Taylor To Millwall

[Jordan Tansley]

Well, if you're playing the game your way then Taylor still doesn't fit. You can't play one out and out Striker and him not be able to score.

Well you can. In numerous ways.

Personally a fan of 343 and 352 which both incorporate a second or third striker to feed off of Taylor's hold up play.

Then I course the ever popular 4-3-3 as a false nine has two players playing the inside forward role with a striker playing with his back to goal in a much deeper position an feeding the two wider strikers.

You can create anything you want to in football, tactic wise. If you drill your players to their roles properly you could win playing any formation and utilise more strengths than the god forsaken 4-4-2.

[Red-Robbo]

Well you can. In numerous ways.

Personally a fan of 343 and 352 which both incorporate a second or third striker to feed off of Taylor's hold up play.

Then I course the ever popular 4-3-3 as a false nine has two players playing the inside forward role with a striker playing with his back to goal in a much deeper position an feeding the two wider strikers.

You can create anything you want to in football, tactic wise. If you drill your players to their roles properly you could win playing any formation and utilise more strengths than the god forsaken 4-4-2.

It sounds like you're advocating playing Taylor in what is to all effects a forward midfield role, which might be an option.

The way we've played him though is a dead loss. Regardless of whether you do wonderful Barca like build-up play, you still need someone at the end who can stick the ball in the net and Taylor can barely hit a cow's ass with a banjo. As for him being young, developing and 'the goals will come' as others have said - he's 25 in Spring; just a few years off what should be the peak of his career - we are looking at a player who is about as good as he's going to get.

[Always Believesham]

As for him being young, developing and 'the goals will come' as others have said - he's 25 in Spring; just a few years off what should be the peak of his career - we are looking at a player who is about as good as he's going to get.

I understand he's not too young, but as a target man, his career will last well into his 30s, barring serious injuries.

I've got no reason for believing he will score goals though - it really is just as good as a hunch

[Bryans Left Peg]

I like Taylor, I think he contributes a lot.

Also I'm in agreement with whoever was talking about using false 9's and various formations.

I genuinely believe that in a few seasons, the 4-3-3 'False 9' will become the 'standard' formation, as opposed to 4-4-2.

[Monkeh]

I understand he's not too young, but as a target man, his career will last well into his 30s, barring serious injuries.

I've got no reason for believing he will score goals though - it really is just as good as a hunch

He won't score goals and never will he is a grafter not a goal scorer

[TBW]

It sounds like you're advocating playing Taylor in what is to all effects a forward midfield role, which might be an option.

I suggested this months ago and got shot down for it massively!

You can create anything you want to in football, tactic wise. If you drill your players to their roles properly you could win playing any formation and utilise more strengths than the god forsaken 4-4-2.

The first part of your comment here contradicts your hate for 4-4-2. If it's drilled into the players why can't 4-4-2 work but any/every other formation work?

[Carey 6]

Taylor is a lot like Heskey, the Striker he plays next to loves it because he's unselfish and they'll bag 15-20 goals a season. But a lot of people don't see past the number of goals the target man will get and deem him useless. I think Taylor will be better than Stead, let's not forget its his first season in this league.

[ciderbeans]

Let him go. He may be good at holding up the ball be he doesn't score goals and he is hindering a partnership between Davies and baldock as del seems to revert to him for long ball play

[Night84]

All depends on his wages. If he's a relatively low earner then keep him on. If he's in the top half of earners at the club let him go.

[Fiale]

Why do we need a target man - why not a fast striker with a fast AM playing behind him. Defences do not fear target men, they fear palyers that force them to play deep, force them to turn towards goal, and that will get to the ball before them when played behind them / in the channels than them.

[Gazred]

Why do we need a target man - why not a fast striker with a fast AM playing behind him. Defences do not fear target men, they fear palyers that force them to play deep, force them to turn towards goal, and that will get to the ball before them when played behind them / in the channels than them.

Horses for courses i reckon. Depends on the target man and what the defence is like.

I think the problem with the term target man is that most people automatically assume that means a tall bloke whos good in the air. Steve Brooker was a target man and ive not seen a player since at AG that was as good as he was with his back to goal and the ball played into feet.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

I with JT on this one, if one of the big strikers has to go would far prefer it to be Stead for several reasons, wages, age and injuries for starters.

[Jordan Tansley]

I suggested this months ago and got shot down for it massively!

The first part of your comment here contradicts your hate for 4-4-2. If it's drilled into the players why can't 4-4-2 work but any/every other formation work?

I take your point, but 4-4-2 is so rigid and easily out-thought as a basic principle. There is no reason you can't make it work, but it's my opinion that other formations suit the modern game much better than it does.

[Corleone]

Taylor has real potential, but he lacks the goal scoring instinct and needs to be trained to get into these goal scoring positions.

