Torquay United Fans Forum

In another thread I've advocated bringing Jarvis in for Morris, in which case I'd want to see him play closer to Howe, though what we'd then do with Danny I don't know, though most of our width on Saturday came from the fullbacks anyway.

However, I've just remembered that in our league match at Cheltenham, their main tactic was high balls towards the diminutive Nicho, in which case perhaps the tall and defensive minded Morris back there to help him out might be an idea, in which case (if Howe's fit) I'd maybe start with the team that started on Saturday, but pass the ball rather than hoofing long every time. In particular, get Eunan on the ball - with Damo being nearer to the defense he tends to get the ball out from them, and no offence to him, but his distribution isn't Eunan's, as we saw in the improvement second half.

All well and good saying play 4-4-2, drop Morris and Stevens. OK but then that means you are playing two completely unconventional wingers and you also have to drop one of the centre midfielders. I presume you would play O Kane on one side and Jarvis the other? Not sure how that improves our team.

It also means IF it goes wrong we have no alternative to change the game. Other than playing 1 up front which won't improve our chances of getting another goal in my opinion.

I've been out with the dog, and musing our situation and I've come to wonder of we aren't TOO defensive minded?
As good as we have been this year, and, for large chunks, we have been very good indeed, have we places too much emphasis on restricting the opposition?
We have, and I will entertain no argument on this, the best keeper on the league. In front of him, we have a back 4 comprising Ellis, Saah, Nico and JOastler. That is a truly formidable defence, and I feel no need to reiterate the relevant and extensive qualities of each.
With this in mind, as well as Manse in midfield and Eunan joins a much more adroit defender than his stature would prima facie suggest, do we REALLY need yet another defender on the pitch in the shape of Damon Lathrope?
Don't get me wrong, DL has been epic this season, genuinely a lynchpin, but has this left our back 5 underworked and our front line undermanned?
Would we be better served, even as a 'plan B', investing a little more faith in the aforementioned back 5 to do a job and to have an extra forward option on the pitch in the shape of Taiwo?
I, for one, agree that we would. Will it work against better opposition than Hereford (pick one at random, Vheltenham Town), only time will tell. I certainly don't think we'd get overrun without Lathrope. Indeed, with the extra threat and vastly improved movement of Tai up top with Rene, woul we actually gain a net advantage with a Lathropeless 4-4-2, given the effect of weakening their attacking threat.
Such is Rene's lack of mobility, that one man can mark him up field. Such is Tai's movement (and the nature of the difference between 1 up and 2 up, if you don't know, ask a coach, I don't want to get bogged down in Alan Hansen style minutiae) that it would take three, possibly four men to occupy them both.

Matt.

Keep the 4-5-1 away formation I reckon, injuries permitting. It's important to be in the tie for the return to Plainmoor.

ferrarilover wrote:Haha, I love you Dave, you're ace. I did know what you meant, and I do (sort of) agree with you. I don't think Rene will be sufficiently fit to play up top on his own, so how about a genuine 4-4-2 with Rene and Tai on together, as per Rovers away all those months ago?

Matt.

I know Matt, most people do

Tai/Rene together, trying to dig through my memory here, Rovers away, Crawley and Cheltenham home is 3 games I seem to remember them playing together that I have been at, and remember talking with friends as you do, and saying I don't they work well together, no ahrm in giving it another go.

That said I was very impressed with Jarvis yesterday, he was playing like a man possessed, he is here with a lot to prove, it showed yesterday and if he has another two performance's like that in him, Jarvis could be the player that takes us past Cheltenham.

Haha, I love you Dave, you're ace. I did know what you meant, and I do (sort of) agree with you. I don't think Rene will be sufficiently fit to play up top on his own, so how about a genuine 4-4-2 with Rene and Tai on together, as per Rovers away all those months ago?

Matt.

ferrarilover wrote:Doesn't make sense Dave, we can't take Howe off for Jarvo and Tai, we'll have 12 men.

Matt.

Well laugh out loud indeed mattypoo's, think you know what I meant,4-5-1 with Howe, 4-4-2 with Jarvis/Ateino, does that make sense

Doesn't make sense Dave, we can't take Howe off for Jarvo and Tai, we'll have 12 men.

Matt.

Depending on Rene Howe's fitness, if Howe is fit enough don't change anything, if not go with Jarvis and Atieno, as I just don't think Atieno can do the same job up top on his own, he looked a far better and happier player up thier with Jarvis yesterday.

Danny has been back to his old self since Christmas. Sack him and Morris for Tai and Jarvo. Jarvo and Nico provide adequate (and much less predictable) width, but a much greater forward threat without sacrificing too much in the way of defensive cover (Danny, through no fault of his own, is chocolate teapot useless at the back, and Jarvo won't be worse than Morris).

Yes, I'm aware that I'm calling for a man I don't particularly rate, but Rene on his own will be completely pointless, but with options either side of him, we at least have the option of getting it to him and letting him hit men either side with a couple of touches. If it all goes wrong, Rene off, Morris on, simples.

Matt.

My initial thought was to keep it tight up there and then play forward formation at Plainmoor.

Macdonald has been excellent both times I've seen him so wouldn't object to him being used.

I think maybe Jarvis and Morris on the wings might work.

I think we should play the team and formation we had in the second half, with Jarvis and Atieno up front. We looked very dangerous going forward and the midfield wouldn't need to work as hard getting the ball forward.

I'm afraid Danny still never got past his full-back, the only threat from the left was laying it back to Nicho to deliver his crosses from quite a way back (fortunately his delivery is so good). But then anyone could just feed the ball back to Nicho. The main threat came from around Hereford's right hand corner flag in the second half with Joe Oastler contributing really well and Jarvis, Morris and Eunan all doing their bit to work someone into a dangerous crossing position. So I'd go for Jarvis or Atieno. 2 up front gave us more threat in the box from crosses and even just long balls and Jarvis is obviously better aerially than Danny. Only problem with starting with Atieno and Howe is that neither will last 2 hours if extra time is needed (in Tai's case just because he hasn't played full games for ages), and won't last 90 either. So you can't take both off after 70 minutes. So when one goes off the other one has to come on the pitch second half to be main centre forward. So that probably means Jarvis, but he too might struggle with 90 or 120 minutes.
Other question is if Danny isn't on the left, who should be left midfield. Ian Morris, or Jarvis, or Eunan???

To be honest, I would be tempted to bring in MacDonald for Ellis. Mark looked shaky yesterday (as he did for much of the game against Crewe), and might benefit from a game on the bench. I would also start with Jarvis and Atieno, Howe on the bench, and not sit back at Cheltenham. Jarvis particularly was outstanding yesterday and deserves to start.

If we are not playing 451 , then I would like us to play our wingers on tgeir natural sides , skin thheir fullbacks abd whip it into the box - the goals will come.

451 yesterday on a must win game against bottom club was too defensive for my thinking
The 2nd half sounded like breath of fresh air

We do have options and players who havent all played 40 + games.