Ashtonwurzel Posted October 29, 2018 Report Share Posted October 29, 2018 Absolutely brilliant when he came on Saturday and must start the next game. This will mean we move to a 4-3-3 or 3-5-2 though as I can't see us playing with him and 2 wide midfielders in a midfield 4. Thoughts ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lrrr Posted October 29, 2018 Report Share Posted October 29, 2018 443 ......Brownhill ..... Pack ..... Walsh Weimann ........... Taylor .......... Eliasson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silvio Dante Posted October 29, 2018 Report Share Posted October 29, 2018 You know...I’m not sure it does. Its been said many times but formations are far more fluid nowadays. During games we’ve switched without changing personnel. If you say the back 4 is a 4 (yes I know how that sounds), then your question is how the six in front of them line up. Even if we officially play 4-4-2, the fact is that Pato/Taylor often drop deep to make it a 4-5-1. I’d argue we were playing that Saturday. As long as you have an intelligent energetic front six, in our current options the only two whose positions would be naturally less fluid are Pack and Fam (NE to a lesser degree). You could play the top 6 who started second half on sat in an official 4-4-2, but it would vary as the game demanded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Brady Posted October 29, 2018 Report Share Posted October 29, 2018 He was very tidy and looked class but with a Stoke dropping back and us chasing the game, the style and tempo of the game was always going to suit him. A start is on the cards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeAman08 Posted October 29, 2018 Report Share Posted October 29, 2018 1 hour ago, hodge said: 443 ......Brownhill ..... Pack ..... Walsh Weimann ........... Taylor .......... Eliasson I’d go Watkins for Eliasson. Watkins probably our best finisher and that front 6 seriously lacks it. Brownhill, Pack or Walsh on FK. Not quite a good as NE but each offer decent set pieces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unan Posted October 29, 2018 Report Share Posted October 29, 2018 1 hour ago, hodge said: 443 ......Brownhill ..... Pack ..... Walsh Weimann ........... Taylor .......... Eliasson I wish we could play 443. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EASTEND WURZEL Posted October 29, 2018 Report Share Posted October 29, 2018 1 hour ago, Ashtonwurzel said: Absolutely brilliant when he came on Saturday and must start the next game. This will mean we move to a 4-3-3 or 3-5-2 though as I can't see us playing with him and 2 wide midfielders in a midfield 4. Thoughts ? Sorry but I totally disagree, yes Walsh musty play (was fantastic when he came on) but you cannot change the formation to accommodate another player. We have been much more resolute as we have established our current formation. We have to drop a player out to bring Walsh in . Simple replacement that's all , i'm a massive Brownhill fan but I think Josh looks a bit 'leggy' at the moment I'd rest Josh and give Walsh his chance. Keep that continuity going ! COYR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbored Posted October 29, 2018 Report Share Posted October 29, 2018 Most of us are quite rightly very impressed with Walsh on Saturday and calling for him to start next game but it was only 45 mins twe saw and too premature to see him as the answer to the wafer thin midfield options. In fact I’m not convinced that LJ does see the midfield as ‘wafer thin’ so I seriously doubt that Walsh will get to start at Reading. LJ said post match that Walsh ‘looked good in a three’ but since KS got injured he’s played just Pack and Brownhill with Pato making up the numbers with either Eliasson or CoD out wide. The starting 11 at Reading will be interesting to see......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Balls Posted October 29, 2018 Report Share Posted October 29, 2018 4 minutes ago, Robbored said: Most of us are quite rightly very impressed with Walsh on Saturday and calling for him to start next game but it was only 45 mins twe saw and too premature to see him as the answer to the wafer thin midfield options. In fact I’m not convinced that LJ does see the midfield as ‘wafer thin’ so I seriously doubt that Walsh will get to start at Reading. LJ said post match that Walsh ‘looked good in a three’ but since KS got injured he’s played just Pack and Brownhill with Pato making up the numbers with either Eliasson or CoD out wide. The starting 11 at Reading will be interesting to see......... Isn't the obvious answer to drop Paterson for Walsh? But then the question comes back to who do you play up front? Diedhiou needs a winger, or at least that seems to be LJ's opinion, which means Eliasson, plus he seems to be our dead ball specialist, leaving only one other place up front for either