McMuffin Posted March 2 Share Posted March 2 1 minute ago, MackworthRamIsGod said: 16? Bloody hell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddielewis Posted March 2 Share Posted March 2 5 minutes ago, Caerphilly Ram said: Either a back 3 of Nelson, Cashin and Bradley with Ward and Sibley at wing back? Or a back 4 of…..someone…it’s a 3 isn’t it. Some sort of 3-4-3? Wildsmith Nelson Bradley Cashin Ward Adams Bird Sibley NML Gayle Barkhuizen Either way this set up just isolates Gayle. The only way to get something out of his type of striker is to have someone just never more than 5-10 yards behind so they can latch onto his movement of defenders. If Bird and Adams are playing that flat 2 were gonna need Sibley and Ward to not give the ball away so easily when we've committed to attacks. Barney1991, Ramarena and Caerphilly Ram 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Spalding Ram Posted March 2 Share Posted March 2 If as most think on here that it is a three up front where does this leave Blackett-Taylor? Seems our January window “number one target” (according to Pearce) can’t get into this line up. Some reckon his body language ain’t great…………….no bloody wonder! 🤔 Barney1991 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barney1991 Posted March 2 Share Posted March 2 (edited) 16 minutes ago, TomTom92 said: Don’t understand the moaning for the team. Yes I’d rather not have 5 at the back, but in PW defence, nobody has looked comfortable at right back other than Nyambe. At least it’s 343 and not 352. Leigh Curtis seems to pointing towards a 4231 with ward right back and sibley in a 3 behind Gayle Edited March 2 by Barney1991 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chester40 Posted March 2 Share Posted March 2 (edited) 20 minutes ago, Carl Sagan said: So is that going to be? Wildsmith Ward Nelson Bradley Cashin Adams Sibley Bird Mendez-Laing Gayle Barkhuizen Can't see it personally.... Back 3 spread wide with Adams covering if back 3 are dragged too wide. Ward and Sibley pushing up and crossing - even over lapping if we get on top. Could potentially be very attacking if we do it properly. Also could be very negative if not. Edited March 2 by Chester40 Thameram 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barney1991 Posted March 2 Share Posted March 2 (edited) 7 minutes ago, McMuffin said: Fair play to them giving an academy player a go. How id love to see one of our academy players notably a Darren Robinson given a go who is being touted by players higher up the pyramid Edited March 2 by Barney1991 McMuffin 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ariotofmyown Posted March 2 Share Posted March 2 (edited) 20 minutes ago, EraniosSocks said: Sorry Jose Do you so know little about football that if someone points out that Sibley is not a full back, and hence we are not playing with 5 at the back, that you post a sarcastic response that the poster thinks of themselves as some sort of tactical genius. In the same way that posters continually moan about Warne's press conference, there are also people who think 3 cbs equals a highly defensive 5 at the back. As was mentiond earlier in this thread, thess debates are so tiresome and moronic. Good debates are around the style of play, which system suits our players the best, do we have the right players, is the manager improving the players etc. "Why does Warne say the opposition are good" and "why are playing 5 across the back vs this team" is just really boring. Have we ever played 5 at the back this season? We have either played 2 cbs and 2 full backs, or we play 3 cbs with 2 high wing backs. Edited March 2 by ariotofmyown Chester40, Archied, Grimbeard and 2 others 1 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ariotofmyown Posted March 2 Share Posted March 2 15 minutes ago, MackworthRamIsGod said: Someone said the same to me last week..we lost You say the same garbage every week. We don't usually lose, so you are usually wrong. Wolfie20, Grimbeard and Chester40 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
littleover ram Posted March 2 Share Posted March 2 Why did was pay £300k for a player that Warne doesn’t rate who we could have got on a free in the summer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barney1991 Posted March 2 Share Posted March 2 1 minute ago, ariotofmyown said: Do you so know little about football that if someone points out that Sibley is not a full back, and hence we are not playing with 5 at the back, that you post a sarcastic response that the poster thinks of themselves as some sort of tactical genius. In the same way that posters continually moan about Warne's press conference, there are also people who think 3 cbs equals a highly defensive 5 at the back. As was mentiond earlier in this thread, thess debates are so tiresome and moronic. Good debates are around the style of play, which system suits our players the best, do we have the right players, is the manager improving the players etc. "Why does Warne say the opposition are good" and "why are playing 5 across the back vs this team" is just really boring. Have we ever played 5 at the back this season? We have either played 2 cbs and 2 full backs, or we play 3 cbs with 2 high wing backs. This post can’t agree more. 3 cbs doesn’t always mean negative I agree. Chelsea when they won the prem couldn’t win with a back 4 and moved to 343 and won something like 17 games in a row and stormed the prem having fell on the formation. our style of play though is we don’t use the formation great at all. We bypass midfield and don’t move the ball quick enough with 2 touch passing to get out and instead of using it offensively we end up getting pinned in with the wingbacks so high up we get countered. If we start to get the ball on the deck and get some