Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Didn’t we try Reach as left back/lwb at some point? Under Carlos or possibly Jos I can’t remember. But I do remember he was a liability in that position, got turned inside out too easily. Going forward as a LWB I think Reach could do a job but far from convinced defensively.

I do think Penney will really come into his own this season, that position is ideally from him. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never seen a player balloon crosses and shots as consistently as Harris.

 

It's extremely frustrating.

 

It's not like it only happens when he's on his left foot either as even when he cuts in on his right, his shots end up over the bar as though he's picked the wrong sport.

 

I agree with the OP anyway - we need wing backs playing down the side of their stronger foot, and only on their weaker foots as occasional stand-ins when needs must.

 

As for Penney; the lad's got some genuine quality - but his crossing is frustratingly erratic. He's definitely capable of putting superb balls into the box as I've seen him do it both for us and St. Pauli, but these first two league games he's started his crossing has been extremely flat, not even getting beyond the first man. Still, I hope we persist with him down the left for now (or, indeed, we need to bring someone else in).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kind of agree with you about Reach but Jos and now Monk have had plenty of opportunities to play him there but neither really have. 
 

Are they seeing something we’re not? Presumably his defensive frailties?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem with playing wingbacks is.

 

Do you play a full back might be good defensively but not as good going forward.

 

Or

 

A winger who might be good going forward but struggle defensively.

 

I think Palmer is the best overall, Penny needs games but there defensive types.

 

I'm not convinced by any of them yet.

 

I think we to sign a left wing back at least.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, jonnyowl said:

Problem with playing wingbacks is.

 

Do you play a full back might be good defensively but not as good going forward.

 

Or

 

A winger who might be good going forward but struggle defensively.

 

I think Palmer is the best overall, Penny needs games but there defensive types.

 

I'm not convinced by any of them yet.

 

I think we to sign a left wing back at least.

 

Agree with Palmer, Reach would make a good wing back if he didn't tackle like a little girl, got pace and a great crosser of ball but when it come to putting a tackle in. :duntmatter:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wingbacks are a key positions in our current formation. I said last week that you can’t have your only wide options on their weakest foot. If they were wingers with overlapping full backs then you could but not as your only attacking outlets. 
 

In an attacking sense on a fluid attack the early crosses on the weaker foot tend to be poorer. Turning back onto your stronger foot gives the opposing defenders the extra seconds to get back into position.

 

In a defensive sense running back towards goal you want to have your strongest foot as the tackling lead.

 

Lets be honest we aren’t going to be able to get the cream of the crop of wing backs but we can get the best to suit our needs and to start with it’s right footed on the right and left footed on the left.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Penney doesn’t look ready to me yet. Still seems very naive so by default it has to be Palmer on the right and Harris on the left.

While I get the OP’s points about Harris I still think he’s worth playing. His work rate is so good and he’s also switched on defensively as with the two excellent clearances yesterday. He also stretches defence a due to his outstanding pace. To be honest, I think I can put up with the odd poor cross because overall he’s a decent Championship wing back.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting thread this.

At U17 level I was very right footed ..on the right of a 4 man midfield and happy.

Then we signed 2 really good lads who were better in my position.

A good coach was honest enough to tell me I'd be centrehalf or a sub going forward but if I worked hard on my left foot then I could stay in the team at left midfield.

 

And I did. And that's what happened.

Thing is ..on the left I played deep but when I filled in on the right I was back in the action and a few goals.

It just never felt right.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, York_Owl said:

Kind of agree with you about Reach but Jos and now Monk have had plenty of opportunities to play him there but neither really have. 
 

Are they seeing something we’re not? Presumably his defensive frailties?

 

I think a lot of us are seeing that too.

 

:duntmatter:

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, robowl4life said:

Didn’t we try Reach as left back/lwb at some point? Under Carlos or possibly Jos I can’t remember. But I do remember he was a liability in that position, got turned inside out too easily. Going forward as a LWB I think Reach could do a job but far from convinced defensively.

I do think Penney will really come into his own this season, that position is ideally from him. 


Reach played LB under Carlos and our results were good.

 

He’s played LWB for 70 minutes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, horny owl said:

Been thinking this myself

 

Reminds me of JJ

 

Gets people out of their seat (armchair)

 

But ultimately little final product


This is such a lazy comparison. 
 

He’s not fit to lace JJs jockstrap.

 

19 hours ago, robowl4life said:

Didn’t we try Reach as left back/lwb at some point? Under Carlos or possibly Jos I can’t remember. But I do remember he was a liability in that position, got turned inside out too easily. Going forward as a LWB I think Reach could do a job but far from convinced defensively.

I do think Penney will really come into his own this season, that position is ideally from him. 


We had a brief spell last season when we played Murphy RM and Reach LM - they we basically responsible for every one of our goals in the short period 

 

In his infinite wisdom Monk then moved Reach centrally

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Holmowl said:

The WB system is really promising. The shape of the entire side works. Our defence is solid, we’ve 3 excellent CMs and a proper front two.

