|
|
Post by robwahlmann on Oct 15, 2017 19:32:00 GMT
Since Ryan got injured we have looked very vulnerable at the back, and I don't think we have the players to play 3 at the back without Ryan. Wimmer simply isn't good enough in this system and we seem to lack a natural leader. Even Indi doesn't look the same without Ryan alongside him. For the Bmouth game I would go back to 4-4-2 with this line up as long as Ryan isn't ready, something I asume he won't be. .............Butland............. Cameron....Zouma...Indi....Pieters Shaq....Fletcher...Allen...Chapou ..........Crouch..Diouf.......... I think this line up will make us stronger at the back and bring us more goals.  |
|
|
|
Post by datguy on Oct 15, 2017 19:36:53 GMT
We were 442 yesterday and it was terrible.
Nothng to see here, move along.
|
|
|
|
Post by robwahlmann on Oct 15, 2017 19:53:42 GMT
We were 442 yesterday and it was terrible. Nothng to see here, move along. We must drill it in training this week of course and use the right personell! When you are trailing 1 goal to 3 it's too late as you need to take big risks going forward, and against Man City we were really punished by De Breyune with his fantastic passing! |
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Oct 15, 2017 20:01:20 GMT
Not got the midfielders for it
|
|
|
|
Post by robwahlmann on Oct 15, 2017 20:07:06 GMT
Not got the midfielders for it Maybe not Shaq, but I think he is our x-factor so I wouldn't leave him out anyway! The rest should really cope with this formation.  |
|
|
|
Post by thedarkknight on Oct 15, 2017 20:40:58 GMT
Not got the midfielders for it Maybe not Shaq, but I think he is our x-factor so I wouldn't leave him out anyway! The rest should really cope with this formation. Yep, our most creative player this season, shoehorned in to change a formation that has worked quite fine until this weekend. No need to switch up anything other than personnel for Bournmouth. I think we'll take all 3 points there, quite possibly by a big margin. |
|
|
|
Post by RedandWhite90 on Oct 15, 2017 20:42:50 GMT
The though of just 2 being in our midfield is horrific.
It becomes more horrific when one of the 2 is Joe Allen. (...and I like Joe)
|
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Oct 15, 2017 20:51:31 GMT
Ryan is shit and should be the one missing out with the arrivals of bmi, wimmer and zouma.
The sooner he gets back the better and let that be an end to all this "not a captain" bollocks.
He's our best and most important player by some distance
|
|
|
|
Post by trickydicky73 on Oct 15, 2017 22:48:39 GMT
Maybe not Shaq, but I think he is our x-factor so I wouldn't leave him out anyway! The rest should really cope with this formation. Yep, our most creative player this season, shoehorned in to change a formation that has worked quite fine until this weekend. No need to switch up anything other than personnel for Bournmouth. I think we'll take all 3 points there, quite possibly by a big margin. Which personnel would you change? |
|
|
|
Post by march4 on Oct 15, 2017 23:04:17 GMT
4-4-1-1 until the Earth turns orange and melts at the end of time.
