|
|
Topic Originator: Jealous Furniture
Date: Sat 8 Aug 17:43
This isn`t intended as criticism of the manager or players, I just find this kind of thing interesting.
Am I right in thinking the system we play is pretty unusual? With Tod, Shaw and Kane (or Rudden) all starting it`s more like a 5-2-3 than a 5-3-2, the midfield 2 being more holding midfielders.
The back 5 has been much maligned at times on here but it does make sense, (even if it doesn`t always work) - the centre backs can cover each other and it gets the likes of Fraser up the pitch. It`s more the set up in midfield and attack that I find it hard to get my head around.
I know this is a long time ago and football has changed, but thinking about when we played a back 5 under Calderwood, and then sometimes Jeffries when he first took over, we`d have two forwards, one playing a bit deeper, like Brewster and Crawford, and then 3 pure midfielders in behind, ie. Mason, Ferguson, Young (I can`t stomach the pain of checking the Jeffries era players to give an example).
Compared to those set-ups it would seem on paper that Kane & Shaw are too similar to start together, and having only one of them playing, with Andy Tod in behind, would be more typical of a 5-3-2. Either that or Kane plays off Shaw etc and Tod makes way for a midfielder. Gilmour and Amade are having to do the work of 3 players in there.
I know football isn`t played on paper blah blah blah, and probably it`s just that there`s been too many new ideas in football for me to keep up with. Obviously this system had got us some great results, like the 3-0 against Aberdeen where we ran rings around them.
Maybe it`s just about taking the risk and getting more forwards on the pitch. But I have to admit, it does frustrate me when it seems like we`re struggling in midfield and only have 2 players in there.
Post Edited (Sat 08 Aug 17:54)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Gaz3822
Date: Sat 8 Aug 18:03
Lennon has said it himself..we have enough number 6`s in midfield, but we do need creativity from somewhere, and fast. Think he sees the young boy from the US as that type.
Its another young boy again so inconsistency will be a factor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Berkey
Date: Sat 8 Aug 18:09
In this formation it feels like a lot is riding on our number 10 to link defence and attack, find space and thread the balls through to wide runners and in behind for strikers.
Hopefully Allan can do that as that’s the position we are probably weakest in at the moment.
Maybe we need to play Tod up front with shaw/kane? Would certainly suit his game better.
The post below replying to me is by one of .nets finest champions of mediocrity!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Dave_1885
Date: Sat 8 Aug 18:10
There was plenty creativity there today, but our play in the final third was poor.
Poor crossing from wing backs, poor decisions from strikers, poor touches leading to losing ball.
The centre pairing was fine.
Post Edited (Sat 08 Aug 18:21)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Raymie the Legend
Date: Sat 8 Aug 18:15
Quote:
Jealous Furniture, Sat 8 Aug 17:43
This isn`t intended as criticism of the manager or players, I just find this kind of thing interesting.
Am I right in thinking the system we play is pretty unusual? With Tod, Shaw and Kane (or Rudden) all starting it`s more like a 5-2-3 than a 5-3-2, the midfield 2 being more holding midfielders.
The back 5 has been much maligned at times on here but it does make sense, (even if it doesn`t always work) - the centre backs can cover each other and it gets the likes of Fraser up the pitch. It`s more the set up in midfield and attack that I find it hard to get my head around.
I know this is a long time ago and football has changed, but thinking about when we played a back 5 under Calderwood, and then sometimes Jeffries when he first took over, we`d have two forwards, one playing a bit deeper, like Brewster and Crawford, and then 3 pure midfielders in behind, ie. Mason, Ferguson, Young (I can`t stomach the pain of checking the Jeffries era players to give an example).
Compared to those set-ups it would seem on paper that Kane & Shaw are too similar to start together, and having only one of them playing, with Andy Tod in behind, would be more typical of a 5-3-2. Either that or Kane plays off Shaw etc and Tod makes way for a midfielder. Gilmour and Amade are having to do the work of 3 players in there.
I know football isn`t played on paper blah blah blah, and probably it`s just that there`s been too many new ideas in football for me to keep up with. Obviously this system had got us some great results, like the 3-0 against Aberdeen where we ran rings around them.
Maybe it`s just about taking the risk and getting more forwards on the pitch. But I have to admit, it does frustrate me when it seems like we`re struggling in midfield and only have 2 players in there.
It’s pretty much a 3-4-1-2 formation. Kearney and Fraser provide the width.
It`s bloody tough being a legend
Ron Atkinson - 1983
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Gaz3822
Date: Sat 8 Aug 18:19
Quality balls going forward is something we`ve struggled with for a couple of seasons now. Morrison doesn`t seem to be the answer and Tod also isn`t the one to unlock defences, so it seems like its up to Allan to do this..no pressure son
|
|
|
|
|
|
