Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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.

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
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

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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't🧢Pulis use 5-3-2/3-5-2 at Middlesbrough?:ph34r:


"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

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.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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
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.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 3
  • Love 1
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...