I agree with Ian (1 Viewer)

[Otis]

and I never thought I'd hear myself say that ..... we should go with 3 up front for away games.

We need points on our travels and being behind the points we are behind, losing by one goal or 3 isn't going to make that much difference.

We have scored just 6 goals in 13 away games. This has to change. We need to be more adventurous.

Nimely gives pace. Platt was an excellent foil and McShuff is there to feed off the scraps. 3 up front paid dividends today, albeit against 10 men.

 

---

[sw88]

Whatever Thorn did today, he should stick to it. However he told the players to set up and play he just needs to repeat that for the next 19 games. If only it were that easy. But we do definately need to be more attack minded away from home.

Arent we the only football league team to not win away this season?

 

[Otis]

Think that is correct.

Only 6 goals on our travels not only points to a lack of goals but a lack of chances created too. We have to do something about it. We need wins on our travels. Without we are down for sure.

 

[Paxman II]

Blackpool. I went there a couple of seasons ago when Coleman didn't have a clue! Might go again but if we put 3 up op against a side like them who only know how to attack and come forward at home it would be unwise.

 

[TheRoyalScam]

But we didn't play with three up front - AT changed the formation at various times, and McSheffrey either played wide left or in the hole, but never in a front three.

 

[bulkingtonskyblues]

Whatever Thorn did today, he should stick to it. However he told the players to set up and play he just needs to repeat that for the next 19 games. If only it were that easy. But we do definately need to be more attack minded away from home.

Arent we the only football league team to not win away this season?

and we would probably have to win 4 or 5 away now to stand a chance of staying up, too little too late im afraid, not negative just realistic, great win though pusb

 

[Nonleagueherewecome]

We've been poor away as we don't have pace and can't hit teams on the break-which is how most away points are won. Even O'Donovan against Southampton showed that a quick forward means the opposition defence have to sit 5-10 yards deeper, and can't squeeze up on our midfield as they had been before. Nimely, of course, is much better than Roy! So henceforth, we should be a different proposition away. Nothing there to blame Thorn for, I'm afraid-not his fault that we haven't been able to add a quick player before now, and it actually explains why he gave Roy a chance whenever he's been fit!

 

[Otis]

But we didn't play with three up front - AT changed the formation at various times, and McSheffrey either played wide left or in the hole, but never in a front three.

Never in a front 3? Different game to me then and Clive Eakin and Noel Whelan. At times it was very clearly a front 3. Both Eakin and Whelan alluded to this on a number of occasions. Shuff had a more free role but they lined up as a front 3.

 

[Nonleagueherewecome]

But we didn't play with three up front - AT changed the formation at various times, and McSheffrey either played wide left or in the hole, but never in a front three.

Quite right; it was very fluid. Nimely, Bell and Sheff were fantastic in their movement, especially when Boro were down to 10 men, they dragged them all over the place. I kept screaming an Alan Partridge-esque LIQUID FOOTBALL! Eat my goal!

 

[Otis]

Quite right; it was very fluid. Nimely, Bell and Sheff were fantastic in their movement, especially when Boro were down to 10 men, they dragged them all over the place. I kept screaming an Alan Partridge-esque LIQUID FOOTBALL! Eat my goal!

Better tell Eakin and Linnell and Whelan then.

 

[TheRoyalScam]

Never in a front 3? Different game to me then and Clive Eakin and Noel Whelan. At times it was very clearly a front 3. Both Eakin and Whelan alluded to this on a number of occasions. Shuff had a more free role but they lined up as a front 3.

Not for me! Were you listening to the CWR commentary while watching the match? The formation was more fluid than usual, but it was never a straight 4-3-3. At one point when 'Boro were down to 10 men we even played a fragmented 4-4-2 with McSheffrey left midfield, pushing up to attack when in possession and tracking back to cover the Herminator when defending. I'm not complaining or arguing though - it was a great team performance!

 

[Nonleagueherewecome]

Not for me! Were you listening to the CWR commentary while watching the match? The formation was more fluid than usual, but it was never a straight 4-3-3. At one point when 'Boro were down to 10 men we even played a fragmented 4-4-2 with McSheffrey left midfield, pushing up to attack when in possession and tracking back to cover the Herminator when defending. I'm not complaining or arguing though - it was a great team performance!

You saw what I saw, Scam: we changed shape about 7 times; everytime Boro adjusted, we tweaked again. It was a tactical masterpiece by Thorn, almost as if he's read the crap on here and was trying to prove a point!

 

[Otis]

Yep, had CWR on while watching the game. There was fluidity for sure but at times we definitely played with a front 3 and that's as the CWR team called it too.

 

[TheRoyalScam]

You saw what I saw, Scam: we changed shape about 7 times; everytime Boro adjusted, we tweaked again. It was a tactical masterpiece by Thorn, almost as if he's read the crap on here and was trying to prove a point!

Perhaps we should form a radio commentating tag team and give fans the true picture instead of CWR if they reckon it was 4-3-3.

 

[@richh87]

Never 4-3-3. It was the diamond again - but people won't want to hear that as it stops them moaning about the diamond

 

[Notorious B.I.Girimana]

quite right; it was very fluid. Nimely, bell and sheff were fantastic in their movement, especially when boro were down to 10 men, they dragged them all over the place. I kept screaming an alan partridge-esque liquid football! eat my goal!

booof! Eat that!!