Jump to content

Matt Clarke - Joined on loan for the season AGAIN


Animal is a Ram

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, AndyinLiverpool said:

It's not really 5 defenders, though, is it? It's 3. The wing backs are essentially attacking players.

It's two poor crossers of a football. 

Would rather play an attacking player than a jack of all trades. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 601
  • Created
  • Last Reply
1 hour ago, Wolfie20 said:

I disagree. With Bogle and Lowe as wing backs, when we're in possession they would provide the width we currently don't have. I'd look at it as giving added cover without the ball and more attacking threat with it.

I don't think they are disallowed to provide width today. They're current play, especially Bogle suggests, suggests they could do the role, but for me, if would all to often drop to a 5, with two holding mids and we would be screaming at the TV scream immediately.

Don't forget even back in the Jim Smith days when we played it, Asanovic was in the role of Bird/Rooney and we basically had three strikers on the pitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MACKWORTHRAM said:

I like this a lot. 

But I'd have Marriott up front over Waghorn.

I put Marriott in to start with but changed to Waghorn to add a bit of fluidity within the front 3, with all 3 swapping positions throughout the game. Giving opposition defenders more to think about. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, rammieib said:

There would be so much sideways and backwards football it would be painful. The fans would complain within 45 minutes.

You are in essence taking a front three player from last year and putting a defender on the pitch.

Our full backs already could attack, no need to convert them to wing backs.

Imagine, Rooney drops deep to get the ball and he has two centre backs one side of him and the other centre back the other side. Bird will be 20 feet diagonally away from him.

It would be horrendous.

I desperately want to keep attacking players on the pitch.

It was just an example of how we could have 5 at the back with both Lawrence and Sibley in the team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, rammieib said:

I don't think they are disallowed to provide width today. They're current play, especially Bogle suggests, suggests they could do the role, but for me, if would all to often drop to a 5, with two holding mids and we would be screaming at the TV scream immediately.

Don't forget even back in the Jim Smith days when we played it, Asanovic was in the role of Bird/Rooney and we basically had three strikers on the pitch.

I n the promotion team it was RVL and Darryl the football genius in midfield usually  with Ron W , Gabby and Studger up front (with Simmo playing occasionally) . That’s when the flexible 3-5-2 worked best 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd rather just play with a back 4 people forget that a lot of last season we struggled to create chances and score goals. A back 3 or a back 5 would mean a whole new system for the players to get used to and I don't think cocu is keen on it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Reggie Greenwood said:

RVL and Darryl

The formation worked largely because of these 2, they gave us the central midfield physicality of a 3 between them which allowed us to play with the 3 forwards.

Trollope provided energetic cover too when needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Reggie Greenwood said:

I n the promotion team it was RVL and Darryl the football genius in midfield usually  with Ron W , Gabby and Studger up front (with Simmo playing occasionally) . That’s when the flexible 3-5-2 worked best 

I was referring to the first year in the Premier League.

Which year did we sign Ward?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Topram said:

Why are people actually believing or asking these fake accounts anything 

I love the way that if someone starts a thread with a completely made up transfer rumour on here, it gets closed. If they put it on Twitter first, in some magical way it has legitimacy. Twitter idiocy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...