|
Post by shrewspotter on Sept 13, 2023 14:11:35 GMT
If we go 5 at the back, it will point to us getting recruitment wrong in my opinion, which after a few games is a dangerous message to send to the board that have just backed you......surely not Why? Anyone who automatically rules out, or in for that matter, any formation is a fool. I'd rule it out because we have been terrible playing it. appreciate that this is a new team however ad of course 5-3-2 might work but judging by past results I am sure you will understand my pessimism for the 5 at the back When we have so much attacking talent why be cautious, go for the throat and stamp your mark on the division I say, be brave and let the next opponents be very worried about what attacking players we have in our ranks.............Alternatively play 5-3-2, lose 1-0 and kick ourselves, wondering what could have been
|
|
|
Post by shakermaker on Sept 13, 2023 14:58:05 GMT
If we go 5 at the back, it will point to us getting recruitment wrong in my opinion, which after a few games is a dangerous message to send to the board that have just backed you......surely not Why? Anyone who automatically rules out, or in for that matter, any formation is a fool. I didn't mind three at the back as a Plan B, which is why I was so keen for us to keep Tymon. But most fans hated this system and also wanted Josh gone. Well, he's gone now and as far as I'm concerned, now that we've ditched a top LWB made for a wing-back system there is no further need to even consider that formation again. Any systems we now play must be variations on a back four.
|
|
|
Post by FullerMagic on Sept 13, 2023 15:09:03 GMT
We're still not really any the wiser about Travers, Stevens, Mmaee and Vidigal, are we? Doesn't sound like anything's going to emerge until the press conference tomorrow Pete Smith seems to fancy it'll be Gooch at LB if Stevens is unavailable. www.stokesentinel.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/stoke-city-qa-team-news-8748286I'd probably put my money on Lynden G being the deputy left back at the moment. AN knows him well enough to know whether he'll be able to do it. Hopefully there's a positive update to come on Enda Stevens. Diminishing (chance of free agents signing), I would say. It's difficult to be categorical but if Stoke were going to bring in a free agent, and we know they've explored it, it would have probably happened by now. It's probably at the point where it would be a surprise if it happened now. It seems like signing free agents isn't as uncomplicated as it would seem from the outside but I think we'd all agree that it's important that, after three years of FFP misery, Stoke know when to walk away from deals, even if there's no fee involved.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Sept 13, 2023 16:30:49 GMT
I think it’s a game we will almost certainly lose regardless of what system he plays. If he plays four at the back they will pick us off easily, whereas a five might see us more solid defensively but the forwards will be feeding off scraps 🤷♂️ My opinion is that 4 at the back can be more solid than the 5 We have been poor at 5 because the 2 wing backs push up and leave space, therefore one of the Centre halves has to cover leaving holes for the opposition midfield to exploit. Pulis made a living out of a flat back 4 and where I am not condoning that it does also give you an extra man up field and cover provided by Pearson and possibly Burger, with 5 at the back I always feel we lose the midfield battle and invite pressure and diagonal balls I just think if we have spent what we have on attack minded players like Bae, Johnson, Vidigal, Wesley, Haksobanovic and Mmaee, to win games like these they need to be on the pitch (appreciate you cant play them all) and not trying to avoid defeat by reverting back to a formation that we are frankly shite at and then lose 1-0 etc You appear to dislike 5 at the back because it makes the team vulnerable but most people seem not to like it because they think it's too defensive. Thing is you'e both right - play 352 and it is generally more attacking than 4 at the back (especially with a Pulis style cage or 2 sitting DMs) whereas play 532 and it is more defensive than 4 at the back. We try to play 352 so I think you are right and those who think it's inherently more defensive are just plain wrong. I'm not particularly bothered what formation we play - what matters is how well the players play it, not the formation itself. If anything it's good to have the tactical flexibility as this helps to exploit the weaknesses of the opposition.
|
|
|
Post by baconburger on Sept 13, 2023 16:39:40 GMT
My opinion is that 4 at the back can be more solid than the 5 We have been poor at 5 because the 2 wing backs push up and leave space, therefore one of the Centre halves has to cover leaving holes for the opposition midfield to exploit. Pulis made a living out of a flat back 4 and where I am not condoning that it does also give you an extra man up field and cover provided by Pearson and possibly Burger, with 5 at the back I always feel we lose the midfield battle and invite pressure and diagonal balls I just think if we have spent what we have on attack minded players like Bae, Johnson, Vidigal, Wesley, Haksobanovic and Mmaee, to win games like these they need to be on the pitch (appreciate you cant play them all) and not trying to avoid defeat by reverting back to a formation that we are frankly shite at and then lose 1-0 etc You appear to dislike 5 at the back because it makes the team vulnerable but most people seem not to like it because they think it's too defensive. Thing is you'e both right - play 352 and it is generally more attacking than 4 at the back (especially with a Pulis style cage or 2 sitting DMs) whereas play 532 and it is more defensive than 4 at the back. We try to play 352 so I think you are right and those who think it's inherently more defensive are just plain wrong. I'm not particularly bothered what formation we play - what matters is how well the players play it, not the formation itself. If anything it's good to have the tactical flexibility as this helps to exploit the weaknesses of the opposition. The squealing about formations is hysterical nonsense. We fail to score far too often. When you fail to score too often you don’t win often enough.