Defo one too keep though.

[Monkeh]

I with JT on this one, if one of the big strikers has to go would far prefer it to be Stead for several reasons, wages, age and injuries for starters.

Love stead he is a hard worker but what is 30 now? he is out of contract and to be fair he's on a decent wedge (rumoured £12.5k a week) so I'd agree If an offer comes in I'd rather shift him,

But for me currently he offers more to the team then Taylor but Taylor is catching him fast

[Robbored]

4-4-2 is played by almost every PL team when they are defending. All the time on MOTD you'll see teams go into two banks of 4 when they are being attacked.

Chelsea did exactly that against Barca at the Camp Neu with only 10 men and stopped them. Its a tried and trusted way to defend.

Problem with it is when a team tries to push forward. It becomes open unless the wide men tuck in which then reduces attacking options. City don't have the players with enough nous or skill to play 4-4-2 as an attacking option.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

Love stead he is a hard worker but what is 30 now? he is out of contract and to be fair he's on a decent wedge (rumoured £12.5k a week) so I'd agree If an offer comes in I'd rather shift him,

But for me currently he offers more to the team then Taylor but Taylor is catching him fast

Exactly and we obviously need to look to the future, especially as we don't know which division that future lies in.

[Monkeh]

4-4-2 is played by almost every PL team when they are defending. All the time on MOTD you'll see teams go into two banks of 4 when they are being attacked.

Chelsea did exactly that against Barca at the Camp Neu with only 10 men and stopped them. Its a tried and trusted way to defend.

Problem with it is when a team tries to push forward. It becomes open unless the wide men tuck in which then reduces attacking options. City don't have the players with enough nous or skill to play 4-4-2 as an attacking option.

except for man u arsenal everton liverpool west brom newcastle spurs swansea.....

[Jordan Tansley]

4-4-2 is played by almost every PL team when they are defending. All the time on MOTD you'll see teams go into two banks of 4 when they are being attacked.

Chelsea did exactly that against Barca at the Camp Neu with only 10 men and stopped them. Its a tried and trusted way to defend.

Problem with it is when a team tries to push forward. It becomes open unless the wide men tuck in which then reduces attacking options. City don't have the players with enough nous or skill to play 4-4-2 as an attacking option.

it certainly isn't.

Man U barely have a formation, such is the talent they have.

Man City have taken to playing 343 at home. Wigan play 343 every week.

Everton 451, Liverpool and Swansea 4-3-3 although 'Pool play a 352 at times too.

Villa play with 3 at the back

WHam play with one up front for the most part

Chelsea play 4231

[BITW]

People keep going on about Taylor as if he's some youth player. He's 25 in a few months!

[bearded_red]

it certainly isn't.

Man U barely have a formation, such is the talent they have.

Man City have taken to playing 343 at home. Wigan play 343 every week.

Everton 451, Liverpool and Swansea 4-3-3 although 'Pool play a 352 at times too.

Villa play with 3 at the back

WHam play with one up front for the most part

Chelsea play 4231

Although RR's claim that '442 is played by almost every PL team' is of course ludicrous, I think you may have slightly exaggerated the extent that Man City and Villa play with 3 at the back. Both of them have played it at times (with mixed success), but I think it would be wrong to flatly say 'they play with three at the back'. However your point about teams playing 442 being the exception rather than the rule is of course true. I'd also add Arsenal, West Brom, Sunderland, QPR, Fulham and Newcastle to the list of teams that very rarely, if ever, play 442. Even Reading have recently changed from playing 442 due to how open it leaves them.

The problem with us playing anything other than 442 at the moment is that, although 3 at the back showed promise in the Ipswich and Peterborough games, I don't think we have quick enough centre halves (unless you play Cunningham out of position as the left centre back) that can play as the outside centre halves and this will leave us exposed down the channels. In an ideal world you would also like centre halves that bring the ball out from defence when playing in this formation (think Louis Carey years ago) and right now we don't have anybody who I feel can do that. Then our problem with any variation of 451 is that it asks a lot of your striker and I don't feel we have one that is ideally suited to playing as the lone front man. Stead and Taylor will lead the line for you in differing ways, but where are the goals coming from? then Baldock and Davies provide a goal threat, but quite clearly cannot play upfront alone. Last season I really wanted us to play a 433 with Albert on one side and Bolasie on the other (and we did in a couple of games) and in hindsight in Wood we had a perfect player to play the centre forward role, but at the time I couldn't blame McInnes for not giving this a prolonged go and he probably had the same doubts that I did we had the centre forward that could play the role at the same time as providing goals. I may be being slightly harsh on Adebola here as his goal return was relatively good, but for me the last forward we had who could could lead the line at the same time as being a regular goal threat was Brooker. Which takes me on to Taylor..

