Shrimpsvoices

As much as the majority (I assume!) will want to see changes to tomorrow's team particularly up front, I suspect that JB will give the same starting 11 a chance to redeem themselves. I sincerely hope that I'm wrong.....

Centre half on the horizon I understand!!

Freez wrote:Centre half on the horizon I understand!!

If this is correct, would he be eligable to play tomorrow ?

Hopefully, yes.

Freez wrote:Hopefully, yes.

John Terry?

think Jim will go 4-2-3-1 as things stand.


however if Jim brings another defender in, he may go with 3 C/Bs and to be fair Kenyon he's played as a LCB before and done alright.

could then go with a 3-5-2 and 5-3-2 without the ball, allowing us at Home to go with 2 proper Center Forwards infront of Goal, hopefully one being Oswell.

Freez wrote:Centre half on the horizon I understand!!

Is he called “Academy Open” because that guy is having a trial...?

I would go 3-4-3

Roche
Old Kenyon Sinclair
Mills Fleming Tutte Cranston
Mandeville Oswell Ellison

Bring on Oates, AJ Leitch-Smith and Wildig

Knowing JB we will go 5-5-0 and look for the clean sheet

What’s wrong with a standard, simple 4-4-2... a lot of teams have a lot of success with it, not many do with 3/5 atb at our level...

I know 4-2-3-1 has been slated but I don't think it was necessarily the formation at fault. It was more the tactic of lumping it to Oliver/Oates/Ellison and expecting Mandeville to win the loose ball. When Crewe inevitably picked it up (as they hadn't aimlessly committed 3/4 players like us) we were very exposed down the flanks, meaning Mills and Cranston were made to look daft. A wide target man as a tactic is fine (eg, Mandzukic at Juventus) but we have to do it with far more consideration. I like the shout of 3-5-2 but I really wouldn't feel confident playing three centre backs in our current situation. I would go:

Roche
Mills Old Brownsword/Sinclair/NewCB Cranston
Tutte Fleming
Mandeville Wildig Ellison
Oswell

Wildig should give a better link between the front and midfield provided WE ACTUALLY PLAY IT ON THE DECK. If we can work it down the flanks then we can use the excellent delivery of Mills, Cranston and Mandeville to feed Oswell, who thrives off crosses, and Kev's late runs into the box. Would have Kenyon nowhere near the team, he was embarrassing. Decent in the air but his positioning (ok he's not a natural CB) and tackling (which is horrific, really poor from a CDM) was awful. Looked a bit out of shape too, I know you don't usually expected defenders to be quicker than attackers but the way he got outstripped was laughable. Much rather take a chance on Brownsword with Old giving advice to him.

Interesting to see that, like Crewe, Exeter won impressively against Carlisle with a 4-4-2 (or 4-4-1-1) formation... Why do we have to have 6 defensive-minded positions with a 4-2-3-1, with a 4-4-2, your 2 centre mids are box-to-box i.e. Tutte etc. A 3/5 at the back has sometimes worked, but mostly because we have had two main strikers who could run off eachother (e.g. Mullin, Redshaw, Kev, Stockton etc...).

A 4-2-3-1 is great if you have 3 attacking mids/wingers who are able to sprint at defenders and then have the quality to track back and put a tackle in, but Kev and Oates don’t necessarily have the defensive quality to do this. This is why you see teams in the top flights of European football going with these formations because they can also put midfielders in deep like Iniesta was, and Fernandinho, who are good defensively, but brilliant at distribution and getting forward when they need to. The team we have doesn’t lend itself to a 4-2-3-1 imo, but I’d like to see a 3 at the back if not a 4-4-2 tomorrow.

Little Shrimp wrote:I know 4-2-3-1 has been slated but I don't think it was necessarily the formation at fault. It was more the tactic of lumping it to Oliver/Oates/Ellison and expecting Mandeville to win the loose ball. When Crewe inevitably picked it up (as they hadn't aimlessly committed 3/4 players like us) we were very exposed down the flanks, meaning Mills and Cranston were made to look daft. A wide target man as a tactic is fine (eg, Mandzukic at Juventus) but we have to do it with far more consideration. I like the shout of 3-5-2 but I really wouldn't feel confident playing three centre backs in our current situation. I would go:

Roche
Mills Old Brownsword/Sinclair/NewCB Cranston
Tutte Fleming
Mandeville Wildig Ellison
Oswell

Wildig should give a better link between the front and midfield provided WE ACTUALLY PLAY IT ON THE DECK. If we can work it down the flanks then we can use the excellent delivery of Mills, Cranston and Mandeville to feed Oswell, who thrives off crosses, and Kev's late runs into the box. Would have Kenyon nowhere near the team, he was embarrassing. Decent in the air but his positioning (ok he's not a natural CB) and tackling (which is horrific, really poor from a CDM) was awful. Looked a bit out of shape too, I know you don't usually expected defenders to be quicker than attackers but the way he got outstripped was laughable. Much rather take a chance on Brownsword with Old giving advice to him.

I agree mostly and I agree that we are in a bit of a predicament with a 3 at the back, because when we get counter-attacked, the wing-backs (Cranston and Mills, most likely), we are left with Kenyon, Old and another centre half, and I don’t like the sound of that! Old can be very sluggish and Kenyon too often miss-times tackles and/or rushes out of defense and leaves a huge bit of space in behind him.
However, the 4-2-3-1 is a lot more of a complicated formation to master, as you have to have two defensive midfielders who can go out wide to close down the space in the flanks, while keeping good communication to make sure the more attacking midfielders also come back and close up space elsewhere.
The problem is, when we get counter-attacked with pace, as with what happened at Crewe, the full-backs are very exposed as there are two separate lines of midfield and an isolated striker, making it difficult for the whole of both the centre midfield and the wide areas to be covered. And once a full-back is beaten, it pulls the centre halfs out of position and space around the penalty spot is created, hence a few of our goals conceded.

Anything other than at least 2 out and out strikers will be an outrage. The redundant number 10 he insists with should be done away with.

Agree with the comment that it is more about the style than the set up. Oswell and Mandeville up top for me, get a partnership formed

BerlinWaller wrote:Oswell and Mandeville up top for me, get a partnership formed

Have to agree with that. In the past, when we've been struggling mid season, a two up front partnership has got us the goals/wins, i.e. Ellison/Redshaw, Ellison/Mullin, but such partnerships take time to grow. Look at how well Allessandra progressed when he was in a steady partnership at Portsmouth(?) after leaving us. Continuing with an isolated striker (especially if it's Oliver) isn't forward thinking - it's just the "same old" and won't achieve anything. I'd far rather see Jim put a regular 2 up front, even if they don't score at first, as at least they'll be starting to gel and it will come right eventually. Doing the "same old" and expecting different results is so annoying and driving fans away. I'll be VERY disappointed to see Oliver up front tomorrow!

Doesn’t look like we’ve got a CB in suppose Kenyon will have to play there again for tomorrow’s game

RapidShrimp wrote:I agree mostly and I agree that we are in a bit of a predicament with a 3 at the back, because when we get counter-attacked, the wing-backs (Cranston and Mills, most likely), we are left with Kenyon, Old and another centre half, and I don’t like the sound of that! Old can be very sluggish and Kenyon too often miss-times tackles and/or rushes out of defense and leaves a huge bit of space in behind him.
However, the 4-2-3-1 is a lot more of a complicated formation to master, as you have to have two defensive midfielders who can go out wide to close down the space in the flanks, while keeping good communication to make sure the more attacking midfielders also come back and close up space elsewhere.
The problem is, when we get counter-attacked with pace, as with what happened at Crewe, the full-backs are very exposed as there are two separate lines of midfield and an isolated striker, making it difficult for the whole of both the centre midfield and the wide areas to be covered. And once a full-back is beaten, it pulls the centre halfs out of position and space around the penalty spot is created, hence a few of our goals conceded.

I agree that our wingers (Oates and Ellison) were leaving the wide areas exposed, although I saw this as more because they were instructed to compete with the Crewe backline for headers, hence pushing them further up than you'd expect a winger to usually be and exposing Mills and Cranston. I'd disagree that 4-2-3-1 is complicated, it's essentially a natural evolution of 4-4-2 (4-4-1-1) - the main difference being the No10 acting as more of a link between the striker and midfield.

I think we're essentially saying similar things. Regardless of what formation we officially class it as, our wide men need to have more restraint and be in a better position to help out our full backs. Personally, I feel we need that link between midfield and attack from Wildig, although perhaps a traditional strike partnership of Oswell and AJ/Mandeville could be called for. If we do play with one centre forward, I think we could negate the lack of men in the box problem by playing down the right more and getting Ellison to arrive late into the box add numbers. Of course, this could still pose the problem of leaving our left flank exposed so if we used this tactic, Ellison would have to be mindful of that and pick his moments carefully.

MRScaleHall wrote:Doesn’t look like we’ve got a CB in suppose Kenyon will have to play there again for tomorrow’s game

Ive heard there is someone on the way, its a bit late now though

RapidShrimp wrote:

Freez wrote:Hopefully, yes.

John Terry?

Jim Bentley?

marky No.1 wrote:

MRScaleHall wrote:Doesn’t look like we’ve got a CB in suppose Kenyon will have to play there again for tomorrow’s game

Ive heard there is someone on the way, its a bit late now though

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=23768

Should be an interesting line up with the new loan central defender Josef Yarney comming in.

It would be great if Jim set the team up to worry Exeter and not set the team up because he is worried about Exeter.

May be a bit too soon to chuck the new lad in to a back 3 so I think he will go with the 4 2 3 1 which has been so successful