At the risk of upsetting a few of you 08:49 - Jan 12 with 3816 views | Bluefish | Those if you that regularly tell me I am talking rubbish. Yesterday was pretty much what I have been asking for all season in terms of set up. Ignoring the intensity stuff from PRP yesterday was all about the balance of the team and the lines | |
| | |
At the risk of upsetting a few of you on 11:12 - Jan 12 with 2823 views | SomethingBlue | Could it just for once not all be about you? Ta. | |
| |
At the risk of upsetting a few of you on 12:18 - Jan 12 with 2712 views | Bluefish |
At the risk of upsetting a few of you on 11:12 - Jan 12 by SomethingBlue | Could it just for once not all be about you? Ta. |
Wah wah wah don't ruin my posts etc | |
| |
At the risk of upsetting a few of you on 12:19 - Jan 12 with 2704 views | SamWhiteUK | Wow | | | |
At the risk of upsetting a few of you on 12:34 - Jan 12 with 2661 views | clive_baker | Go on then, I'll humour you. I wouldn't normally bother. Link us to a few of your posts where you've been clamouring for what Lambert went with yesterday. Less than 2 weeks ago you were an advocate of a 4-4-2 diamond: Our own ideas of the best shape and team by Bluefish 30 Dec 2019 12:33Could be tricky as we haven't seen enough of them but who wants to decide on our strongest available? Not necessarily the shape you would like though but the best we could put out now and what you would prefer to see
Holy
KVY Chambers Woolfenden Garbutt
Dozzell
Downes Huws
Judge
Norwood Jackson
442 diamond. It has flaws that it lacks width but so does our squad.
Donacien in for KVY to cover injury (if fit)
Huws to compete with Nolan
Dozzell with Skuse
Norwood with Keane
Jackson with Sears
Judge with El Mizouni
Thoughts?
| |
| |
At the risk of upsetting a few of you on 12:36 - Jan 12 with 2643 views | Bluefish |
At the risk of upsetting a few of you on 12:34 - Jan 12 by clive_baker | Go on then, I'll humour you. I wouldn't normally bother. Link us to a few of your posts where you've been clamouring for what Lambert went with yesterday. Less than 2 weeks ago you were an advocate of a 4-4-2 diamond: Our own ideas of the best shape and team by Bluefish 30 Dec 2019 12:33Could be tricky as we haven't seen enough of them but who wants to decide on our strongest available? Not necessarily the shape you would like though but the best we could put out now and what you would prefer to see
Holy
KVY Chambers Woolfenden Garbutt
Dozzell
Downes Huws
Judge
Norwood Jackson
442 diamond. It has flaws that it lacks width but so does our squad.
Donacien in for KVY to cover injury (if fit)
Huws to compete with Nolan
Dozzell with Skuse
Norwood with Keane
Jackson with Sears
Judge with El Mizouni
Thoughts?
|
I have repeated all season 442 diamond or 532. They are virtually the same shape and should be integrated into plan a and plan b depending on how defensive or attacking we need to be | |
| |
At the risk of upsetting a few of you on 12:42 - Jan 12 with 2619 views | clive_baker |
At the risk of upsetting a few of you on 12:36 - Jan 12 by Bluefish | I have repeated all season 442 diamond or 532. They are virtually the same shape and should be integrated into plan a and plan b depending on how defensive or attacking we need to be |
Not under your proposal of Dozzell sitting in front of the back 4 they're not. Perhaps with Skuse in there who could drop in to form a 3 at the back. The deepest lying midfielder at the bottom of that diamond has the most responsibility on the field and as much as I rate Dozzell, he's not demonstrated he's anywhere near influential enough to operate there. We're nowhere near strong enough defensively either, to get away with that, I don't think Edwards or Garbutt are particularly strong defensively and I feel much more comfortable with an additional body alongside Woolf & Chambers (although an upgrade on Wilson would be appreciated). | |
| |
At the risk of upsetting a few of you on 12:44 - Jan 12 with 2609 views | MrTown |
At the risk of upsetting a few of you on 12:34 - Jan 12 by clive_baker | Go on then, I'll humour you. I wouldn't normally bother. Link us to a few of your posts where you've been clamouring for what Lambert went with yesterday. Less than 2 weeks ago you were an advocate of a 4-4-2 diamond: Our own ideas of the best shape and team by Bluefish 30 Dec 2019 12:33Could be tricky as we haven't seen enough of them but who wants to decide on our strongest available? Not necessarily the shape you would like though but the best we could put out now and what you would prefer to see
Holy
KVY Chambers Woolfenden Garbutt
Dozzell
Downes Huws
Judge
Norwood Jackson
442 diamond. It has flaws that it lacks width but so does our squad.
