CCYellow
Active member
- Joined
- 9 Dec 2019
- Messages
- 835
Can't see us playing a rush keeper.I'd play rush keeper and 10 forwards! DesBall in full effect!!!
If that was the plan, Des would have kept McGinty around!
Can't see us playing a rush keeper.I'd play rush keeper and 10 forwards! DesBall in full effect!!!
Undoubtedly we were better with 4 at the back, it was simply a point that 5 at the back can easily be 3 at the back depending on how aggressive we are being.We were better when we played a back 4 against the league leaders on Tuesday, and also improved in the second half at Bristol when we went to a back 4.
Going back to a three (wherever the wing-backs are) seems like a triumph of hope over experience IMO.
The reason the back 3 didn’t work is because our wing backs start too deep. They should be on the halfway line, not halfway inside our own half, that way the opposition get pushed back instead of the other way round, you only have to see how Barnsley played it to see it works if you push high up the pitchWe were better when we played a back 4 against the league leaders on Tuesday, and also improved in the second half at Bristol when we went to a back 4.
Going back to a three (wherever the wing-backs are) seems like a triumph of hope over experience IMO.
Not sure that we often offer contracts of more than 2.5 years?If the club are restricting themselves to only offering contracts up until 2026 for new permanent signings, that might well mean we lose out to other clubs who offer a longer deal.
Judging from the stark change in the Rovers game, I’d say the formation had as much a part to play as bringing on pace. Playing with a back three looked uncomfortable for almost every playerUndoubtedly we were better with 4 at the back, it was simply a point that 5 at the back can easily be 3 at the back depending on how aggressive we are being.
For what it's worth, I suspect that improvements in our performances have been as much about having some pace on the pitch (Burey) as much as formations.
We'll play Smyth there instead!Can't see us playing a rush keeper.
If that was the plan, Des would have kept McGinty around!
Planning will be submitted soon. Then there will be a lot if communication on that.We need communication from the board as to why the Stadium plans haven't go in as of yet so what happens then in the summer whilst we try and recruit and only be able to give out 1 and a half to 2 Yr contracts I think we are on a sticky wicket at the minute and something has to give soon time for laurel and hardie to speak and earn thier money and speak to thier customers
In the "hear from the new man" tweet image, he looks like the bastard child of Des and HarrisShocking shout that looks more like Greg Leigh than Bennett
Agreed on the latter point - Leigh being back and Burey starting made a real difference. I think the problem with the five at the back is that the two wide players have got to be very disciplined, very fit and absolutely know their roles - or else it quite quickly can become a three in defence with two stranded up the pitch. Especially without a specialist CDM, that leaves us very exposed indeed.Undoubtedly we were better with 4 at the back, it was simply a point that 5 at the back can easily be 3 at the back depending on how aggressive we are being.
For what it's worth, I suspect that improvements in our performances have been as much about having some pace on the pitch (Burey) as much as formations.
If we play a back 5 at home to the plastics Saturday we deserve to lose.
They gave you one 23 days ago about the stadium (17 working days) and that there would be more info in "due course".We need communication from the board as to why the Stadium plans haven't go in as of yet so what happens then in the summer whilst we try and recruit and only be able to give out 1 and a half to 2 Yr contracts I think we are on a sticky wicket at the minute and something has to give soon time for laurel and hardie to speak and earn thier money and speak to thier customers
Spot onThey gave you one 23 days ago about the stadium (17 working days) and that there would be more info in "due course".
I hate the term "due course" but this isn't a mickey mouse scheme, it's not your local builder coming to assess an extension and getting the plans back in 10 days. This is a multi million pound project where the plans, designs, paperwork and submission need to be perfect. I'd much rather they took their time and gave it more of a chance of progressing further before hitting a barrier, than being chucked out early on because they rushed it and ballsed something up.
This isn't the stage of the project where we're going to get regular updates as they're writing a big plan, we'll see the final version, not the multiple drafts and tweaked versions along the way.
When there is something to be told and shown, it will be told and shown.
FWIW, Jerome indicated this week either on The Dub or during the Rovers/Pompey coverage, that he is expecting the application to go in this month.
We signed Will Goodwin who was wanted by Charlton. We signed Ruben Rodrigues in the summer who was wanted by Derby. We have just signed Owen Dale who would have been on other clubs radar.
Of course we may miss out on players for all sorts of reasons, but we also need to have financial responsibility. If the stadium isn't approved and we've saddled ourselves with huge ongoing contracts we could end up like Reading or significantly worse. Is that a price worth paying?
Isn't that what you've said for the last 4 years?Planning will be submitted soon. Then there will be a lot if communication on that.
Not sure that having to wait a little bit longer is a big deal on that one.