Dagenham & Redbridge: build up thread (6 Viewers)

Sutty said:

-----------------Murphy---------------
--Clarke--Malaga--Wood--Hussey--
----------Jennings--Kilbane----------
--Baker---------Fleck------McSheffrey--
-----------------Cody-------------------

Don't think we have enough central midfielders at the moment to play the diamond, as evidenced by some people putting McSheffrey in the central midfield role.

If Fleck is out injured then play Ball and make it 4-4-2.

Click to expand...

The 4-2-3-1 formation imo, does not suit us and the diamond is here to stay and I think it could work against in particular, 4-4-2 playing teams.

People who put McSheffrey in CM is more because no one knows where to put him!

We have a decent amount of CMs; Jennings (if signed), Daniels, Kilbane, Barton, Fleck, Thomas, Bell (It's L1! I think CM is more suited to him imo), Baker (on occasion) and all the 'kids' we have to fill in if we really need them e.g. Ruffels.

SkyBlue_Taylor said:

The 4-2-3-1 formation imo, does not suit us and the diamond is here to stay and I think it could work against in particular, 4-4-2 playing teams.

People who put McSheffrey in CM is more because no one knows where to put him!

We have a decent amount of CMs; Jennings (if signed), Daniels, Kilbane, Barton, Fleck, Thomas, Bell (It's L1! I think CM is more suited to him imo), Baker (on occasion) and all the 'kids' we have to fill in if we really need them e.g. Ruffels.

Click to expand...

For the diamond we need a defensive midfielder, a couple of CMs and an attacking midfielder. In our squad I'd say:

DM: Thomas, Jennings if he signs + Kilbane and Brown at a push.

CM: Barton, Thomas + Bell, Baker and Kilbane at a push.

AM: Fleck, McSheffrey, Baker + Bell at a push.

Daniels is still very much an unknown quantity, whether he gets converted into a midfielder or not I don't know.

I'm not saying we shouldn't play the diamond but with Barton away on international duty we'd have to play Baker or Bell centrally which I'm not entirely comfortable with.

4-2-3-1 is definitely the way modern football is moving so I'd love to see us go with the times. Thorn has played it in a couple of friendlies so it seems we're working on it, more so than the panicked switches to it last season.

Think we are likely to play diamond 4-4-2 so based on that and availability this is what I would go for.

Murphy GK
Clarke RB
Wood CB
Malaga CB
Hussey LB
Baker RM
Kilbane DCM
McSheffrey LM
Fleck ACM
Ball CF
McDonald CF

Subs: Dunn, Edge, Brown, Elliott, ROD

Sutty said:

For the diamond we need a defensive midfielder, a couple of CMs and an attacking midfielder. In our squad I'd say:

DM: Thomas, Jennings if he signs + Kilbane and Brown at a push.

CM: Barton, Thomas + Bell, Baker and Kilbane at a push.

AM: Fleck, McSheffrey, Baker + Bell at a push.

Daniels is still very much an unknown quantity, whether he gets converted into a midfielder or not I don't know.

I'm not saying we shouldn't play the diamond but with Barton away on international duty we'd have to play Baker or Bell centrally which I'm not entirely comfortable with.

4-2-3-1 is definitely the way modern football is moving so I'd love to see us go with the times. Thorn has played it in a couple of friendlies so it seems we're working on it, more so than the panicked switches to it last season.

Click to expand...

Thomas is an asset imo as he can play anywhere in our midifeld, Kilbane imo, is more than capable playing LB, DM, CM for us, Brown and Jennings can play there so DM is 'sorted'.

CM is also covered, Kilbane is not 'at a push' but Baker is, but they can still play there.

AM is sorted, McSheff, Fleck, Thomas, Baker

I agree with Daniels, but for like 4th choice...

Bell and Baker wouldn't fill me with confidence defensively but (mainly baker) could offer a lot going forward (if Stockprt form is repeated.

I agree that 4-2-3-1 is a modern formating but if it don't suit us, as shown in our losses to Ross County + ICT and I also think that the formation doesn't really suit any of our strikers, in particular Cody, who I believe, if we do well, he could be top 5 goal scorers!

