Big Col Posted October 16, 2016 Report Share Posted October 16, 2016 You do realise that 442 is a more rigid formation, and it could be argued, offers less players going forward, right? 4231 means we have 4 attack minded players who can rotate position. It offers more freedom to attack and allows players to exploit space. 442 is rigid and is easier to defend against, defenders know their jobs and its easy to nulify. Doesnt allow for your wingers to play as strikers. And probably eliminates a lot of their goal threat as they are more focussed on getting down the wing and crossing. Its a proven fact, goals dont come from crosses. They arent some pot of gold. By crossing the ball you are creating a 50/50 chance for the opposition to retain possesion. Infact in it probably favours the defenders more. Added to that, you are putting the ball in the air for the keeper to catch. Not if the cross is good enough, or is a cut back along the ground. 2 up front gives a better chance to retain the ball when it is cleared upfield. As witnessed yesterday in second half, the ball being booted upfield where Doolan/Azeez were all alone with 3 Hamilton defenders . No chance of keeping the ball allowing other players time to arrive and support and create something. 4231 too defensive for my liking. But you've made up your mind that's the best so fair play to you. I disagree, but if we all had the same opinions the world would be awfully boring. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonehJags Posted October 16, 2016 Report Share Posted October 16, 2016 PT, im afraid you are talking nonsense. Its maybe a proven fact that we don't score from crosses. One reason for this is usually we only have one player in the box at any one time. As for 2 DM's, we have 2 players wanting to do the same thing, we need another player to support the attack. We invite pressure onto us as we tend to sit too deep. I would agree with an earlier post that we are too negative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
potty trained Posted October 16, 2016 Report Share Posted October 16, 2016 1) Scott McDonald and Solomon Coulibaly, two of the smallest attackers in the top league disprove that 2) As above. How many of their goals come from crosses? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Col Posted October 16, 2016 Report Share Posted October 16, 2016 Our 2nd goal yesterday came from a cross. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
potty trained Posted October 16, 2016 Report Share Posted October 16, 2016 (edited) We dont have two DMs who want to do exactly the same thing. Folk realise that crosses into the box come from overlapping full backs in a 4231. Its not as if that aspect of the game disappears with 4231. Edited October 16, 2016 by potty trained Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
potty trained Posted October 16, 2016 Report Share Posted October 16, 2016 Our 2nd goal yesterday came from a cross. A set piece which had all our tall players in the box at the one time? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
potty trained Posted October 16, 2016 Report Share Posted October 16, 2016 PT, im afraid you are talking nonsense. Its maybe a proven fact that we don't score from crosses. One reason for this is usually we only have one player in the box at any one time. As for 2 DM's, we have 2 players wanting to do the same thing, we need another player to support the attack. We invite pressure onto us as we tend to sit too deep. I would agree with an earlier post that we are too negative. So, going 442, pushing Barton and Osman 15 yards up the park and bringing Erskine and Lawless back in line with them? That would stop us being negative and inviting pressure onto us? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lindau Posted October 16, 2016 Report Share Posted October 16, 2016 (edited) How many of their goals come from crosses? Ain't got a scooby, all I am concerned about is that two of the smallest strikers in the top league seemingly had no difficulty in scoring from crosses in two of our last few games Edited October 16, 2016 by Lindau Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
potty trained Posted October 16, 2016 Report Share Posted October 16, 2016 Ain't got a scooby, all I am concerned about is that two of the smallest strikers in the top league seemingly had no difficulty in scoring from crosses in our two last home games So youre point is regards our frailty rather than extolling the virtues of playing with wingers to cross. Sorry for misundetstanding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lady-isobel-barnett Posted October 16, 2016 Report Share Posted October 16, 2016 (edited) Playing "one up" or "two up" is not the difference between playing defensive football and attacking football. Neither is playing "two up" necessarily a more attacking option. The most attacking Jags side I've seen in decades (and most successful) played with "one up" whilst I've seen us introduce "two up" as a defensive ploy to see a game out (the much clichéd two banks of four). What decides attacking and defensive sides is simply the choice of player. Spain and Craig Levein's infamous team in Prague both played with no strikers. What we really miss just now is a Dumbuya/SOD right back that allows the wide midfielder to get into scoring positions more often. With just Booth supplying a wide option from the back it's not enough. Playing with two defensive mids just now, while we play an orthodox right back, is more akin to defensive mindedness than the number of strikers. As previously pointed out that's possibly dictated to by our problem in central defence. Edited October 16, 2016 by lady-isobel-barnett 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
potty trained Posted October 16, 2016 Report Share Posted October 16, 2016 Out of likes LIB. Well put. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Col Posted October 16, 2016 Report Share Posted October 16, 2016 So, going 442, pushing Barton and Osman 15 yards up the park and bringing Erskine and Lawless back in line with them? That would stop us being negative and inviting pressure onto us? You're assuming that they would be the midfield that wouldn't be my choice. Just like in an earlier post, you implied that Edwards would be a regular starter. Other than the goal, what was his contribution yesterday? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Col Posted October 16, 2016 Report Share Posted October 16, 2016 A set piece which had all our tall players in the box at the one time? And? The goal still came from a cross. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lindau Posted October 16, 2016 Report Share Posted October 16, 2016 So youre point is regards our frailty rather than extolling the virtues of playing with wingers to cross. Sorry for misundetstanding. Very much so. That defence scares the shit out of me. I know we have achieved one in the league this year, but for the life of me I just can't see where the next clean sheet is coming from Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Col Posted October 16, 2016 Report Share Posted October 16, 2016 We dont have two DMs who want to do exactly the same thing. You're right. One passes sideways and the other goes backwards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
potty trained Posted October 16, 2016 Report Share Posted October 16, 2016 Who would be your starting 2 in the middle of the park? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonehJags Posted October 16, 2016 Report Share Posted October 16, 2016 Scully Christie Gordon Lindsay Devine Booth Amoo Edwards Lawless Doolan Erskine or Scully Christie Lindsay Devine Booth Osman Amoo Edwards Lawless Erskine Doolan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
potty trained Posted October 16, 2016 Report Share Posted October 16, 2016 Monejags... Whilst im quite sure formation 1 would ve a good laugh. Peoples careers and our premier survival are at stake. Formation 2 youd sacrifice the DM with vision for a pass and therefore ability to start an attack, in favour of playing Erskine as a striker? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gnome on the Bing Posted October 16, 2016 Report Share Posted October 16, 2016 Scully Christie Gordon Lindsay Devine Booth Amoo Edwards Lawless Doolan Erskine or Scully Christie Lindsay Devine Booth Osman Amoo Edwards Lawless Erskine Doolan But Erskine isn't a striker who plays with his back to goal. He's best when picking up he ball in the no.10 position and running at the defence or picking out a pass. Why would we play one of our best players out of position? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
potty trained Posted October 16, 2016 Report Share Posted October 16, 2016 And? The goal still came from a cross. Are you just trolling? This post above and your rediculously childish response to the passing ability would suggest you are. And infact know very little about football. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancipital Posted October 16, 2016 Report Share Posted October 16, 2016 If we were going 3-5-2 (or 3-4-1-2), for me it would be Keeper Elliot Gordon/ Devine Barton Lindsay Booth Osman Edwards Erskine Doolan Azeez One issue is we've no-one to bring on up front apart from maybe Amoo but I don't think he'd work there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lindau Posted October 16, 2016 Report Share Posted October 16, 2016 (edited) The lack of goals from our strikers or indeed the fact that neither of our recognised strikers have scored a league goal this season is a worry, but there are goals in this team. First priority must be to sort the central defence out. Keeping clean sheets mean we we only need to take one chance in any game. At this point in time I will take ten scrappy 1-0 victories where we played like shit over 10 games where we went for it but got beat 4-3! Edited October 16, 2016 by Lindau Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaggernaut Posted October 16, 2016 Report Share Posted October 16, 2016 I'm genuinely worried about what the Parkhead mob might do to our defence when the time comes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lady-isobel-barnett Posted October 16, 2016 Report Share Posted October 16, 2016 Scully Christie Gordon Lindsay Devine Booth Amoo Edwards Lawless Doolan Erskine Don't really agree with line up but you've indicated something I've long said. Playing three at the back is not necessarily defensive. I think tho' it's fair to say that going to a three at the back is a negative move in so much as we'd be doing it purely because of our current frailty in defence. To be more positive you really need one of the centrebacks being able to come out in attack. Barton if what we're led to believe is correct should be that player. Kinda like Shaggy in Lambie's last season (Craigan/Paterson/Whyte). Otherwise you end up with the McCall version (Robertson/Archie/Maxwell) or last season's daftness at Tannadice (Frans/Seaborne/Lindsay) where no one got forward. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Col Posted October 16, 2016 Report Share Posted October 16, 2016 (edited) Are you just trolling? This post above and your rediculously childish response to the passing ability would suggest you are. And infact know very little about football. That's it - resort to insults when you don't have any decent comeback or can't accept that someone else might be right or have a different opinion. Go on - keep biting. You know you want to. Edited October 16, 2016 by Big Col 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.