tactics (1 Viewer)

skybluekelly98 · Jan 25, 2015

I really think we should return to that 3-5-2 formation. As boring as it could get,its the only formation we have had which has provided any consistency in results. If you remember how well we played first game back at the Ricoh, wold it not be a good idea to return to this playing style pressley? Obviously we don't have the same team as back then, but it seems the players we have now are more suited to that formation. We now have a better goalkeeper, Jones for allsop. Clarke was never a wing back, but Phillips or Pennington could play that role with ease. Haynes would play in the same role. Back the we were playing with Webster Willis and Johnson as a back three, we can now swap Webster for martin, a solid defence. A midfield 3 of JOB Fleck and Swanson seems promising, some may disagree with Swanson but we do have options ie barton, Thomas, finch etc. We played with Mcquoid and tudgay upfront, later nouble and tudgay, Jackson mcquoid etc. Personally I would go with Jackson and nouble, think marine is overrated and am unsure about tudgay. Possibly even Madison. But the point is we have options upfront.

So why is it that we have switched to this lone striker shit? We have a solid defence, we are not leaking goals and so pressley decides to play four at the back? We are not scoring goals so we play one upfront? Logic? We have no wingers, so 3-5-2 is the obvious way to go.
Also think pressley is about of a hypocrite, with the amount of long balls we play, dark age football?
Oh, and Webster is shit.
PUSB

SkyBlue_Bear83 · Jan 25, 2015

We will still be shit with 3-5-2, just like we still are when when we switched away from 3-5-2.

And a midfield of JOB, Fleck and Swanson is not promising

wingy · Jan 25, 2015

CCFC said:
We will still be shit with 3-5-2, just like we still are when when we switched away from 3-5-2.

And a midfield of JOB, Fleck and Swanson is not promising

Yep still missing a decent DMC ,then we need Reda to stay fit ,then all will be well.

skybluekelly98 · Jan 25, 2015

CCFC said:
We will still be shit with 3-5-2, just like we still are when when we switched away from 3-5-2.

And a midfield of JOB, Fleck and Swanson is not promising

We will always be shit with this team and manager but we were less shit then.

Sky Blue Kid · Jan 25, 2015

skybluekelly98 said:
I really think we should return to that 3-5-2 formation. As boring as it could get,its the only formation we have had which has provided any consistency in results. If you remember how well we played first game back at the Ricoh, wold it not be a good idea to return to this playing style pressley? Obviously we don't have the same team as back then, but it seems the players we have now are more suited to that formation. We now have a better goalkeeper, Jones for allsop. Clarke was never a wing back, but Phillips or Pennington could play that role with ease. Haynes would play in the same role. Back the we were playing with Webster Willis and Johnson as a back three, we can now swap Webster for martin, a solid defence. A midfield 3 of JOB Fleck and Swanson seems promising, some may disagree with Swanson but we do have options ie barton, Thomas, finch etc. We played with Mcquoid and tudgay upfront, later nouble and tudgay, Jackson mcquoid etc. Personally I would go with Jackson and nouble, think marine is overrated and am unsure about tudgay. Possibly even Madison. But the point is we have options upfront. So why is it that we have switched to this lone striker shit? We have a solid defence, we are not leaking goals and so pressley decides to play four at the back? We are not scoring goals so we play one upfront? Logic? We have no wingers, so 3-5-2 is the obvious way to go. Also think pressley is about of a hypocrite, with the amount of long balls we play, dark age football? Oh, and Webster is shit. PUSB

Not wishing to be picky but, what evidence do you have about us "Having a solid defence" and "Not leaking goals"???.....We've shipped in 6 goals in the last 3 games!

skybluekelly98 · Jan 25, 2015

Sky Blue Kid said:
Not wishing to be picky but, what evidence do you have about us "Having a solid defence" and "Not leaking goals"???.....We've shipped in 6 goals in the last 3 games!

Notice websters played all three?

