Twine

[Harry]

2 hours ago, Sir Geoff said:

Personally thought Cornick should have been subbed circa 70 mins. Tanner to RB and Sykes Rwb. I like Cornick but he is not a Rwb and had a poor hour or so.

 

26 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Seen a few mentions of back 3 yesterday and WBs. Wasn’t how I saw it, maybe I missed it. Just bog standard back 4 all game for me. Advancing the FB on the side we had possession on.

 

Yep. Same Dave. I didn’t see wing backs at all. 
Back 4 all game. 
Although I do think the shape did sometimes look a little confusing as Roberts seems to have a tendency to come inside into midfield quite a lot, so he was often in a strange position for what was essentially a full back role. 

Edited February 18 by Harry

[1960maaan]

27 minutes ago, Sir Geoff said:

Looked like a lop sided back 4 with Mcrorie high, at times. Not sure what position Cornick was told to play, but it seemed right side ahead of Mcrorie. Neither played well. Should have switched to Tanner in traditional full back role with Sykes Rw imo.

I think the lop sided bit was further forward. Mehmeti was tucked in and I guess the idea was McCrorie could use the space. On the other side Bell and later (for a short time) Cornick stayed wider. I thought it made McCrorie less effective TBH , with no forward pass he seemed to turn back a lot . 
If Sykes wasn't thought fit for the 75 minutes from Bell's injury, Tanner at FB and let McCrorie play RMF may have been better. Mehmeti was a little bit more involved when he moved left, but it was a low bar TBH.

[Davefevs]

28 minutes ago, Sir Geoff said:

Looked like a lop sided back 4 with Mcrorie high, at times. Not sure what position Cornick was told to play, but it seemed right side ahead of Mcrorie. Neither played well. Should have switched to Tanner in traditional full back role with Sykes Rw imo.

26 minutes ago, Harry said:

 

Yep. Same Dave. I didn’t see wing backs at all. 
Back 4 all game. 
Although I do think the shape did sometimes look a little confusing as Roberts seems to have a tendency to come inside into midfield quite a lot, so he was often in a strange position for what was essentially a full back role. 

Ta, both.

My view was that Andersen “cheated” as their right midfielder, playing in the right-half space, so with Willock it blocked build-up down our left.

It did mean when we got quick ball from midfield to Bell, he was often 1v1.

I thought Vyner “opened it out”  quickly to McCrorie, but we couldn’t connect beyond that.

[1960maaan]

5 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I thought Vyner “opened it out”  quickly to McCrorie, but we couldn’t connect beyond that.

I would think Mehmeti moving and tucking in would be fine, dragging the FB with him. Starting there meant no pass forward but also no space to run into for McCrorie. He (RM) looked very frustrated at times .

I've criticised Bell a little this year, but as soon as he went off we missed his running and availability wide.

[Davefevs]

I thought Mehmeti carried on Bell’s good work when he swapped to play left side.

[Ashton Fete]

1 hour ago, Sir Geoff said:

Looked like a lop sided back 4 with Mcrorie high, at times. Not sure what position Cornick was told to play, but it seemed right side ahead of Mcrorie. Neither played well. Should have switched to Tanner in traditional full back role with Sykes Rw imo.

Spot on

[Sheltons Army]

[Bazooka Joe]

17 hours ago, Loosey Boy said:

Reading LM post-match comments, think we will see Sykes and Twine from the start next Saturday.

 

Makes perfect sense.

However, based on yesterday's starting XI,  don't be surprised to find Medube is the first name on the team sheet . . .

 

 

and that we're trying to bring back Diony and Bas Savage.

[Bazooka Joe]

1 hour ago, Back of the Dolman said:

My son said to me we’d gone to a back 3 but I didn’t see it.

I’ll be honest I just thought the shape was a mess yesterday.

Maybe we needed a Sweeper to clean up the mess.