Swalker Posted 22 October 2011 Posted 22 October 2011 What about the bench? As we saw today, Dyer (a winger) brought us a different dimension. The problem with him is he isn't consitantly good enough for us, so I would have wanted someone who is. If we had a winger I'd play 4-3-3, I think last season showed we can play nice attacking football with that system. We could still keep the same back 4, have 3 midfielders - 2 creative and Fernandes holding (the lack of a holding midfielder was a big factor in conceding too many goals last season, but now we've over-compensated with more than one midfielder sitting deep and negative tactics), with a central striker a winger on one side and Gally/another winger on the other side. But then if we do that. With 3 upfront we have: Winger ST Winger Which Striker do you play nugent/beckford/ vassel/ schlupp/ howard And we have 3 wingers in the team and like you said Dyer isn't consitant so we then only have 2 wingers and which CM's do you play??
orangecity23 Posted 22 October 2011 Posted 22 October 2011 Guppy was a wingback. Impey was a wingback. The O'Neill team played with wing backs, who were expected to attack AND defend. Not wingers. I think there is some confusion (especially with Alan Young) over what quantifies a winger these days. There are obviously players today who have the attributes of old school wingers, but they do not stick rigidly to the touchline. Wide forwards today are given licence to roam all over the pitch. Watching Match of the Day recently, and they were looking at a Man City game. They showed a graphic of where Nasri and Silva received the ball. They were all over the pitch, often passing the ball less than 10 yards to each other. Players like Ashley Young, and Juan Mata often play down the middle as well. Ronaldo plays down the middle and wide as well. Anyway, whatever they are called, we could do with some winger type players, we need people who have pace and dribbling ability. We do a lot of passing the ball around in midfield, it needs to be blended with some more direct running at/past defenders.
Rodders Posted 22 October 2011 Posted 22 October 2011 If we're going back to playing 4-3-3, I'd love to see us give Nugent - Beckford - Vassell a try. There would definitely be goals in that forward line.
Swalker Posted 22 October 2011 Posted 22 October 2011 If we're going back to playing 4-3-3, I'd love to see us give Nugent - Beckford - Vassell a try. There would definitely be goals in that forward line. Schlupp instead of Vassel maybe?
dannythefox Posted 22 October 2011 Posted 22 October 2011 If we're going back to playing 4-3-3, I'd love to see us give Nugent - Beckford - Vassell a try. There would definitely be goals in that forward line. Vassell offers nothing better off with schulpp hes hungry for it
Kitchandro Posted 22 October 2011 Posted 22 October 2011 But then if we do that. With 3 upfront we have: Winger ST Winger Which Striker do you play nugent/beckford/ vassel/ schlupp/ howard And we have 3 wingers in the team and like you said Dyer isn't consitant so we then only have 2 wingers and which CM's do you play?? We pick the striker most in form. Now, it would be Nugent. Sven has had the mentality of trying to stuff all of his favourites in. I didn't understand your last sentence, but here's what I'm getting at Weale Peltier Mills Bamba Konchesky FernandesJohnson/King Wellens/DannsWinger Nugent/Beckford/Schlupp Gallagher
Swalker Posted 22 October 2011 Posted 22 October 2011 We pick the striker most in form. Now, it would be Nugent. Sven has had the mentality of trying to stuff all of his favourites in. I didn't understand your last sentence, but here's what I'm getting at Weale Peltier Mills Bamba Konchesky FernandesJohnson/King Wellens/DannsWinger Nugent/Beckford/Schlupp Gallagher That's what I'm getting at. But when you say the most in form striker. How can that change if he's on the bench? So like atm Nugent is our form striker but then how can beckford then become the form striker if Nugent is starting
Kitchandro Posted 22 October 2011 Posted 22 October 2011 That's what I'm getting at. But when you say the most in form striker. How can that change if he's on the bench? So like atm Nugent is our form striker but then how can beckford then become the form striker if Nugent is starting Like every other sub does, wait til Nugent gets injured or out of form and then swoop and take your chance. Beckford shouldn't automtaically be in just because of his price tag.
