Anthndav 989 Posted November 10, 2020 Share Posted November 10, 2020 At last we'll now be rid of this retched tactical formation. Clearly not worked and Monk was far too stubborn to change. Good riddance. Flexibility is needed. 6 Link to post Share on other sites
Steve Down South 1,291 Posted November 10, 2020 Share Posted November 10, 2020 Nothing wrong at all with the formation, it’s all about players and motivation for me. All formations have strengths and weaknesses, one is not fundamentally better than the rest. With the players at our disposal I can’t say any one formation stands out as being the right answer. 6 Link to post Share on other sites
nethertonowl 1,176 Posted November 10, 2020 Share Posted November 10, 2020 9 minutes ago, Anthndav said: At last we'll now be rid of this retched tactical formation. Clearly not worked and Monk was far too stubborn to change. Good riddance. Flexibility is needed. Along with a left back, and two replacement centre halves for the ones we have that can’t be trusted in a back four 2 Link to post Share on other sites
MarkS43Owl 547 Posted November 10, 2020 Share Posted November 10, 2020 If Cook is appointed we’ll play an attacking 4-2-3-1. Worked well at all his clubs previously 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites
gurujuan 12,715 Posted November 10, 2020 Share Posted November 10, 2020 1 minute ago, nethertonowl said: Along with a left back, and two replacement centre halves for the ones we have that can’t be trusted in a back four I would say, none of the “threesomes” Monk has tried, were better than the Iorfa Borner pairing. Agree that Borner’s form dropped off prior to switching to the new system, but the new system is neither more secure, nor makes us anymore of an attacking force. Palmer, Iorfa, Borner and a new left back, would be decent enough at this level. Until the window opens, I’d be happy enough to give Penney a go at left back 2 1 Link to post Share on other sites
billyblack 2,919 Posted November 10, 2020 Share Posted November 10, 2020 3 minutes ago, gurujuan said: I would say, none of the “threesomes” Monk has tried, were better than the Iorfa Borner pairing. Agree that Borner’s form dropped off prior to switching to the new system, but the new system is neither more secure, nor makes us anymore of an attacking force. Palmer, Iorfa, Borner and a new left back, would be decent enough at this level. Until the window opens, I’d be happy enough to give Penney a go at left back agreed with Penney at LB. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Anthndav 989 Posted November 10, 2020 Author Share Posted November 10, 2020 18 minutes ago, Steve Down South said: Nothing wrong at all with the formation, it’s all about players and motivation for me. All formations have strengths and weaknesses, one is not fundamentally better than the rest. With the players at our disposal I can’t say any one formation stands out as being the right answer. Playing 3 at the back with one of Odubajo or Palmer when you clearly do not have 3 fit centre halves is clearly asking for trouble do you not think? 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Anthndav 989 Posted November 10, 2020 Author Share Posted November 10, 2020 8 minutes ago, billyblack said: agreed with Penney at LB. Would have Penney in the team in a shot. Gets forward, has desire and determination. Would be a shot in the arm. 2 Link to post Share on other sites
Incognito Owl 871 Posted November 10, 2020 Share Posted November 10, 2020 44 minutes ago, Anthndav said: At last we'll now be rid of this retched tactical formation. Clearly not worked and Monk was far too stubborn to change. Good riddance. Flexibility is needed. Didn'tPulis use 5-3-2/3-5-2 at Middlesbrough? "The trouble with "lessons from history" is that we usually read them best after falling flat on our chins." "Girls are simply wonderful. Just to stand on a corner and watch them go past is delightful. They don't walk. At least not what we do when we walk. I don't know how to describe it, but it's much more complex and utterly delightful. They don't move just their feet; everything moves and in different directions . . . and all of it graceful." Starship Troopers, Amen! Link to post Share on other sites
cowl 4,945 Posted November 10, 2020 Share Posted November 10, 2020 I don't think 3-5-2 was the problem overall either. It became problem in individual games when we insisted on sticking to the formation despite a number of injuries amongst our centre backs as well as the injury to Brown. 2 Link to post Share on other sites
Anthndav 989 Posted November 10, 2020 Author Share Posted November 10, 2020 2 minutes ago, Incognito Owl said: Didn'tPulis use 5-3-2/3-5-2 at Middlesbrough? How'd that work out for him? TP's Stoke were pure 4-4-2 1 Link to post Share on other sites
ZicoSterland2 1,779 Posted November 10, 2020 Share Posted November 10, 2020 13 minutes ago, gurujuan said: I would say, none of the “threesomes” Monk has tried, were better than the Iorfa Borner pairing. Agree that Borner’s form dropped off prior to switching to the new system, but the new system is neither more secure, nor makes us anymore of an attacking force. Palmer, Iorfa, Borner and a new left back, would be decent enough at this level. Until the window opens, I’d be happy enough to give Penney a go at left back Borner Iorfa solid pairing and have to agree Penney should get a shot at left back. With Penney in the side it gives us more options as he is solid defensively and can cross a ball. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Anthndav 989 Posted November 10, 2020 Author Share Posted November 10, 2020 I'd go for a 4-4-2 in a diamond to be honest 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Incognito Owl 871 Posted November 10, 2020 Share Posted November 10, 2020 16 minutes ago, Anthndav said: How'd that work out for him? TP's Stoke were pure 4-4-2 I was only saying. Also he might try/play something different after his break away. "The trouble with "lessons from history" is that we usually read them best after falling flat on our chins." "Girls are simply wonderful. Just to stand on a corner and watch them go past is delightful. They don't walk. At least not what we do when we walk. I don't know how to describe it, but it's much more complex and utterly delightful. They don't move just their feet; everything moves and in different directions . . . and all of it graceful." Starship Troopers, Amen! Link to post Share on other sites
Holmowl 23,545 Posted November 10, 2020 Share Posted November 10, 2020 41 minutes ago, Anthndav said: At last we'll now be rid of this retched tactical formation. Clearly not worked and Monk was far too stubborn to change. Good riddance. Flexibility is needed. It’s not wretched at all. The problem was the barmy use of inverted wing-backs. We’ve got 7 CBs and no LB. You are going to be disappointed if you think the new guy will not strongly consider 352 or similar. CBs are our biggest strength by far. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
SallyCinnamon 21,808 Posted November 10, 2020 Share Posted November 10, 2020 Wildsmith Palmer Iorfa Borner Penney Brown Luongo Bannan Windass Rhodes Reach 3 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites
daveyboy66 10,850 Posted November 10, 2020 Share Posted November 10, 2020 We know 3-5-2 is rubbish...you've only to look at Man City or Liverpool 1 Link to post Share on other sites
SallyCinnamon 21,808 Posted November 10, 2020 Share Posted November 10, 2020 2 minutes ago, daveyboy66 said: We know 3-5-2 is rubbish...you've only to look at Man City or Liverpool Yes because we have players of a similar quality as the likes of City and Liverpool Link to post Share on other sites
cookeh 1,609 Posted November 10, 2020 Share Posted November 10, 2020 48 minutes ago, Anthndav said: At last we'll now be rid of this retched tactical formation. If only we had a left back. Link to post Share on other sites
0114 4,318 Posted November 10, 2020 Share Posted November 10, 2020 We played poorly under Monk playing 442/433/4231 and 352. I never felt we had an identity under him, and I don’t think he recruited well enough for the formation he wanted to play. 3 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now