Jump to content

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Holmowl said:


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.  

 

6-2-2 it is then! 😂

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Holmowl said:


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.  

On the 6/7 CB's part, I never really thought about that before. Also we've got Penney and Palmer who can fit in at LB too.


"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

Agree with people saying 352 isn't a problem unless you don't have the players for it

 

352 needs wingbacks, a specialist position, for it to work. We don't have any real wingbacks. We've tried shoehorning people in but we get no real width or quality on the outside. 

 

We have decent full backs and decent wingers, so why not utilise them right? 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
53 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.

It's monstrous

Edited by shandypants
Link to post
Share on other sites

A good manager would have a look at all the players in his squad and devise a formation to suit those players. I believe that’s what Monk tried to do, basically to put an extra man in midfield where we were/are lightweight. Problem was he didn’t have the coaching/motivational skills to play it successfully.

For those claiming 4-4-2 is the answer, it doesn’t address the weaknesses in the squad, notably in the centre of midfield or at left full back. Whoever comes in will have to assess things very quickly otherwise our season could be all but over by the time the next transfer window opens. We play every 3/4 days for a month and are only a couple of injuries or suspensions from failure in this period.

  • Like 1
  • Love 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MarkS43Owl said:

If Cook is appointed we’ll play an attacking

4-2-3-1. Worked well at all his clubs previously 

You had me at attacking!! 

 

Whether Cook or not, this is what I want to see when I pay my money to watch us play.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Anthndav said:

 

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?

 

We never in a million years had the personnel for that system to work. 

Said that in the summer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you take a look at the games we’ve played 352 with wing-backs on their stronger foot you’ll think again about the system not working.

 

 

 

                                

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Anthndav said:

 

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?

Agreed - I have no problem with the formation per se, but doesn’t work particularly well with Odubajo or Palmer.  That said, I’m not a big fan of Palmer and we have no left back (happy to see Penney given a run there but not convinced) so 442 has its shortcomings as well.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Our recruitment in the summer now becomes a problem for the next manager if they don't want to play 3-5-2.

 

Let's say we played either 4-2-3-1 or 4-3-3?

 

Who plays left back, only Penny is a natural left back.

 

Who plays on the wings or as the wide forwards?

 

Harris out of form, Kachunga and Odubajo woeful, Reach no pace!

 

And who plays center back? 2 from 7!

 

We don't have the quality of players to play 4-2-3-1 or 4-3-3!

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, jonnyowl said:

Our recruitment in the summer now becomes a problem for the next manager if they don't want to play 3-5-2.

 

Let's say we played either 4-2-3-1 or 4-3-3?

 

Who plays left back, only Penny is a natural left back.

 

Who plays on the wings or as the wide forwards?

 

Harris out of form, Kachunga and Odubajo woeful, Reach no pace!

 

And who plays center back? 2 from 7!

 

We don't have the quality of players to play 4-2-3-1 or 4-3-3!


Nailed it.

 

Like it or loathe it Monk built a squad for 352. I can’t see the new guy deviating much from that.

 

That said, I think we’ve a terrific 352.

 

Iorfa Lees Borner

Harris Brown Bannan Luongo Reach

Windass Rhodes

 

Trouble was Monk playing Reach and Harris the wrong way round, and playing part-time strikers.

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...