Thracian Posted 23 October 2011 Posted 23 October 2011 People do know what a winger is, you are clearly in the minority that doesn't and that's why you can't understand what we're talking about. Yeh they do generally hug the sidelines but can be effective coming inside as well. Wingers are suited to being wide men - 'wide men' and 'wingers' are not 2 different types of player because wide man is just a position, not a type of player. Vassell and Gallagher are often used as wide men but they are not wingers by trade. Why is it all about MoN? And yes we did, Guppy was a winger. MON like Brian Clough used players to do specific things. And Guppy was employed to put accurate crosses into the box. There were three big differences between Guppy and Konshesky. First Guppy was well able to beat a man momentarily, he was deadly accurate with his crosses and always had specialist strikers in and around the box to make the best of them. We generally score 0/3 in that department.
Fox92 Posted 23 October 2011 Posted 23 October 2011 Yeah, I agree. I said this throughout the summer. I said after last season that we needed a quality right winger, because Dyer and Vassell are alright wide left on their day. We should have brought Kebe, looked at Hammill, or even looked at James Henry who plays for Millwall. And I don't want see Gallagher back in - I'd rather see Vassell -- -- Dyer. We need a right winger in January. Most sides that got out of this league had wingers. Brunt and Gera (West Brom), Jarvis and Kightly (Wolves), Dyer and Sinclair (Swansea) etc and even look at the better teams in England; Downing and Kuyt (Liverpool), Nani and Young (Manchester United), Bale and Lennon (Spurs) etc
RizLCFC Posted 23 October 2011 Posted 23 October 2011 The first four were right in the box i counted them there was no one there because beckford was subed! I agree he put a few great balls in to the box but no one was there to attack them, no one attacks at the near post either, god knows where Nugent, Vassell and Andy King (as he plays in that attacking CM position) were on the pitch!
RizLCFC Posted 23 October 2011 Posted 23 October 2011 I really cant get my head round why managers who come here don't sign any wingers? How can Sven expect Wellens and Abe to bomb down the flanks and get the crosses in like yesterday it's an absolute shambles, I really want Sven to do well but he's digging his own grave with his silly tactics and playing players out of position!
dannythefox Posted 23 October 2011 Posted 23 October 2011 I agree he put a few great balls in to the box but no one was there to attack them, no one attacks at the near post either, god knows where Nugent, Vassell and Andy King (as he plays in that attacking CM position) were on the pitch! I no beckfords not had the best of starts but hes always in the right place he would of been there for them balls as for vassell he shouldnt be in the team he gets the ball dribbles abit then losses it EVERY time! give schulpp ago he needs it and hes hungry for it the lads scored 5 goals so far ffs!
RizLCFC Posted 23 October 2011 Posted 23 October 2011 I no beckfords not had the best of starts but hes always in the right place he would of been there for them balls as for vassell he shouldnt be in the team he gets the ball dribbles abit then losses it EVERY time! give schulpp ago he needs it and hes hungry for it the lads scored 5 goals so far ffs! I agree mate Schlupp deserves a chance and Vassell if just useless, the good thing is he's out of contract in the summer, the bad thing is Sven loves him and will probably offer him a new deal if he stays!
S-win Posted 23 October 2011 Posted 23 October 2011 I think Peltier would make a good winger. I agree put pantsil at right back, push peltier to right wing, have dyer on left and have just 2 cm's, maybe Johnson and danns
Dan Posted 23 October 2011 Posted 23 October 2011 Hate the idea of using Nugent out wide. I feel that'd be completely wasting our best striker.
Kitchandro Posted 23 October 2011 Posted 23 October 2011 Hate the idea of using Nugent out wide. I feel that'd be completely wasting our best striker. Agreed. None of our strikers should be played out wide
Thracian Posted 23 October 2011 Posted 23 October 2011 What about the bench? As we saw today, Dyer (a winger) brought us a different dimension. The problem with him is he isn't consitantly good enough for us, so I would have wanted someone who is. If we had a winger I'd play 4-3-3, I think last season showed we can play nice attacking football with that system. We could still keep the same back 4, have 3 midfielders - 2 creative and Fernandes holding (the lack of a holding midfielder was a big factor in conceding too many goals last season, but now we've over-compensated with more than one midfielder sitting deep and negative tactics), with a central striker a winger on one side and Gally/another winger on the other side. Dyer has never been consistently used by Sven. But used regularly and at his sharpest, Dyer is often dangerous. He created stacks of chances against Millwall but we didn't have anyone in the box - another failing I mentioned countless times.