Sky Blue Kid · Jan 25, 2015

skybluekelly98 said:
Notice websters played all three?

I have, and maintain that the winning team against Walsall should have been played where possible over the last 3 games instead of Webster and Martin. I've seen milk turn quicker than both of them.

Sky Blue Kid · Jan 25, 2015

Sky Blue Kid said:
I have, and maintain that the winning team against Walsall should have been played where possible over the last 3 games instead of Webster and Martin. I've seen milk turn quicker than both of them.

When non other than Joe Royle (Everton God, and legend) is sitting in the stands and says "Pennington is a good RB, but is a brilliant CB" and SP plays it his way, and plays him at RB or drops him, shows exactly what player positioning, strengths, and knowledge he's got....F**king zero!

stupot07 · Jan 25, 2015

Sky Blue Kid said:
When non other than Joe Royle (Everton God, and legend) is sitting in the stands and says "Pennington is a good RB, but is a brilliant CB" and SP plays it his way, and plays him at RB or drops him, shows exactly what player positioning, strengths, and knowledge he's got....F**king zero!

Why bother signing him in the first place? We needed a rightback not a centre back at the time.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

blueflint · Jan 25, 2015

whats the point of tactics we don't have any apparently

Sky Blue Kid · Jan 25, 2015

stupot07 said:
Why bother signing him in the first place? We needed a rightback not a centre back at the time. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

We desperately needed a LB....Wait a minute...We had one Blair Adam?!

Sky Blue Kid · Jan 25, 2015

@ Stupot07....When a "Legend" drops a hint that's as subtle as a brick but don't follow it up, in fact drop the best CB pairing we've had all season speaks volumes to me about SP's ineptitude to pick players in their best positions.

stupot07 · Jan 25, 2015

Sky Blue Kid said:
@ Stupot07....When a "Legend" drops a hint that's as subtle as a brick but don't follow it up, in fact drop the best CB pairing we've had all season speaks volumes to me about SP's ineptitude to pick players in their best positions.

I agree, players should be played in their best position. My point was, Pennington was brought in because clarke was at yeovil, and phillips and willis were injured and we needed a rightback.

From the CT at the time.

"He can play in central defence and at right-back, and received a cap for the England Under-19s in March 2013, and joins as cover at a time when Jordan Willis is out injured and Aaron Phillips nursing a knee problem."

Why bother bringing in a centre half who can do a job at rightback, just bring in a rightback.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

stupot07 · Jan 25, 2015

Sky Blue Kid said:
We desperately needed a LB....Wait a minute...We had one Blair Adam?!

LB? What's that got to do with Pennington?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

Gazolba · Jan 25, 2015

Pennington may be a brilliant centre-back but in Pressley's eyes, he is one inch too short and that over-rides any other consideration.

Sky Blue Kid · Jan 25, 2015

I was being sarcastic..I apolgise. My point was we had a more than adequate LB in Blair Adam, but SP refused to play him and tried any combination of players to fill the position, unsuccessfully. I think being a left footer and actually being a natural LB went way over SP's head don't you? Most right footed players can't fill the LB position. whereas lots of right wingers/midfielders can easily fill the RB slot. The natural progression for winger/midfielders when getting older and slower do exactly that. My point is we were imho weak in the CB pairing at that time and the chance to stabilise that pairing worked at Walsall. only to be disbanded the following week.!!!

Hobo · Jan 25, 2015

I thought everybody agreed 4-4-2 was the only formation that could possibly work at this level or even with this particular group of players. It all seemed so simple play 4-4-2 and we would rocket up the table. Unfortunately if you buy sub standard players who are not self disciplined or motivated you get shit results. The whole structure of the club is wrong. There is no leadership from the owners, no believable business plan, no investment plan. The scouting and recruitment policy is non existent. It is not one persons fault as some keep peddling. The owners need to grasp the metal and radically change the way they manage and invest in the club. They need to stop playing lip service to change and then going back on their word a few days later.

In my opinion they are out of their depth from a business point of view and are out of their depth financially, they have waisted time chasing their tail and dug themselves in too deep. Totally incompetent on all levels.

stupot07 · Jan 25, 2015

Sky Blue Kid said:
I was being sarcastic..I apolgise. My point was we had a more than adequate LB in Blair Adam, but SP refused to play him and tried any combination of players to fill the position, unsuccessfully. I think being a left footer and actually being a natural LB went way over SP's head don't you? Most right footed players can't fill the LB position. whereas lots of right wingers/midfielders can easily fill the RB slot. The natural progression for winger/midfielders when getting older and slower do exactly that. My point is we were imho weak in the CB pairing at that time and the chance to stabilise that pairing worked at Walsall. only to be disbanded the following week.!!!

I'm still confused on what blair adams and the left back position has to do with Pennington? We've got haynes, johnson (played there for the whole of sheff weds promotion season) and pugh (yes injured I know), that is why adams was let go.

Pennington was brought in to play left back. Yes he had 1 good game at centre back, and we can't really use hindsight as a reason to look back on the decision to move him back to rightback as we have no idea on whether it would have had a bearing on any of the results. I don't rate webster but both he and martin had kept 4 cleansheets and conceded 3 goals in the previous 6 league games prior to missing out vs walsall through injury/illness.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

Sky Blue Kid · Jan 25, 2015

I was always taught this one saying....If it ain't broke, don't fix it! Adams was OURS. We didn't need a LB. Pennington moved to CB at Walsall and kept a clean sheet didn't he? The RB position was covered very well too. Btw...Webster and Martin may very well have kept 4 clean sheets prior to Walsall, but you neglect to mention they conceded 6 goals in the following 2 games after.

stupot07 · Jan 25, 2015

Sky Blue Kid said:
I was always taught this one saying....If it ain't broke, don't fix it! Adams was OURS. We didn't need a LB. Pennington moved to CB at Walsall and kept a clean sheet didn't he? The RB position was covered very well too. Btw...Webster and Martin may very well have kept 4 clean sheets prior to Walsall, but you neglect to mention they conceded 6 goals in the following 2 games after.

I think you're getting confused between Clarke and Adams. Adams left before the season started, not sure what it has to do with Pennington. And I still don't know why you are going on about LB when it was RB that needed covering at the point Pennington was brought in.

I didn't mention the 6 goals after because that was after, I'm coming from SP's POV for that particular decision. You cannot see into the future and predict they would go on to concede 6 in their next 2 games, you can also not say that we wouldn't have conceded 6+ if the back four had remained the same. We simply cannot predict that.

You say if it ain't broke don't fix it, but the back four had to be changed because Phillips was injured.

We seem to be going around in circles, I am actually agreeing with you that SP is poor, but I'm more coming from the angle that if we needed a rightback, why the hell did we sign a centre back?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

SkyBlue_Bear83 · Jan 25, 2015

stupot07 said:
I'm still confused on what blair adams and the left back position has to do with Pennington? We've got haynes, johnson (played there for the whole of sheff weds promotion season) and pugh (yes injured I know), that is why adams was let go.

Pennington was brought in to play left back. Yes he had 1 good game at centre back, and we can't really use hindsight as a reason to look back on the decision to move him back to rightback as we have no idea on whether it would have had a bearing on any of the results. I don't rate webster but both he and martin had kept 4 cleansheets and conceded 3 goals in the previous 6 league games prior to missing out vs walsall through injury/illness.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

Just that Pressley was clueless with Adams and he is still clueless now.

stupot07 · Jan 25, 2015

CCFC said:
Just that Pressley was clueless with Adams and he is still clueless now.

Yeah, I wouldn't have let him go....I suspect him finishing on 49 appearances is not a coincidence. I certainly wouldn't have signed Pugh.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

tactics (1 Viewer)

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency