|
Post by gladstoneparkranger on Sept 24, 2016 23:46:33 GMT
Think with our centre mids being so strong and got legs that Polter would flourish with someone beside him and the pole and Washington on the wings! .. Thought defence was sorted when I watched Leeds game but that's another discussion but do like hearing "Kakay" think that's his name is progressing well .
|
|
|
Post by sharky on Sept 25, 2016 1:45:50 GMT
Think with our centre mids being so strong and got legs that Polter would flourish with someone beside him and the pole and Washington on the wings! .. Thought defence was sorted when I watched Leeds game but that's another discussion but do like hearing "Kakay" think that's his name is progressing well . Like Austin and Zamora? Who would you drop?
|
|
|
Post by gladstoneparkranger on Sept 25, 2016 8:22:45 GMT
The obvious one and not popular choice Chery! ... He can play other positions but if he only plays 10 then we can't change.
|
|
|
Post by Marc on Sept 25, 2016 9:22:25 GMT
The obvious one and not popular choice Chery! ... He can play other positions but if he only plays 10 then we can't change. And that's the problem. 4-4-2 is most effective with out and out wingers which Chery isn't so we'd have to drop our most creative player.
|
|
|
Post by Lonegunmen on Sept 26, 2016 5:34:23 GMT
the way Chery is playing, why not try him up front with Poulter? I reckon he could do an "Adel" and score heaps.
|
|
|
Post by Marc on Sept 26, 2016 10:17:25 GMT
Because playing players out of position always works well, doesn't it?
|
|
|
Post by Ashdown_Ranger on Sept 26, 2016 11:35:14 GMT
I think 4-4-2 is fine, on occasion, if used as part of a range of tactical formations.
It depends on who we're playing, where (home/away), who's fit/available and even who's in form.
The game has become so 'sophisticated' these days, getting minutely analysed on post-match video and the trackers all players wear now.
Not sure if that's progress - technologically it is of course, but is the game any better because of it?
I'm not convinced.
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Sept 27, 2016 9:13:05 GMT
I think 4-4-2 is fine, on occasion, if used as part of a range of tactical formations.
It depends on who we're playing, where (home/away), who's fit/available and even who's in form.The game has become so 'sophisticated' these days, getting minutely analysed on post-match video and the trackers all players wear now. Not sure if that's progress - technologically it is of course, but is the game any better because of it? I'm not convinced. For sure - I don't think 4-4-2 is our best system to start games with but it could come in handy. Like in the Birmingham game, I don't think Sylla and Polter up front as a two towards the end of the game was when we necessarily looked our most dangerous, but I can imagine that being a decent switch to make towards the end of games, particularly if we're chasing a lead away from home and especially if Wszołek keeps up the decent crosses. Over longer periods, I think our creativity would suffer and whilst I don't think we should lump so much pressure on Chery in terms of building a team around him, I'd also prefer to see him in that number 10 slot more often than not. But in the last ten minutes of the game, getting dangerous balls into the box with strong, instinctive players like Polter and Sylla could really rattle teams, particularly if they've sat deep. It could be crap, but I'd still love to see a 4-2-3-1 with either Polter or Sylla up top and a 3 behind of Washington (left) Chery (#10) and Wszołek (right).
|
|