Donacien in for KVY to cover injury (if fit)
Huws to compete with Nolan
Dozzell with Skuse
Norwood with Keane
Jackson with Sears
Judge with El Mizouni
Thoughts?
|
442 (diamond) time to stick with it and stop f***ing about by Bluefish 16 Dec 2019 8:52Holy
KVY chambers wolf garbutt
Dozzell
Downes bishop
Nolan
Norwood jackson
Norris
Donacien wilson nsiala kenlock
Skuse
Huws el Mizouni
Judge
Keane sears
Skuse and nolan could also cover centre half and centre mid respectively.
Stick to the starting shape and just swap players in as required for injuries and form.
Wingers can be on the bench for mid game shape changes but get rid of Edwards and Georgiou and go with Rowe and Dobra with Lankester and Nydam still to come back Exhibit B. But you told Lambert how to play, because you’ve been clambering for 5-3-2 time and time and time again you [Post edited 12 Jan 2020 12:45]
| |
| |
At the risk of upsetting a few of you on 12:46 - Jan 12 with 2595 views | Bluefish |
At the risk of upsetting a few of you on 12:42 - Jan 12 by clive_baker | Not under your proposal of Dozzell sitting in front of the back 4 they're not. Perhaps with Skuse in there who could drop in to form a 3 at the back. The deepest lying midfielder at the bottom of that diamond has the most responsibility on the field and as much as I rate Dozzell, he's not demonstrated he's anywhere near influential enough to operate there. We're nowhere near strong enough defensively either, to get away with that, I don't think Edwards or Garbutt are particularly strong defensively and I feel much more comfortable with an additional body alongside Woolf & Chambers (although an upgrade on Wilson would be appreciated). |
Correct about Dozzell but again we said plan a or b depending on how attacking. The key point is that 442 diamond and 532 are virtually the same so we will have a structure and then you make small tweaks. I was saying this prior to the mk Dons game when we used 532 | |
| | Login to get fewer ads
At the risk of upsetting a few of you on 12:49 - Jan 12 with 2583 views | Bluefish |
At the risk of upsetting a few of you on 12:44 - Jan 12 by MrTown | 442 (diamond) time to stick with it and stop f***ing about by Bluefish 16 Dec 2019 8:52Holy
KVY chambers wolf garbutt
Dozzell
Downes bishop
Nolan
Norwood jackson
Norris
Donacien wilson nsiala kenlock
Skuse
Huws el Mizouni
Judge
Keane sears
Skuse and nolan could also cover centre half and centre mid respectively.
Stick to the starting shape and just swap players in as required for injuries and form.
Wingers can be on the bench for mid game shape changes but get rid of Edwards and Georgiou and go with Rowe and Dobra with Lankester and Nydam still to come back Exhibit B. But you told Lambert how to play, because you’ve been clambering for 5-3-2 time and time and time again you [Post edited 12 Jan 2020 12:45]
|
Yes I have and you know that and I have explained repeatedly about 442 diamond and 532. Think whatever you like though and keep wishing that we lose if you like | |
| |
At the risk of upsetting a few of you on 12:50 - Jan 12 with 2579 views | clive_baker |
At the risk of upsetting a few of you on 12:46 - Jan 12 by Bluefish | Correct about Dozzell but again we said plan a or b depending on how attacking. The key point is that 442 diamond and 532 are virtually the same so we will have a structure and then you make small tweaks. I was saying this prior to the mk Dons game when we used 532 |
They aren't 'virtually the same', let's get that right. A diamond can evolve into a defensive 5-3-2 but it's a different ask of your fullbacks, and its all dependant on personnel. We can agree to disagree but if you think we should be lining up with 2 recognised central defenders alongside full backs who aren't the best defensively and expect Dozzell to be the enforcer in front of them then I'll continue to be grateful that you're not in Lambert's seat. | |
| |
At the risk of upsetting a few of you on 12:52 - Jan 12 with 2573 views | MrTown |
At the risk of upsetting a few of you on 12:49 - Jan 12 by Bluefish | Yes I have and you know that and I have explained repeatedly about 442 diamond and 532. Think whatever you like though and keep wishing that we lose if you like |
Show me multiple links where you have shouted about the 3-5-2 formation ‘repeatedly’. Town losing only fits your agenda, not mine. | |
| |
At the risk of upsetting a few of you on 12:55 - Jan 12 with 2564 views | Bluefish |
At the risk of upsetting a few of you on 12:50 - Jan 12 by clive_baker | They aren't 'virtually the same', let's get that right. A diamond can evolve into a defensive 5-3-2 but it's a different ask of your fullbacks, and its all dependant on personnel. We can agree to disagree but if you think we should be lining up with 2 recognised central defenders alongside full backs who aren't the best defensively and expect Dozzell to be the enforcer in front of them then I'll continue to be grateful that you're not in Lambert's seat. |
Who is the enforcer in a flat 442? If you play 2 proper CMs and 2 proper CHs then Dozzell plays as a playmaker, it is his position. He isn't there yet as ibhave commented lots of times but we need to make a call on using him to unlock his potential or utilise Skuse who isn't going to deteriorate. If you swap Skuse for wilson yesterday the formation changes between the 2 virtually seamlessly | |
| |
At the risk of upsetting a few of you on 12:56 - Jan 12 with 2558 views | marcus1642 |
At the risk of upsetting a few of you on 12:36 - Jan 12 by Bluefish | I have repeated all season 442 diamond or 532. They are virtually the same shape and should be integrated into plan a and plan b depending on how defensive or attacking we need to be |
It's not about systems, it's about players. Or perhaps the right players playing in the right system? Just a thought. | | | |
At the risk of upsetting a few of you on 12:59 - Jan 12 with 2534 views | Bluefish |
At the risk of upsetting a few of you on 12:42 - Jan 12 by clive_baker | Not under your proposal of Dozzell sitting in front of the back 4 they're not. Perhaps with Skuse in there who could drop in to form a 3 at the back. The deepest lying midfielder at the bottom of that diamond has the most responsibility on the field and as much as I rate Dozzell, he's not demonstrated he's anywhere near influential enough to operate there. We're nowhere near strong enough defensively either, to get away with that, I don't think Edwards or Garbutt are particularly strong defensively and I feel much more comfortable with an additional body alongside Woolf & Chambers (although an upgrade on Wilson would be appreciated). |
The formation dilemma by Reuser_is_God 27 Dec 2019 10:12I think the 3 at the back with wing backs was good when KVY was fit.
It allowed us 2 strikers which, as you say, we need as none of our strikers can play the lone role. We are also poor in wide areas with the exception of Garbutt & KVY. Here are 3, cant be bothered to add more or comment further. No need to apologise | |
| |
At the risk of upsetting a few of you on 13:02 - Jan 12 with 2518 views | clive_baker |
At the risk of upsetting a few of you on 12:55 - Jan 12 by Bluefish | Who is the enforcer in a flat 442? If you play 2 proper CMs and 2 proper CHs then Dozzell plays as a playmaker, it is his position. He isn't there yet as ibhave commented lots of times but we need to make a call on using him to unlock his potential or utilise Skuse who isn't going to deteriorate. If you swap Skuse for wilson yesterday the formation changes between the 2 virtually seamlessly |
In a flat 4-4-2 you would want full backs who are much more comfortable defensively. Garbutt & Edwards playing in a flat back 4 would leave us horribly exposed. See Lincoln, they scored 5 (4 of which in about 50 minutes of football after Donacien went off) and it could've been 10. We are where we are with our fullbacks, which pretty much leaves us with the only option of pushing them on as out and out wingbacks and having a 3rd body in the centre of defence. I don't think we have any other choice given the personnel we have. [Post edited 12 Jan 2020 13:08]
| |
| |
At the risk of upsetting a few of you on 13:34 - Jan 12 with 2373 views | blueislander |
At the risk of upsetting a few of you on 13:02 - Jan 12 by clive_baker | In a flat 4-4-2 you would want full backs who are much more comfortable defensively. Garbutt & Edwards playing in a flat back 4 would leave us horribly exposed. See Lincoln, they scored 5 (4 of which in about 50 minutes of football after Donacien went off) and it could've been 10. We are where we are with our fullbacks, which pretty much leaves us with the only option of pushing them on as out and out wingbacks and having a 3rd body in the centre of defence. I don't think we have any other choice given the personnel we have. [Post edited 12 Jan 2020 13:08]
|
I would like to see what Herbivore has to say. He was dead set against 3-5-2, and he understands football. | | | |
At the risk of upsetting a few of you on 14:07 - Jan 12 with 2288 views | MrTown |
At the risk of upsetting a few of you on 12:59 - Jan 12 by Bluefish | The formation dilemma by Reuser_is_God 27 Dec 2019 10:12I think the 3 at the back with wing backs was good when KVY was fit.