Kitchandro Posted 23 October 2011 Posted 23 October 2011 Dyer has never been consistently used by Sven. But used regularly and at his sharpest, Dyer is often dangerous. He created stacks of chances against Millwall but we didn't have anyone in the box - another failing I mentioned countless times. I didn't think he was good enough in the Championship under Pearson either though. Even in the league one campaign he tailed off in the second half of the season. He's very quick but his footballing ability is not just limited, but shocking. No doubt he can be effective at times but too often he doesn't have the guts to use his pace and his final ball is generally poor as his technique severely lacks. I thought with our money we could get someone with his pace, but also with the knowledge of how to use it, as well as decent technical ability. Getting Gradel or Routledge would have been ideal but I realise it was unrealistic considering where they both eventually went. I would have been happy with Kebe as well, though there's no doubt he's inconsistent, I still think he'd be a step up from Dyer. And then there are plenty of young wingers we could have got on loan. I do think we definitely needed to purchase a winger, and a better one than Dyer.
Thracian Posted 23 October 2011 Posted 23 October 2011 I didn't think he was good enough in the Championship under Pearson either though. Even in the league one campaign he tailed off in the second half of the season. He's very quick but his footballing ability is not just limited, but shocking. No doubt he can be effective at times but too often he doesn't have the guts to use his pace and his final ball is generally poor as his technique severely lacks. I thought with our money we could get someone with his pace, but also with the knowledge of how to use it, as well as decent technical ability. Getting Gradel or Routledge would have been ideal but I realise it was unrealistic considering where they both eventually went. I would have been happy with Kebe as well, though there's no doubt he's inconsistent, I still think he'd be a step up from Dyer. And then there are plenty of young wingers we could have got on loan. I do think we definitely needed to purchase a winger, and a better one than Dyer. I'm not against purchasing anyone who's better in a position than what we've got but Sven's been here a year now and we've signed no-one. Dyer took people on keenly enough yesterday and there's nothing to stop Sven instructing him to do just that. And, limited or not, enough of his crosses or passes created clear enough chances and so it has been before. In fact I've commented times on the number of times low or head-height crosses fly past the opposition six yard box without anyone getting on the end of them. Some of those on Saturday would surely have been nectar for Beckford - or Schlupp who's shown himself to be quite a natural predator and is certainly quick enough and strong enough to attack either post.
Trav Le Bleu Posted 23 October 2011 Posted 23 October 2011 Never used wingers under MoN? What about Steve Guppy?? People do know what a winger is, you are clearly in the minority that doesn't and that's why you can't understand what we're talking about. Yeh they do generally hug the sidelines but can be effective coming inside as well. Wingers are suited to being wide men - 'wide men' and 'wingers' are not 2 different types of player because wide man is just a position, not a type of player. Vassell and Gallagher are often used as wide men but they are not wingers by trade. Why is it all about MoN? And yes we did, Guppy was a winger. Guppy got used more often as not as a not very defensive wingback. Yes he was a winger, but rarely used there.
Kitchandro Posted 23 October 2011 Posted 23 October 2011 I'm not against purchasing anyone who's better in a position than what we've got but Sven's been here a year now and we've signed no-one. Dyer took people on keenly enough yesterday and there's nothing to stop Sven instructing him to do just that. And, limited or not, enough of his crosses or passes created clear enough chances and so it has been before. In fact I've commented times on the number of times low or head-height crosses fly past the opposition six yard box without anyone getting on the end of them. Some of those on Saturday would surely have been nectar for Beckford - or Schlupp who's shown himself to be quite a natural predator and is certainly quick enough and strong enough to attack either post. I've got no issue with the way he played yesterday, easily our best player and very effective, and we should have made more of his crosses, which were good yesterday. But how often have we seen him make such an impact? Not often enough for my liking. He should definitely start next week though, we are clearly desperate for an injection of pace and is one of the very few payers who can say they earned a place.
Novas Posted 23 October 2011 Posted 23 October 2011 If you want a good attacking presence on the pitch, play with 2 wingers. Leeds for example we had Snodgrass and Gradel on each wing and caused no end of problems for teams, Wingers work, we basically outplayed West Ham using 2 Wingers.
somebum Posted 23 October 2011 Posted 23 October 2011 People were saying the same about a new striker, 'the missing link'. Just excuses.
funkyrobot Posted 23 October 2011 Posted 23 October 2011 Guppy got used more often as not as a not very defensive wingback. Yes he was a winger, but rarely used there. Don't agree that he was very defensive. Guppy was best known for his attacking play and his crosses from the wing into the box.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.