skybluejack10
New Member
does anybody think thorn will stick to the 4231 formation if 2 more strikers are brought in? i hope not but i think thorn fancies fleck playing just off the forward!
4231 formation (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter skybluejack10
- Start date
skybluejack10
New Member
personally i prefer the 4-1-2-1-2 with one of the forwards playing in more of a free CF role
skybluejack10
New Member
that's a fair point, i think we need more attacking flair about our game though if we are to score goals
castlevaleskyblue
New Member
Think they will play both next season just depends what works best against different opposition, the new formation looked really good against Hinckley but it was hinckey.
Also think to get the best out of fleck he needs to be played in the same position, imo best just behind the strikers
Also think to get the best out of fleck he needs to be played in the same position, imo best just behind the strikers
skybluegod
Well-Known Member
considering we need 7 subs this year we're going to need more strikers with our players injury records it will be hard to make the numbers on the bench i think thorn might feel he just needs a striker which stays fit and is half decent
S
SkyBlue Baker96
Guest
If Thorn get's more strikers in , i personally think it will be just so that if we are losing 1-0 or drawing 1-1 and need to change the shape he can make a more attacking formation with the forwards , give's him more options
I think if he can find one it will be in the mould of James Collins ,the original target.That FFing embargo really bit us in the bum there.That, and the stated desire for two strikers suggests to me he was for playing two up top,current formation does'nt support that though
skybluejack10
New Member
yeah that was disappointing what happened with james!
Sick Boy
Well-Known Member
Maybe he just preferred to go to Swindon instead? From what I have heard his is a similar story to the Peter Whittingham one. Also, I must admit, playing for Di Canio wouldn't be bad either.
skybluejack10
New Member
it'd be funny playing under di cannio! but he is a cov lad
pusbccfc
Well-Known Member
That formation probably would be the best call.
We have a lack of strikers but a mass range of attacking midfielder's.
You could play
Baker-Fleck-Sheff
Cody
Elliott-Fleck-Sheff
Cody
Bell-Baker-Fleck
Cody
Number 1 would be the one for me.
If we do bring in a striker we may struggle with taking this formation forward.
Cody would have to be dropped if a 'better' striker comes in. Also if the player is a small lad IE Cody/Elliott then they'll struggle in the Air.
Usually when the formation is used there is most often a target man in the box for headers off the attacking wingers.
We have a lack of strikers but a mass range of attacking midfielder's.
You could play
Baker-Fleck-Sheff
Cody
Elliott-Fleck-Sheff
Cody
Bell-Baker-Fleck
Cody
Number 1 would be the one for me.
If we do bring in a striker we may struggle with taking this formation forward.
Cody would have to be dropped if a 'better' striker comes in. Also if the player is a small lad IE Cody/Elliott then they'll struggle in the Air.
Usually when the formation is used there is most often a target man in the box for headers off the attacking wingers.
Sick Boy
Well-Known Member
He would develop more as a player under Di Canio. Whittingham supported the player but despises us now.
skybluejack10
New Member
to be fair i thought last season cody actually won more in the air than platt! he's got a good jump and good timing on his jumps but i get what your saying. Jeffers is tall though and we're after a tall striker. do we need one though if were gonna play the "passing game"?
i wouldnt play bell or baker. jeffers, garner or roberts for me on that right flank
i wouldnt play bell or baker. jeffers, garner or roberts for me on that right flank
skybluejack10
New Member
despises us? why you think that?
Sick Boy
Well-Known Member
I know it for a fact. He was released by the club when he was younger.
