v Sheep (a)

[BackRowArab]

I'm confused? earlier in the thread you said if we are to persist with the 3 at the back, we should play 352 (to get 2 strikers up top) but now your talking about how we need certain players for that system and basically shouldn't play it?

I agree with everything you said regarding the players which is why If i was to play 3 at the back I would play 343 as it doesn't put pressure on 1 player to be the main creator (The scott allan type you suggested) But would allow the 2 behind shankland to get on the ball and be creative. This could be any of the AM's who are all different and can bring different attributes to the formation for example. Chalmers likes to drift out on the right hand side to cut in on his left foot.

I think the 343 would allow more freedom with the attacking players. We can mix up the roles that the players have in the front 3 much better than we could in a 352.

I think playing either 3-4-3 or 3-5-2 we still need someone who can pass to play alongside Fuchs in the midfield

[darrenshedtastic]

that is true but in terms of getting more attacking/creative players in the team to then service Shankland the 343 would be best suited Imo. Allows us to play 2 from Clark, Pawlett, Chalmers, Mochrie, Glass (if fit), Appere, Sporle etc. More freedom and more likely to create something.

[BackRowArab]

that is true but in terms of getting more attacking/creative players in the team to then service Shankland the 343 would be best suited Imo. Allows us to play 2 from Clark, Pawlett, Chalmers, Mochrie, Glass (if fit), Appere, Sporle etc. More freedom and more likely to create something.

I do agree with you. Shankland plays better up on his own, so he can move between the defenders. Chalmers is more suited to that too. Clark is probably better suited to 2 up front. Mochrie is maybe better playing in behind two strikers, think you lose something when he has to go centre to wide/wide to centre. At least there are some options for both systems