5 at the back?

[Flyin High 0]

I would like to know your opinions on this matter. After Drury getting injured and young Jason Shackell being given his chance, I really think he would be a good asset to the team week in week out. I would love to see us try playing a 5-4-1 formation, with the team lining up something like this:

Green
Edworthy Fleming Makay Drury
Shackell
McVeigh Holt Francis Brennan
Huckerby

One thing I’ve noticed about Shackell is, he like to get the ball forward, rather than playing it across the back line.
Just an idea, let me know your thoughts!?!

[a1canary 0]

i''ve often promoted the virtues of a 5 on this board, although maybe not quite the same shape, more 5-3-2. I was thinking more along the lines of having Shacks, Malky and Flem as centre backs and Edworthy and Brennan/Drury as wing backs with Francis Holt and McVeigh a three in the middle. Hucks then plays just off Svensson or Robbo.

[Glenn Foy 0]

I''d agree with the 5-3-2 comment, but i reckon that 5 players at the back wouldn''t work. No it wouldn''t.

[ben_elr<FONT face=Tahoma size=1><STRONG>IAN CROOK, FOREVER THE MESSIAH<STRONG><FONT> 0]

the last time i remember us playing 5 at the back was around 90-91, when stringer had just bought blades and polsten and played them both with butterworth. from what i remember, that didn''t really work.

i know that was then, but i''ve been pretty wary of 5-4-1 / 5-3-2 ever since. i think the way we play nowadays requires 4-4-2, 5 men at the back would mean a compromise either upfront or in midfield width.

i agree about shackell though, i just don''t think that at this stage of the season worthy could afford to start experimenting to that degree- who would you drop? and given the whole mckenzie-svensson involvement debate, i think it''d be a morale dumper for them if they were left out to accomodate shackell...