates more of our better players, No place for Palmer, Harris or Forestieri, and Reach shoehorned into a role that fails to make the most of his attributes. All that, so we can basically pair Fletcher with one of our dud strikers. 

Couldn't agree more. Unless we get a proper partner up front for Fletcher then what is the point in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, oldishowl said:

 

Meanwhile we can’t play anything but long ball using 442 or totally flog Fletcher to death as our only possible lone striker in a  otherwise goal shy front 3 .

 

Waiting for the inevitable repeats of games like Preston and QPR where we don’t have a clue how to try and get hold of the ball to play a bit of football.

 

Do you think we will get in the top 6 playing 433, that’s assuming we don’t continue with 442 which seems more likely at the moment?

 

If not what have we got to lose by changing?

 

 

 

I have no illusions that we will be anywhere near the promotion places, with the current squad. Although I favour 4-3-3, there are shortcomings with all the systems. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...