Transfer rumour thread 19/20

[Whitfieldarab]

Not gonna work if you lose the midfield. You’d end up firing long balls up the park.

Ye there is that that too.

Playind 442 doesn't ultimately mean we'll play play free flowing attacking football.Being pretty would be a bonus but at the end of the day I don't care what system we play as long as we go up.

[Wullie]

Playing 4-2-3-1 can be great if done right and although there's a huge Tangerine spectacles type haze over the "We always score 4" period under Jackie, he had us playing very well, if only he'd signed some competent defenders, who knows what that team might have achieved.

On the other hand, Houstie.........club was feeling sorry for itself, he gambled, threw Levein's overly-cautious approach in the bin, played with two flair players wide and two ball winners and a front pairing who understood each other, fullbacks who could attack and put a balls into the box.

The problem is never the actual system, it's fitting the wrong players into the system you choose.

[bobafett]

Playing 4-2-3-1 can be great if done right and although there's a huge Tangerine spectacles type haze over the "We always score 4" period under Jackie, he had us playing very well, if only he'd signed some competent defenders, who knows what that team might have achieved.

On the other hand, Houstie.........club was feeling sorry for itself, he gambled, threw Levein's overly-cautious approach in the bin, played with two flair players wide and two ball winners and a front pairing who understood each other, fullbacks who could attack and put a balls into the box.

The problem is never the actual system, it's fitting the wrong players into the system you choose.

Agree with this 100%. A lot of folk get really wound up about our formation when it's actually more about the players. Most of the best teams on the planet play 4-2-3-1 and look amazing doing so. However, these teams usually have 2 attacking full-backs providing width to stretch the opposition and a midfield that control possession properly. We've not had that the past few years. Maybe with Smith at RB and Sporle or Robson at LB we can actually play the system properly for a change. When your full-backs are Watson/Murdoch and Booth, you're not offering any threat so you end up playing too narrow.

[offshore_arab83]

Not gonna work if you lose the midfield. You’d end up firing long balls up the park.

obviously, but we do have wide men. what wrong with a good old 4-4-2 ???

[offshore_arab83]

Agree with this 100%. A lot of folk get really wound up about our formation when it's actually more about the players. Most of the best teams on the planet play 4-2-3-1 and look amazing doing so. However, these teams usually have 2 attacking full-backs providing width to stretch the opposition and a midfield that control possession properly. We've not had that the past few years. Maybe with Smith at RB and Sporle or Robson at LB we can actually play the system properly for a change. When your full-backs are Watson/Murdoch and Booth, you're not offering any threat so you end up playing too narrow.

your right it is the players, but when you have a proven number 9 - Clark playing as a number 10 and a proven PFA POTY as a number 10 out wide can anyone blame the support for being pissed off at a manager trying to get players to fit a system that doesnt work for any of them?

[bobafett]

It does make me wonder if we actually need another striker. Clark and Sow are plenty good enough if used the right way. And, yeah, I don't think I've seen Cammy Smith played as a No. 10 for a full 90 minutes at Utd yet. I actually think we're more in need of another pacey, tricky winger type.

[Conan]

obviously, but we do have wide men. what wrong with a good old 4-4-2 ???

Nothing per se. Doesn't it depend on the strength of the opposition and the tactics they employ?

Most teams are playing 4-2-3-1 at the moment, which, if the 3 are energetic enough can give you five players in a central area. You sacrifice a bit of width but, with fit players it gives you an edge in midfield.

Even a 4-4-2 with wide guys tucking in is still outnumbered in there.

If you're stronger than the opposition and can get the ball wide regularly and effectively then maybe that's not so important, but Championship midfielders are all much-of-a-muchness and if we don't roll up our sleeves and battle then you're gonna have two strikers sitting up top with nothing to do bar chase long balls.

The manager's job as I'd see it is to figure out what the other team is doing and lay his team out as best as possible to counter it. Sometimes that'll be 4-4-2 , but I think the professional game is played with such a degree of technical scrutiny these days that any team that insists on playing one formation dogmatically is not gonna go very far.

[TerryTheTerror]

It does make me wonder if we actually need another striker.

I was pondering this too but clearly we are looking for another striker with the offer being made to Shankland.

[bobafett]

I was pondering this too but clearly we are looking for another striker with the offer being made to Shankland.

Maybe it's just an opportunistic thing. ie if Shankland wasn't available maybe we wouldn't necessarily be on the lookout for a striker..???

[tHeArAb]

Surely to **** we're not saying we are happy going into the season with Clark & Sow as our main strike options here? Jesus wept. Sow was absolutely chronic whenever he played and Clark is just Clark. He's not actually that good & won't get any better. Regardless, two strikers isn't enough.