mightyreds89 Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 Would the below team fair any worse than last nights? I would go 442 with the below, Moore Maloney Bryan Osbourne El Habd Burns M.Elliott Pack Cunningham Baldock Jet/Barnett Thoughts?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the frampton balti Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 almost swap bryan and cunningham drop el abt for anyone at moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoldenBall Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 Aaah, the 2-2-4-2. Served us well in the 19th century Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Enormous Turnip Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 After last night I'll just say - We need to play four at the back, simply for what are now overwhelmingly obvious structural issues. Our wide men, especially Cunningham, have done well, but we are too easily exposed behind them and the wider of the 3 centre backs cannot play with this either. Williams looks shot of confidence and should take a spell out - same applies to Jet. Playing wide men in the middle is just not a good idea. I think having two holding/sitting central midfielders, one of whom has good vision and can spread play, is important. Even if starting the game may nullify some of Burns' threat, he's currently our best wide man and should start, even if he doesn't finish the 90. With that in mind and based on current form..... -------------------- Moore ------------------- Moloney - Osborne - Flint - Cunningham ------------- Pack -------- Marvin ------------- Baldock ------------ Reid -------------- Burns ------------------- ?Barnett --------------------- ^^ being an advocate of this system with two holding mids and three attacking mids, I don't think Baldock can play as our 1 up top guy. And with Wagstaff maybe out injured - I thought Sam at times did pretty well getting down the line and getting balls in on a couple of occasions last night. Just an idea anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveybadger Posted February 6, 2014 Report Share Posted February 6, 2014 Regardless of formations there has to be a case of trying to be more attacking - on the grounds that as we're conceding stupid goals regardless we might as well try and be more positive. After all, if we play to our strength it's our attack. I do think we need to go 4 at the back. I fully admit I haven't seem El Abd in the flesh yet but from the goals we've conceded he doesn't look mobile or quick enough to play in a 3. Osborne offers a bit of pace and then the 2 central defenders would be our most experienced and playing in their best positions (El-Abd can then organise). A bank of 3 midfielders with 2 holding would also give them some protection. We'd then be reliant on a front 3 to create / score, which they seem quite capable of doing. GK Moore, RB Moloney, LB Cunningham CBs El Abd and Osborne. CMs Pack and Gillett holding, Wagstaff playing central but linking forward when poss. Floating - JET, CFs Barnett and Baldock. I realise this has a number of issues: 1. lack of width apart from full backs 2. Danger of lumping it long if Barnett plays 3. JET in a free role means he could go missing and draw pressure on the others. But: it protects the defence more, puts players in their best positions (e.g. Moloney right back) and puts the emphasis on the opposition stopping our front 3. That said, unless the players are up for it then any formation will be rubbish. This I suspect is what our season really boils down to.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brislingwood Red Posted February 6, 2014 Report Share Posted February 6, 2014 I'd persist with El-Abd at the heart of a flat back four. Cotterill has effectively hung him out to dry since he signed by playing him as a full back or right of a three. Burns would get a start and as somebody mentioned earlier if he fades after a hour so be it. With confidence so low at the moment, I'd prefer for our lads to come out of the blocks and really press and put the opposition under pressure for the first quarter. Ashton Gate is such a better place once we've scored. Williams needs to be taken out the limelight for a few games. As does JET. Pack needs to start. Moore Maloney El-Abd Flint Cunningham Burns Pack Elliot Bryan Barnett Baldock The whole 2 right footed centre halves issue is a load of bo**ox as far as I'm concerned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Albert Posted February 6, 2014 Report Share Posted February 6, 2014 I'd persist with El-Abd at the heart of a flat back four. Cotterill has effectively hung him out to dry since he signed by playing him as a full back or right of a three. Burns would get a start and as somebody mentioned earlier if he fades after a hour so be it. With confidence so low at the moment, I'd prefer for our lads to come out of the blocks and really press and put the opposition under pressure for the first quarter. Ashton Gate is such a better place once we've scored. Williams needs to be taken out the limelight for a few games. As does JET. Pack needs to start. Moore Maloney El-Abd Flint Cunningham Burns Pack Elliot Bryan Barnett Baldock The whole 2 right footed centre halves issue is a load of bo**ox as far as I'm concerned. I'd go close to this (changing just the CBs): Moore Maloney Osborne Williams Cunningham Burns Pack Elliott Bryan Barnett Baldock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swanker Posted February 6, 2014 Report Share Posted February 6, 2014 This is just great, I can't wait for your next post ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sodburyred Posted February 6, 2014 Report Share Posted February 6, 2014 What about something like: .........................MOORE MALONEY..EL-ABD..WILLIAMS..CUNNINGHAM ...................GILLET....ELLIOT... ...........................PACK* .......BALDOCK....BARNET.....BURNS *Swap Pack for JET/Reid depending on opposition. Pack would be better away from home as safer player. Now I dont really like that formation but with players available and predicament we are in it may work. Especially away from home. If Osbourne fit swap him for Maloney. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samo II Posted February 6, 2014 Report Share Posted February 6, 2014 Barnett in a lot of these line ups; is it basically because he's big, or has he really impressed people? And the fact his selection is frequently at the expense of JET, who has assists in our last two games, this seems odd to me. If Barnett was getting assists and/or goals, or had even been part of an improving team I'd get it. Why not have both? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sodburyred Posted February 6, 2014 Report Share Posted February 6, 2014 Barnett in a lot of these line ups; is it basically because he's big, or has he really impressed people? And the fact his selection is frequently at the expense of JET, who has assists in our last two games, this seems odd to me. If Barnett was getting assists and/or goals, or had even been part of an improving team I'd get it. Why not have both? I would have him in my side at home. But away from home right now we need players who give 100%. Barnet to me looks strong and like he's playing for a contract(which he is) so will give that extra effort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samo II Posted February 6, 2014 Report Share Posted February 6, 2014 I would have him in my side at home. But away from home right now we need players who give 100%. Barnet to me looks strong and like he's playing for a contract(which he is) so will give that extra effort. I realise many think JET doesn't apply himself, and hence want someone more 'busy' but what I don't get is that for all his 'hustle' Barnett hasn't done anything of substance (i.e. score or assist a goal), while as 'lazy' as JET is painted, he is still the source of goals, via his creativity. The fact we leak like a sieve seems a bigger problem, not the frontline, so I just don't understand why that is the place people change first. I mean people are putting El Abd in their sides, but he's come into a team that conceded just six in six, and been a near ever-present in one that has then conceded 11 in 5. How is it he's got the nod when a player who has been involved in over half our league goals is dropped? I think that is strange, personally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red mist Posted February 7, 2014 Report Share Posted February 7, 2014 To early to bring Reid back, not suited for heavy pitches, use Pack and Mav as holding midfield Play JET behind Baldock with W Elliott in Wagstaffe role and Burns wide left with 4 at the back Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Welcome To The Jungle Posted February 7, 2014 Report Share Posted February 7, 2014 On the basis that El Abd and Flint looked rather strong as part of a back 4 against Carlisle I'll go with them 4-4-2 Moore Maloney Flint El Abd Cunnigham Burns Pack Elliott Bryan Barnett Baldock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red mist Posted February 8, 2014 Report Share Posted February 8, 2014 I think Cotts will give Wade Elliott another go and play him wide right in place of Waggy, with Bryan on the left Osbourne and Malhoney will come into a back with Flint and Cunningham. Centre mid I would use Marv and Pack. Still go with Jet and Baldock up top. Use Burns and Barnett as others tire for impact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forza Revolution Posted February 8, 2014 Report Share Posted February 8, 2014 I'd go Moore / Parish / fielding Moloney / Osborne / Williams / Cunningham Burns /Elliot / Reid Barnett Subs - baldock / jet / Bryan Reserves - flint and el abd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted February 8, 2014 Report Share Posted February 8, 2014 I'd go Moore / Parish / fielding Moloney / Osborne / Williams / Cunningham Burns /Elliot / Reid Barnett Subs - baldock / jet / Bryan