A Horse With No Name Posted January 15, 2005 Report Share Posted January 15, 2005 Surely we don't have the players to play this way at home. The whole point of playing 3-5-2 is that your two full backs can play as wide midfielders cum wingers. The problem is that neither Bell nor Smith has any pace or the ability to go past people and get crosses in. The first half today was screaming out for a winger to get past the full back and put in decent crosses. When Murray and Goody came on, things started to happen. Sirely we must start at home with the flat back four, and at least one winger. Finally, I thought Fortune was awesome today, in both of his positions , but we do need a new left back, as Bell, unfortunately is finished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich-TWSC- Posted January 15, 2005 Report Share Posted January 15, 2005 The fact you're not getting wins week in, week out is because (like TomF mentioned) you have too many players in comfort zones... It's not formation etc etc etc it's the fact that win, lose or draw certain players know that they will be on the team sheet, that that will effect their 'desire' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhatWill Posted January 15, 2005 Report Share Posted January 15, 2005 I don't see why 3-5-2 can't work at home. 3 defenders, 5 MIDFIELDERS and 2 strikers. The fact is we don't need 4 defenders at home because most teams come to Ashton Gate and don't bother trying to attack us! You said it yourself - If we'd started with Murray and Goody instead of Smith and Bell then we may have won the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CiderHider Posted January 15, 2005 Report Share Posted January 15, 2005 Do we posess any nippy wingers? Whats the point in playing an attacking formation without the right players for the respective positions? It baffles me that we cant get a good balance, Tinnion was given money to bring in players to get promoted and now they are all on loan scoring for other teams! I have to question the gaffers ability to get us promoted. Even if by some miricle he does achive this, we should look at replacing him as its crystal clear the guys a liability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackthorn slice Posted January 15, 2005 Report Share Posted January 15, 2005 Surely we don't have the players to play this way at home. The whole point of playing 3-5-2 is that your two full backs can play as wide midfielders cum wingers. The problem is that neither Bell nor Smith has any pace or the ability to go past people and get crosses in. The first half today was screaming out for a winger to get past the full back and put in decent crosses. When Murray and Goody came on, things started to happen. Sirely we must start at home with the flat back four, and at least one winger. Finally, I thought Fortune was awesome today, in both of his positions , but we do need a new left back, as Bell, unfortunately is finished. ← 3-5-2 is the way forward as again proved today and v tranny but you need a manager who knows what he is doing.yet another team come to the gate for a draw and he sticks smith as a wing back . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barneyredballs Posted January 15, 2005 Report Share Posted January 15, 2005 The fact you're not getting wins week in, week out is because (like TomF mentioned) you have too many players in comfort zones... It's not formation etc etc etc it's the fact that win, lose or draw certain players know that they will be on the team sheet, that that will effect their 'desire' ← Sorry, but you have no clue. Don't talk comfort zones, there was little else wrong today apart from V.poor service. The starting 11 did everything but score today. Massive committment, just very poor service for strikers. Concentrate on your own muppets who managed a mighty 2-2 with Blackpool! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
England Posted January 15, 2005 Report Share Posted January 15, 2005 Finally, I thought Fortune was awesome today, in both of his positions , but we do need a new left back, as Bell, unfortunately is finished. ← I thought Fortune was awful today, particularly the last half hour - the lame brain didn't seem to realise Bell had gone off and there was a bl##dy great hole Bradford were exploiting - his positional sense is non-existent and nearly cost us the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted January 15, 2005 Report Share Posted January 15, 2005 Agree with the original post. Winning games with 3-5-2 and attacking football relies entirely on the wingbacks having pace in attack AND being able to defend AND being able to do so for 90 minutes. At Tranmere we won by flooding the midfield and counter attacking, which isn't the same thing, and we could just as easily have lost. Although Goodfellow and Murray give us decent pace wide, neither has the defensive quality needed so we'd basically have to score at least 2 goals a game since we'd concede more. Quite risky. I'd prefer for home games to stick to 4-4-2 with Murray and Goodfellow having decent fullbacks behind them, and a fit Doherty in the middle with Wilkshire. Nibor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedTauntonian Posted January 15, 2005 Report Share Posted January 15, 2005 I thought Fortune was awful today, particularly the last half hour - the lame brain didn't seem to realise Bell had gone off and there was a bl##dy great hole Bradford were exploiting - his positional sense is non-existent and nearly cost us the game. ← I thought he was awfull to, he put a few good tackles in, but his positioning is rubbish, he fails to use his head, and he doesn't even look when passing the ball. How he was man of the match baffles me. Thought Ireland played well though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barneyredballs Posted January 