 

But, there’s a weakness. You can play wingers on their weaker foot, but not WBs. 
 

Two prime examples in the space of five minutes yesterday. First, Harris (whose work rate is ideal for a WB) gave away a very dangerous foul because he tackled with his right-foot rather than his left. 5 minutes later he shook off two strong defenders to get a brilliant opportunity only to put his left-foot cross into the Kop.

 

To maximise chances and minimise missed tackles and up-the-line clearances our WBs need to be on their stronger foot.

 

On the right we are spoilt - Harris, Palmer, Moses and Kachunga.

 

On the left we’ve two, in Penney and Reach. Monk has to VERY quickly decide if he fancies Reach because if he doesn’t we need a LWB capable of holding down that role all season. At best, Penney is a 50:50 hope of being a genuine Championship-class WB.

 

Reach must be tried out there. If after two or three games he’s out, got to buy or loan quality and reliability. 
 

 

 

 

For me it dosent matter if its a fullback or a winger. Anyone who's read my comments down the years knows I hqva have a bit of a hatred of playing inverted wide men.. Its just common sense. It's far easier to clip or swing a good ball in on the run with your stronger foot. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I still think Reach LWB and Harris RWB is our best option.

 

Reach’s delivery will more than compensate for Harris’ lack of quality in that area, but we don’t lose the physicality, graft and outlet / threat of Harris

Edited by McRightSide
Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no argument for playing them on their weaker foot. As Holmowl suggests, you might consider it with your wingers, but wing backs, it makes no sense whatsoever. In fact I’d go further. It only works with wide attackers, not wingers. Players who are primarily strikers who operate from a wide position, and who’s natural instinct is to cut in and go for goal. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

We have three strikers who all appreciate the ball whipped in early. I like Harris but he’s not doing it even on his right side. Palmer looks like he has adapted this to his game so may be time for a run in the role.

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

There is no argument for playing them on their weaker foot. 

 

Apparently there is...

 

A relatively unknown quantity, the inverted fullback position is typically used to combat wingers that like to cut inside to get involved in the game. Bucking the trend of staying wide when on the ball, inverted fullbacks will carry the ball into central areas when going forward. One example of this niche position is Bayern Munich’s use of their German stalwart, Phillip Lahm, at left back.

 

The major benefit of this concept is that players who are able to play this way are often effective in nullifying the threat posed by inverted or false wingers due to their tendency to drift infield. An inverted fullback playing the position well would have the ability to show an inverted winger down the line lessening the threat they pose.

 

If the team is playing with a two-man midfield, then having a fullback cutting inside to join the attack will offer another option when on the ball. Teams now traditionally play with a three-man midfield in order to dominate proceeding. The concept of the inverted fullback is one way of helping the centre midfielders when in possession.

 

https://www.thefalse9.com/2016/04/football-tactics-beginners-inverted-fullback.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

We saw on Saturday why Monk plays Harris as a wing back . He cleared two loose balls in the 6 yard box which otherwise would have cost us goals.

 

In contrast at Swansea Reach completely switched off and gave away a penalty.
 

Monk has shown he wants to play wingbacks on their stronger foot by playing Penney and moving Harris but Reach has done nothing to show he is a decent wingback.

 

I would hazard a guess that when Monk said he had a chat with Reach about his position this was the topic of discussion and they came to the conclusion Reach shouldn’t play wingback.

 

He is our best crosser of the ball but suffers because we are playing 3 at the back

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, areNOTwhatTHEYseem said:

 

Apparently there is...

 

A relatively unknown quantity, the inverted fullback position is typically used to combat wingers that like to cut inside to get involved in the game. Bucking the trend of staying wide when on the ball, inverted fullbacks will carry the ball into central areas when going forward. One example of this niche position is Bayern Munich’s use of their German stalwart, Phillip Lahm, at left back.

 

The major benefit of this concept is that players who are able to play this way are often effective in nullifying the threat posed by inverted or false wingers due to their tendency to drift infield. An inverted fullback playing the position well would have the ability to show an inverted winger down the line lessening the threat they pose.

 

If the team is playing with a two-man midfield, then having a fullback cutting inside to join the attack will offer another option when on the ball. Teams now traditionally play with a three-man midfield in order to dominate proceeding. The concept of the inverted fullback is one way of helping the centre midfielders when in possession.

 

https://www.thefalse9.com/2016/04/football-tactics-beginners-inverted-fullback.html

Hmm, yes I’ve seen that, but the complexity of the way Bayern, or even Pep’s Man City, set up, is way beyond anything Monk could conceive. The way we use the system, we need the wide players on their stronger foot most of the time. As things stand, our best two options left and right, are Penney and Palmer

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

Hmm, yes I’ve seen that, but the complexity of the way Bayern, or even Pep’s Man City, set up, is way beyond anything Monk could conceive.

 

I'll remind you of this when he has us cutting a swathe through Europe with Penney and Palmer as inverted wingbacks.

 

:duntmatter:

  • Haha 2
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...