4-5-1..... Really???? (1 Viewer)

motherfunky · Apr 20, 2013

How many times we going to play this.... It just doesn't work and its easy for the opposition. The poor lads he puts up front have an uphill task making they're debuts, but up front on their own with no support whatsoever....... Are

motherfunky · Apr 20, 2013

..... Pressed enter by mistake.... Are we going to get any better under Pressley????

Nick · Apr 20, 2013

People just say that is how Robins played as a response....

Sutty · Apr 20, 2013

Why was 4-5-1 not an issue with Robins, and why is it an issue now? The formation was not the issue today. We were just as poor in the final third when we brought on McDonald and Wilson as we had been previously.

I've never seen such a widespread desire to get rid of a manager after 9 games before. It's crazy.

Everything he says in the media is about a long-term plan. That's what needed to get us out of a mess that's resulted from long-term mismanagement. How can we bring in a long-term plan if we want to get rid of managers after a couple of months? Is that what we want? More quick fixes?

He may be the right man, he may not be. But I really see no way he can be fully judged considering the whole situation at the club.

Nick · Apr 20, 2013

Sutty said:
Why was 4-5-1 not an issue with Robins, and why is it an issue now?

Different players probably suited it better then?

Macca · Apr 20, 2013

We are a tub pot league one outfit. The manager fits the job. Who else do you think will come here

Nick · Apr 20, 2013

Macca said:
We are a tub pot league one outfit. The manager fits the job. Who else do you think will come here

People used that as a reason not to get rid of Thorn that nobody else would come here...

stupot07 · Apr 20, 2013

Robins played it with a more direct style, and he had mcgoldrick for most of his time here. Also it worked away but not at home for robins. Watching Cardiff at lunch time, they play 451 but play direct and work off the striker.

To work it needs the right players with the right attributes playing in the right roles....sorry that sounds like im stating the obvious.

Nick · Apr 20, 2013

stupot07 said:
To work it needs the right players with the right attributes playing in the right roles....sorry that sounds like im stating the obvious.

Perfect sense, you can only play to the players strengths and if they don't suit the style then find a style that works or get players to suit the style which is why it will be interesting to see if Pressley brings anybody in.

stupot07 · Apr 20, 2013

Nick said:
Perfect sense, you can only play to the players strengths and if they don't suit the style then find a style that works or get players to suit the style which is why it will be interesting to see if Pressley brings anybody in.

Definitely, he said he wants to trim the squad down from 34 to 24 and shake up the squad, to do this he'll need to offload around 18-20 players, and bring in 8-10.

Nick · Apr 20, 2013

The real test will be if he does bring in players that suit the style, by Christmas if he had the chance to bring in players and it still looks as hopeless then is that long enough? When people say long term it is ok saying it if the right things are happening, if you are constantly doing something wrong then no matter how long you leave it it won't get any better...

motherfunky · Apr 20, 2013

Exactly, he can't motivate. Also when robins was here we had a good fitness coach, we look just as bad as we did before robins came. You can not play 1 up top with no support.

stupot07 · Apr 20, 2013

Nick said:
The real test will be if he does bring in players that suit the style, by Christmas if he had the chance to bring in players and it still looks as hopeless then is that long enough? When people say long term it is ok saying it if the right things are happening, if you are constantly doing something wrong then no matter how long you leave it it won't get any better...

It sounded like a 2-3 year plan to really bring the academy and first team together. We probably won't get promoted next season.

Sutty · Apr 20, 2013

Nick said:
The real test will be if he does bring in players that suit the style, by Christmas if he had the chance to bring in players and it still looks as hopeless then is that long enough? When people say long term it is ok saying it if the right things are happening, if you are constantly doing something wrong then no matter how long you leave it it won't get any better...

Agreed. But he's had no chance to shape a squad yet.

He's essentially using the last few games of the season as pre-season friendlies, seeing how certain players perform in the style he wants. If they don't suit it, and it's clear that some don't, he can remove them and replace with his own choices.

