Nibor Posted August 30, 2005 Report Share Posted August 30, 2005 I mentioned some of this before the game on Saturday and it was even more obvious during the first 30 minutes of that game - before the formation switch.Scott Golbourne is an exciting young player with pace, some skill and passing ability. He can even cross and looks like he has dead ball potential. He is not under any circumstances however, a full back.Scott Brown is an energetic little terrier of a midfielder who looks like he could really do a job in the middle of the park. He is not under any circumstances however, a left winger.Louis Carey was at one point a good right back for this division, especially with someone in front of him who will take the simple ball off him before allowing him to "distribute" it. He is nowhere near his best form and I was shocked he was playing centre back.Golbourne attacks all the time, does well at this and then gets completely lost on his way back to defend, seems to just forget where he's meant to be and it's compounded because Brown forgets that he's playing wide and then ends up chasing the ball all over the park, providing no cover.The left side is then totally exposed and we concede...Carey was marking Platt early on. Hello?!? You have a 6'4 target man playing on the right side of a front two to mark, do you pick the 6'3 defender reknowned for his aerial presence or the out of position 5'10 right back who's wrong footed? Golbourne needs to play as a winger with a defender behind him if we're going 442. We don't have a left back who I think is up to scratch. Woodman is not good enough and Golbourne simply isn't a defender. G Smith was signed to play left midfield even though it's not his preferred position and his lack of pace limits us there. I think he's shown some decent passes and I'd like to see him in his preferred position supplying some decent balls to a pacy winger and striker.Our best back two so far has been Fortune and Heywood, despite the criticism Fortune gets for not attacking the ball he's quick on his feet and I think compliments Heywood well. Partridge has looked shaky and nervous but I don't think he should be written off yet. Carey should be dropped on current performances. Keogh is young but might yet play a part.I'd actually switch to 352, because it seems to me to make better use of the strengths of our players. Whatever we do however it needs to be stuck with for a few games, no players will settle if the lineup is consistently changed.My preferred team:.....................................Phillips.............................................................Heywood....Fortune....Partridge.................................Murray...........Brown...........G. Smith..........Golbourne........................................Bridges...................................................................Brooker.............Gillespie..............................BenchCareyKeoghSkuseWilkshireCotterillI think this gives us width, pace and bite in the middle.Nibor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BeNeRz Posted August 30, 2005 Report Share Posted August 30, 2005 Looks good, but id have Heywood in the middle and because partridge is fully fit enough yet..Carey at the back..Bridges deff filling the whole.. and Give the Stevey a go up front sounds perfect to me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
preston red Posted August 30, 2005 Report Share Posted August 30, 2005 I agree. The formation does look good, as does the line up. The only question mark I'd have is Grant Smith being so cental...any ideas? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.