Sacrifice one of our centre backs..

[TerryPHELAN]

..for an offensive player. We’ve got so much of an attacking threat now, surely we should sacrifice one of our calamitous centre backs for the likes of Cullen or Ginnelly. The players at our disposal would certainly suit a 4,3,3

 

[bakajack]

..for an offensive player. We’ve got so much of an attacking threat now, surely we should sacrifice one of our calamitous centre backs for the likes of Cullen or Ginnelly. The players at our disposal would certainly suit a 4,3,3

Key and Ashby play so high up the pitch you can already realistically call our formation a 3-5-2 or even a 3-3-4 at times.
If you sacrifice a defender then you would have to expect Key and Ashby and Abdulai to play more as conventional full backs and attack less often than they currently do.

 

[Manselton Jack]

..for an offensive player. We’ve got so much of an attacking threat now, surely we should sacrifice one of our calamitous centre backs for the likes of Cullen or Ginnelly. The players at our disposal would certainly suit a 4,3,3

Calamitous, really??

 

[TerryPHELAN]

Calamitous, really??

After going to West Brom yesterday and watching them three in action, I’m not going to change my opinion.
Yes, we were a threat at set pieces, but none can do the basics of defending and passing out from the back

 

[Whaleoilbeefhooked]

Which donkey would you drop?

 

[Captain_Sham]

Seems bit extreme to jump in with a human sacrifice, maybe we should try a small animal first?

 

[Neath_Jack]

None of our CB's a much cop, and they get exposed something terribly in this system, as they did last season.

They are much better in a traditional back four, and as I've said since the friendly games, get shot of ne of them and play an extra midfielder.

I'm hoping that Duff will see this sooner rather than later.

 

[Andrew - North Hill]

Doesn't matter whether we play 3 centre backs or 2, if Duff can't get his messages across to the players - and on the evidence of pre-season and the two league games so far, he's really struggling to do that at the moment - it's a moot point.

The three goals we conceded yesterday had nothing to do with formation, it was down to poor (and in the case of Darling, stupid) decision making and not being aggressive enough in defending aerial balls into our penalty area.

3 or 2 is not the answer to basics like that.

 

[jasper_T]

Doesn't matter whether we play 3 centre backs or 2, if Duff can't get his messages across to the players - and on the evidence of pre-season and the two league games so far, he's really struggling to do that at the moment - it's a moot point.

The three goals we conceded yesterday had nothing to do with formation, it was down to poor (and in the case of Darling, stupid) decision making and not being aggressive enough in defending aerial balls into our penalty area.

3 or 2 is not the answer to basics like that.

Sometimes the message the manager is trying to get across is a dud. See Russell Martin's first 18 months. There will always be things you can't control, that's no reason to ignore obvious issues that you can.

 

[Neath_Jack]

Doesn't matter whether we play 3 centre backs or 2, if Duff can't get his messages across to the players - and on the evidence of pre-season and the two league games so far, he's really struggling to do that at the moment - it's a moot point.

The three goals we conceded yesterday had nothing to do with formation, it was down to poor (and in the case of Darling, stupid) decision making and not being aggressive enough in defending aerial balls into our penalty area.

3 or 2 is not the answer to basics like that.

It matters massively, see what happened last season when we played a traditional back four, our CB's wee very good. That isn't an opinion, it is factual as was evidenced in the change of results.

There was an extra body in the midfield, which meant they weren't getting exposed all over the shop.

 

[JackSomething]

- After a season in charge, Martin clearly wanted to persist with 3 at the back and (correctly) identified we needed to sign some players to make that work.
- Presumably he asked the club to make Darling the priority signing as he worked with him before and knew all about his strengths and weaknesses.
- We make Darling our marquee signing of last summer at significant expense.
- Darling looks terrible in a back 3.
- WTF?

 

[Nocountryforoldjack]

- After a season in charge, Martin clearly wanted to persist with 3 at the back and (correctly) identified we needed to sign some players to make that work.
- Presumably he asked the club to make Darling the priority signing as he worked with him before and knew all about his strengths and weaknesses.
- We make Darling our marquee signing of last summer at significant expense.
- Darling looks terrible in a back 3.
- WTF?

Is that a sly dig at our ex manager totally agree by the way.

 

[TerryPHELAN]

None of our CB's a much cop, and they get exposed something terribly in this system, as they did last season.

They are much better in a traditional back four, and as I've said since the friendly games, get shot of ne of them and play an extra midfielder.

I'm hoping that Duff will see this sooner rather than later.

All day long. We’ve now got more of an attacking threat from midfield/ attackers than from our wing backs.

 

[JackSomething]

It's that a sly dig at our ex manager totally agree by the way.

I didn't even think it was particularly sly!

Blame goes to the recruitment team as well mind, unless there was plenty of evidence he was good in a three at MK Dons and has regressed badly here. Either way, we signed 2 central defenders last summer to play in a three and we're still a shambles at the back.

 

[Andrew - North Hill]

It matters massively, see what happened last season when we played a traditional back four, our CB's wee very good. That isn't an opinion, it is factual as was evidenced in the change of results.

There was an extra body in the midfield, which meant they weren't getting exposed all over the shop.

There was improvement last season with a 4 in terms of protection, sure, and I personally prefer a 4. But again I come back to it, I don't care whether you have a 3 or a 4 there yesterday, individuals not doing their job properly caused all three goals. That's nothing to do with formation whatsoever.

I just don't think we have very good individual defenders. Best of a bad bunch is Wood, he's ok. But Darling and Cabango are awful: error prone, and get bullied physically far too often to my taste. And Naughton is shot.

We need that boy in from Chelsea pronto. It wouldn't surprise me if Duff wants another one in after that as well.

One of the great things about the 2011 side was as well as being able to play football, Monk and Williams could defend like lions. We need defenders like that. Especially in this league.