All else is an aberration.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Oct 15, 2017 23:09:35 GMT
Unless your team is blessed with an array of Galatik football stars it is most unwise to stray far from 4-4-2.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Oct 15, 2017 23:10:40 GMT
Unless your team is blessed with an array of Galatik football stars it is most unwise to stray far from 4-4-2. If it was 1988, absolutely. In 2017, not so much. |
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Oct 15, 2017 23:23:16 GMT
Since Ryan got injured we have looked very vulnerable at the back, and I don't think we have the players to play 3 at the back without Ryan. Wimmer simply isn't good enough in this system and we seem to lack a natural leader. Even Indi doesn't look the same without Ryan alongside him. For the Bmouth game I would go back to 4-4-2 with this line up as long as Ryan isn't ready, something I asume he won't be. .............Butland............. Cameron....Zouma...Indi....Pieters Shaq....Fletcher...Allen...Chapou ..........Crouch..Diouf.......... I think this line up will make us stronger at the back and bring us more goals. 442 without any conventional wingers is daft. That team would have no one putting in any crosses for the two strikers. If you want to play a back 4 then 4231 makes more sense with the players we have. |
|
|
|
Post by trickydicky73 on Oct 15, 2017 23:27:04 GMT
Since Ryan got injured we have looked very vulnerable at the back, and I don't think we have the players to play 3 at the back without Ryan. Wimmer simply isn't good enough in this system and we seem to lack a natural leader. Even Indi doesn't look the same without Ryan alongside him. For the Bmouth game I would go back to 4-4-2 with this line up as long as Ryan isn't ready, something I asume he won't be. .............Butland............. Cameron....Zouma...Indi....Pieters Shaq....Fletcher...Allen...Chapou ..........Crouch..Diouf.......... I think this line up will make us stronger at the back and bring us more goals. 442 without any conventional wingers is daft. That team would have no one putting in any crosses for the two strikers. If you want to play a back 4 then 4231 makes more sense with the players we have. Or we could do something really drastic and actually buy players to suit the system we have chosen to play. |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Oct 15, 2017 23:35:30 GMT
Since Ryan got injured we have looked very vulnerable at the back, and I don't think we have the players to play 3 at the back without Ryan. Wimmer simply isn't good enough in this system and we seem to lack a natural leader. Even Indi doesn't look the same without Ryan alongside him. For the Bmouth game I would go back to 4-4-2 with this line up as long as Ryan isn't ready, something I asume he won't be. .............Butland............. Cameron....Zouma...Indi....Pieters Shaq....Fletcher...Allen...Chapou ..........Crouch..Diouf.......... I think this line up will make us stronger at the back and bring us more goals. 442 without any conventional wingers is daft. That team would have no one putting in any crosses for the two strikers. If you want to play a back 4 then 4231 makes more sense with the players we have. Whilst I totally agree with you John, that to be fair, is EXACTLY what Hughes did from the start yesterday. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2017 0:43:25 GMT
We've been awful every time we've used 442 apart from half of the liverpool home game last season where they played kids.
No thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by trickydicky73 on Oct 16, 2017 2:45:33 GMT
Not got the midfielders for it Not having a go, but what have we got the midfielders for? |
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Oct 16, 2017 6:53:52 GMT
442 without any conventional wingers is daft. That team would have no one putting in any crosses for the two strikers. If you want to play a back 4 then 4231 makes more sense with the players we have. Whilst I totally agree with you John, that to be fair, is EXACTLY what Hughes did from the start yesterday. Did we though? Certainly in the first half we had Diouf playing on the right as a winger rather than centrally. Whilst Diouf is no conventional winger he is at least right footed. That still left Choupo as an inverted rather than conventional winger on the left. Once Jese went off at half time Diouf did play more as a striker admittedly. The point I was making was that to put Diouf and Crouch as a pair of strikers up front with inverted wingers behind them made no sense at all = and that was what Rob's team suggestion did. |
|
|
|
Post by thedarkknight on Oct 16, 2017 7:19:38 GMT
Yep, our most creative player this season, shoehorned in to change a formation that has worked quite fine until this weekend. No need to switch up anything other than personnel for Bournmouth. I think we'll take all 3 points there, quite possibly by a big margin. Which personnel would you change? Jese and Kevin at the very least. Diouf up top, Allen next to Fletch, push Cameron back and get BMI in. So as things stand id play Butland Zouma Cam BMI Edwards. Pieters Allen. Fletch Shaq. Choupo Diouf. That team should have a field day against some of the opposition coming up. |
|
|
|
Post by wiggo10 on Oct 16, 2017 9:10:30 GMT
Which personnel would you change? Jese and Kevin at the very least. Diouf up top, Allen next to Fletch, push Cameron back and get BMI in. So as things stand id play Butland Zouma Cam BMI Edwards. Pieters Allen. Fletch Shaq. Choupo Diouf. That team should have a field day against some of the opposition coming up. Given the injuries we have at the moment, and the need to play a system we have the personel for I agree with this team (providing Edwards is fit, and giving him the benefit of the doubt as he did get wrong sided too often), We cant go 442 as we have no wingers. Shaq has been awsome (for him) centrally this season why change that? |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Oct 16, 2017 9:29:54 GMT
Whilst I totally agree with you John, that to be fair, is EXACTLY what Hughes did from the start yesterday. Did we though? Certainly in the first half we had Diouf playing on the right as a winger rather than centrally. Whilst Diouf is no conventional winger he is at least right footed. That still left Choupo as an inverted rather than conventional winger on the left. Once Jese went off at half time Diouf did play more as a striker admittedly. The point I was making was that to put Diouf and Crouch as a pair of strikers up front with inverted wingers behind them made no sense at all = and that was what Rob's team suggestion did. Yes he set up as a flat 4-4-2 without any conventional wingers. |
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Oct 16, 2017 9:45:33 GMT
Whilst I totally agree with you John, that to be fair, is EXACTLY what Hughes did from the start yesterday. Did we though? Certainly in the first half we had Diouf playing on the right as a winger rather than centrally. Whilst Diouf is no conventional winger he is at least right footed. That still left Choupo as an inverted rather than conventional winger on the left. Once Jese went off at half time Diouf did play more as a striker admittedly. The point I was making was that to put Diouf and Crouch as a pair of strikers up front with inverted wingers behind them made no sense at all = and that was what Rob's team suggestion did. To be honest, I'm not sure what Berahino did to miss out in favour of Jese on Saturday. He played well I thought in the last game v Southampton, albeit he missed the penalty. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2017 10:07:44 GMT
Did we though? Certainly in the first half we had Diouf playing on the right as a winger rather than centrally. Whilst Diouf is no conventional winger he is at least right footed. That still left Choupo as an inverted rather than conventional winger on the left. Once Jese went off at half time Diouf did play more as a striker admittedly. The point I was making was that to put Diouf and Crouch as a pair of strikers up front with inverted wingers behind them made no sense at all = and that was what Rob's team suggestion did. To be honest, I'm not sure what Berahino did to miss out in favour of Jese on Saturday. He played well I thought in the last game v Southampton, albeit he missed the penalty. I thought Berahino led the line really well at The Etihad last season as well..... |
|
|
|
Post by silverdollar on Oct 16, 2017 11:51:38 GMT
I watched Stoke play Man Utd this season and was quite happy with three at the back. No one can be happy conceding seven goals but at the moment I believe Man City are going to average four or five goals against most teams. I find it funny when a player can be out for so long and a myth develops around their talent. When Ryan Shawcross has played he has found it very difficult to cope with having three centre halves. He has never really been confident in this formation. We saw what can happen when we go four at the back last Saturday. My major concern at the moment is the number of our signings who are struggling to make any impact. This failure is down to the manager. When you invest £18m you expect a player to be able to hold his own but it is just not happening at Stoke.
After the Man United my previous doubts our future were lifted but sadly I am now reverting back to major worries! How long do we keep accepting excuses before we decide whether to replace our management team???
|
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Oct 16, 2017 15:07:14 GMT
I watched Stoke play Man Utd this season and was quite happy with three at the back. No one can be happy conceding seven goals but at the moment I believe Man City are going to average four or five goals against most teams. I find it funny when a player can be out for so long and a myth develops around their talent. When Ryan Shawcross has played he has found it very difficult to cope with having three centre halves. He has never really been confident in this formation. We saw what can happen when we go four at the back last Saturday. My major concern at the moment is the number of our signings who are struggling to make any impact. This failure is down to the manager. When you invest £18m you expect a player to be able to hold his own but it is just not happening at Stoke. After the Man United my previous doubts our future were lifted but sadly I am now reverting back to major worries! How long do we keep accepting excuses before we decide whether to replace our management team??? Shawcross has certainly had his problems playing on the right of a back 3. Has he ever looked in trouble when he plays in the centre of a back 3? I can't recall him having any problems in the middle - seems to suit his game perfectly. |
|
|
|
Post by boskampsflaps on Oct 16, 2017 17:47:17 GMT
We were 442 yesterday and it was terrible. Nothng to see here, move along. We must drill it in training this week of course and use the right personell! When you are trailing 1 goal to 3 it's too late as you need to take big risks going forward, and against Man City we were really punished by De Breyune with his fantastic passing! We don't have the right personnel, Cameron at right back is a disaster waiting to happen. |
|
|
|
Post by boskampsflaps on Oct 16, 2017 17:49:06 GMT
Not got the midfielders for it Not having a go, but what have we got the midfielders for? Nothing. |
|
|
|
Post by trickydicky73 on Oct 16, 2017 18:20:43 GMT
Not having a go, but what have we got the midfielders for? Nothing. I agree. We have neglected midfield among other areas. |
|
