CTRed Posted January 16, 2005 Report Share Posted January 16, 2005 Following the use of 3-5-2 again for the most part of the game yesterday I feel that from a personal point of view we should employ different personnel within that structure - specifically at home. This would probably be my pick for a 3-5-2 attack minded strategy; GK - Phillips CD - Coles CD - Fortune CD - Ireland RM - Murray CM - Dinning CM - Doherty CM - Wilkshire LM - Goodfellow CF - Lita CF - Heffernan I feel that this gives us a balanced team and is playing every player in their preferred and natural positions. At the same time it gives us a strong and pacey defence with 2 quality breakers in the midfield with Tommy and Tony whilst at the same time having the pace and width of Marc and Scott to attack down the wings with Wilkshire picking out the passes from the center. Anyway as I have said many times, all coaches have different opinions but I just feel that again yesterday the tactics were a tad negative for the game we were playing and the players available. Interested to know your thoughts........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longacre_red Posted January 16, 2005 Report Share Posted January 16, 2005 Following the use of 3-5-2 again for the most part of the game yesterday I feel that from a personal point of view we should employ different personnel within that structure - specifically at home. This would probably be my pick for a 3-5-2 attack minded strategy; GK - Phillips CD - Coles CD - Fortune CD - Ireland RM - Murray CM - Dinning CM - Doherty CM - Wilkshire LM - Goodfellow CF - Lita CF - Heffernan I feel that this gives us a balanced team and is playing every player in their preferred and natural positions. At the same time it gives us a strong and pacey defence with 2 quality breakers in the midfield with Tommy and Tony whilst at the same time having the pace and width of Marc and Scott to attack down the wings with Wilkshire picking out the passes from the center. Anyway as I have said many times, all coaches have different opinions but I just feel that again yesterday the tactics were a tad negative for the game we were playing and the players available. Interested to know your thoughts........ ← the only problem i can see with that is, i don't believe Goodfellows good enough as a wing back, i think hes a great winger but not wing back as he doesnt have te ability to defend! so id be tempted to put bell in! or maybe not, I'm undecieded on that position I love you, you do know that, don't you?!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REDOXO Posted January 16, 2005 Report Share Posted January 16, 2005 And the most light weight midfield in the top half of the division....great going forward but not a single one approaching six foot......whilst I don't want to appear negative we have to compete with players that these guys are going to bounce off and an unfortunate fact of div 3 life is a big bloke across the middle is a must....Unfortunately are failing of the last three seasons is to play to much footy in front of the back four and whilst your picks are all good on there day we gotta be a bit uglier than Murray Goodfellow and Wilkshire and a bit weightier than Doherty and Dinning probably why four out of five havnt been starting recently....PS don't shoot the messenger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CTRed Posted January 16, 2005 Author Report Share Posted January 16, 2005 And the most light weight midfield in the top half of the division....great going forward but not a single one approaching six foot......whilst I don't want to appear negative we have to compete with players that these guys are going to bounce off and an unfortunate fact of div 3 life is a big bloke across the middle is a must....Unfortunately are failing of the last three seasons is to play to much footy in front of the back four and whilst your picks are all good on there day we gotta be a bit uglier than Murray Goodfellow and Wilkshire and a bit weightier than Doherty and Dinning probably why four out of five havnt been starting recently....PS don't shoot the messenger ← REDOXO - You make a valid point although despite the fact they are not towering players both Dinning and Doherty are tough and good in the air. These two would have no problem competing in the middle of the park - although I was debating whether to opt for Dinning or Orr so I mean I guess you could stick Bradley in their for a bit of extra presence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REDOXO Posted January 16, 2005 Report Share Posted January 16, 2005 REDOXO - You make a valid point although despite the fact they are not towering players both Dinning and Doherty are tough and good in the air. These two would have no problem competing in the middle of the park - although I was debating whether to opt for Dinning or Orr so I mean I guess you could stick Bradley in their for a bit of extra presence. ← Thanks for the general agreement however, They do have difficulty competing in the middle of the park whilst sitting on the subs bench...Tommy has not had a good season (sorry but its just a fact) and no matter how good in the air he simply was never able to out jump his height to the extent of Matt Hill.. and if not on form is more than able to be out muscled...Dinning also a little off form did not find a single pass against Pboro and subsequently lost his place..ergo once the ball is won distribution is vital....TD & TD are worth places when they are playing well but when they are not more height and strength is needed to cover the deficiencies hence Orr and like it or not BT who is prepared to metaphorically die for the cause...around them any offers....???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted January 16, 2005 Report Share Posted January 16, 2005 Following the use of 3-5-2 again for the most part of the game yesterday I feel that from a personal point of view we should employ different personnel within that structure - specifically at home. This would probably be my pick for a 3-5-2 attack minded strategy; GK - Phillips CD - Coles CD - Fortune CD - Ireland RM - Murray CM - Dinning CM - Doherty CM - Wilkshire LM - Goodfellow CF - Lita CF - Heffernan I feel that this gives us a balanced team and is playing every player in their preferred and natural positions. At the same time it gives us a strong and pacey defence with 2 quality breakers in the midfield with Tommy and Tony whilst at the same time having the pace and width of Marc and Scott to attack down the wings with Wilkshire picking out the passes from the center. Anyway as I have said many times, all coaches have different opinions but I just feel that again yesterday the tactics were a tad negative for the game we were playing and the players available. Interested to know your thoughts........ ← As I said in a thread further down I'd put Tinnion or Orr in for Doherty until he can actually run for more than 15 minutes, and I don't think two small strikers is going to work, I'd put Brooker in for either. While this team would work against weaker sides I can't help thinking that neither winger can defend which would lead to us getting stung on the break against tougher teams. I'd probably prefer a 442 with Smith behind Murray and Fortune or Bell behind Goodfellow for more dangerous teams. Nibor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bristol Boy Posted January 16, 2005 Report Share Posted January 16, 2005 Tactically it's fine, until you look at the left side of the defence and that was wide open at times yesterday. Goodfellow is an out and out winger and I would rather see Bell or Golbourne in that LWB role, than him. Doherty & Dinning can both sit in this formation,but are both primarily right sided and Doherty especially lacks the pace to cover, even from a holding role. You need Brookers physical presence and hold up skill, as our distribution is poor, particularly when we bypass midfield and leave it to Butler & Coles. Brooker makes better use of the awful service we generally provide.Our lack of crosses and the quality of them, as Tinnion agrees, is dreadful and that's what needs to be addressed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.