Playing two wingers, what’s the point?

[Minton]

1 hour ago, gurujuan said:

If only we still had Joao, he would have been ideal

 

Yeah, cos he is setting the world on fire at Reading...  

Edited December 12, 2019 by Minton

[Guest Kagoshimaowl]

3 hours ago, Westfield Owl said:

As I’ve been saying for weeks, the formation that would probably get the most out of our best players is 3-5-2.

 

Absolutely ridiculous situation that we’re resorting to leaving the likes of Borner and Luongo on the bench.  These two need to both be in the starting XI.

 

Sadly Monk has kept us playing a back 4 at all times (even though we haven’t got one good full-back in the squad).

Absolutely ridiculous. We don’t have ANY wing backs in the squad and only Reach could do any sort of job there. And don’t suggest Harris because that would take away all of his qualities. He can’t defend at all. 

Edited December 12, 2019 by Kagoshimaowl

[Westfield Owl]

42 minutes ago, Kagoshimaowl said:

Absolutely ridiculous. We don’t have ANY wing backs in the squad and only Reach could do any sort of job there. And don’t suggest Harris because that would take away all of his qualities. He can’t defend at all. 

 

Disagree.  We’ve got Reach, Fox, Penney, Odubajo, Iorfa and even Lee could be capable of filling in as a WB.

[Guest Kagoshimaowl]

1 hour ago, Westfield Owl said:

 

Disagree.  We’ve got Reach, Fox, Penney, Odubajo, Iorfa and even Lee could be capable of filling in as a WB.

Fox, Lee and Iorfa have never been wing backs. Penney is not even at the club and Odubajo is a liability. Then Reach can play the role but he’s poor defensively. Also, you have to bench Harris or play him in an unfamiliar role. As I said, ridiculous. Glad you aren’t our manager!

[Westfield Owl]

29 minutes ago, Kagoshimaowl said:

Fox, Lee and Iorfa have never been wing backs. Penney is not even at the club and Odubajo is a liability. Then Reach can play the role but he’s poor defensively. Also, you have to bench Harris or play him in an unfamiliar role. As I said, ridiculous. Glad you aren’t our manager!

 

I don’t think it’s ridiculous at all to suggest that 3-5-2 would probably get the best out of most of our better players.

 

I think one of the main reasons that Odubajo has had such an indifferent time here so far is that he is much better suited as a WB.  Yet Monk has persisted with trying to shoehorn him into a back 4.

 

I agree that Reach and Odubajo aren’t particularly great at defending, which is why I’d prefer to see them both as WBs - which obviously isn’t the last line of defence.

 

If the system works as it should, your WBs will not regularly be near our own penalty box.  This reduces the amount of actual defending they will be required to do (we would have 3 CBs on the pitch for that remember).  This should encourage both Reach and Odubajo to play to their strengths - getting forward, supporting the attack and crossing in towards the strikers.

 

And yeah, Fox, Penney, Lee and Iorfa aren’t WBs by trade.  The point is that they all have the qualities to do a job should we need to rotate Reach and Odubajo out for a match or two.

 

With regards to Harris, this formation would probably see his game involvements decrease.  But I feel that would be a risk worth taking.  Sometimes you need to decide what is more important - the success of your best attacking player or the success of the team as a whole.

 

A 3-5-2 formation would probably see Harris getting most of his time on the pitch playing off Fletcher, or as a number 10 behind two strikers or as a super-sub to come on from the bench.

 

You obviously strongly disagree though.  What formation do you favour?

[Minton]

12 minutes ago, Westfield Owl said:

 

I don’t think it’s ridiculous at all to suggest that 3-5-2 would probably get the best out of most of our better players.

 

I think one of the main reasons that Odubajo has had such an indifferent time here so far is that he is much better suited as a WB.  Yet Monk has persisted with trying to shoehorn him into a back 4.

 

I agree that Reach and Odubajo aren’t particularly great at defending, which is why I’d prefer to see them both as WBs - which obviously isn’t the last line of defence.

 

If the system works as it should, your WBs will not regularly be near our own penalty box.  This reduces the amount of actual defending they will be required to do (we would have 3 CBs on the pitch for that remember).  This should encourage both Reach and Odubajo to play to their strengths - getting forward, supporting the attack and crossing in towards the strikers.

 

And yeah, Fox, Penney, Lee and Iorfa aren’t WBs by trade.  The point is that they all have the qualities to do a job should we need to rotate Reach and Odubajo out for a match or two.

 

With regards to Harris, this formation would probably see his game involvements decrease.  But I feel that would be a risk worth taking.  Sometimes you need to decide what is more important - the success of your best attacking player or the success of the team as a whole.

 

A 3-5-2 formation would probably see Harris getting most of his time on the pitch playing off Fletcher, or as a number 10 behind two strikers or as a super-sub to come on from the bench.

 

You obviously strongly disagree though.  What formation do you favour?

 

We don't have the wingbacks to play a 3-5-2, simple as that. Harris is not a wingback, nor is Reach, Iorfa, Fox or Palmer. You can't just shoehorn an attacking winger into that defensive position and expect it to be anything other than a disaster. It's not Fifa or Football Manager, players don't just suddenly become able to play in a position they aren't suited to. Plus you'd need to bring in a number of players to cover those positions for if/when your starting wingbacks pick up injuries or suspensions. 

