Torquay United Fans Forum

ferrarilover wrote:I don't know, I've never met one willing to submit to questioning.

Matt.

Here's one open to question with an answer : having gone commando with my campingaz stove and fried breakfast goodies, I can confirm I've had the BARE 'rse cheek(s) to dump in the wild.

I don't know, I've never met one willing to submit to questioning.

Matt.

ferrarilover wrote:Everyone is before my time Troj, I have my youth!

Are you going tomorrow?

Matt.

Do bears sh't in the woods ?

Everyone is before my time Troj, I have my youth!

Are you going tomorrow?

Matt.

ferrarilover wrote:Who the f**k is this clown?^^^^^^^^^^

Matt.

Gurney/Gibbs. Before your time Matt.

Who the **** is this clown?^^^^^^^^^^

Matt.

ferrarilover wrote:Well, ok, given the Nico's natural lack of fitness issue, perhaps a traditional 4-4-2 with Nico at left-back, Eunan and Oastler in the middle, with Manse and LRT as widemen.

I know this means Leadbitter missing out, and a weak starting right winger AND turning LRT from a left back into a left winger, but I'm not sure this is too much of an issue.

----------------------------------------------- Bobby
Robbo ---------------------------Saah ---------------------------Ellis-------------------------Nico


Manse--------------------------- Eunan--------------------------JOastler--------------------LRT



-------------------------------------Billy ----------------------- Howe








Matt.

abysmal lineup, sort your head out

Jerry wrote: Didn't Gibbs and Gurney get nearly 20 goals between them from wing-back? I certainly don't remember that Hodges side being boring or negative.

True, but we don't have Gibbs and Gurney anymore. We have Nico who is a dead ball specialist and not particularly fast, doesn't tend to get up the line that much and Leadbitter, who more than has the pace but by all accounts, doesn't quite have the technical ability yet. Perhaps the future is with Leadbitter and LRT but I don't think either would really be ready for that role yet, it would be too important a role to stick on young, unproven shoulders.

cambgull wrote:I'm not sure I really understand why it would be a problem with 3 strikers. The wing backs should be covering the wingers and the outside CBs could double up on them, the middle CB should be marking the main striker and any runners from midfield should be covered by the defensive minded midfielders. There should be 7 defensive players covering 3-5 attacking players, should be a good defense to me.

The main problem is up front, we're we'd only have 3 players who will get on the scoresheet. I feel we could be under the cosh too much with this formation and would much rather than the Buckle approach of "Attack is the best form of defense".

Didn't Gibbs and Gurney get nearly 20 goals between them from wing-back? I certainly don't remember that Hodges side being boring or negative.

I'm not sure I really understand why it would be a problem with 3 strikers. The wing backs should be covering the wingers and the outside CBs could double up on them, the middle CB should be marking the main striker and any runners from midfield should be covered by the defensive minded midfielders. There should be 7 defensive players covering 3-5 attacking players, should be a good defense to me.

The main problem is up front, we're we'd only have 3 players who will get on the scoresheet. I feel we could be under the cosh too much with this formation and would much rather than the Buckle approach of "Attack is the best form of defense".

Echoing general concensus, I like the look of the originally suggested team and particularly the idea that we should look to adapt our formation to our personnel, not the other way around, which I believe gets more success out of teams. Like others, my main reservation would be Nicho's suitability to the wing back role, but I would personally be pretty desperate to squeeze him into the team somehow due to the passing, throw in and set piece quality he brings, which I think could be a valuable source of goals in the coming season.

With the players we have I would also disagree that this is a negative formation - to my mind it frees up O'Kane to impact things in and around the box more and removes some of his defensive responsibilities. It also gets our fullbacks (one of whom can deliver great crosses and rocket shots, while the other strikes me as a pacey attacking full back based on the Tivvy match report I read) further up the pitch and thus more able to influence attacking matters. Mansell and Oastler are more suited to breaking up play and tracking back rather than causing danger going forward, and having 3 big centre backs would mean we have 3 big targets at set pieces. In my opinion this plays to the strengths of our players more than a 4-4-2 would.

With regards to it being less suited to playing against 3 strikers, this may be the case but would be something we'd have to work on, but on the other hand would it not also then make us an unusual and difficult proposition for our opponents?

i think if we dismissed a formation on the off chance we suffer injuries, that would just be ridiculous. if we try the formation and it doesn't work, then dismiss it, but don't dismiss it because of something that may never happen. you could probably argue the same for any formation with our squad size if you really wanted to.

Fonda wrote:I should clarify, i'm not a massive advocate of 3-5-2. It's a little bit negative for my personal preference. Having said that, of most importance to me is that our best players are on the pitch - and they are all playing in positions in which they are comfortable.

If we want all our best players on the pitch, in pretty much any other formation, one or more players will be playing out of position. And the other alternative to that is that you pick the players for a specific formation, meaning some of those players on the field don't necessarily deserve to be so.

^^^^^^

I should clarify, i'm not a massive advocate of 3-5-2. It's a little bit negative for my personal preference. Having said that, of most importance to me is that our best players are on the pitch - and they are all playing in positions in which they are comfortable.

If we want all our best players on the pitch, in pretty much any other formation, one or more players will be playing out of position. And the other alternative to that is that you pick the players for a specific formation, meaning some of those players on the field don't necessarily deserve to be so.

What makes a system (any system) work, is mobility, especially mobility that keeps possession.

Stamina and skill are vital to mobility/possession. Is that not what the professional game is all about ?