|
|
|
Post by march4 on Sept 13, 2023 17:05:46 GMT
I’d play this team for every game tbh: Travers Gooch Wilmot McNally Stevens Pearson Burger Campbell Bae Vidigal Mmaee I like this team but I think we should get Leris involved. I’ve been impressed with him and I don’t think he will take a step back from the division’s cloggers. Interesting that Wesley is not featuring on folks’ teamsheets after his tepid performances.
|
|
|
Post by shakermaker on Sept 13, 2023 18:39:10 GMT
I’d play this team for every game tbh: Travers Gooch Wilmot McNally Stevens Pearson Burger Campbell Bae Vidigal Mmaee I like this team but I think we should get Leris involved. I’ve been impressed with him and I don’t think he will take a step back from the division’s cloggers. Interesting that Wesley is not featuring on folks’ teamsheets after his tepid performances. I agree. Léris will work harder than Campbell and track back if necessary. We need that, because Norwich will be strong and we need to overcome and wear them down a bit. Wesley was in my starting line up. He’ll provide some physical presence, but Léris and Vidi (or Haks) must not leave him too isolated. Mmaee can then come on for Wesley later in the game.
|
|
|
Post by FullerMagic on Sept 13, 2023 18:44:24 GMT
I like this team but I think we should get Leris involved. I’ve been impressed with him and I don’t think he will take a step back from the division’s cloggers. Interesting that Wesley is not featuring on folks’ teamsheets after his tepid performances. I agree. Léris will work harder than Campbell and track back if necessary. We need that, because Norwich will be strong and we need to overcome and wear them down a bit. Wesley was in my starting line up. He’ll provide some physical presence, but Léris and Vidi (or Haks) must not leave him too isolated. Mmaee can then come on for Wesley later in the game. Got to be a worry about a lack of goals with Leris and Wes making up 2/3 of any attack though? And it's not as if the midfield are full of them.
|
|
|
Post by gingerninja on Sept 13, 2023 18:56:05 GMT
Wesley doesn't look to have 10 goals in him , even when up to speed, Leris looks a good player, but not full of goals, so I am not sure where and how we are going to score anywhere near enough.
|
|
|
Post by vidigal7 on Sept 13, 2023 18:57:58 GMT
I think if we're going 433 I'd go with a front three of Haksobanovic (left) Mmaee (Centre) and Leris (Right)
Bonham
Hoever Wilmott Mcnally Gooch
Pearson Burger Johnson
Leris Mmaee Haksobanovic
Easily adjusted to 4231 and give Junho half hour second half in place of Johnson
|
|
|
Post by gingerninja on Sept 13, 2023 19:08:56 GMT
Not sure Johnson will start as he's still away playing tonight I think.
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Sept 13, 2023 19:13:08 GMT
Not sure Johnson will start as he's still away playing tonight I think. Didn't they play last night?
|
|
|
Post by benjaminbiscuit on Sept 13, 2023 19:14:05 GMT
Mmaae and vidigal won’t be fit so add that to Travers and Stevens it will be a proper mix and match surely 5 at the back and as solid a midfield as we can muster good game for Thomson and 5 4 1
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Sept 13, 2023 19:14:42 GMT
Travers is 50/50 for Saturday
|
|
|
Post by vidigal7 on Sept 13, 2023 19:16:08 GMT
Not sure Johnson will start as he's still away playing tonight I think. 4231 for me then straight from the start if thats the case, chuck Junho straight in and give him an hour, he looked bright & energetic v Preston. Try to get infront and bring Wes, Campbell and Laurent on later in the game if all goes to plan
|
|
|
Post by vidigal7 on Sept 13, 2023 19:18:19 GMT
Mmaae and vidigal won’t be fit so add that to Travers and Stevens it will be a proper mix and match surely 5 at the back and as solid a midfield as we can muster good game for Thomson and 5 4 1 Do we know for sure yet Mmaee is out, I'm looking forward to seeing him given an extended run at CF, he's got the lot apparently, strength, pace, link up and goals
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on Sept 13, 2023 20:12:13 GMT
Mmaae and vidigal won’t be fit so add that to Travers and Stevens it will be a proper mix and match surely 5 at the back and as solid a midfield as we can muster good game for Thomson and 5 4 1 Is this inside info?
|
|
|
Post by mickstupp on Sept 13, 2023 20:12:15 GMT
Travers is 50/50 for Saturday What’s he done mate?
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Sept 13, 2023 20:16:37 GMT
Travers is 50/50 for Saturday What’s he done mate? Not a clue mate to be honest,I was just told he’s 50/50 for Saturday
|
|
|
Post by gingerninja on Sept 13, 2023 20:24:30 GMT
And the other injured players, any idea??
|
|
|
Post by shakermaker on Sept 13, 2023 20:47:33 GMT
I agree. Léris will work harder than Campbell and track back if necessary. We need that, because Norwich will be strong and we need to overcome and wear them down a bit. Wesley was in my starting line up. He’ll provide some physical presence, but Léris and Vidi (or Haks) must not leave him too isolated. Mmaee can then come on for Wesley later in the game. Got to be a worry about a lack of goals with Leris and Wes making up 2/3 of any attack though? And it's not as if the midfield are full of them. Perhaps if the wingers play a bit closer to Wesley he’ll have more support. He was hung out to dry against Preston I thought. But hopefully Léris and Wes can take the sting out of Norwich, then bring on Campbell and Mmaee in the second half to get em all giddy with some technical flair.
|
|
|
Post by pavel on Sept 13, 2023 20:54:18 GMT
Hopefully Travers but likely to be Bonham
Hoever (Junior) - Wilmott - McNally - Gooch (assuming Stevens not fit)
Pearson - Burger
Johnson (Junho)
Campbell Wesley Leris (Assumes Mmaee and Vidigal not fit - if they are they must play with Campbell and interchange)
I'd be inclined to start Junho from the start but wont happen and I can see Junior coming on if Hoever under performs again.
We will have to get the 2 wide forwards close to Wesley or else it will be like Preston.
So worse case scenario we could be shakey at the back and not much goal threat up top if we leave Wesley isolated.
Happy days!
|
|
hotpot
Youth Player
Posts: 432
|
Post by hotpot on Sept 14, 2023 2:15:18 GMT
1-4-3-2 : Wesley; Leris, Bae, Johnson, Haksanovic; Burger, Wilmott, Pearson; McNally, Edna; Travers.
|
|
|
Post by cvillestokie on Sept 14, 2023 2:53:20 GMT
We're still not really any the wiser about Travers, Stevens, Mmaee and Vidigal, are we? Doesn't sound like anything's going to emerge until the press conference tomorrow Pete Smith seems to fancy it'll be Gooch at LB if Stevens is unavailable. www.stokesentinel.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/stoke-city-qa-team-news-8748286I'd probably put my money on Lynden G being the deputy left back at the moment. AN knows him well enough to know whether he'll be able to do it. Hopefully there's a positive update to come on Enda Stevens. Diminishing (chance of free agents signing), I would say. It's difficult to be categorical but if Stoke were going to bring in a free agent, and we know they've explored it, it would have probably happened by now. It's probably at the point where it would be a surprise if it happened now. It seems like signing free agents isn't as uncomplicated as it would seem from the outside but I think we'd all agree that it's important that, after three years of FFP misery, Stoke know when to walk away from deals, even if there's no fee involved. Has he ever played there before? I thought that Gooch has spent most of his career at right wing?
|
|
|
Post by upthefud on Sept 14, 2023 5:17:33 GMT
Far from writing him off but Mmaee has done nothing to suggest he’s ahead of Wesley for CF just yet
|
|
|
Post by wearepremierleague on Sept 14, 2023 6:00:42 GMT
Far from writing him off but Mmaee has done nothing to suggest he’s ahead of Wesley for CF just yet Apart from he’s scored a goal.
|
|
|
Post by Mr_DaftBurger on Sept 14, 2023 6:47:36 GMT
Does Neil see Thompson as a stand-in left back?
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Sept 14, 2023 6:49:51 GMT
Not a clue mate to be honest,I was just told he’s 50/50 for Saturday If that's the case even if he's out should just be one game?
|
|
|
Post by FullerMagic on Sept 14, 2023 6:55:12 GMT
We're still not really any the wiser about Travers, Stevens, Mmaee and Vidigal, are we? Doesn't sound like anything's going to emerge until the press conference tomorrow Pete Smith seems to fancy it'll be Gooch at LB if Stevens is unavailable. www.stokesentinel.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/stoke-city-qa-team-news-8748286I'd probably put my money on Lynden G being the deputy left back at the moment. AN knows him well enough to know whether he'll be able to do it. Hopefully there's a positive update to come on Enda Stevens. Diminishing (chance of free agents signing), I would say. It's difficult to be categorical but if Stoke were going to bring in a free agent, and we know they've explored it, it would have probably happened by now. It's probably at the point where it would be a surprise if it happened now. It seems like signing free agents isn't as uncomplicated as it would seem from the outside but I think we'd all agree that it's important that, after three years of FFP misery, Stoke know when to walk away from deals, even if there's no fee involved. Has he ever played there before? I thought that Gooch has spent most of his career at right wing? If you believe transfermarkt, 7 times. Including 5 times at the end of last season.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Hackett on Sept 14, 2023 7:06:06 GMT
Gooch will play LB, that's how they have been training.
Travers out probably for next 2 games.
|
|