Esmond Million's Bung Posted September 19, 2009 Report Share Posted September 19, 2009 At the beginning of the season most people thought that we were going to play mainly 3-5-2 and whether through injury/illness that plan seems to have been shelved and people complained about this system. We have also played 4-4-2 and people have complained saying that is too negative. Today we played 4-3-3 and apparently that is too 'flimsy'. So any coaches out there got a different system to offer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex_BCFC Posted September 19, 2009 Report Share Posted September 19, 2009 At the beginning of the season most people thought that we were going to play mainly 3-5-2 and whether through injury/illness that plan seems to have been shelved and people complained about this system. We have also played 4-4-2 and people have complained saying that is too negative. Today we played 4-3-3 and apparently that is too 'flimsy'. So any coaches out there got a different system to offer? How can we play 4-4-2 when we have no wingers? I just don't understand why we would rule this out by having no decent wingers or even a left sided one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted September 19, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 19, 2009 How can we play 4-4-2 when we have no wingers? I just don't understand why we would rule this out by having no decent wingers or even a left sided one. agreed, so that leaves the other 2 systems. or sign winger/wingers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roe Posted September 19, 2009 Report Share Posted September 19, 2009 I really don't get the point of this post.. are you saying you're happy with the shape we're currently playing with? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted September 19, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 19, 2009 I really don't get the point of this post.. are you saying you're happy with the shape we're currently playing with? OK i'll make it simple for you, So far this season we have played 3 different systems and a)We don't seem to have settled on the best system b)Most people on this forum have a dislike for one or the other system. So I am trying to ascertain from the forum (especially as certain forum members) have blamed today on the chosen formation, what system given our squad of players we should employ. Comprendé Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Us_and_Them Posted September 19, 2009 Report Share Posted September 19, 2009 what makes no sense to me is that gj said he wanted to be more flexible when it comes to formations. how can we be flexible when have no wingers? sproule is but not up to standard as most would agree on here. so what natural wingers do we have left? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockin-robin Posted September 19, 2009 Report Share Posted September 19, 2009 OK i'll make it simple for you, So far this season we have played 3 different systems and a)We don't seem to have settled on the best system b)Most people on this forum have a dislike for one or the other system. So I am trying to ascertain from the forum (especially as certain forum members) have blamed today on the chosen formation, what system given our squad of players we should employ. Comprendé You could also add to your formations the 3-4-1-2, which, IMO, has been the most effective to date and I believe GJ's preferred formation. I'd play Sno/Clarkson in the hole with Elliot/Skuse and Hartley as the deep sitting midfielders. You then have the pick of Maynard, Albaro, Haynes, Clarkson and Akinde up front. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roe Posted September 19, 2009 Report Share Posted September 19, 2009 The only thing at fault today was that we were too relaxed and didn't press enough for the 2nd goal, which we would most likely have got if we really went for it. Then we unfortunately got punished at the end and that's football, if you only lead by one goal anything can happen in the last few minutes. The problem (if it even is a problem) is that we only have one winger in the squad and most of our fans don't seem to rate him too much. This leads to issues where we play 442 with four central midfielders, who are naturally going to run out of options and a lack of creativity. The positive side of this, which I assume GJ is pleased with, is that we tend to have more possession and can 'compete' with other teams easier. Personally I'd always play 442 but we don't have the wingers to play it currently so I guess at the moment we're just gonna have to play 5-3-2 and mix it with the 4 midfielders sometimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcbcfc Posted September 19, 2009 Report Share Posted September 19, 2009 No wingers, no real pace (with the exception of Maynard) As an opposition manager I would have been more than happy to see our boys push the ball backwards and side to side with no real threat. We need at least one winger (this maybe Haynes?) there was a predictability about our play today that hasn't changed in the last 3 years. (I'm not complaining about what GJ has done but I certainly think tweeks are required) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted September 19, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 19, 2009 Great perhaps a debate at last. I agree entirely with the winger issue, I sort of agree with the complaints re-Sproule, Although I thought towards the end of last season he was improving (still like Dracula dosen't do crosses) I do believe the sale of Mcindoe was correct I think he was going stale, I really believe that the problem is the perennial one GJ tried to sign the Colchester lad who went to Middlesboro and at the level that sign players from there is a distinct lack of quality available and the main word in that statement is AVAILABLE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.