Reserves - flint and el abd I'm liking the three goalies thing ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcfcnick Posted February 8, 2014 Report Share Posted February 8, 2014 I think it's clear SC doesn't rate Moloney and would rather play Osborne out of his favoured centre back position. Moloney is fit and SC has said he doesn't have the players for a back four. That says it all. I'd rather he sticks to two from either Williams, Osborne and Carey and either recruits a natural right back or plays Moloney who can get forward. Unfortunately, it looks like he will play Osborne at right back when fit and Flint and El Abd as centre backs. That doesn't work for me due to lack of pace in the middle although, to be fair to El Abd, he hasn't had a chance to show he can shine in a back four. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonBristolian Posted February 8, 2014 Report Share Posted February 8, 2014 I think it's clear SC doesn't rate Moloney and would rather play Osborne out of his favoured centre back position. Moloney is fit and SC has said he doesn't have the players for a back four. That says it all. I'd rather he sticks to two from either Williams, Osborne and Carey and either recruits a natural right back or plays Moloney who can get forward. Unfortunately, it looks like he will play Osborne at right back when fit and Flint and El Abd as centre backs. That doesn't work for me due to lack of pace in the middle although, to be fair to El Abd, he hasn't had a chance to show he can shine in a back four. Exactly. I don't really get what Moloney's done wrong but I can accept a manager not fancying a player. What I don't understand is why Cotterill didn't then recruit a right-back during the transfer window which - if Moloney wasn't wanted - was then more pressing than a centre-back or central midfielder. I think people are judging El-Abd before he's had a fair chance (although that's understandable when he's been played in a formation that doesn't seen to suit him) but I still think we could have got by with Carey, Osborne, Williams and Flint if needed. Ultimately with the squad we've got I think Cotterill has to suck it up and play Moloney. Otherwise we're left with formations that don't suit the players and players badly out of position and I think we've suffered from that the last few weeks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbie_Turner Posted February 8, 2014 Report Share Posted February 8, 2014 I can only assume those of you still picking an 11 with El Abd in it never went on Tuesday ? One of the worse performances in recent years by a BCFC player and there's been many of those ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Who Are Rovers? Posted February 8, 2014 Report Share Posted February 8, 2014 4-4-1-1 suits our squad more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sodburyred Posted February 8, 2014 Report Share Posted February 8, 2014 What about something like: .........................MOORE MALONEY..EL-ABD..WILLIAMS..CUNNINGHAM ...................GILLET....ELLIOT... ...........................PACK* .......BALDOCK....BARNET.....BURNS *Swap Pack for JET/Reid depending on opposition. Pack would be better away from home as safer player. Now I dont really like that formation but with players available and predicament we are in it may work. Especially away from home. If Osbourne fit swap him for Maloney. Not far off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sodburyred Posted February 8, 2014 Report Share Posted February 8, 2014 What about something like: .........................MOORE MALONEY..EL-ABD..WILLIAMS..CUNNINGHAM ...................GILLET....ELLIOT... ...........................PACK* .......BALDOCK....BARNET.....BURNS *Swap Pack for JET/Reid depending on opposition. Pack would be better away from home as safer player. Now I dont really like that formation but with players available and predicament we are in it may work. Especially away from home. If Osbourne fit swap him for Maloney. Not far off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowRabbit Posted February 8, 2014 Report Share Posted February 8, 2014 Guys you can't play Moloney, Cunningham, Burns and Bryan all in the same side because they're all outside players. You need one or two wide players who move inside or you'll be outnumbered in the middle. Moore Moloney Flint Osbourne Williams Reid Elliott Elliott Bryan Barnett Baldock or Moore Carey El-Abd Flint Cunningham Burns Marv Pack Reid Barnett Baldock If we played two out-and-out wingers you'd have to have JET in place of Barnett or Baldock to drop deep to prevent being outnumbered in the middle. Or if we played two overlapping full-backs, you'd have to have two holding midfielders so one of either could always drop in with the centre-backs to prevent being outnumbered. Really basic stuff. Balance and flexibility are keys. Unfortunately you don't find complete footballers, only specialists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.