movement higher up to pull players out we can get out and use it out advantage Caerphilly Ram, ariotofmyown and Chester40 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ariotofmyown Posted March 2 Share Posted March 2 1 hour ago, Srg said: Today has all the hallmarks of it turning toxic if we start poorly and concede. If only it had the hallmark of the crowd getting involved if we did concede and getting really behind the team? I'm not sure if the crowd are so sensitive to turn toxic with us 2nd in the league. Don't judge the home crowd by a small set of toxic posters on here. Foreveram 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strawhillram Posted March 2 Share Posted March 2 13 minutes ago, McMuffin said: Hope he’s done all his homework! S8TY, McMuffin and Caerphilly Ram 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vonwright Posted March 2 Share Posted March 2 1 minute ago, Barney1991 said: This post can’t agree more. 3 cbs doesn’t always mean negative I agree. Chelsea when they won the prem couldn’t win with a back 4 and moved to 343 and won something like 17 games in a row and stormed the prem having fell on the formation. our style of play though is we don’t use the formation great at all. We bypass midfield and don’t move the ball quick enough with 2 touch passing to get out and instead of using it offensively we end up getting pinned in with the wingbacks so high up we get countered. If we start to get the ball on the deck and get some movement higher up to pull players out we can get out and use it out advantage Yes I mean wasn't part of the point of the Chelsea 3-4-3 to give them numbers in midfield? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chester40 Posted March 2 Share Posted March 2 I personally think a back 3 is a good option...but we have played it poorly at times. We have seemed to spread really wide and then pass it out from the keeper and play it ponderously across the back 3 to the other side and inevitably knock it down the line. Its congested, are receiving the ball with our backs to the goal at chest height. Cue scrappy game, lots of free kicks for backing in, ton of throw ins ...and we lose control of the game. ariotofmyown and Barney1991 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wignall12 Posted March 2 Share Posted March 2 17 minutes ago, MackworthRamIsGod said: 16? Bloody hell. Remember Stevie Powell ? S8TY and Grimbeard 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Scarlet Pimpernel Posted March 2 Share Posted March 2 15 minutes ago, eddielewis said: Either way this set up just isolates Gayle. The only way to get something out of his type of striker is to have someone just never more than 5-10 yards behind so they can latch onto his movement of defenders. If Bird and Adams are playing that flat 2 were gonna need Sibley and Ward to not give the ball away so easily when we've committed to attacks. Asking for Sibley and Ward not to give the ball away is a bridge too far........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caerphilly Ram Posted March 2 Share Posted March 2 Any danger we can all agree an “I told you so” amnesty for the match thread today? Agree from the outset that whether your stance is optimistic/pessimistic/realistic/mystic Meg we’ll all celebrate or commiserate the result together? Anyone? No? Just me? Kernow, HorsforthRam and nogbad van 50 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ariotofmyown Posted March 2 Share Posted March 2 1 minute ago, Barney1991 said: This post can’t agree more. 3 cbs doesn’t always mean negative I agree. Chelsea when they won the prem couldn’t win with a back 4 and moved to 343 and won something like 17 games in a row and stormed the prem having fell on the formation. our style of play though is we don’t use the formation great at all. We bypass midfield and don’t move the ball quick enough with 2 touch passing to get out and instead of using it offensively we end up getting pinned in with the wingbacks so high up we get countered. If we start to get the ball on the deck and get some movement higher up to pull players out we can get out and use it out advantage Agree with most of that, but the same issues with the way we play are there with 2 cbs and 2 full backs too. We also have Forsyth and Nyambe injured, who are our best 2 proper fullbacks. I think a back 3, with Adams in front, could be a great "back 4". If we keep our wing backs high, this feels like it could be an attacking lineup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elwood P Dowd Posted March 2 Share Posted March 2 8 minutes ago, ariotofmyown said: You say the same garbage every week. We don't usually lose, so you are usually wrong. I think it might be fair to say we are garbage every February ariotofmyown 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blondest Goat Posted March 2 Share Posted March 2 (edited) 23 minutes ago, Jourdan said: As I said before, if you do logical things and don’t get logical outcomes, people are more forgiving. But picking Ward when he hasn’t had a look in for weeks and has been playing with the under 21s makes no sense to me. Picking Barkhuizen who has 1 good game for every 6-7 forgettable ones over your marquee January signing who will only adapt with game time makes no sense to me. Picking Bradley when it disrupts our strongest partnership of Nelson and Cashin again makes no sense to me. Let’s hope we blow Port Vale away and win 3-0 because if not the pressure will crank up on Warne over his team selections because this one looks very muddled. In response to why pick Ward - What has Wilson done to justify keeping his place? Nothing. Edited March 2 by Blondest Goat HorsforthRam 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account.
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now