Osei Yaw
Well-known member
- Joined
- 14 Dec 2017
- Messages
- 2,339
I feel like we should do though, just to push the price up for Blackpool.I don't think we're putting up much chase there.
I feel like we should do though, just to push the price up for Blackpool.I don't think we're putting up much chase there.
3.1415926535….. ?It'll be a picture of a pie.
3.1415926535….. ?
The EFL rules don't actually seem to specify in the version I've read. The EPL certainly limit to 1-99I presume the unbelievably unimaginative EFL will only allow positive integers below a certain value (100?) on shirts...
Too late, the ex Norwich striker has signed for Minnesota in the Major league. Would have been handy though!!Pukka.
Too late, the ex Norwich striker has signed for Minnesota in the Major league. Would have been handy though!!
Probably wants a squad that can play both formations. Smart strategist !Manning managed MK against us three times. Below is how he set up in all three:
View attachment 15271View attachment 15272
View attachment 15273
I think he’s played the cards he has been dealt thus far, including a back four, because it has worked best for what he has defensively. He’s still changing the squad makeup and has been trying to get a left back in who has more attacking potential for months. I suspect that as he evolves the squad he will mix things up more, and have a second formation that is drilled into them as the 4231 has been.
The only real point I was making is that a 343 can accommodate both wingers and 10s depending how wide you want to push people, so the squad he currently has is perfectly suitable in an attacking sense and nobody would become redundant. It wouldn’t need to spell the end for wingers or 10s respectively.
I’m not sure it does suit 3 at the back better personally. It might suit our defensive players more, but you either have to play 2 up top on which case Goodrham, Mills, Boden & Rodrigues don’t fit that well. Or 3 up top and sacrifice a number 10 in Boden or Rodrigues. Personally I’d stick with a 4. I’d rather see Long, Brown, Leigh or Stevens on the bench than any of those attacking players listed above.We'll see and I'm not arguing with recent results but if we get Leigh I think our squad suits 3 at the back better. I don't like to keep going on about it but both our full backs currently are limited on the ball so we gain an extra ball player with Leigh and Stevens playing wingbacks without sacrificing our defensive solidity. I think it's a no brainer myself.
The whole EFL?Stuck behind Leif Davis at Ipswich - Arguably the best left back in the EFL.
It all depends how they play. If we play 343, it’s highly unlikely that two players will share the width. The more likely scenario is the wing backs will go high and wide and the two wide forwards would create a sort of box midfield which, if thought about, suits Rodrigues, Goodrham and Bodin perfectly. And they’re not alone.I’m not sure it does suit 3 at the back better personally. It might suit our defensive players more, but you either have to play 2 up top on which case Goodrham, Mills, Boden & Rodrigues don’t fit that well. Or 3 up top and sacrifice a number 10 in Boden or Rodrigues. Personally I’d stick with a 4. I’d rather see Long, Brown, Leigh or Stevens on the bench than any of those attacking players listed above.
I’d say so. Top 3 at least.The whole EFL?
Oh yeah I misread I thought they meant LeighI’d say so. Top 3 at least.
Fair point and yeah, I can see what you’re describing and it could be effective. Nice to have some options I guess!It all depends how they play. If we play 343, it’s highly unlikely that two players will share the width. The more likely scenario is the wing backs will go high and wide and the two wide forwards would create a sort of box midfield which, if thought about, suits Rodrigues, Goodrham and Bodin perfectly. And they’re not alone.
Brown, Moore, Stevens, & Leigh would all find themselves in positions they’re (more) suited to while pick any of our central midfield combinations, none of them are purist CDM types and would benefit from the insurance policy of a third centre back.
The player likely to fall victim to the change is Sam Long who, for all his effort, is not blessed with the technical ability required and hardly a major sacrifice to the team’s overall capability. He would take up the role of RCB cover or indeed first choice right back should we need a back 4.
We have good options to change all of the above if it isn’t working but as a starting point, I think there’s a strong argument to say our squad has been heading in this direction for a while.
Stevens has not come here to play deputy to a sub-standard L1 full back on Brentford’s watch while Greg Leigh is seemingly highly regarded and with patience might’ve got himself a championship move - he will be a regular. Can’t see Brown being dropped either so that points towards a possible system change somewhere down the track.
Assuming Harris is playing through the middle then we can either play wingers like Mills and Browne or number 10 types like Bodin and Rodrigues. There's no rule that we can't play a proper touchline hugging winger on one side and someone playing more central on the other with that wingback providing the width.I’m not sure it does suit 3 at the back better personally. It might suit our defensive players more, but you either have to play 2 up top on which case Goodrham, Mills, Boden & Rodrigues don’t fit that well. Or 3 up top and sacrifice a number 10 in Boden or Rodrigues. Personally I’d stick with a 4. I’d rather see Long, Brown, Leigh or Stevens on the bench than any of those attacking players listed above.
Not sure it could have gone better in that scenarioIf the club ended the window by signing Leigh, Kanu and Marriott (or a more experienced striker of his calibre), what would you rate the window out of 10? Surely on the face of it, it would be one of our best windows in a while.