I just don't see the logic in demanding a manager to implement a quick fix, we have to look at the future as well.

psgm1 · Apr 20, 2013

Sutty said:
Why was 4-5-1 not an issue with Robins, and why is it an issue now? The formation was not the issue today. We were just as poor in the final third when we brought on McDonald and Wilson as we had been previously.

I've never seen such a widespread desire to get rid of a manager after 9 games before. It's crazy.

Everything he says in the media is about a long-term plan. That's what needed to get us out of a mess that's resulted from long-term mismanagement. How can we bring in a long-term plan if we want to get rid of managers after a couple of months? Is that what we want? More quick fixes?

He may be the right man, he may not be. But I really see no way he can be fully judged considering the whole situation at the club.

It's quite simple really for all the hype, Robins was incredibly lucky!!! He had the option of McGoldrick, who not only could find the back of the net, but set up opportunities for the other players.

Proof if ever were needed is the dramatic drop in goalscoring by Baker. There simply is no denying it we have McGoldrick ALONE to thank for survivng this season! And the scum buckets sisu have removed the option of voting for him as player of the season!

Nonleagueherewecome · Apr 20, 2013

Nick said:
Different players probably suited it better then?

We can't play it without a quality striker, a Clarke or McGoldrick. Wilson can't really hold it up, McDonald can't play there on his own, Ball can but is terrible, Philliskirk looks like a midfielder playing up front.

skyblue1523 · Apr 20, 2013

SP wont be able to change a thing we are in a transfer embargo so thats a good excuse to get rid of players without replacement.This seasons had its up and downs but until things change i can only see one outcome downhill from here.poor team poor mangerment poor owners enough said.

Mucca Mad Boys · Apr 20, 2013

It's obvious we're missing Clarke, we created a fair few decent/good chances today (Philliskirk, Bell, Christie x2, Moussa, Bakerbut no one to score. We said if Clarke gets injured we're fucked, that's what happened, and, we're fucked.

Also, what's the alternative? Play 4-4-2 with 2 shit strikers on? Really?

I heard someone today moan that we get get outrun in midfield, but also was moaning about 4-5-1, so do we play 6 in midfield to compensate or do you mean 4-4-2, 1 less midfielder? Makes sense! :facepalm:

motherfunky · Apr 20, 2013

You've got to go with 2 up from front at home in our league

Mucca Mad Boys · Apr 20, 2013

motherfunky said:
You've got to go with 2 up from front at home in our league

Unfounded myth that is.

Like Barca, Bayern, Chelsea, Spurs, Arsenal, Man City, Man U, Real, AC Milan and is many more attacking teams play 1 upfront.

I don't see how playing a duet of Philliskirk, Wilson and Cody would've changed anything, and put simply, we miss L.Clarke, we knew this would happen if he got injured.

We actually looked like conceding again when we moved to 4-4-2 in desperation.

stupot07 · Apr 20, 2013

SkyBlue_Taylor said:
Unfounded myth that is.

Like Barca, Bayern, Chelsea, Spurs, Arsenal, Man City, Man U, Real, AC Milan and is many more attacking teams play 1 upfront.

I don't see how playing a duet of Philliskirk, Wilson and Cody would've changed anything, and put simply, we miss L.Clarke, we knew this would happen if he got injured.

We actually looked like conceding again when we moved to 4-4-2 in desperation.

That's because he left fleck and Moussa as a duo in the centre midfield.....an oppositions wet dream.

motherfunky · Apr 20, 2013

SkyBlue_Taylor said:
Unfounded myth that is.

Like Barca, Bayern, Chelsea, Spurs, Arsenal, Man City, Man U, Real, AC Milan and is many more attacking teams play 1 upfront.

I don't see how playing a duet of Philliskirk, Wilson and Cody would've changed anything, and put simply, we miss L.Clarke, we knew this would happen if he got injured.

We actually looked like conceding again when we moved to 4-4-2 in desperation.

They would have threatened the opposition. When we play one up front the midfield sits 30 yards behind the striker. We simply do not have the players to play that formation now.

4-5-1..... Really???? (1 Viewer)

New Member

New Member

Administrator

Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Administrator

New Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Banned

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency