Full back logic
Posted: Sun Oct 04, 2015 12:28 pmYesterday we played Parrish right back and Beels left back which essentially nullified any sort of attacking threat from ourselves down both flanks.
Parrish to be fair has poor distribution and limited attacking ability so playing him right of left back would have made absolutely no difference. His defensive duties would have been the same so for me he should have been left back.
Beels played as a right footed left back which means he needs to cut in every team and limited his delivery on his weaker foot. So basically we had jack shit down either wing. Why didn't he play Beels right back where we could have had some joy down at least one flank without really affecting the defensive back line ( we conceded 4 anyway)
To me Jim made a massive mistake yesterday and the worrying thing is he did nothing to rectify it.
Parrish to be fair has poor distribution and limited attacking ability so playing him right of left back would have made absolutely no difference. His defensive duties would have been the same so for me he should have been left back.
Beels played as a right footed left back which means he needs to cut in every team and limited his delivery on his weaker foot. So basically we had jack shit down either wing. Why didn't he play Beels right back where we could have had some joy down at least one flank without really affecting the defensive back line ( we conceded 4 anyway)
To me Jim made a massive mistake yesterday and the worrying thing is he did nothing to rectify it.