 

What we need is better fullbacks. And a striker. 

 

 

Edited December 12, 2019 by Minton

[torryowl]

We seem to be doing ok with whichever system  monk plays .....my only gripe is that odubajo and Murphy arnt quite up to standards required .

[jonnyowl]

I really liked playing with a midfield 3 of Lee Bannan and Luongo!

 

Thought it worked well against Birmingham especially first half!

[shezzas left peg]

4 hours ago, Kagoshimaowl said:

Absolutely ridiculous. We don’t have ANY wing backs in the squad and only Reach could do any sort of job there. And don’t suggest Harris because that would take away all of his qualities. He can’t defend at all. 

It could be the only way we can get the best out of Odd-job to be honest. 

As an orthodox fullback he's been really poor to bordering on a liability at times. 

Reach isn't the best defender on the planet either, but with three cb's to cover for thief failings it may work. 

The problem you then have is what do you do with Harris?? 

Also Tom Lees never looked comfortable in a three. 

[Guest wilyfox]

I don't have a problem with playing two wingers per se. Problem is, we only have one in form. Reach is off his game. Murphy hasn't got going. Monk seems to be rotating the two hoping one perks up to hold down a place - but it ain't happening. 

[billyblack]

7 hours ago, gurujuan said:

If only we still had Joao, he would have been ideal

Get real, we needed the cash

[Stoop]

Monk said the other week that our squad is very unbalanced 

 

He’s just got to work with what he’s got for the time being. Hopefully a right back and a right midfielder will be a priority along with a striker 

[billyblack]

3 minutes ago, A12owl said:

Nobody has mentioned Fox as a WB.  He seems to have the energy and is decent going forward. Has put in some good crosses from fairly deep. A very calm character who just gets on with the job. 

I know he's got his critics but his improvement this year has been good. 

I would bring penney back in January to provide cover and further option

[billyblack]

1 hour ago, Stoop said:

Monk said the other week that our squad is very unbalanced 

 

He’s just got to work with what he’s got for the time being. Hopefully a right back and a right midfielder will be a priority along with a striker 

Its been unbalanced for as long as i can recall. Not having someone football orientated to support the manager higher up has been a problem. Im sure DC wont sort that out however.

[billyblack]

Just now, A12owl said:

But do you think Fox could play WB?

Not sure. I really dont know without him trying it. Maybe. He seems to have the energy.

[billyblack]

1 minute ago, A12owl said:

He is very often in the opposition penalty area when we are attacking. I think he is the best option we have for the position  

I prefer him to reach for that role thats for sure

[gurujuan]

24 minutes ago, A12owl said:

He is very often in the opposition penalty area when we are attacking. I think he is the best option we have for the position  

Fox is good at getting on the end of crosses from the opposite flank, and Palmer is getting in a few strikes on goal this season They are both still our best full back options. Given that they are doing that anyway, is there any need to switch to a three at the back? It’s worth exploring I suppose, but it would relegate the likes of Harris, Reach and Murphy to impact subs

[Guest Kagoshimaowl]

3 hours ago, shezzas left peg said:

It could be the only way we can get the best out of Odd-job to be honest. 

As an orthodox fullback he's been really poor to bordering on a liability at times. 

Reach isn't the best defender on the planet either, but with three cb's to cover for thief failings it may work. 

The problem you then have is what do you do with Harris?? 

Also Tom Lees never looked comfortable in a three. 

Yes I understand your points there but it isn’t worth it to lose the threat that Harris provides and to put Lees back into that situation 

[Dutch McLovin]

11 hours ago, gurujuan said:

Bannan did his best work on the left of a three

Will argue this all day long, Bannan is an attacking midfielder. In the mould of David Silva. Playing Bannan centrally means he only affects the game from deep if at all. When he was played on the left he played much further forward and affected us in more attacking areas, and also brought the best out of Forestieri as it gave him someone to play with.

 

Its a no Brainer for me.

 

Front 6 of:

 

Harris Hutchinson Luongo Bannan

 

Fletcher Forestieri

 

Now we'll get the normal moans of Bannan on the left no, Forestieri cant play up front, we get overrun in midfield but look playing this way we are adaptable it could be made into a front three of Harris Fletcher Forestieri in Part of games it can be a 442 in part of games and Forestieri and Bannan are good enough and flexible enough to swap and make it a 4411.

[Holmowl]

1 hour ago, Dutch McLovin said:

Will argue this all day long, Bannan is an attacking midfielder. In the mould of David Silva. Playing Bannan centrally means he only affects the game from deep if at all. When he was played on the left he played much further forward and affected us in more attacking areas, and also brought the best out of Forestieri as it gave him someone to play with.

 

Its a no Brainer for me.

 

Front 6 of:

 

Harris Hutchinson Luongo Bannan

 

Fletcher Forestieri

 

Now we'll get the normal moans of Bannan on the left no, Forestieri cant play up front, we get overrun in midfield but look playing this way we are adaptable it could be made into a front three of Harris Fletcher Forestieri in Part of games it can be a 442 in part of games and Forestieri and Bannan are good enough and flexible enough to swap and make it a 4411.

Couldn’t be more wrong imo.

 

How often did Carlos switch Forestieri wide and bring Bannan central during that first season, because we were almost totally devoid of goals in the starting line-up.