Ross McCrorie

[Charlie BCFC]

First two starts I thought he was good but last night I think we saw his best performance of the lot. Very confident carrying the ball and uses the ball very well. Thought it was between him and Pring for MOTM last night

[Simon bristol]

I really like him, but right back in a 4 would be his best position, with someone like sykes in front of him who can get a goal

[steviestevieneville]

8 minutes ago, Charlie BCFC said:

First two starts I thought he was good but last night I think we saw his best performance of the lot. Very confident carrying the ball and uses the ball very well. Thought it was between him and Pring for MOTM last night

He’s probably a few games off being fully match fit as well. More to come 

[Major Isewater]

He was very good last night, positive, agressive and smart. Let’s hope he can maintain the level and improve . 
I thought we suffered when he went off. 
High hopes for the lad. 

[UpTheReds]

He likes to use a few skills too, really looking forward to seeing him progress and getting back to standards pre-injury.

[Rudolf Hucker]

14 minutes ago, Charlie BCFC said:

Thought it was between him and Pring for MOTM last night

Harsh to leave out Tanner from MOTM consideration because he too was exceptional and gave McCrorie the freedom to attack. 

[Lew-T]

Bit of a bustling player with glimpses of quality too. Similar to Pring in a way.
 

Definitely more to come aswell.

[grifty]

Got an excellent first touch to knock round the defender and break through the centre.

[Offside]

Really impressed with him so far, especially his marauding runs with the ball. And he will only improve as he gets more fit. 

[Charlie BCFC]

43 minutes ago, Rudolf Hucker said:

Harsh to leave out Tanner from MOTM consideration because he too was exceptional and gave McCrorie the freedom to attack. 

Yeah him and Vyner were very good aswell I thought

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, Simon bristol said:

I really like him, but right back in a 4 would be his best position, with someone like sykes in front of him who can get a goal

I’d like to see this.  Most of this season we’ve said we want to see RM at right-back, but we’ve now moved away from this set-up.  For me it loses one player attacking wise.  And I don’t think our defence has been compromised playing a four anyway.

[Simon bristol]

19 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I’d like to see this.  Most of this season we’ve said we want to see RM at right-back, but we’ve now moved away from this set-up.  For me it loses one player attacking wise.  And I don’t think our defence has been compromised playing a four anyway.

Yes agreed, i agree with it in the cup games to keep it tight but playing the wing backs with little goal threat limits the goal threat we pose

[Charlie BCFC]

7 hours ago, Davefevs said:

I’d like to see this.  Most of this season we’ve said we want to see RM at right-back, but we’ve now moved away from this set-up.  For me it loses one player attacking wise.  And I don’t think our defence has been compromised playing a four anyway.

I guess one argument you can do without changing the system is having McCrorie in a back 3 with Sykes in front. In possession it probably would be that even if we do go to a 4 without the ball

[archie andrews]

The new mark little?...... 

[Mr Popodopolous]

27 minutes ago, Charlie BCFC said:

I guess one argument you can do without changing the system is having McCrorie in a back 3 with Sykes in front. In possession it probably would be that even if we do go to a 4 without the ball

I'm not sure it works.

There is an imbalance somewhere.. 4-3-3 (to me anyway) seems the most comfortable. Albeit with someone like Naismith as part of a CM 3 and I mean Naismith due to his versatility and then McCrorie and Pring can be wingbacks in a back 3/5 and full backs in a back 4.

[Port Said Red]

Being 6'3 makes Max's life a bit easier too. He got up to nod on a couple of those wide clearances last night.

[JAWS]

12 hours ago, Simon bristol said:

I really like him, but right back in a 4 would be his best position, with someone like sykes in front of him who can get a goal

Think he has too much about him to be an out & out RB. Seems a waste. Plus it would stifle George's development who is coming along nicely. Think the system has worked well the last few games. In the same way Pring has thrived having more freedom to attack. We are just lacking quality in the final third whether that be delivery or execution. Sykes will help with the delivery on his return. We deffo need an out n out striker to challenge Conway. A more physical presence. Think Conway could be effective drifting in from out wide as part of a front 3 if a target man was signed. He looks too isolated as the main man. From what I've seen I think McCrorie woukd be better suited in CM than RB.

[Davefevs]

10 hours ago, JAWS said:

Think he has too much about him to be an out & out RB. Seems a waste. Plus it would stifle George's development who is coming along nicely. Think the system has worked well the last few games. In the same way Pring has thrived having more freedom to attack. We are just lacking quality in the final third whether that be delivery or execution. Sykes will help with the delivery on his return. We deffo need an out n out striker to challenge Conway. A more physical presence. Think Conway could be effective drifting in from out wide as part of a front 3 if a target man was signed. He looks too isolated as the main man. From what I've seen I think McCrorie woukd be better suited in CM than RB.

Cafu says “hold my beer”

In terms of George’s development - tough shit () - if we have better, then so be it….it needs to be “dog eat cat”, no sentiment imho.  It might push George to get even better, that’s what competition does.

[PHILINFRANCE]

29 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Cafu says “hold my beer”

In terms of George’s development - tough shit () - if we have better, then so be it….it needs to be “dog eat cat”, no sentiment imho.  It might push George to get even better, that’s what competition does.

Well, you appear to have answered my question .

I was going to ask, with McCrorie on the right of a back four, where does that leave the ever improving George Tanner?

[JAWS]

32 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Cafu says “hold my beer”

In terms of George’s development - tough shit () - if we have better, then so be it….it needs to be “dog eat cat”, no sentiment imho.  It might push George to get even better, that’s what competition does.

I don't see a lot wrong with how George has been playing so not sure relegating him to the bench will make him better. Continuing his game time will & the current system looks to be effective & allows McCrorie the freedom to express himself and take risks which he clearly likes doing & was effective v prem opposition. Something he would be less inclined to do at RB when last line of defence.

Though I actually think he could be our midfield enforcer next season when a couple of the current crop move on as seems likely.

[INCRED]

I thought RM was brought in to play the RB/RWB role in place of Tanner. I have no problem with Tanner as a defender as he is excellent at just that but I think RM & Sykes on the right side gives us something extra and better options 

Having a balance on both sides with aggressive attacking options gives us more threat albeit we still need to improve our goals scored record and hope we can bring in an additional forward before the window closes 

[Davefevs]

12 minutes ago, JAWS said:

I don't see a lot wrong with how George has been playing so not sure relegating him to the bench will make him better. Continuing his game time will & the current system looks to be effective & allows McCrorie the freedom to express himself and take risks which he clearly likes doing & was effective v prem opposition. Something he would be less inclined to do at RB when last line of defence.

Though I actually think he could be our midfield enforcer next season when a couple of the current crop move on as seems likely.

George has been playing well, nobody is disputing that, although for many he was the scapegoat earlier this season! I just posed the hypothetical scenario that if McCrorie played RB in a back four, then it’s pretty likely George would be the one to miss out.  There is of course rationale for George to play when the opposition have someone like Jack Clarke playing.

But….the current system isn’t effective though. It’s effective for our defence, but not our offence, isn’t it.  The balance isn’t there (yet??.)

[Port Said Red]

3 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

George has been playing well, nobody is disputing that, although for many he was the scapegoat earlier this season! I just posed the hypothetical scenario that if McCrorie played RB in a back four, then it’s pretty likely George would be the one to miss out.  There is of course rationale for George to play when the opposition have someone like Jack Clarke playing.

But….the current system isn’t effective though. It’s effective for our defence, but not our offence, isn’t it.  The balance isn’t there (yet??.)

It's management 101 though isn't it? If Manning was an experienced coach a lot of people would be saying, "ah well he knows the first thing is to build from the back, make us difficult to beat"

The signings both loan and permanent show that he feels we can be more expansive in time, using Twine to show the way to the junior signings. False 9s, 10's whatever you want to call them seems his long term way of thinking to me. 

[Davefevs]

1 minute ago, Port Said Red said:

It's management 101 though isn't it? If Manning was an experienced coach a lot of people would be saying, "ah well he knows the first thing is to build from the back, make us difficult to beat"

The signings both loan and permanent show that he feels we can be more expansive in time, using Twine to show the way to the junior signings. False 9s, 10's whatever you want to call them seems his long term way of thinking to me. 

I think it depends on the situation you take over in.  Most of the time it’s at a struggling club, and you’re right, sort out the defence, it’s leaking goals, get a 0-0, build from there.  It’s unusual to take over in the circumstances LM did, likewise Rooney at Brum.  You can’t do the usual format stuff, especially when the defence was already solid, and the claims from above were that they wanted “front foot, blah, blah, blah”.  Personally, I thought we’d see some semblance of “expansiveness” already, but we haven’t.

The evolution of LM’s team will be interesting.

[Port Said Red]

8 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I think it depends on the situation you take over in.  Most of the time it’s at a struggling club, and you’re right, sort out the defence, it’s leaking goals, get a 0-0, build from there.  It’s unusual to take over in the circumstances LM did, likewise Rooney at Brum.  You can’t do the usual format stuff, especially when the defence was already solid, and the claims from above were that they wanted “front foot, blah, blah, blah”.  Personally, I thought we’d see some semblance of “expansiveness” already, but we haven’t.

The evolution of LM’s team will be interesting.

It depends on your definition of front football I guess. it has been debated I know. If what he means is "control" then Fridays game was a great example of it, with and without the ball we were in control (on the front foot) for the large majority of it. 

I see what you are saying about situations, and although we weren't struggling the first thing he needed to do was make the backline comfortable with looking after the ball, which I think he has done to a large extent. 

The bit we all want I think is the hardest bit to achieve.

[JAWS]

We've more than held our own in 3 matches against prem opposition so seems to be pretty effective but could be improved though that improvement seems to be the final third not the first two thirds. When sykes is back the delivery will improve & Conway needs help. So i'd leave as is & if back 4 i just think McCrorie would be wasted as a RB as he has so much more to offer, especially when we have a solid RB in George who is in a good vein of form. So I would prefer to utilise Ross further up the field. We are not the most creative team but he is a very progressive player. 

[JAWS]

In the same way Pring is wasted as an orthodox LB. He seems to be revelling in the new role. Both him & McCrorie are attack minded & the current system suits them. It's quite refreshing actually as normally when we have played a back 3 the 'wingbacks' have been orthodox fullbacks with a tendency to defend than attack thus inviting teams on which is negative at home. This system allows the extra man to be deployed in the front of the midfield and thus positive

[Davefevs]

42 minutes ago, Port Said Red said:

It depends on your definition of front football I guess. it has been debated I know. If what he means is "control" then Fridays game was a great example of it, with and without the ball we were in control (on the front foot) for the large majority of it. 

I see what you are saying about situations, and although we weren't struggling the first thing he needed to do was make the backline comfortable with looking after the ball, which I think he has done to a large extent. 

The bit we all want I think is the hardest bit to achieve.

Manning wants to control by dominating possession…that’s one of his stated principles.  We don’t do that.  We have no more possession (just shy of 50%) than we did before he arrived.

I get control can be achieved to some extent by sterilising our opponents (which we’ve done), but I think it sterilises us too.

I just get confused by claims of “isn’t it wonderful now”, when it clearly isn’t.  He has changed a couple of things.  One, as you say, a bit more comfortable to be patient at the back passing it around.  Two, we trigger the press a bit more effectively.  But we are also content to go into a block too readily also.  That’s why we’ve not upped our possession percentages (not that I think it’s the be-all and end-all - but it must be for LM based on the statements he’s made)

It’s a really difficult balance. I don’t think he’s doing badly, but I see small differences in the way we play rather than improvements in the outcomes per se.

[Davefevs]

58 minutes ago, JAWS said:

We've more than held our own in 3 matches against prem opposition so seems to be pretty effective but could be improved though that improvement seems to be the final third not the first two thirds. When sykes is back the delivery will improve & Conway needs help. So i'd leave as is & if back 4 i just think McCrorie would be wasted as a RB as he has so much more to offer, especially when we have a solid RB in George who is in a good vein of form. So I would prefer to utilise Ross further up the field. We are not the most creative team but he is a very progressive player. 

43 minutes ago, JAWS said:

In the same way Pring is wasted as an orthodox LB. He seems to be revelling in the new role. Both him & McCrorie are attack minded & the current system suits them. It's quite refreshing actually as normally when we have played a back 3 the 'wingbacks' have been orthodox fullbacks with a tendency to defend than attack thus inviting teams on which is negative at home. This system allows the extra man to be deployed in the front of the midfield and thus positive

As my simplistic summary I’d go with:

to get Pring and McCrorie to revel, we’ve had to play an extra defender

My challenge is:

is it worth it?

Because it hasn’t really solved anything in the attacking third.

That’s kinda my devil’s advocate stance.  If LM is changing something, why is he changing it and for what outcome.

[Henry]

I like his strength and his power. However I’m looking to see what he can actually do on the ball. So far, there actually haven’t been evidence of quality on the ball, with passes, crosses or goal threat.