15, 2005 Report Share Posted January 15, 2005 I thought Fortune was awful today, particularly the last half hour - the lame brain didn't seem to realise Bell had gone off and there was a bl##dy great hole Bradford were exploiting - his positional sense is non-existent and nearly cost us the game. ← I think 95% would say that are back 3, then 4 were good today. How many saves did Phillips make again? Was the hole left there because Goodfellow was given a complete attacking role? Was the hole left there because we all pushed up? Did the hole create any clear chances for them, that wasn't dealt with? Yes, Yes & No. It was Clayton Fortune of BCFC rather than Quinton Fortune you were watching right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barneyredballs Posted January 15, 2005 Report Share Posted January 15, 2005 Agree with the original post. Winning games with 3-5-2 and attacking football relies entirely on the wingbacks having pace in attack AND being able to defend AND being able to do so for 90 minutes. At Tranmere we won by flooding the midfield and counter attacking, which isn't the same thing, and we could just as easily have lost. Although Goodfellow and Murray give us decent pace wide, neither has the defensive quality needed so we'd basically have to score at least 2 goals a game since we'd concede more. Quite risky. I'd prefer for home games to stick to 4-4-2 with Murray and Goodfellow having decent fullbacks behind them, and a fit Doherty in the middle with Wilkshire. Nibor ← Not impressed by Orr today? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackthorn slice Posted January 15, 2005 Report Share Posted January 15, 2005 Agree with the original post. Winning games with 3-5-2 and attacking football relies entirely on the wingbacks having pace in attack AND being able to defend AND being able to do so for 90 minutes. At Tranmere we won by flooding the midfield and counter attacking, which isn't the same thing, and we could just as easily have lost. Although Goodfellow and Murray give us decent pace wide, neither has the defensive quality needed so we'd basically have to score at least 2 goals a game since we'd concede more. Quite risky. I'd prefer for home games to stick to 4-4-2 with Murray and Goodfellow having decent fullbacks behind them, and a fit Doherty in the middle with Wilkshire. Nibor ← true mate but when teams come and sit right back i think there is a case for both murrey and goodfella or brown to play wing backs because we have the extra man in midfield.when i found out he was playing 352 i thought fair play tinman is starting to get it right but when i saw the team[good away from home]i could not believe me eyes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CiderHider Posted January 15, 2005 Report Share Posted January 15, 2005 Sorry, but you have no clue. Don't talk comfort zones, there was little else wrong today apart from V.poor service. The starting 11 did everything but score today. Massive committment, just very poor service for strikers. Concentrate on your own muppets who managed a mighty 2-2 with Blackpool! ← Barney every reply post of yours start with... You don't have a clue, your know nothing about football etc etc.. Are we to belive you are the ultimate football god? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barneyredballs Posted January 15, 2005 Report Share Posted January 15, 2005 You don't have a clue what your talking about! I don't always start posts by saying, you don't have a clue what your talking about. Don't get defensive because I rubbished one of your posts. Take it like the paint brusher you are. I won't rubbish anyone's posts if they are accurate and make valid points. Enjoy the game today? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wayne allisons tongues Posted January 15, 2005 Report Share Posted January 15, 2005 Think if we play 3-5-2 at home need two wingers such as goodfellow and murray to play out wide for Bell lacks pace and Smith is not sure when to push on or not. Fortune played well for an hour then we took off bell and pushed him to leftback and i think he forgot he wasnot centreback for spent rest of game going no further left or right than our box, not sure if he was told to narrow game but he did that to our defence and Summerbee for last 20 mins had a field the out on there right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted January 16, 2005 Report Share Posted January 16, 2005 Not impressed by Orr today? ← I wasn't there, plane landed too late. Friends of mine who were indicated he put in the usual performance, ie 100% commitment and legs, 10% skill on the ball. Nibor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 16, 2005 Report Share Posted January 16, 2005 I don't see why 3-5-2 can't work at home. 3 defenders, 5 MIDFIELDERS and 2 strikers. The fact is we don't need 4 defenders at home because most teams come to Ashton Gate and don't bother trying to attack us! You said it yourself - If we'd started with Murray and Goody instead of Smith and Bell then we may have won the game. ← Smith and Bell are defensive "wingers" Murray and Goody are attack minded"wingers" although more likley to score leave the back 3 exposed which they did as we were wide open down the wing when both were on. I don't think Tins knows what our Best team is or what formation to play them in either at home or away. don't know what were doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B1ackbird Posted January 16, 2005 Report Share Posted January 16, 2005 The trouble with 3-5-2. Is that the away team only has to match it and it's bloody hard to break it down. (remember Kingstonians anyone?) Still, I think it's worth persuing away, but as Wilson has said in the past, it does'nt matter what formation we play, if we're not playing well!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.