It allowed us 2 strikers which, as you say, we need as none of our strikers can play the lone role. We are also poor in wide areas with the exception of Garbutt & KVY. Here are 3, cant be bothered to add more or comment further. No need to apologise |
3 times in 4 months. Right. | |
| |
At the risk of upsetting a few of you on 16:37 - Jan 12 with 2040 views | lmfcblue |
At the risk of upsetting a few of you on 12:36 - Jan 12 by Bluefish | I have repeated all season 442 diamond or 532. They are virtually the same shape and should be integrated into plan a and plan b depending on how defensive or attacking we need to be |
Yes with a slight tweak you can switch to either but they are still different formations. With a flat back 4 yesterday we wouldn’t have seen Chambers and wolf bombing on like they did. The whole set up and mindset is completely different. | | | |
At the risk of upsetting a few of you on 16:49 - Jan 12 with 2001 views | Herbivore |
At the risk of upsetting a few of you on 12:55 - Jan 12 by Bluefish | Who is the enforcer in a flat 442? If you play 2 proper CMs and 2 proper CHs then Dozzell plays as a playmaker, it is his position. He isn't there yet as ibhave commented lots of times but we need to make a call on using him to unlock his potential or utilise Skuse who isn't going to deteriorate. If you swap Skuse for wilson yesterday the formation changes between the 2 virtually seamlessly |
It really doesn't. If you swap Skuse for Wilson then you have a defensive midfielder who drops back in between the centre backs when we're under pressure. When we're not under pressure Skuse steps out to make a midfield diamond. It leaves Chambers and Woolfy as out and out defenders. Playing Wilson, his role is just to sit and anchor the defence both when defending and when we're going forward. That enables Chambers and Woolfy to push forward as overlapping CBs. | |
| |
At the risk of upsetting a few of you on 16:53 - Jan 12 with 1984 views | Herbivore |
At the risk of upsetting a few of you on 13:34 - Jan 12 by blueislander | I would like to see what Herbivore has to say. He was dead set against 3-5-2, and he understands football. |
I'm not a great fan of it with our current defenders, no. It worked yesterday but it has failed far more regularly than it has worked over the season to date. If we sign a more natural left sided CB who is comfortable on the ball then I'd be happier with 3-5-2. We had a good win yesterday, let's just enjoy our first win in ages for what it is and hope that we actually build on it. | |
| |
At the risk of upsetting a few of you on 17:50 - Jan 12 with 1909 views | blueislander |
At the risk of upsetting a few of you on 16:53 - Jan 12 by Herbivore | I'm not a great fan of it with our current defenders, no. It worked yesterday but it has failed far more regularly than it has worked over the season to date. If we sign a more natural left sided CB who is comfortable on the ball then I'd be happier with 3-5-2. We had a good win yesterday, let's just enjoy our first win in ages for what it is and hope that we actually build on it. |
If we go 4-4-2 presumably we have to play Donancien and Kenlock with EDwarfs and Garnett in front of them. We lose Judge as the free man “in.the hole”, because we know a lone striker does not work for us. Yesterday’s line up was pretty good imo..Maybe Dozzell could have started, and also Keane. | | | |
At the risk of upsetting a few of you on 18:07 - Jan 12 with 1881 views | Herbivore |
At the risk of upsetting a few of you on 17:50 - Jan 12 by blueislander | If we go 4-4-2 presumably we have to play Donancien and Kenlock with EDwarfs and Garnett in front of them. We lose Judge as the free man “in.the hole”, because we know a lone striker does not work for us. Yesterday’s line up was pretty good imo..Maybe Dozzell could have started, and also Keane. |
I'd prefer a 4-3-3 personally as I think we look better with three in midfield and with three in attacking roles. Garbutt and Donacien at full back until KVY returns Midfield three of Downes, Huws and Bishop (when fit) then Jackson and Sears either side of Keane or Norwood. Plenty of firepower and quality on the ball. As I said though, if we sign a left sided CB who can play football I'm not against the current system. I'd eventually like to see Bishop or Lankester in for Judge when they're fit if we carry on with this system. [Post edited 12 Jan 2020 18:07]
| |
| |
At the risk of upsetting a few of you on 18:07 - Jan 12 with 1889 views | Keaneish | Although i'm sure you know we first used that system in September. The fact you think that system is the same as a 442-diamond and that you've been its primary evangelist which you now want credit for from the comfort of your living room on iFollow is hilarious. Someone needs a cuddle.
This post has been edited by an administrator | |
| |
Hmmm, there's an unwritten rule.... on 18:11 - Jan 12 with 1867 views | Bloots |
At the risk of upsetting a few of you on 18:07 - Jan 12 by Keaneish | Although i'm sure you know we first used that system in September. The fact you think that system is the same as a 442-diamond and that you've been its primary evangelist which you now want credit for from the comfort of your living room on iFollow is hilarious. Someone needs a cuddle.
This post has been edited by an administrator |
….about using names on here. You should probably stick to it. | |
| TWTD Leadership Group/Elite Level Supporter/Anti-Bullying Crusader |
| |
Hmmm, there's an unwritten rule.... on 18:24 - Jan 12 with 1851 views | Bluefish |
Hmmm, there's an unwritten rule.... on 18:11 - Jan 12 by Bloots | ….about using names on here. You should probably stick to it. |
The bloke is a tool of the highest order. He has gone out of his way to do that as well, shows a lack of class and clearly had an agenda behind it. Not my kind of chap | |
| |
| |