Weimann or Taylor. Weimann is more talented and would benefit from Walsh playing, but seems to have no link with Diedhiou, whereas Taylor seems more effective, annoying to defenders, and seems to be able to link with Diedhiou. So maybe start with Diedhiou, Eliasson & Taylor, then bring on Weimann as a replacement in the second half, when his pace can expose tiring defenders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBFC II Posted October 29, 2018 Report Share Posted October 29, 2018 41 minutes ago, JoeAman08 said: I’d go Watkins for Eliasson. Watkins probably our best finisher and that front 6 seriously lacks it. Brownhill, Pack or Walsh on FK. Not quite a good as NE but each offer decent set pieces. Watkins for Weimann I’d say. Weimann hasn’t really impressed out wide at derby or villa and Eliasson is our only good set piece taker, whilst being our only player who seems willing to beat his man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted October 29, 2018 Report Share Posted October 29, 2018 3 hours ago, Silvio Dante said: You know...I’m not sure it does. Its been said many times but formations are far more fluid nowadays. During games we’ve switched without changing personnel. If you say the back 4 is a 4 (yes I know how that sounds), then your question is how the six in front of them line up. Even if we officially play 4-4-2, the fact is that Pato/Taylor often drop deep to make it a 4-5-1. I’d argue we were playing that Saturday. As long as you have an intelligent energetic front six, in our current options the only two whose positions would be naturally less fluid are Pack and Fam (NE to a lesser degree). You could play the top 6 who started second half on sat in an official 4-4-2, but it would vary as the game demanded. If we had Brownhill on one wing and O'Dowda on the other- with say Pack and Walsh in the centre, then the fluidity- I'd tend to agree. They can drop deep, but it could be even better in that sense- the formation when we had all the injuries last year was the most consistently fluid I've seen us as this level- agree that it can switch, but it can be even better- 4-4-2 would be very fluid in that instance, along the lines of last season. (I know O'Dowda not in the best form, but he can IMO be better suited to coming inside than Eliasson or Watkins). Last season during the bad run, Brownhill did play on the right, with Bryan on the left while Wright and Magnússon as full back. Brownhill Pack Walsh O'Dowda OR Eliasson Weimann Taylor OR Brownhill Pack Walsh O'Dowda OR Eliasson Paterson Weimann OR Taylor Still would prefer a 3 though, either 3-5-2 or 4-3-3 tbh. Maybe even when people fit though, something like: Brownhill Pack Smith O'Dowda OR Eliasson Walsh Weimann or Taylor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeAman08 Posted October 29, 2018 Report Share Posted October 29, 2018 1 hour ago, JBFC II said: Watkins for Weimann I’d say. Weimann hasn’t really impressed out wide at derby or villa and Eliasson is our only good set piece taker, whilst being our only player who seems willing to beat his man Idk it is tough because for me Weimann gives the better movement, work rate and football IQ. Whereas Eliasson has the ability to beat his man and get a cross in. That said it is not a front 3 that will challenege aerially in the box. So why I went Weimann because he helps with the football on the floor imo. That is the thing dropping a striker is we lose even more goal threat. Probably why Fam would have to play in a 433. Taylor does a lot of things better but think Fam is a better goal scorer. It is a tough one all around really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRISTOL86 Posted October 29, 2018 Report Share Posted October 29, 2018 Walsh simply has to start on Saturday, whatever formation we play. What a refreshing change it made seeing someone keen to drive the play forward wherever possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashtonwurzel Posted October 29, 2018 Author Report Share Posted October 29, 2018 O'Leary Kalas Webster Kelly Pack Brownhill Elliason DaSilva Walsh Weimann Fammy For me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted October 29, 2018 Report Share Posted October 29, 2018 28 minutes ago, Ashtonwurzel said: O'Leary Kalas Webster Kelly Pack Brownhill Elliason DaSilva Walsh Weimann Fammy For me. Wouldn't mind this. To my mind, DaSilva is a natural winger who has probably got shifted to defence because he doesn't score goals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Brent Posted October 29, 2018 Report Share Posted October 29, 2018 Walsh May start but there’s no way he’ll be given the same instructions as he received vs Stoke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbored Posted October 29, 2018 Report Share Posted October 29, 2018 6 minutes ago, David Brent said: Walsh May start but there’s no way he’ll be given the same instructions as he received vs Stoke What instructions were that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kmpowell Posted October 29, 2018 Report Share Posted October 29, 2018 I agree, Walsh must start. Personally I’d sit him just behind Taylor and Shutt to create a formidable 3 pronged attack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Brent Posted October 29, 2018 Report Share Posted October 29, 2018 47 minutes ago, Robbored said: What instructions were that? To play as he did Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbored Posted October 29, 2018 Report Share Posted October 29, 2018 8 minutes ago, David Brent said: To play as he did Oh.......so he was told to go and boss the game then........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Brent Posted October 29, 2018 Report Share Posted October 29, 2018 7 minutes ago, Robbored said: Oh.......so he was told to go and boss the game then........ I didn’t expect you to be naive, Alan... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Red Hat Posted October 29, 2018 Report Share Posted October 29, 2018 1 hour ago, Ashtonwurzel said: O'Leary Kalas Webster Kelly Pack Brownhill Elliason DaSilva Walsh Weimann Fammy For me. Wouldn't mind something like that, but I'd play Taylor instead of Weimann as I don't think Fam and he can play together. Also Elliason would be one of the first on the team sheet at the moment for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Ferret Posted October 29, 2018 Report Share Posted October 29, 2018 I don't see why the formation needs to change. He's very willing to get stuck in and tackle from what I've seen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Ferret Posted October 29, 2018 Report Share Posted October 29, 2018 1 hour ago, Ashtonwurzel said: O'Leary Kalas Webster Kelly Pack Brownhill Elliason DaSilva Walsh Weimann Fammy For me. I like this a lot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted October 29, 2018 Report Share Posted October 29, 2018 35 minutes ago, Red Ferret said: I don't see why the formation needs to change. He's very willing to get stuck in and tackle from what I've seen. Because a lot of sides in this division play 3 centrally, or 2 centrally with a player behind who can make a 3, or in front who can drop back in? When up against decent sides, 2 vs 3 can cause quite a few problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeAman08 Posted October 29, 2018 Report Share Posted October 29, 2018 Walsh is not a 10. Playing him there would negate his qualities. Better with play infront of him. Have to play Paterson, Brownhill or Taylor as a 10 in those one striker formations Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted October 29, 2018 Report Share Posted October 29, 2018 I’m still in favour of a 4141 (or 433 variant) based on the players we have. Something like this for the front 6: Pack Watkins | Brownhill | Walsh | Eliasson Weimann It would call for some tough decisions, but I think it makes us more condensed especially if full-backs can join in, because Pack just sits. It’s not too dissimilar to how we played v Man City, where Paterson and Reid on occasions swapped with each other. Getting Brownhill and Walsh close to the striker is key to keeping the ball on the grass...and why we looked good on Saturday. In terms of the wingers / wide-men you can take your pick really., Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bard Posted October 29, 2018 Report Share Posted October 29, 2018 The one issue with 4 3 3 for us is that we need more goal threat than we have from the wide forwards and inside left and inside right. It doesn't matter how we dress it up, we don't have that. This is probably why Johnson wants 2 up top.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted October 30, 2018 Report Share Posted October 30, 2018 15 hours ago, Davefevs said: I’m still in favour of a 4141 (or 433 variant) based on the players we have. Something like this for the front 6: Pack Watkins | Brownhill | Walsh | Eliasson Weimann It would call for some tough decisions, but I think it makes us more condensed especially if full-backs can join in, because Pack just sits. It’s not too dissimilar to how we played v Man City, where Paterson and Reid on occasions swapped with each other. Getting Brownhill and Walsh close to the striker is key to keeping the ball on the grass...and why we looked good on Saturday. In terms of the wingers / wide-men you can take your pick really., Tend to agree with that setup overall- it does highlight though that we have the options now to play multiple ways (IMO) but the 4-1-4-1/4-3-3 variant looks good I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Red Hat Posted October 30, 2018 Report Share Posted October 30, 2018 This looks to be a strong formation! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.