I'd however prefer 4-2-3-1 as a 'Plan B' to 4-4-2 though.

Sutty said:

-----------------Murphy---------------
--Clarke--Malaga--Wood--Hussey--
----------Jennings--Kilbane----------
--Baker---------Fleck------McSheffrey--
-----------------Cody-------------------

Don't think we have enough central midfielders at the moment to play the diamond, as evidenced by some people putting McSheffrey in the central midfield role.

If Fleck is out injured then play Ball and make it 4-4-2.

Click to expand...

The diamond seems to work much better with the current players. The 4-2-3-1 i liked at first but we look weak with it now and we have too many forwards not to play the diamond.

SkyBlue_Taylor said:

I personally think Thorn should not play a full team. He should play something like this:

Dunn
Clarke Malaga Edge Hussey
Daniels
Baker Kilbane
Jeffers
Elliott ROD (Hungarian if signed)

Players like Hussey + Clarke to play v Yeovil

Click to expand...

yer, we didnt want to win this cup anyway

Playing a weakened side is an idiotic thing to suggest at this stage of the season.....would be very surprised if AT did this, people suggesting this obviously have not played or managed football teams. We are just builiding up a run of good results which breeds confidence prior to start of the season. To pick a weakened team and lose to Daggers completely destroys that and would lead to us going into season on low ebb. If we are ploughing through rounds of this competition and it is affecting our league campaign at a later date there may be a slight argument but we have not started the bloody season yet!:facepalm:

Should definitely play full strengthish side and get into round 2 - a good win sets us up nicely for Yeovil.....a defeat sets us up for disaster at yeovil....momentum is everything.

Don't reckon Murphy/hussy and wood will play, Dunn in goal, kilbane at LB, Brown (if fit?)And edge at the back , Clarke at RB, Daniels at CDM, baker and Roberts on the flanks, Sheff behind front two and ball and Cody up front, pretty good line up to be honest

SkyBlue Baker96 said:

Don't reckon Murphy/hussy and wood will play, Dunn in goal, kilbane at LB, Brown (if fit?)And edge at the back , Clarke at RB, Daniels at CDM, baker and Roberts on the flanks, Sheff behind front two and ball and Cody up front, pretty good line up to be honest

Click to expand...

Why does everyone on here think the diamond has wide players? :thinking about:

They're central midfielders, I can't see Roberts playing that role.

There are two versions of the diamond one has wingers one has centre mids we play with the one with the centre mids

johnwillomagic said:

Playing a weakened side is an idiotic thing to suggest at this stage of the season.....would be very surprised if AT did this, people suggesting this obviously have not played or managed football teams. We are just builiding up a run of good results which breeds confidence prior to start of the season. To pick a weakened team and lose to Daggers completely destroys that and would lead to us going into season on low ebb. If we are ploughing through rounds of this competition and it is affecting our league campaign at a later date there may be a slight argument but we have not started the bloody season yet!:facepalm:

Should definitely play full strengthish side and get into round 2 - a good win sets us up nicely for Yeovil.....a defeat sets us up for disaster at yeovil....momentum is everything.

Click to expand...

Ok, assuming we play a full strength team and lose, like last year to Bury, your theory is flawed...

It's better to play a weakened side to rest our best players for a long and difficult season without needless distractions e.g. a cup we won't win.

If we play a full strength side we will win.

imo we did not play a full strength side against Bury last year at all which is why we lost, I think the squad is much better equipped. I say the longer we stay in this cup and build some confidence maybe getting some scalps along the way.

If we do have a team that "needs to gel" and needs to it hit the ground running then tinkering with a winnig side too much just as we start the season makes no sense to me whatsoever.

Cannot see what we gain by not playing a full strength side at this stage of the season, many have said we need to have a winning mentality this year. Changing/significantly weakening a side increasing the chances of a defeat before first gAme of season does not help to achieve this mentality? If anyone tells me what we do gain by completely weakening the side at this stage of the season then I am all ears?

johnwillomagic said:

If we play a full strength side we will win.

imo we did not play a full strength side against Bury last year at all which is why we lost, I think the squad is much better equipped. I say the longer we stay in this cup and build some confidence maybe getting some scalps along the way.

If we do have a team that "needs to gel" and needs to it hit the ground running then tinkering with a winnig side too much just as we start the season makes no sense to me whatsoever.

Cannot see what we gain by not playing a full strength side at this stage of the season, many have said we need to have a winning mentality this year. Changing/significantly weakening a side increasing the chances of a defeat before first gAme of season does not help to achieve this mentality? If anyone tells me what we do gain by completely weakening the side at this stage of the season then I am all ears?

Click to expand...

We're not 100% going to win, even if we play are best XI!

What can we gain by not playing a full team? Guaranteed no players rested will get injured, the players rested will be fresher, also, players who don't quite fit into Thorn's plans have a chance to impress!

The 'we need to gel' argument is somewhat irrelevant here as this 1 game will not make them 'gel' overnight, and that is what pre season is for!

Also, for the 'we need to gel' doesn't just apply to the main XI, you win as a squad and if the First XI is 'gelled' but the squad isn't, when injuries occur, the replacements will not fit in etc.

i think we've got to play 2 up front
4-2-3-1 or 5-2-1-2 with the two fullbacks being attacking

johnwillomagic said:

If we play a full strength side we will win.

imo we did not play a full strength side against Bury last year at all which is why we lost, I think the squad is much better equipped. I say the longer we stay in this cup and build some confidence maybe getting some scalps along the way.

If we do have a team that "needs to gel" and needs to it hit the ground running then tinkering with a winnig side too much just as we start the season makes no sense to me whatsoever.

Cannot see what we gain by not playing a full strength side at this stage of the season, many have said we need to have a winning mentality this year. Changing/significantly weakening a side increasing the chances of a defeat before first gAme of season does not help to achieve this mentality? If anyone tells me what we do gain by completely weakening the side at this stage of the season then I am all ears?

Click to expand...

According to Thorn last year we did play a full strength side (that he had available, minus Clingan who was on international duty) and we were well and truly outplayed and they didn't look interested at all. I can understand where you are coming from as I think a win would do wonders for our morale but I also think it is a chance to bed in a few fringe/new players and so a mix of first teamers and new players would be the right way to go, in my opnion that is.

skybluejack10 said:

i think we've got to play 2 up front
4-2-3-1 or 5-2-1-2 with the two fullbacks being attacking

Click to expand...

4-2-3-1 with 2 up front?

5-2-1-2.......five defenders? :facepalm:

3-1-2-1-3 for me. Put them on the backfoot. Score lots of goals and set our season up :guitar2:

Still think giving players a rest or trying some new players is a bloody stupid statement to make when we have not even played a league game and everyone has been rotated reasonably in pre-season.

I think your argument only holds any substance for the JPT - that is an annoying competition which does not generate hardly any revenue tll the final maybe and does clash when the league season is actually going on surely? Not for league cup round 1 where players should be completely fresh and want to impress and stay in first team for Yeovil.

The League cup and fa cup generate far more revenue which we need undoubtedly surely? We will see but if AT does name a weakened team will seriously question his managerial ability and judgement for the forthcoming season.

Anyone saying we should play a back 3 or 5 is nuts. It's the most disruptive thing you can do to a team. Flat back 4 - always.

johnwillomagic said:

Still think giving players a rest or trying some new players is a bloody stupid statement to make when we have not even played a league game and everyone has been rotated reasonably in pre-season.

I think your argument only holds any substance for the JPT - that is an annoying competition which does not generate hardly any revenue tll the final maybe and does clash when the league season is actually going on surely? Not for league cup round 1 where players should be completely fresh and want to impress and stay in first team for Yeovil.

The League cup and fa cup generate far more revenue which we need undoubtedly surely? We will see but if AT does name a weakened team will seriously question his managerial ability and judgement for the forthcoming season.

Click to expand...

No, it applies to the C1C, because we should rest key players for a game with signifcance, chances are, we'll get a lower champ side in R2 if we win, which won't generate jack*

Also, players need to be rest when and where possible for a couple of reasons: 1) We have a pretty small squad 2) we have more cup games, JPT, where you have to play a certain amount of players who played in the league AND we have FA cup rnd 1, 2 before 3 plus are 46 games, if we do well in cups, we could play around 60+ games.

Your point about impressing the manager is wrong, Firstly, AT should pretty much know who is first XI is, and, if you started a weakened side, it gives them players a chance to show their worth!

Besides, Man U rest players for cup games, is Fergie's managerial qualities doubted, NO! If AT chooses to play a weakended side (as I hope he does) I respect that and questioning his abilites to do so is wrong and he should only be judged on the League!

I would hope AT will see it as another opportunity to try and get team to develop an understanding of each other and the new players and the system of play. I am expecting a strong side.

The fact that we can argue about players and formations is, quite frankly, a really nice experience.

johnwillomagic said:

Playing a weakened side is an idiotic thing to suggest at this stage of the season.....would be very surprised if AT did this, people suggesting this obviously have not played or managed football teams. We are just builiding up a run of good results which breeds confidence prior to start of the season. To pick a weakened team and lose to Daggers completely destroys that and would lead to us going into season on low ebb. If we are ploughing through rounds of this competition and it is affecting our league campaign at a later date there may be a slight argument but we have not started the bloody season yet!:facepalm:

Should definitely play full strengthish side and get into round 2 - a good win sets us up nicely for Yeovil.....a defeat sets us up for disaster at yeovil....momentum is everything.

Click to expand...

No one is suggesting we purposely play a weakened side to lose the game, what ever side goes out will still want to win.

We will play a strong side but not a full strength side imo, if we get a bad injury to a key player or gamble on an injured player such as Fleck and aggravate an injury will it all be worth just to get through to round 2?

Sutty said:

-----------------Murphy---------------
--Clarke--Malaga--Wood--Hussey--
----------Jennings--Kilbane----------
--Baker---------Fleck------McSheffrey--
-----------------Cody-------------------

Don't think we have enough central midfielders at the moment to play the diamond, as evidenced by some people putting McSheffrey in the central midfield role.

If Fleck is out injured then play Ball and make it 4-4-2.

Click to expand...

I think you might be on to something here Sutty. Could this be an alternative formation, possibly for tougher away games?
So, an attacking diamond at home, maybe like this?

-----------------Murphy-----------------
--Clarke--Malaga*--Wood--Hussey--
----------------Jennings-----------------
-------Baker--------------Barton+------
------------------Fleck+------------------
---------------Ball---Cody---------------

And for tougher away games maybe this?

-----------------Murphy-----------------
--Clarke--Malaga*--Wood--Hussey--
---------Jennings------Barton----------
--Baker---------Fleck--------McSheff--
------------------Cody--------------------


*Might be Brown, if Thorn is worried the French lads have not yet got to grips fully with the English game.
+ Or McSheff

As I understand it, the double pivot (4-2-3-1) often uses a ball winner (in this case Jennings) and a distributor (Barton) in the middle. With Fleck, according to reports, looking pretty handy pulling the strings further forward, I was wondering where Barton, with his apparent reputation for being a good distributor, would fit in if we are having a dedicated ball winner in the middle of the park too (Jennings or maybe Kilbane/Brown). I've suggested Barton on the left of the diamond in the diagram above but I struggle to foresee McSheff actually being dislodged from that spot unless he is off form, injured or filling in for Fleck. If he is, Kilbane would also be a rival for that spot. Of course, our new depth means we have adequate replacements in most areas now aside from left back. And others could easily slot into the roles suggested above depending on form, fitness and manager's preference. To make full use of our striking resources, in the diamond I assume Elliott could replace Cody and Polo (assuming he signs) could replace Ball during games to freshen things up, or they could be used to add more firepower if we are chasing a game? And Polo or Ball could replace Cody in a 4-2-3-1 and Elliott could be a replacement for Fleck? Also, as Sutty notes, these players allow an easy switch to 4-4-2 too.

Just throwing some ideas out there as I try to understand how the pieces might fit together.

Edit: I'm thinking about the season more generally, rather than a specific game before anyone says x, y or z is injured or is on international duty etc

Astute said:

4-2-3-1 with 2 up front?

5-2-1-2.......five defenders? :facepalm:

3-1-2-1-3 for me. Put them on the backfoot. Score lots of goals and set our season up :guitar2:

Click to expand...

i meant 4-1-2-1-2 or 3-2-2-1-2 or 3-2-1-2-2

@richh87 said:

Anyone saying we should play a back 3 or 5 is nuts. It's the most disruptive thing you can do to a team. Flat back 4 - always.

Click to expand...

Am I nuts?

We are going to have games this season where we are playing well but are behind with 10 mins to go. Should we still keep the same formation? Should we try an attacking formation we have never played before trying to win the game? Should AT leave himself open to not having a plan B?

A 3-2-1-2-3 would be an attacking formation, but plenty in defence when needed. The 3 up front could be a big man furthest up front with say Sheffers on the left and Cody on the right. Everyone could push up in a unit and pin our opponents back.

We are going to have the best team most of the time. Should we sit back and lose most of the advantage?

I'd go with the diamond since Thorn has been training us for that. With everyone fit and Jennings signed I'd go for:

Murphy
Clarke Brown Wood Hussey
Jennings
Barton Kilbane
Fleck
Ball McDonald

For Dagenham, I'd go for:
Murphy
Clarke Wood Malaga Hussey
Brown
Baker Kilbane
McSheffrey
Ball McDonald

Astute said:

Am I nuts?

We are going to have games this season where we are playing well but are behind with 10 mins to go. Should we still keep the same formation? Should we try an attacking formation we have never played before trying to win the game? Should AT leave himself open to not having a plan B?

A 3-2-1-2-3 would be an attacking formation, but plenty in defence when needed. The 3 up front could be a big man furthest up front with say Sheffers on the left and Cody on the right. Everyone could push up in a unit and pin our opponents back.

We are going to have the best team most of the time. Should we sit back and lose most of the advantage?

Click to expand...

I see what your getting at, it isn't too bad an idea BUT, AT will not play formation.

BOOOOOOOOM!!!

The Sky Blues' season starts tonight. Minibus booked, beers in fridge ready. Let's start with a win. I can't go on Saturday so this is my season opener.

PUSB

Thorn in the CET today:
"We won't be holding anything back"
"Our supporters haven't had much to cheer about over the last few years so a decent cup run would be a great way to bring some pride back to the club."
“We are aiming to go as far as we can * we want to make some progress and get a few big teams up at the Ricoh. But let's not get ahead of ourselves because Dagenham are a good side and anything less than our best won't be good enough"

Not ideal having this game a few days before the one that really matters.

We won't be fielding our best team but at the same time a defeat could damage both the morale of the players and the fans.

RoI have done us a favour by taking away our only remaining creative midfielder too :facepalm:

The Daggers seem to think they can at least beat us in penalties, some even think they could beat us by a couple of goals in 90 minutes:laugh:

plenty of time to rest till sat after,it shouldnt affect us

few injuries but we have squad depth

if we play diamond id go wtih

---------murphy------------
clarke---edje--brown---hussey
-----------jennings-------------
------baker------kilbane--------
---------mcsheffrey------------
-------ball------rod------------

thats for squad rotation

if thorn does not want to risk an early defeat put cody in upfront instead of rod and malaga/wood as CB's.

covcity4life said:

plenty of time to rest till sat after,it shouldnt affect us

few injuries but we have squad depth

if we play diamond id go wtih

---------murphy------------
clarke---edje--brown---hussey
-----------jennings-------------
------baker------kilbane--------
---------mcsheffrey------------
-------ball------rod------------

thats for squad rotation

if thorn does not want to risk an early defeat put cody in upfront instead of rod and malaga/wood as CB's.

Click to expand...

It's difficult to know who to rest really but AT should know the players better than anyone to make that decision.

Is Jennings going to sign in time for tonight I wonder. Could really do with him.

GinettasStickySofa said:

It's difficult to know who to rest really but AT should know the players better than anyone to make that decision.

Is Jennings going to sign in time for tonight I wonder. Could really do with him.

Click to expand...

too right,we need a new CM,2 really,cant beleive some so fans would prefer a new striker to a CM

barton,thomas and jennings are our only real CM's...kilbane and brown can play if required though.

looks like jenning wont be signed in time for tonights game so r brown or k kilbane as holding midfielder?