Phileas Fogg Posted December 17, 2013 Report Share Posted December 17, 2013 JET's natural position is on the wing anyway, i think Burns and Baldock up front is a sound idea. based on what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich_s Posted December 17, 2013 Report Share Posted December 17, 2013 The only way this would work is if we changed our style completely. I'm not sure Burns is ready. To me he currently lacks awareness of the positions of his fellow team mates and too many times when taking on the defender the defender was making it look way too easy to shield the ball. He deserves to be in the squad but it's way too soon to be putting into a strike partnership. It's not even as if there was a suggestion of telepathy between the two in question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted December 17, 2013 Report Share Posted December 17, 2013 JET's natural position is on the wing anyway, i think Burns and Baldock up front is a sound idea. While I agree he walks into a right winger's position frequently, I don't think you could say it's his natural position. He doesn't have one. Personally, I feel the manager should play him as an attacking midfielder alongside Reid and forget the fantasy that he is in some way Baldock's strike partner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordan Tansley Posted December 17, 2013 Report Share Posted December 17, 2013 While I agree he walks into a right winger's position frequently, I don't think you could say it's his natural position. He doesn't have one. Personally, I feel the manager should play him as an attacking midfielder alongside Reid and forget the fantasy that he is in some way Baldock's strike partner. Yep. But then you can't play wingers or full backs? Tough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Who Are Rovers? Posted December 17, 2013 Report Share Posted December 17, 2013 Two small strikers, and we seem to only know how to hoof the ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eco Posted December 17, 2013 Report Share Posted December 17, 2013 Still amazes me that Marvin Elliot is in the team...he was gone 2/3 years ago. It strikes me that his legs have gone and that was his main attribute. Burns looked good for 15 minutes, hopefully he will get a run on the right. Reid and Wynter in the middle for me. Was a bit worried watching Marv on highlights, first time I've really seen him lagging behind ie. during Frecklington's run for their 2nd, not sure if it was due to being out of position or the legs having gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miketh2nd Posted December 17, 2013 Report Share Posted December 17, 2013 Id prefer to see jet partner burns upfront then if we're going up this route . Nothing personal against baldock but for jets conversion rate . Jet has only really partnered baldock and although jet seems not to even try nd link with him. Would be interested to see someone else up top with jet rather then baldock Having Said that if cotts knows he is going to sell jet then better to play baldock more . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted December 17, 2013 Report Share Posted December 17, 2013 Yep. But then you can't play wingers or full backs? Tough. Not sure that follows, Jord. He would take a central mf place from say, Marv. I admit my formations are very attack-minded. But that's when we seem to do best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gillies Downs Leeds Posted December 17, 2013 Report Share Posted December 17, 2013 Id prefer to see jet partner burns upfront then if we're going up this route . Nothing personal against baldock but for jets conversion rate . Jet has only really partnered baldock and although jet seems not to even try nd link with him. Would be interested to see someone else up top with jet rather then baldock Having Said that if cotts knows he is going to sell jet then better to play baldock more . JET partnered Taylor up front away to Carlisle when he scored his hat trick. Don't think we have tried that since? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northamptonshire Red Posted December 17, 2013 Report Share Posted December 17, 2013 Playing defensive hasn't worked, and I'm not sure having two small strikers up front will do much good unless we start playing decent balls on the ground. When everyone is fit/able to play, I'd go: Parish/Fielding (undecided) Moloney Osborne Williams Cunningham Elliot/Pack Reid/Burns Bryan JET Baldock Harewood/Taylor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordan Tansley Posted December 17, 2013 Report Share Posted December 17, 2013 Not sure that follows, Jord. He would take a central mf place from say, Marv. I admit my formations are very attack-minded. But that's when we seem to do best. Ok, I'm struggling to picture the shape now, couldn't pick out an eleven and somehow describe/draw the shape for me could ya Robbo? I love this kinda discussion! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted December 17, 2013 Report Share Posted December 17, 2013 Ok, I'm struggling to picture the shape now, couldn't pick out an eleven and somehow describe/draw the shape for me could ya Robbo? I love this kinda discussion! I would never have guessed Baldock Burns Burns JET Waggy Reid Pack/Wynter/Kelly Williams Osbourne Moloney GK Yep, drops the wing-back idea to crowbar Reid in mf and two strikers, but never sure that worked as intended. JET would need to be the Tamworth style defensive JET rather than the Rotherham style "watch the ball roll past me" JET. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slacker Posted December 17, 2013 Report Share Posted December 17, 2013 Like the look of that.13 players and Burns playing two positions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slacker Posted December 17, 2013 Report Share Posted December 17, 2013 Might just scrape a draw with that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northamptonshire Red Posted December 17, 2013 Report Share Posted December 17, 2013 Playing defensive hasn't worked, and I'm not sure having two small strikers up front will do much good unless we start playing decent balls on the ground. When everyone is fit/able to play, I'd go: Parish/Fielding (undecided) Moloney Osborne Williams Cunningham Elliot/Pack Reid/Burns Bryan JET Baldock Harewood/Taylor In a diamond... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aizoon Posted December 17, 2013 Report Share Posted December 17, 2013 Whatever formation we try, it always seems to end up shaped like a pear Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted December 18, 2013 Report Share Posted December 18, 2013 Like the look of that.13 players and Burns playing two positions. Don't go into stand up comedy mate. It's Kelly (best) or Wynter (probably second best) or Pack ahead of the defence. Bryan on the left Android phones = cheaper but they cock things up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slacker Posted December 18, 2013 Report Share Posted December 18, 2013 Fair enough.Was a bit of a cheap shot I suppose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miketh2nd Posted December 18, 2013 Report Share Posted December 18, 2013 JET partnered Taylor up front away to Carlisle when he scored his hat trick. Don't think we have tried that since? it does make sense though Taylor s presence taking away more defenders for jet to shoot with more time aka against Tamworth and when he was was with harewood against rovers . Yes both lesser teams but would like to see Taylor jet start with a team like Parish Maloney osbourne Williams Cunningham reid pack gillet Bryan Jet taylor I think Reid could thrive at Rm where there is slightly less pressure when passing and pushing up the field nd has a decent cross . oh and obviously flint at cb if Osbourne is still suspended . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedM Posted December 18, 2013 Report Share Posted December 18, 2013 I think Osbourne is out until Boxing Day isn't he? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordan Tansley Posted December 18, 2013 Report Share Posted December 18, 2013 I would never have guessed Baldock Burns Burns JET Waggy Reid Pack/Wynter/Kelly Williams Osbourne Moloney GK Yep, drops the wing-back idea to crowbar Reid in mf and two strikers, but never sure that worked as intended. JET would need to be the Tamworth style defensive JET rather than the Rotherham style "watch the ball roll past me" JET. Looks a touch disjointed, but I agree with a lot of it. I'm a huge fan of three at the back, personally think how Martinez used a 3-4-3 formation at Wigan over the last few years would suit our squad much better than any other formation. But we'll be seeing 4-4-2 from this point forth I'd imagine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted December 18, 2013 Report Share Posted December 18, 2013 Looks a touch disjointed, but I agree with a lot of it. I'm a huge fan of three at the back, personally think how Martinez used a 3-4-3 formation at Wigan over the last few years would suit our squad much better than any other formation. But we'll be seeing 4-4-2 from this point forth I'd imagine. Hope not JT. One of the things O'Driscoll harped on about which I agreed with, is you need a high degree of fluidity in how on-field roles are defined. The old 'table football' lines of 4 are a thing of the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.