sidthesquid Posted 21 February, 2009 Share Posted 21 February, 2009 Just a thought but we had no natural widemen today. Personally I don't think it is too big a problem with our two good attacking fullbacks & McG & Lallana able to run at defences and Euell at CF, but we never made it to the byeline which on another day might be a problem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
70's Mike Posted 21 February, 2009 Share Posted 21 February, 2009 as we have none there is not much option Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kadeem Hardison Posted 21 February, 2009 Share Posted 21 February, 2009 alpine saint, etc? Oh, wingers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
70's Mike Posted 21 February, 2009 Share Posted 21 February, 2009 alpine saint, etc? Oh, wingers! lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidthesquid Posted 21 February, 2009 Author Share Posted 21 February, 2009 alpine saint, etc? Oh, wingers! Like it. I'm a bit concerned that our whingers are off the pace this evening Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidthesquid Posted 21 February, 2009 Author Share Posted 21 February, 2009 as we have none there is not much option That is also a valid point - BWP or Smith wouldn't have brought much to the party and MacLaggon, according to Radio Hants, is out for the season Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arizona Posted 21 February, 2009 Share Posted 21 February, 2009 I think a bit of width in midfield would be useful. Can you imagine Skacel crossing for Euell and Saga, who are both good in air. Goals in that IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy_Porter Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 Skacel and James done well today but if we're playing a team with decent wingers then we won't be able to expect much from the two full backs they will be too busy defending. I thought Surman played quite wide yesterday anyway, certainly wide enough to stretch Preston. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
70's Mike Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 I think a bit of width in midfield would be useful. Can you imagine Skacel crossing for Euell and Saga, who are both good in air. Goals in that IMO. you obviously did not see the game yesterday both Rudi and James got forward, the combination of having Surman playing left midfield with Skacel behind constantly opened the Preston defence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoccerMom Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 MacLaggon, according to Radio Hants, is out for the season No! Poor kid. I was hoping that if he wasn't being relied on in the first team so much - having brought back in Euell, Saga et al - that he would get some decent time in the reserves to develop. What's the matter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy_Porter Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 Ruptured achillies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Boy Saint Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 Listening to Saga in his post match interview it seems like the big difference despite no natural wingers was the ball being played into both his and Euells feet for a change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoccerMom Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 Ruptured achillies. B*st*rd injury. Just looked it up and one of the causes is "Abrupt changes in training, intensity, or activity level." So much for bringing on the youngsters! Wishing him a relatively speedy recovery - hopefully soon enough to be in full training over the summer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 In answer to the OP We won and scored 3 goals. So in answer NO FOOKIN WAY. We have chopped and changed the team every week and look what it got us. Sure have a wide player on the bench and if needed change things during the game, but the concept of having a settled side with players knowing what to do has become alien of late. Many have pointed out for most of this season that our fullbacks never seemed to work with the midfield players to overlap in the way that Bridge & Marsden did to such effect, yet yesterdays reports seem to suggest that both FB's got up and down the line very well and caused problems. Our "wingers" are our FB's at the moment so the system worked yesterday why oh why even consider questioing it, especially as it was so obvious even to me at the few games I have been to this last 12 months Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arizona Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 you obviously did not see the game yesterday both Rudi and James got forward' date=' the combination of having Surman playing left midfield with Skacel behind constantly opened the Preston defence[/quote'] Fair enough. I just remember the 1 1/2 games he played at left wing last season, when he was by far the best player on the pitch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derry Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 In answer to the OP We won and scored 3 goals. So in answer NO FOOKIN WAY. We have chopped and changed the team every week and look what it got us. Sure have a wide player on the bench and if needed change things during the game, but the concept of having a settled side with players knowing what to do has become alien of late. Many have pointed out for most of this season that our fullbacks never seemed to work with the midfield players to overlap in the way that Bridge & Marsden did to such effect, yet yesterdays reports seem to suggest that both FB's got up and down the line very well and caused problems. Our "wingers" are our FB's at the moment so the system worked yesterday why oh why even consider questioing it, especially as it was so obvious even to me at the few games I have been to this last 12 months The system was solid, nothing came from either full back, all our crosses were tossed in from 30yds out and easily dealt with. The three goals were shots in the middle, Surman's was a chance, Saganowski volleyed from 25 yds and ran from 10yds inside