2 upfront

[stokearab]

Keatings was expected to be key but has been disappointing so far overall.

2 up top would be great in certain games but it would impact the role of Fraser (who was outstanding against Falkirk in the no. 10) - he’s just not as effective out wide.

I’m hoping Shabba has negotiated enough budget in January for a decent striker - a tall, powerful all rounder would be nice....or Nads!

Would we have to play Fraser out wide in a 442? We have King and McMullan. Fraser could play in the middle 4 but not sure who would lose out to accommodate him. FWIW I think Csaba will want a couple out in Jan so he can bring in a centre forward.

[TerryTheTerror]

Would we have to play Fraser out wide in a 442? We have King and McMullan. Fraser could play in the middle 4 but not sure who would lose out to accommodate him. FWIW I think Csaba will want a couple out in Jan so he can bring in a centre forward.

442 with King, McMullan, and Fraser playing? We wouldn't be winning any midfield battle with that!

[dundeeunitedfc83]

Fraser MUST play in number 10 position he’s our most gifted player by a absolute mile, he’s not a winger and he’s not a centre midfield, however we MUST also sign a big striker in January as we only have one option in a attacking sense and that is tippy tappy football! A big striker and a anotther winger is a MUST in jan

[stokearab]

442 with King, McMullan, and Fraser playing? We wouldn't be winning any midfield battle with that!

Like the way our midfield steamrollered the mighty Brechin? I'm not saying I'd play those 2 wide players 90 minutes every match but I would do for periods of matches.
Scott McDonald has only 6 goals, averaging one every 192 minutes of playing time. We sign strikers then expect them to work miracles on their own from poor service.

[tHeArAb]

We don't have the players to play 4 across the middle effectively. Plus it would mean dropping a decent player (Fraser or Stanton) for the sake of playing a ****e winger (McMullan). I'd rather have an attacking interchangeable 4 of Fraser, Stanton, King & Mcdonald than 2 flat banks of King, McMullan, Mcdonald and Keatings/N'Koyi. Played well, 4231 is a superb formation, as we showed against Falkirk.

[offshore_arab83]

We don't have the players to play 4 across the middle effectively. Plus it would mean dropping a decent player (Fraser or Stanton) for the sake of playing a ****e winger (McMullan). I'd rather have an attacking interchangeable 4 of Fraser, Stanton, King & Mcdonald than 2 flat banks of King, McMullan, Mcdonald and Keatings/N'Koyi. Played well, 4231 is a superb formation, as we showed against Falkirk.

4-2-3-1 is a good formation if you have the correct players to play it, we dont, we havent had it for years and persist with it, its a sh1te formation

[TerryTheTerror]

I'd say we do have the players to play this now, having actually signed some wingers.

[offshore_arab83]

I'll disagree as both are poor IMO

[TerryTheTerror]

After a great start, I agree about McMullan on current form. I think King has been great the last few weeks though.

[shedka]

We don't have the players to play 4 across the middle effectively. Plus it would mean dropping a decent player (Fraser or Stanton) for the sake of playing a ****e winger (McMullan). I'd rather have an attacking interchangeable 4 of Fraser, Stanton, King & Mcdonald than 2 flat banks of King, McMullan, Mcdonald and Keatings/N'Koyi. Played well, 4231 is a superb formation, as we showed against Falkirk.

It's obvious that the players we have are more suited to 4231 than 442, we saw that vs St Mirren and Falkirk