skybluekelly98
New Member
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
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