Guest Posted 10 May 2013 Posted 10 May 2013 Watford have to attack and they attack well. we need to bolster our defence but have the speed to hit them on the counter. I suggest: DeLaet, Keane, Wes, Moore, Schlupp at the back Knocky helping out DeLaet, Dyer helping out Schlupp. James and King in midfield with just Nuge up front. Schlupp and DeLaet are both dangerous on the offensive and they'll have cover from three centre backs and Knocky and dyer. We can stack the bench with alternative attackers in the case we need to go more offensive but this team has the speed to kill on the break.
Fox92 Posted 10 May 2013 Posted 10 May 2013 Not sure really. I'm not a fan of when we play 451. Also, they will be playing attacking football while looking to score to make it level, especially if the game is 0-0 for a long time. It would surely be open, so I'd still go with 2 up front.
Guest Col city fan Posted 10 May 2013 Posted 10 May 2013 I reckon I'd go the opposite. If Nugent is up top on his own, the ball will just keep coming straight back at us. Even with 5 at the back, we'll eventually concede. I think we need to continue to attack them, with two strikers. We look better when on the front foot and going forward. IMO.
blueonyou Posted 10 May 2013 Posted 10 May 2013 I disagree, the best form of defence is attack. Going defensive with a 1-0 lead would be suicide. We need to take the game to them and all out attack.
KFS Posted 10 May 2013 Posted 10 May 2013 Wood/ Kane will be imperative in keeping the ball with hold up play.
MooseBreath Posted 10 May 2013 Posted 10 May 2013 Trying to close out a 1-0 lead away for 90 mins would be suicidal. We need to go there to win the game. Im glad NP has said as much.
davieG Posted 10 May 2013 Posted 10 May 2013 Changing to a new defensive format that none of the players will be familiar with is a recipe for disaster.
nickyboy Posted 10 May 2013 Posted 10 May 2013 The simple fact is Watford need to score and will push for it, so as mentioned playing with just the 1 up front will just give the impetus to them. I reckon we should go with the game plan which worked so well at Florest, albeit not letting in a goal inside 5mins But I would probably start Konch and put Schlupp upfront with Nuge, Wood has gone off the boil a little too much and Nuge will be full of confidence following the winner
Ian W LCFC Posted 10 May 2013 Posted 10 May 2013 I reckon I'd go the opposite. If Nugent is up top on his own, the ball will just keep coming straight back at us. Even with 5 at the back, we'll eventually concede. I think we need to continue to attack them, with two strikers. We look better when on the front foot and going forward. IMO. Fully agree. 442 please Nige!
cc_star Posted 10 May 2013 Posted 10 May 2013 Not imo Need a player to stop them breaking from the back or picking pacey players out with long passes, just like Nuge did for 94mins last night. This is why I don't think we can 2 up front again and need to play 4411 again Whilst I think Wood was disastrous last night, I would be tempted to play him up front on his own again, simply because Wood offers nothing off the bench whereas Kane does Our problem will most likely be tiredness, as we covered a hell of a lot of ground last night. I can see Konchesky being brought in for Schlupp, but I think Anja's pace will see us concede so I'm concerned about that flank. & Schlupp kept him pegged back in the second half more & more as the game went on I'm not sure Watford have a plan b. Where their style works well on the road, their home form indicates they can't mix it up well. Whereas we've played in loads of different ways recently with a plan b, c & d
Manwell Pablo Posted 10 May 2013 Posted 10 May 2013 We should be focusing on scoring early on, I don't think they'll expect it, and if we do they need to score 3 to win the tie out right. 90 minutes is a long time to defend a 1-0 lead away from home no matter what your formation.
Guest Col city fan Posted 10 May 2013 Posted 10 May 2013 Not imo Need a player to stop them breaking from the back or picking pacey players out with long passes, just like Nuge did for 94mins last night. Whilst I think Wood was disastrous last night, I would be tempted to play him up front on his own again, simply because Wood offers nothing off the bench whereas Kane does Our problem will most likely be tiredness, as we covered a hell of a lot of ground last night. I can see Konchesky being brought in for Schlupp, but I think Anja's pace will see us concede so I'm concerned about that flank. & Schlupp kept him pegged back in the second half more & more as the game went on I'm not sure Watford have a plan b. Where their style works well on the road, their home form indicates they can't mix it up well. Whereas we've played in loads of different ways recently with a plan b, c & d I agree with you in that I think Anja is their most dangerous player. I think he'd tear Konchesky up for arse paper. To get something out of this game we gotta stop Anja supplying their forwards.
nickelbyfox Posted 10 May 2013 Posted 10 May 2013 back to back wins - definitely keep the formation the same (last time we tried to set up shop at theirs we were poor). However agree with previous poster - only downfall could be fatigue.
davieG Posted 10 May 2013 Posted 10 May 2013 Not imo Need a player to stop them breaking from the back or picking pacey players out with long passes, just like Nuge did for 94mins last night. This is why I don't think we can 2 up front again and need to play 4411 again Whilst I think Wood was disastrous last night, I would be tempted to play him up front on his own again, simply because Wood offers nothing off the bench whereas Kane does Our problem will most likely be tiredness, as we covered a hell of a lot of ground last night. I can see Konchesky being brought in for Schlupp, but I think Anja's pace will see us concede so I'm concerned about that flank. & Schlupp kept him pegged back in the second half more & more as the game went on I'm not sure Watford have a plan b. Where their style works well on the road, their home form indicates they can't mix it up well. Whereas we've played in loads of different ways recently with a plan b, c & d Correction - Whereas we've played in loads of different ways recently with a plan c, d & e. We don't have a plan b.
Guest Posted 10 May 2013 Posted 10 May 2013 Correction - Whereas we've played in loads of different ways recently with a plan c, d & e. We don't have a plan b. Wellens is our plan b.
_Fatboyslow_ Posted 10 May 2013 Posted 10 May 2013 I do like the theory but would rather see SSL /Kean/Wes but I don't think it's the time to change things.
marbelladave Posted 10 May 2013 Posted 10 May 2013 I reckon I'd go the opposite. If Nugent is up top on his own, the ball will just keep coming straight back at us. Even with 5 at the back, we'll eventually concede. I think we need to continue to attack them, with two strikers. We look better when on the front foot and going forward. IMO. Don't think the OP was being serious.
Mack Posted 10 May 2013 Posted 10 May 2013 **** it 10-0-0 make a human SHIELD in the goal and let them line up!
_Fatboyslow_ Posted 10 May 2013 Posted 10 May 2013 **** it 10-0-0 make a human SHIELD in the goal and let them line up! Talking of walls what was that last night with the wall on front of Kasper at a free kick ?
Adster Posted 10 May 2013 Posted 10 May 2013 Only a moron would set up defensively against Watford. It'd bound to mess up and we'd concede then we'd have to totally change formation and start all over again.
peach0000 Posted 10 May 2013 Posted 10 May 2013 If it was to happen i would be happier with st ledger and konchesky as we would need experience if it was to have a hope of working. Also st ledger gives the flexibility to go 451 as well
iamafox Posted 10 May 2013 Posted 10 May 2013 For me I would stick with the same team and formation, never change a winning side.
Guest Col city fan Posted 10 May 2013 Posted 10 May 2013 Don't think the OP was being serious. I think he was Dave!
Simmo86 Posted 10 May 2013 Posted 10 May 2013 For me I would stick with the same team and formation, never change a winning side. Horses for courses. Although I think he'll keep the same formation but make a couple of changes to the team.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.