I'm a big fan of Ginge (probably his biggest fan apart from JT!) and I do think that with the right coaching he could be a serious centre forward. He is never going to be a 20 goal a season striker, but he needs to score more than 1! Everything else he has in abundance, he is good in the air and unlike someone like Adebola when he wins the ball in the air the header is usually a good one rather than Adebola who had a bit of a 50p head, his first touch is superb, he is able to hold players off and wait for runners from midfield and unlike many players of his type he is able to play some very clever passes. However I understand people who don't rate him as much as I do complaining about his goal return and as I said although he is never going to be prolific he does need obviously need to score more than one a season. For me though this is another case of players simply failing to improve while being at City. It is not as though Taylor is a hopeless case that endlessly wastes chances, it is just his movement is almost non existent when in the box. With a bit of simple coaching this can surely be improved!

McInnes has got himself into a bit of a mess with the forward line and although I have been critical of him in many other areas of his management I actually sympathise with him with his selections up front. He knows that to get ourselves into the game we probably need to play one, if not both, of Stead and Taylor. Yet this leaves two players who have proven to be much more prolific out of the team. My only criticism would be that Davies and Baldock are odd signings after he had seemingly decided that we weren't a good enough team to carry Pitman's weaknesses even though he is more likely to score a goal. As I posted on another thread the other 'not able to play up front alone' and 'were not strong enough to play 442' sounds an awful lot like the excuses for the manager clearly not fancying Pitman. Now Baldock and Davies may be better players than Pitman, or they may not, but right now they are causing the manager the exact same headaches! In McInnes' defence we may be strengthening our squad in order to play 442 and therefore get the best out of Davies/Baldock as I speak. I've suggested playing Davies slightly behind in the role that David Noble played for us, but I'm not sure how realistic this is as I don't know if Davies has any excperience of playing this role? or whether he has anywhere near enough energy to do the tracking back that this role sometimes requires.

As for Ginge, like I said I think with the right coaching he could develop into a very, very good centre forward and should we let him go I would be annoyed and a slightly worried that we will live to regret it.

[Uncle Albert]

4-4-2 is played by almost every PL team when they are defending. All the time on MOTD you'll see teams go into two banks of 4 when they are being attacked.

Chelsea did exactly that against Barca at the Camp Neu with only 10 men and stopped them. Its a tried and trusted way to defend.

Problem with it is when a team tries to push forward. It becomes open unless the wide men tuck in which then reduces attacking options. City don't have the players with enough nous or skill to play 4-4-2 as an attacking option.

it certainly isn't.

Man U barely have a formation, such is the talent they have.

Man City have taken to playing 343 at home. Wigan play 343 every week.

Everton 451, Liverpool and Swansea 4-3-3 although 'Pool play a 352 at times too.

Villa play with 3 at the back

WHam play with one up front for the most part

Chelsea play 4231

except for man u arsenal everton liverpool west brom newcastle spurs swansea.....

I think some of you guys may be missing RR's point. Whilst it is completely true that going forward teams play in a variety of ways; the ways you mention, JT, I think RR is emphasising the point of when teams are defending.

Whilst teams set up in a particular formation, you do quite often see them reverting back to the two lines of four when defending, as RR says.

[Jordan Tansley]

Although RR's claim that '442 is played by almost every PL team' is of course ludicrous, I think you may have slightly exaggerated the extent that Man City and Villa play with 3 at the back. Both of them have played it at times (with mixed success), but I think it would be wrong to flatly say 'they play with three at the back'. However your point about teams playing 442 being the exception rather than the rule is of course true. I'd also add Arsenal, West Brom, Sunderland, QPR, Fulham and Newcastle to the list of teams that very rarely, if ever, play 442. Even Reading have recently changed from playing 442 due to how open it leaves them.

The problem with us playing anything other than 442 at the moment is that, although 3 at the back showed promise in the Ipswich and Peterborough games, I don't think we have quick enough centre halves (unless you play Cunningham out of position as the left centre back) that can play as the outside centre halves and this will leave us exposed down the channels. In an ideal world you would also like centre halves that bring the ball out from defence when playing in this formation (think Louis Carey years ago) and right now we don't have anybody who I feel can do that. Then our problem with any variation of 451 is that it asks a lot of your striker and I don't feel we have one that is ideally suited to playing as the lone front man. Stead and Taylor will lead the line for you in differing ways, but where are the goals coming from? then Baldock and Davies provide a goal threat, but quite clearly cannot play upfront alone. Last season I really wanted us to play a 433 with Albert on one side and Bolasie on the other (and we did in a couple of games) and in hindsight in Wood we had a perfect player to play the centre forward role, but at the time I couldn't blame McInnes for not giving this a prolonged go and he probably had the same doubts that I did we had the centre forward that could play the role at the same time as providing goals. I may be being slightly harsh on Adebola here as his goal return was relatively good, but for me the last forward we had who could could lead the line at the same time as being a regular goal threat was Brooker. Which takes me on to Taylor..

I'm a big fan of Ginge (probably his biggest fan apart from JT!) and I do think that with the right coaching he could be a serious centre forward. He is never going to be a 20 goal a season striker, but he needs to score more than 1! Everything else he has in abundance, he is good in the air and unlike someone like Adebola when he wins the ball in the air the header is usually a good one rather than Adebola who had a bit of a 50p head, his first touch is superb, he is able to hold players off and wait for runners from midfield and unlike many players of his type he is able to play some very clever passes. However I understand people who don't rate him as much as I do complaining about his goal return and as I said although he is never going to be prolific he does need obviously need to score more than one a season. For me though this is another case of players simply failing to improve while being at City. It is not as though Taylor is a hopeless case that endlessly wastes chances, it is just his movement is almost non existent when in the box. With a bit of simple coaching this can surely be improved!

McInnes has got himself into a bit of a mess with the forward line and although I have been critical of him in many other areas of his management I actually sympathise with him with his selections up front. He knows that to get ourselves into the game we probably need to play one, if not both, of Stead and Taylor. Yet this leaves two players who have proven to be much more prolific out of the team. My only criticism would be that Davies and Baldock are odd signings after he had seemingly decided that we weren't a good enough team to carry Pitman's weaknesses even though he is more likely to score a goal. As I posted on another thread the other 'not able to play up front alone' and 'were not strong enough to play 442' sounds an awful lot like the excuses for the manager clearly not fancying Pitman. Now Baldock and Davies may be better players than Pitman, or they may not, but right now they are causing the manager the exact same headaches! In McInnes' defence we may be strengthening our squad in order to play 442 and therefore get the best out of Davies/Baldock as I speak. I've suggested playing Davies slightly behind in the role that David Noble played for us, but I'm not sure how realistic this is as I don't know if Davies has any excperience of playing this role? or whether he has anywhere near enough energy to do the tracking back that this role sometimes requires.

As for Ginge, like I said I think with the right coaching he could develop into a very, very good centre forward and should we let him go I would be annoyed and a slightly worried that we will live to regret it.

Brilliant post. I think Cunningham did well other then the mistake against P'boro and could certainly be good at outside centre half and Bates showed a willingness to bring the ball out too, Carey still had that in his locker to an extent too, though obviously his pace is a problem.

I think you sum up the squad perfectly, and I too advocated Davies in the 'hole' because he seems much more comfortable attack the ball from deeper.

A back three to me utilises all our attacking strengths at the slight detriment of width but when you have three or four attacking players on the pitch centrally you would hope that it wouldn't present such a huge problem going forward.

[SecretSam]

it certainly isn't.

Man U barely have a formation, such is the talent they have.

Man City have taken to playing 343 at home. Wigan play 343 every week.

Everton 451, Liverpool and Swansea 4-3-3 although 'Pool play a 352 at times too.

Villa play with 3 at the back

WHam play with one up front for the most part

Chelsea play 4231

Think it's a bit more complex than that, they don't really play a 'formation' as we see it, each player has a role in each situation and the formation falls out of that. It's how they play at that level, IMHO

[bearded_red]

Brilliant post. I think Cunningham did well other then the mistake against P'boro and could certainly be good at outside centre half and Bates showed a willingness to bring the ball out too, Carey still had that in his locker to an extent too, though obviously his pace is a problem.

I would have mentioned Louis as he is still (maybe with the exception of Bates who has been rather inconsistent) our best centre half at playing the ball out from the back. But McInnes, probably correctly, played him as the middle centre back on Saturday and played Wilson, who is much worse on the ball than Carey, as the right centre back due to the obvious pace advantage Wilson has.

[westonred]

latest on twitter :

Latest Footy ‏@Latest_Footy

Millwall have tabled a £350,000 bid for Bristol City striker Ryan Taylor, 24, after losing loan signing Chris Wood to Leicester City.

If thats true i would let him go for that money, yes he is one for the future but no quite there at the mo and we need players Now to get us out this mess.

[TBW]

latest on twitter :

Latest Footy ‏@Latest_Footy

Millwall have tabled a £350,000 bid for Bristol City striker Ryan Taylor, 24, after losing loan signing Chris Wood to Leicester City.

If thats true i would let him go for that money, yes he is one for the future but no quite there at the mo and we need players Now to get us out this mess.

If that is true I'd happily take the day off work and drive him there.

[Monkeh]

Doubt it's true but I'd take it in a shot and promote krans into the first team

[Sargent Pepper]

Sadly this rumour is nonsense

[Robbored]

except for man u arsenal everton liverpool west brom newcastle spurs swansea.....

You didn't read the post properly.

Two banks of 4 is common practice in the PL when defending.