Jump to content
IGNORED

New signing by Monday??


Merrick's Marvels

Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, Phileas Fogg said:

Well, you do if the alternative is much worse. Johnson is talking in a worse case scenario he could fill in there. Nothing wrong with that really. 

I would rather have little or ayling playing there as they are right backs/wing backs than Korey smith who is a midfielder . I'm not sure we have a crisis at right back if little or ayling plays. Anyway I'm sure LJ will strengthen before first game anyway in defensive areas. No need for mass panic yet about the right back position!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LJ is just making the point that we have players that are capable of playing out of their normal positions and doing a job there should circumstances demand it. It might become necessary during a game due to an injury/sending off so it`s good to know he has confidence in our players` versatility.

Say we`d made all our subs and Flint got sent off. If Wilbs was on the pitch, you`d probably stick him at CB even though you wouldn`t dream of starting him there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Spoons said:

Korey at right back?? If that's the case shall we play kodja at centre back?

He's saying worst case scenario, so if Little and Ayling are both ruled out through injury or suspension. Plus Korey started out as a Right Back, no where near how you're suggesting it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Spoons said:

I would rather have little or ayling playing there as they are right backs/wing backs than Korey smith who is a midfielder . I'm not sure we have a crisis at right back if little or ayling plays. Anyway I'm sure LJ will strengthen before first game anyway in defensive areas. No need for mass panic yet about the right back position!

You've misunderstood both Johnson and my own reply then. I understood it as him talking in the very worst case scenario. Theoretically - if Little was suspended and then Ayling got injured in a situation where we'd used all three subs, we could play Smith there and he'd probably do a fairly good job. That's the point being made, it's about his versatility, not that he's seriously going to be competing with our existing right backs for that spot.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 23 July 2016 at 20:49, Selred said:

If Smith plays right back we have 3 CMs who are more than capable to fill in, 4 if you include Reid. 

Smith has played that position before for Norwich so it's not so crazy. 

Smith never played RB for Norwich. He played right hand side of a diamond midfield

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/23/2016 at 18:31, Countryfile said:

As we once did at Wembley.....that went well.

yea but our right back had fractured his cheek bone and had to go off and we never had another one on the bench so we move some one who played most of his career at right back before city into that position (you know he played right back in an FA cup final), but lets not get facts get in the way shall we.................

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

yea but our right back had fractured his cheek bone and had to go off and we never had another one on the bench so we move some one who played most of his career at right back before city into that position (you know he played right back in an FA cup final), but lets not get facts get in the way shall we.................

But we did have Vasko on the bench & moving Carey out to right back would've been the more logical move. 

Marv was the best centre mid in the division that season, was a stupid decision. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

yea but our right back had fractured his cheek bone and had to go off and we never had another one on the bench so we move some one who played most of his career at right back before city into that position (you know he played right back in an FA cup final), but lets not get facts get in the way shall we.................

My point was about weakening the team overall.

Many players in their careers play in different positions. 

Yes Marv had played as a full back, although not for us(?) and was at the time an outstanding midfield player, whose continued presence in midfield MIGHT have swung the game for us.

We could have brought on a player who was an out and out defender and not disrupted the team so much. One who had played at the back and was aware of the defensive shape the team were trying to play.

Instead we made two changes (1 positional which was unforced and 1 a player where a choice of players was available) causing unnecessary disruption of the team.

Just my opinion of course.....don't really get your last few words...some kind of dig?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Countryfile said:

My point was about weakening the team overall.

Many players in their careers play in different positions. 

Yes Marv had played as a full back, although not for us(?) and was at the time an outstanding midfield player, whose continued presence in midfield MIGHT have swung the game for us.

We could have brought on a player who was an out and out defender and not disrupted the team so much. One who had played at the back and was aware of the defensive shape the team were trying to play.

Instead we made two changes (1 positional which was unforced and 1 a player where a choice of players was available) causing unnecessary disruption of the team.

Just my opinion of course.....don't really get your last few words...some kind of dig?

we wouldn't weaken the team tho, as we will still have pack and o'neil to play centre mid, or reid and pack or bryan and o'neil or perhaps play a diamond with brownhill and bryan on the wings and tomlin attacking mid, o'neil defensive mid,

 

There you go there's a few formation without smith even mentioned which isn't really weakening the team

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 27 July 2016 at 10:03, Monkeh said:

we wouldn't weaken the team tho, as we will still have pack and o'neil to play centre mid, or reid and pack or bryan and o'neil or perhaps play a diamond with brownhill and bryan on the wings and tomlin attacking mid, o'neil defensive mid,

 

There you go there's a few formation without smith even mentioned which isn't really weakening the team

Well if you think those formations without Smith don't weaken the team presumably you think we should sell him and take the money? Or would you just keep him on the bench?

I think LJ will play Smith in every game if he is 100% fit and in a midfield position.

We all have the luxury of picking and choosing a team when it doesn't really matter, and we can say this player can play here or there, but genuinely if you were picking your first choice team as LJ has too do you not think Smiths absence if fit and playing to his normal form wouldn't weaken the team?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...