why no aiden

the 4-4-1-1 with 2 of the three wee ball players wide and one just behind Skippy was my 'dream team' out of the players we have but is that not the formation we played in the 1st OF game and got a right tanking? Also add Crosas and Hartley and that would be one of the shortest teams that we could put together.

 

Yeah, they did make a cross from the left when they scored, so it was Hinkel's area to cover, but... Nevermind, he's one of the most consistent players at the club.

 

I think OD has shown himself to be a really good defensive LB (more convincing than he is as a CH IMO) and I was glad he started yesterday but I think his attacking limitations were visible when we desperately needed all out attack in the 2nd half. The narrow 4-4-2 formation we play needs attacking FBs or we lack width. Its terribly difficult to find players who can defend really stoutly and also act as flying wing backs. I think Hinkel comes close on the other side but he is not perfect (although we wont do better).

 

And the solution is... Another LB! We need someone who plays similar to Hinkel, but on the left side of the pitch. We've been linked with many left backs, but none of them suits us.

 

I can't remember if JVOH was the one up front in that game ?

But I do have concerns about us being a bit lightweight in the middle with Naka/McGeady/Maloney in the line up. Perhaps Hartley and Robson would be better sitting ?

I also feel if we go for the 'dream team' the FB's don't need to bomb on as much as we have enough creativity on the pitch to allow them to focus on defending.

 

If you're referring to the 4-2 match in August, he was subbed on in the 2nd half and then sent off a few minutes later.

 

I agree that is the advantage of that formation. There is something flimsy about a midfield 4 with 2 wee wide ball players. However, a lot of fans seem unhappy with the idea of a dominant team going one up front and having wingers but just a wee guy up front may not be the best idea.

 

But a team with Skippy, Naka, McGeady and Maloney isn't a 'negative' team, for me it's a very positive footballing team.

I also feel we play Naka and mcgeady on the wrong fecking wings.

We NEVER get to the bye line and put over dangerous cut backs (and we don't need a big CF to put them away) we seem to cross from too far out imo and never really turn the opposition back towards their own goal.

At home I'd go 4-4-2, but away from home or even in some home European games I'd like to see us utilise the three best players in the country (McGeady, Naka, Maloney) to the max.

 

Cheers Minty

 

The switched wingers thing is all down to Naka. He has no pace and cannot regularly go on the outside. Its a common tactic to put a slow player who is not defensive enough for CM on the 'wrong side' Even Stoichcov played that way. Its the only way to play that sort of player in a 4-4-2. I think he looks better on the wrong side but I think it disadvantages McGeady. Not sure about Maloney. I think the wrong side suits him too. Next year I expect McGeady on the right and Maloney on the left if Naka goes. I agree its a big problem crossing from too deep and never hitting the byline. JVOH is almost useless with deep crosses.

Personally I would play the 4-4-1-1 dream team simply because there is only one good striker at the club.

 

We agree !

 

McGeady is pish at Ibrox and pish on a bad pitch.

 

You will find alot of players are pish on a bad pitch.

 

The 'only one good stiker at the club' though IMO is not WGS's fault. We are trying to squeeze a year too much our of Jan. He was a good player but hes done. Sammy was a cheapo gamble that looked to have paid off early in the season but its not looking good now. There is simply no way the manager would have been happy with just 3 strikers and I am fairly sure this is down to deals falling through due to not being willing to pay the going rate in wages. Seems the last 2 windows were especially bad for that. I think Lawell is starting to believe his own myth and being too hardball.

 

and the pitches have been especially bad in the last 2 seasons. If a club cant maintain a rectangle of grass in reasonable nick they should be deducted points IMO

 

For me, Playing O'Dea and Maloney was the problem.

Maloney wasnt match fit and he didnt track back enough and O'Dea, said this before, is too * slow for a full back in this system.

You need a fast FB that gets up and down the wing to draw space for the winger to create havoc. Even Paul Telfer would do a better job at LB than O'Dea.

Dailly was made look like Sergio Ramos because those two clowns couldnt do either of their jobs right and ultimately, it's how Davis scored.

Defending 101 - Which side of the attacker should you be...

 

I don't think deals have fallen through as frequently as we've ben led to believe. Instead I think Lawell just takes us all for mugs. For me the board have gambled on spending the bare minimum to keep ahead of Rangers so that the annual reports make them look good.

I wonder if the board's bonuses are related to the profitability of the business.

 

Profitability of the club is directly related to league success because of the UCL. Epic Fail for everyone if the league isnt won so this ideology that the board is skimping now to get bonuses this year is very short-sighted considering that they all get better paid for league position regardless of expenditure

 

Profitability of the club is directly linked to not spending money which the board think we can get way without spending.

 

Would you get more or less profit from winning leagues and securing UCL group matches. No UCL and you are automatically looking at deficit no matter how much penny pinching is done.