starting lineup (1 Viewer)

skybluejack10 · Jul 30, 2012

By the looks of the numbers it seems as though thorn will be playing the 4-2-3-1 formation after all in my opinion it's way too defensive!

------------------Murphy-1----------------
clarke-2----Wood-24---Malaga---6--Hussey3
---------Thomas-4-----Kilbane15/deegan12-
--Baker8/bell7----Fleck-10-----Mcsheffrey11-
-----------------Mcdonald-9----------------

Wood has always been 24 so is lilely to partner malaga instead of edjenguele, despite cameron being 5.
Baker looks most likely to play instead of bell. Them two have always had those numbers so shouldnt mean too much.
Kilbane more likely to start instead of deegan but got lower number
Fleck has the number 9 shirt so will probably be playing off mcdonald who's number 9

with all the strikers we now have, i dont favour the 4-2-3-1- formation and it doesnt offer enough for the forwards.

covcity4life · Jul 30, 2012

if we play 4-2-3-1 its actually very attacking if done right

i dont mind falling to 4-5-1 when required but if we do the same crap like last year of trying to live off 1-0 ill go mad!

stupot07 · Jul 30, 2012

covcity4life said:
if we play 4-2-3-1 its actually very attacking if done right

i dont mind falling to 4-5-1 when required but if we do the same crap like last year of trying to live off 1-0 ill go mad!

I like the formation, but the lack of pace to support cody would worry me

oldskyblue58 · Jul 30, 2012

shouldn't we be picking the team on current form not what number they wear? Not sure we should read too much into the numbers

Got no problem with the formation ...... but are we going to play it on the front foot and is there any pace to it ? There doesnt appear to be much pace looking at the names above

SkyBlue_Bear83 · Jul 30, 2012

All the strikers as in all 3 of them unless you count ROD which is laughable. If Mcdonald gets a bad injury again it would be a disaster

Nothing wrong with 4-2-3-1 if it is played well, we have two very attacking full backs which are vital in the formation and Thomas will need to play as a box to box midfielder with Kilbane being the brains beside him. We will have some width and may be able to create some good 2 on 1 situation down the flank through Baker/Clarke and Sheff/Hussey

What we need to avoid desperately is the long punts forward if this was the side we played

shy_tall_knight · Jul 30, 2012

I think we have discounted Bill, Reece and Elliot - they may figure ahead of Wood and Baker and possibly Hussey.

skybluejack10 · Jul 30, 2012

somebody posted this formation earlier and i really like it:

play a narrow 4-2-3-1 like:

-------------------murphy----------------
clarke-----malaga--------wood-------hussey
------thomas-------fleck-------kilbane
-------------cody--------sheffers
------------------ball/bruno---------

The fullbacks would add the width to the team

Reynolds_121 · Jul 30, 2012

That's a shocking formation, what are Codys and Mcsheffreys roles?

4-2-3-1 or the diamond are our best formations. We haven't got the pace or personnel to play 4-4-2, same with 4-3-3

dongonzalos · Jul 30, 2012

...Murphy

Clarke.......Wood....Malaga........Hussey

Baker........killer.......Rankin...........Sheff

..................Cody.......Ball

Dunn Fleck Bell Cameron Deegan Elliott Brown

WeWillBeBack · Jul 30, 2012

Can someone explain to me what Conor Thomas brings to the team?! Dont rate him at all..

SkyBlue_Bear83 · Jul 30, 2012

skybluejack10 said:
somebody posted this formation earlier and i really like it:

play a narrow 4-2-3-1 like:

-------------------murphy----------------
clarke-----malaga--------wood-------hussey
------thomas-------fleck-------kilbane
-------------cody--------sheffers
------------------ball/bruno---------

The fullbacks would add the width to the team

Playing with Clarke and Hussey as our only outlets out wide is something I don't like and could leave us vunerable to the long punt counter attack, everytime they get the ball they have two options. Pass back inside or try and dribble past a man, I think we would be better off playing with two wingers/wide players and trying to get a 2 v 1 vs an opposition full back.

Also I am not sure how Fleck would play in a central midfield role

stupot07 · Jul 30, 2012

WeWillBeBack said:
Can someone explain to me what Conor Thomas brings to the team?! Dont rate him at all..

He tackles, got a good engine, decent range of passing Nd keeps the ball ticking over, in fact he played the holding role better than clingan because he moved the ball quicker. You have to remember he is only 18, and is 3 school years younger than Norwood.

He shouldn't really have been anywhere near the first team last season, but having played as much as he did he really needs to start showing he can influence and dictate matches more.

