Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


Community Reputation

0 Neutral
  1. It seems to me that we should really look at this formation. In my opinion it solves a few issues we have all noticed which are as follows: our lack of quality or depth at wingback, the fact we try to play a possession based game, and finally that our forward players tend to work much more effectively if they are partnered with a second striker/number 10 positioned player. Furthermore, we have good central defenders who can play the ball out from the back. Martin and Bassong (if he''s up for it) have composure and can make driving runs. We can sidestep the issue of the fullback position being suspect for us and targeted by opponents. Whittaker is inconsistent at best especially when backtracking, and Russ has stated it''s not his preferred position and perhaps he lacks the pace to track opposing wingers. Instead we can look to play wing backs who are encouraged to get forward. We have a natural left-sided wingback in Olsson and on the right we could perhaps play Whittaker when we need to contain and Elliott Bennet or even Redmond there when we are looking to chase a game or dominate the opposition. This then allows our midfield to rotate and be adaptable. Perhaps Howson, Tettey and Johnson would be the most used combination with Howson pushing up more. But also with VOO or O''Neil dropping in as required. I really feel that we struggle with one up top, and I suppose the main point of a 3-5-2 is that it maintains midfield dominance with the opportunity to have another player up top (as opposed to a 4-5-1). Of course the burden of the formation is on the wingbacks to make the running, to fill in defensively but also to provide the width for crosses going forwards. As our fullbacks (as they are usually positioned) are arguably better going forwards I feel that with good selection for the match and coaching they could adapt well to this formation. As for the strikers we can afford again to be situational in the selection. We can play Hoops/Jerome (little man/big man) or Wes or Redmond with Hoops (creator/finisher) or drop Lafferty in to add more physical presence. Maybe this is a terrible idea, and ManUre haven''t exactly taken to the formation that smoothly or effectively, but given the qualities and weaknesses within our squad I''m tempted to think it might be really effective and allow us to play possession-based and progressive football. Your thoughts please.
  2. Yes, the midfield looks good to me considering who we have available. Defence and that strike force still to convince. For me Jerome is surprisingly bad at holding up the play - I''d rather that we tried Lafferty up top in that role, Jerome is a problem for us - I know he''s been scoring and is hard to ignore, but I think his inclusion is making Adams blind to the balance of the team.
  3. I would play no strikers and go something like Ruddy Martin Bennett Turner Olsson Tettey Johnson Redmond Howson Fer Snodgrass
  4. 8th in premier league according to this table http://www.fanatix.com/news/premier-league-table-by-net-spend-201314-chelsea-and-manchester-city-spend-big/146200/
  5. http://www.footytube.com/video/portland-timbers-vs-norwich-city-fc-8-pm-pst-187295 seems to be...
  6. the one change that brave hughton made....back to where we were last week.
  7. Bah, I hate this, Hughton can be really reactionary and cautious in his substitutions. I like the guy, but really think that he needs to understand that in these sort of games it''s advantageous to press you advantage with subs, rather than wait for panic-induced late throws of the dice.
  8. Yep, Bennett off, the yellow gives another reason. Want to see Holt on, let''s make an early and positive change for once.
  • Create New...