Steven Posted 1 January 2005 Posted 1 January 2005 yay 50773[/snapback] 4-4-2 with Dublin upfront and Scowcroft on the wing. I could be wrong, I hope I am.
Mark Posted 1 January 2005 Posted 1 January 2005 With that defence i assume he's going for a 0-0 draw based on recent attactive optimistic displays
Scow Posted 1 January 2005 Posted 1 January 2005 I think the formation suited us well, we were dominating the play until the game had to be called off. We had a grip in midfield with the extra cover in there, with Williams looking a threat going forward. Makin and Stewart looked promising in the wing back positions, getting forward fairly often. We were camped within their half because everytime they tried to play the ball down our channels, one of the three central defenders would cover and get back possession. Nalis and Gemmill played the ball around well, with Scowcroft and Connolly looking lively upfront. Carry on with 3-5-2 please. We have no wingers, so it makes sense.
Anish Posted 1 January 2005 Posted 1 January 2005 Carry on with 3-5-2 please. We have no wingers, so it makes sense. 50932[/snapback] Ah, but what happens when Gillespie returns? :?:
Scow Posted 1 January 2005 Posted 1 January 2005 Carry on with 3-5-2 please. We have no wingers, so it makes sense. 50932[/snapback] Ah, but what happens when Gillespie returns? :?: 50942[/snapback] Gillespie will have to fight his way back in to the team. I know he's been playing well, but we need to think of how the formation will benefit the team as a whole, not just to incorporate one player. 3-5-2 offers slower players like Nalis and Gemmill more cover in midfield, while allowing Williams to get forward to get the best out of him. The defence looked very solid too and we had a lot of the ball. The players that we have at our disposal means we can't play 4-4-2 effectively, unless we have genuine width and pace throughout the side, which we all know we don't have.
Anish Posted 1 January 2005 Posted 1 January 2005 I can see where you're coming from - but you have to put it into perspective too. We've only played 3-5-2 for 20 mins in the last game, and although it was successful from the sounds of things, it doesn't mean that it will guarantee better results and performances week-in week-out. Until I have seen them play 3-5-2 myself I cannot comment on whether the system should be deployed over 4-4-2, so hopefully Levein will stick with it on Monday.
Katy Posted 1 January 2005 Posted 1 January 2005 The way I see it is Gillespie was daft enough to get sent off - he needs to prove to CL hes worthy of a place again
Scow Posted 1 January 2005 Posted 1 January 2005 I can see where you're coming from - but you have to put it into perspective too. We've only played 3-5-2 for 20 mins in the last game, and although it was successful from the sounds of things, it doesn't mean that it will guarantee better results and performances week-in week-out. Until I have seen them play 3-5-2 myself I cannot comment on whether the system should be deployed over 4-4-2, so hopefully Levein will stick with it on Monday. 50947[/snapback] It's a valid point, it's hard to judge on 20 minutes, but it was probably the best I've seen us play for a long while. The players looked very comfortbale with it. The simple fact is, we've played 4-4-2 all year at home, and only won 4 games. We need to try something different which suits the players we've got.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.