his own half to shoot through the keepers legs from 10yds. We are very vulnerable down the flanks, against a better side not lumping the ball up to Parkin leaves us exposed especially down our right. The three front midfield players in this system have to move across and give it width, none of them did it quickly enough, but Surman was the best. McGoldrick worked hard but doesn't play across the pitch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mowgli Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 In answer to the OP We won and scored 3 goals. So in answer NO FOOKIN WAY. We have chopped and changed the team every week and look what it got us. Sure have a wide player on the bench and if needed change things during the game, but the concept of having a settled side with players knowing what to do has become alien of late. Many have pointed out for most of this season that our fullbacks never seemed to work with the midfield players to overlap in the way that Bridge & Marsden did to such effect, yet yesterdays reports seem to suggest that both FB's got up and down the line very well and caused problems. Our "wingers" are our FB's at the moment so the system worked yesterday why oh why even consider questioing it, especially as it was so obvious even to me at the few games I have been to this last 12 months Thats not a bad analysis. But it could so easliy have been written by JP. He always maintained that his team line up featured no full backs as such and he stuck to that pattern irrespective of the opposition beleiving (not unreasonably) that if we had possession, the 4-5-1 quickly became 4-3-3 (or even 3-4-3). I think the idea was good but even early on one or two players were expressing the view that we needed a plan B when the style did not work. I think the chopping and changing came about from trying to find the right combination of youth and experience at a time when individual performances were far from consistent. I don't think we changed our style of play and maybe that was his (JPs) downfall. So whilst I'm happy with the result yesterday - against other teams I would expect to see width coming from Holmes and Smith. But yes, I too long for the days when defenders and wide midfielders overlap like Marsden and Bridge used to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
70's Mike Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 Fair enough. I just remember the 1 1/2 games he played at left wing last season, when he was by far the best player on the pitch. no problem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonbenali Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 We may not have had 'natural' wingers, but the difference was that Surman and Lallana kept their discipline and kept wide giving us plenty of width. Did the trick, especially with the full backs overlapping in addition. Sounds like clear instructions from the manager for once... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derry Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 We may not have had 'natural' wingers, but the difference was that Surman and Lallana kept their discipline and kept wide giving us plenty of width. Did the trick, especially with the full backs overlapping in addition. Sounds like clear instructions from the manager for once... Surman played slightly wide, Lallana not at all. The formation was a narrow midfield diamond and as a matter of fact Lallana was instructed not to play wide. The team played with practically no width at all. Yes the play did at times go wide but at that point there was no width as such as the defence had moved across. The width had in fact been created on the other unoccupied flank but was not used. Width is when both touchlines are occupied simultaneously and the defence is stretched or outflanked on the wide side. We never do this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Saint Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 Surman played slightly wide, Lallana not at all. The formation was a narrow midfield diamond and as a matter of fact Lallana was instructed not to play wide. The team played with practically no width at all. Yes the play did at times go wide but at that point there was no width as such as the defence had moved across. The width had in fact been created on the other unoccupied flank but was not used. Width is when both touchlines are occupied simultaneously and the defence is stretched or outflanked on the wide side. We never do this.Actually Lallana was not asked to play wide rather than being instructed not to play wide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david in sweden Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 Just a thought but we had no natural widemen today. Personally I don't think it is too big a problem with our two good attacking fullbacks & McG & Lallana able to run at defences and Euell at CF, but we never made it to the byeline which on another day might be a problem ....seems like James and Skacel are set for the role of attacking full backs, that's the next best thing in our present situation. Good wingers........? sorry, Terry Paine retired years ago ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david in sweden Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 Just a thought but we had no natural widemen today. Personally I don't think it is too big a problem with our two good attacking fullbacks & McG & Lallana able to run at defences and Euell at CF, but we never made it to the byeline which on another day might be a problem ....seems like James and Skacel are set for the role of attacking full backs, that's the next best thing in our present situation. Good wingers........? sorry, Terry Paine retired years ago ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derry Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 Actually Lallana was not asked to play wide rather than being instructed not to play wide. As his natural game is not to play wide, you're right. He would have to have been told to stay wide otherwise he would have played as he did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now