Diehard Si · Jul 30, 2012

skybluejack10 said:
somebody posted this formation earlier and i really like it:

play a narrow 4-2-3-1 like:

-------------------murphy----------------
clarke-----malaga--------wood-------hussey
------thomas-------fleck-------kilbane
-------------cody--------sheffers
------------------ball/bruno---------

The fullbacks would add the width to the team

If i was being pedantic I'd say that was a 4321, which is basically a 433

I feel the 4231 offers much more in the way of adaptability. 2 covering defenders to provide extra backup to the defence allowing the other 4 to get forward. If McSheff and Elliot play the wide roles it offers additional 'striking' options and Fleck just tucked in behind. If we need to tighten up and close out a game it slots back to a 451 and closes down the midfield. Maybe taking Elliot of McSheff off for a more defensively minded player.

skybluegod · Jul 30, 2012

can we stop having so many threads on this it's boring now o this might be the starting ine up or this

pusbccfc · Jul 30, 2012

Murphy

Clarke-Malaga-Brown-Hussey

Thomas--------------Kilbane

--------------Baker-------------------

Fleck------Cody----------Sheffery

If either of the front 4 struggle to make a good start/impact I'd add Ball/Cazarine.
I think Baker has a point to prove and if on form he could make a big impact on the league!

Diehard Si · Jul 30, 2012

skybluegod said:
can we stop having so many threads on this it's boring now o this might be the starting ine up or this

Yes you're right, we need more 'Thorn is shit' threads

skybluegod · Jul 30, 2012

Diehard Si said:
Yes you're right, we need more 'Thorn is shit' threads

we might have a lot of them but we sure as hell have had at least 1 a day of these

WeWillBeBack · Jul 30, 2012

No matter how much some of us want thorn to play fancy 4321 or 4213 formations, lets be serious now.. It will either be 4231 or 442 and the last roll of the dice will be reverting to 41212.

Astute · Jul 30, 2012

Or 3 5 2 with wingers if we can sign another one. We are going to have a lot of games this season where our opponents defend most of the game.

edgy · Jul 30, 2012

Edj has high squad numbers as he requests them. Expect him & Malaga to be the no1 cb partnership.

oldskyblue58 · Jul 30, 2012

we still miss a couple of players with real pace though dont we whatever the formation

ajsccfc · Jul 30, 2012

The squad numbers tell you little more than what was free and what some players choose.

covcity4life · Jul 31, 2012

oldskyblue58 said:
we still miss a couple of players with real pace though dont we whatever the formation

i take your point & yes we do and hopefully "ricky" will get another shot to prove himself but we have hussey/clarke/bell/baker/mcsheffrey 5 players who can all get to the byline outwide and get a good cross in, this formation can work and work well even without pace

oldskyblue58 · Jul 31, 2012

agree cc4l it can work without real pace but it will than rely on good movement, sharp passing and speed of thought. Only point of reference I have for that is last season and that wouldnt fill me with confidence. However it is a new division, a number of new players and a new season so I am happy to keep an open mind on that and wait see how things progress

covcity4life · Jul 31, 2012

oldskyblue58 said:
agree cc4l it can work without real pace but it will than rely on good movement, sharp passing and speed of thought. Only point of reference I have for that is last season and that wouldnt fill me with confidence. However it is a new division, a number of new players and a new season so I am happy to keep an open mind on that and wait see how things progress

if we dont see it this season all blame lies with thorn and simply he has to go

DiveDiveWhereverYouMayBe · Jul 31, 2012

All blame wouldn't lie with Thorn any more than all blame would lie with the players or with SISU. People are expecting a better season from us and Thorn will, rightly, be under muchos scrutiny. However, saying we should finish in the top six as a minimum without a workable knowledge of the 23 other teams / our new signings is merely guesswork. In the same way, absolving other parties of blame while laying it squarely at one individual's feet will, I fear, miss the point. This is not to defend Thorn or say that we should pass the buck. Merely that, for example, if Baker / Bell / McSheffrey have a shit season, the blame will be at least partially their own. I couldn't agree more with OSB's last line... let's keep an open mind (whilst not being overly positive or negative if possible) and see how things progress when the season gets under way.

Marty · Jul 31, 2012

I'd personally go 3-5-2. Clarke and Hussey as wing backs, and play Fleck/McSheffrey behind Cody and a big man. I reckon I should be a football manager, having a formation that suits the players maybe a bit of a leap forward for us though.

davebart · Jul 31, 2012

The formation is irrelevant. Unless you have players who defend with discipline, move the ball in possession quickly and accurately and have a few with a decent shot on them you will have a team that struggles.

We only had the first of these last season. Hopefully the new recruits will change that.

Marty · Jul 31, 2012

The formation isn't irrelevant, you need something that suits your players and the way they play. The formation nor style of play suited a single player last season, this tippy tappy pass it round the defence for 2 minutes then call it great football is tedious to watch. If you have a formation set up to suit what you have available then you will be better off for it. I agree though, we dally on the ball for far too long and as a result struggled to break team downs as we quickly became predictable.

starting lineup (1 Viewer)

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

CCFC Finance Director

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

CCFC Finance Director

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

CCFC Finance Director

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency