cheron85 Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 The OS lists Freeman at 5ft 10 and Brayford at 5ft 8 He always looks slighter of frame... As a player who is 5 years younger would...Isn't it great pretending to be managers? It's like saying what you would do in bed with Halle Berry. Amusing and interesting but ultimately harmless and pointless! Amusing and interesting is THE WHOLE POINT... He has a new butler? What happened to Alfred? This Batman has Albert as a sidekick... Batman and Statman swinging into action... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Teale Posted July 13, 2013 Share Posted July 13, 2013 Well now clough has said he is happy with keogh and bucko as his two centre halfs I can't see us playing 3 at the back come the first game. Also I don't think we have enough centre backs to play that way as he talks about Brayford as cover. Unless he see eustace as dropping back as he did with stride at burton. Well if he signs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
t'oldu Posted July 13, 2013 Share Posted July 13, 2013 Guess the starting formation this afternoon................!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Teale Posted July 13, 2013 Share Posted July 13, 2013 I posted that after the start of today's game. That means nothing as half the players played out of position to give everyone a game Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Teale Posted July 13, 2013 Share Posted July 13, 2013 Clough said 3 at the back didn't work and the players didn't look comfortable with it. So that's over Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alph Posted July 13, 2013 Share Posted July 13, 2013 Clough said 3 at the back didn't work and the players didn't look comfortable with it. So that's over 442 then? yay... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Teale Posted July 13, 2013 Share Posted July 13, 2013 Well it will be a back 4, he said they tried it, they didn't look comfortable in a 3 and the defensive unit is the most important part of the team so has to be right first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alph Posted July 13, 2013 Share Posted July 13, 2013 Well it will be a back 4, he said they tried it, they didn't look comfortable in a 3 and the defensive unit is the most important part of the team so has to be right first. When I buy new shoes I'm not comfortable in them straight away. What was he expecting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
May Contain Nuts Posted July 13, 2013 Share Posted July 13, 2013 His automatic calling of the defence as 'back 4' betrays any true belief in any other defensive system.... and tbh I dislike the idea of 3 at the back anyway, so that's fine by me! The interview also says that the midfield had a 4-4-2 diamond shape in the 2nd half, with Hendrick sitting deep... but that wouldn't accommodate all of our midfielders, SO I can see us trying 4-3-1-2 (or 4-1-2-1-2 if you want to call it that) alternating with 4-3-2-1 if we're lacking width OK, here we go, an excructatingly boring formations suggestion post, with lots of holes to be picked regarding defending.... sorry.....!...... . 4-3-1-2 (4-1-2-1-2) Sammon Russell Ward Bryson Hughes Hendrick Forsyth Buxton Keogh Brayford Grant OR.... 4-3-2-1 (which might be a bit too 4-5-1 for the liking of some) Martin Ward Russell Hendrick Hughes Bryson Forsyth Buxton Keogh Brayford Grant Obviously those line-ups miss out Coutts and Eustace, but they can slot into that midfield 3 and allow us some extra squad rotation to avoid players tiring. In the 4-3-1-2 you could move Hughes further up to the hole, stick Ward up front and stick one of Coutts/Eustace in that midfield 3. Ward and Russell are both capable of playing wide and central so in games where we need some extra width they can move on out and give us the 4-3-2-1... although hopefully Sammon and Russell can provide some width themselves ANYWAY by running the channels, with Ward moving up to make a central 2 with whoever hasn't ran the channel and one of the middle 3 arriving late in the box for those Craig-Bryson style tap-ins. The line-ups also miss out Jacobs, but again he could come in behind the strikers in formation 1, or come on out on as the width in formation 2. The point is that we have a lot of flexible players! PS, I can't believe more people haven't used Align Center to write down their formations, it makes it so much easier! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alph Posted July 13, 2013 Share Posted July 13, 2013 Anything but 442 keeps me happy. It's rigid, outdated and suits pacey tricky wide players (of which we have none on the right). Just seems odd him saying it doesn't look comfortable. That's what friendlies are for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dabber Posted July 13, 2013 Share Posted July 13, 2013 I don't think 3 at the back would work for us, also seems a bit ironic to me to try and get an additional player in there currently whilst we are short on numbers there. What might work is in away games against a tough team is to sit Eustace in front of the back four in a Makelele role? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronnieronalde Posted July 14, 2013 Share Posted July 14, 2013 I think we'll end up playing the revolutionary 1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1 formation. It gives us a lot more flexibility and then no-one can shout at Nige if he gets it wrong. Unless he's so daft that he tries that 1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-2 garbage again. When will he realise it just doesn't work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.