"we did put a bid in for a striker, but it wasnt right at the time"
absolute shit show, its like they've shortchanged people that believed they changed quicker then ever, take a look at the table cos that's what you could of had.
i am not denying that we have a very good starting 11 in the opening matches we have looked great - but one of our strikers is an international so that's him missing a few games, as others have said josh is a v decent player but he wont get the goals.
will grigg or someone of his finish would be ideal and think we would certainly be in the mix still be a bit light but would be up there.
looking at last season this was the top 5.
billy sharp - shef utd 30 james vaughn - bury 24 josh morris - scunthorpe 19 lee gregory - scum 17 simon cox - southend 16
Well Bury came 19th last season, 1 place above the relegation spots, so having a single prolific scorer doesn't always make a difference. Indeed Bolton came second with nobody scoring more than 9 goals in the league
that would go against the run of usual league finishing postions and would like to give us every single chance - is there anyone that actually doesnt think we need anybody?
I would be happy with a really good young loanee as 2nd or 3rd choice striker, but not somebody to come in and replace Josh. We aren't set up to play 4-4-2, with a BWP type alongside a Josh, but should get plenty of goals from the midfield
But we need to be able to play 4-4-2 when the situation and availability of players demand it. Without that flexibility we are causing ourselves all sorts of problems with only two senior strikers.
I'm very pleased with what I've seen of Robinsons coaching so far this season but unless I see him change formation to 4-4-2 or 4-3-3 during a match to suit the sutuation then I will be concerned. At Plymouth for the last 20 minutes we were crying out for a change.
I don't think we have players who lend themselves to 4-4-2, and 4-4-2 is not necessarily more attacking then 4-2-3-1. Look at Slade's football last year.
Arrigo Sachi used to say that sometimes, when chasing a game, the best thing you can do is withdraw a forward because having two right up front is sometimes easier for a defense to mark, and bringing an extra player in behind creates more space up front and more confusion for who defenders have to mark.
I do think we need the ability to change things, although I don't know that that necessarily means changing formations. I think our conversations are too wedded to formations and mistake them for a system. Within our system we should be able to play more direct if necessary, play it out to the wings to get more crosses in, or if we're leading like we were at the weekend, to stop trying to go forward all the time and try to just maintain possession and "defend with the ball."
Another formation might be good, but I think it's more likely to be something like a 4-1-4-1 which doesn't seem as attacking but could give real freedom to the two advanced central midfielders, say JFC and Konsa, and allow the wingers to start from a slightly deeper position so they have space to run into/at defenders. Again, it's not necessarily how the team lines up, but more how we use a system.
"Katrien tried everything she could to complete the deal and it was only at the last minute that she realised she had been negotiating with Ryan Giggs' agent and not Will Grigg's"....,
Is where my money is.
Or Sue Parkes stepped in to help out and we somehow ended up trying to negotiate with Greggs!!!
"Katrien tried everything she could to complete the deal and it was only at the last minute that she realised she had been negotiating with Ryan Giggs' agent and not Will Grigg's"....,
Is where my money is.
Or Sue Parkes stepped in to help out and we somehow ended up trying to negotiate with Greggs!!!
I'm not saying any one system is better or worse than any other but 4-4-2 is the most popular system in the footballing world. It's that for a reason. Any team that cannot revert to that system as and when it's required is deficient in either players or coaching.
I'm not saying any one system is better or worse than any other but 4-4-2 is the most popular system in the footballing world. It's that for a reason. Any team that cannot revert to that system as and when it's required is deficient in either players or coaching.
Apart from in almost every top-level team in Europe where a single striker and support players is preferred...
I'm not saying any one system is better or worse than any other but 4-4-2 is the most popular system in the footballing world. It's that for a reason. Any team that cannot revert to that system as and when it's required is deficient in either players or coaching.
Most popular in Britain. But I get what you're saying, I just don't know that 4-4-2 is the answer.
When we won League 1 with Powell we started with BWP and Hayes up front who was then replaced by Yann, what other forwards did we have/use?
Benson and Euell to start with. In January we added Clarke and Haynes. Later on we loaned N'Guessan who also spent time playing out wide.
Lacked depth that time but fortunately we made it to January without any serious injuries up front.
I don't think we did lack depth up front though. Hayes, Kerms and BWP were 3 good forwards with 2 other decent ones as cover. When we lost Benson and then Hayes, we replaced them with Haynes and Clarke. Then had N'Guessan. We never had less than 5 experienced strikers, now we have 2, although 3 would probably do as we are only playing 1 up front.
Not in numbers but Euell never looked good enough to start and Benson was very limited. I was thinking Benson left in August but actually he was swapped with Clarke in January.
Not in numbers but Euell never looked good enough to start and Benson was very limited. I was thinking Benson left in August but actually he was swapped with Clarke in January.
Euell hadn't played as a striker since the mid 2000s anyway, I never understood why people thought he'd come back and be a goalscorer for us, when he'd been averaging 2 or 3 a season.
That's 3 decent players, and 2 mediocre backups to fill 2 spaces
Currently we have 2 (being generous) decent players plus 1 young striker to fill 1 space, so the ratio isn't much different...
Not in numbers but Euell never looked good enough to start and Benson was very limited. I was thinking Benson left in August but actually he was swapped with Clarke in January.
Euell hadn't played as a striker since the mid 2000s anyway, I never understood why people thought he'd come back and be a goalscorer for us, when he'd been averaging 2 or 3 a season.
That's 3 decent players, and 2 mediocre backups to fill 2 spaces
Currently we have 2 (being generous) decent players plus 1 young striker to fill 1 space, so the ratio isn't much different...
I disagree with that, the depth back then was still better than what we have now. We also had Michael Smith as a decent young forward, albeit not a prolific one.
You talk about Benson and Euell being mediocre, there is currently no proof that Novak is better than that anyway.
We were lucky with injuries and not sure Yann and BWP could be replaced too effectively, but I would still prefer those squad numbers than what we have now.
Not in numbers but Euell never looked good enough to start and Benson was very limited. I was thinking Benson left in August but actually he was swapped with Clarke in January.
Euell hadn't played as a striker since the mid 2000s anyway, I never understood why people thought he'd come back and be a goalscorer for us, when he'd been averaging 2 or 3 a season.
That's 3 decent players, and 2 mediocre backups to fill 2 spaces
Currently we have 2 (being generous) decent players plus 1 young striker to fill 1 space, so the ratio isn't much different...
I disagree with that, the depth back then was still better than what we have now. We also had Michael Smith as a decent young forward, albeit not a prolific one.
You talk about Benson and Euell being mediocre, there is currently no proof that Novak is better than that anyway.
We were lucky with injuries and not sure Yann and BWP could be replaced too effectively, but I would still prefer those squad numbers than what we have now.
Cruically, Powell had the emergency loan option which Robinson no longer has after tomorrow.
I'm not saying any one system is better or worse than any other but 4-4-2 is the most popular system in the footballing world. It's that for a reason. Any team that cannot revert to that system as and when it's required is deficient in either players or coaching.
Apart from in almost every top-level team in Europe where a single striker and support players is preferred...
I think your statement proves my point. We are not and nowhere near a top level team.
I'm not saying any one system is better or worse than any other but 4-4-2 is the most popular system in the footballing world. It's that for a reason. Any team that cannot revert to that system as and when it's required is deficient in either players or coaching.
Apart from in almost every top-level team in Europe where a single striker and support players is preferred...
I think your statement proves my point. We are not and nowhere near a top level team.
True, although the 4-4-2 is not that frequently used outside the British Isles. And even within them, teams are increasingly moving away from it.
The latest movement is back to a 3-5-2/3-4-3. I think on the opening weekend something like all but four teams played with a back three. But these things are cyclical.
Personally, if we were going to change formation I'd think a 3-4-3 would make better sense for the players we have, especially given our quality in depth at CB. DaSilva is very much a wing back, and I think Solly could do a job on the right, or maybe RCC or Barnes with their athleticism. Alternatively, someone like Fosu or Holmes could be tried on the right. Something Dortmund sometimes did last year in their 3-4-3 was play one full back and one winger, so perhaps something like that, especially if Solly gets hurt.
I actually wouldn't mind adding a Danny Haynes style player now. We miss having a bit of pace up front, someone to get behind the two centre halves. Even just as a plan B sub option
When we won League 1 with Powell we started with BWP and Hayes up front who was then replaced by Yann, what other forwards did we have/use?
Danny Haynes, Jason Euell and Leon Clarke
Leon Clarke, an absolute shocking signing. Against Powell's wishes I believe.
Clarke really didn't get a fair crack when he was with us to be fair to him, not saying he is a world beater but seems to score goals at most clubs he played for
When we won League 1 with Powell we started with BWP and Hayes up front who was then replaced by Yann, what other forwards did we have/use?
Danny Haynes, Jason Euell and Leon Clarke
Leon Clarke, an absolute shocking signing. Against Powell's wishes I believe.
Clarke really didn't get a fair crack when he was with us to be fair to him, not saying he is a world beater but seems to score goals at most clubs he played for
You might be right but I still have flashbacks now of him coming on as a sub at the valley and running knees up to his chest going nowhere fast as he tried to chase a ball down. Either the pitch was a quagmire, which it wasn't or someone had swapped his boots for a pair of deep sea diver's, which they hadn't.
First impressions that day were that he was a donkey albeit one with goal scoring record
Charlton have completed the signings of St Truiden duo, Igor Vetokele and Christian Ceballos on 9 year deals. The Pair will sign for a combined £8 million pounds . Katrien Meire, Chief Executive added " we feel that signing these 2 great players will boost us for our top 12 push. When we found out they were available , it was a no brainer in finally spending some money to get the club where it belongs, 9th in League 1. We hope the customers will now be happy"
I actually wouldn't mind adding a Danny Haynes style player now. We miss having a bit of pace up front, someone to get behind the two centre halves. Even just as a plan B sub option
That type of striker would be ideal and KR has pretty much said that himself.
But listen, you know what it’s like. Do we need anything? Probably that quick number nine in case we want to change things.
Comments
Arrigo Sachi used to say that sometimes, when chasing a game, the best thing you can do is withdraw a forward because having two right up front is sometimes easier for a defense to mark, and bringing an extra player in behind creates more space up front and more confusion for who defenders have to mark.
I do think we need the ability to change things, although I don't know that that necessarily means changing formations. I think our conversations are too wedded to formations and mistake them for a system. Within our system we should be able to play more direct if necessary, play it out to the wings to get more crosses in, or if we're leading like we were at the weekend, to stop trying to go forward all the time and try to just maintain possession and "defend with the ball."
Another formation might be good, but I think it's more likely to be something like a 4-1-4-1 which doesn't seem as attacking but could give real freedom to the two advanced central midfielders, say JFC and Konsa, and allow the wingers to start from a slightly deeper position so they have space to run into/at defenders. Again, it's not necessarily how the team lines up, but more how we use a system.
Will Greggs?
Sounds half-baked.
Lacked depth that time but fortunately we made it to January without any serious injuries up front.
That's 3 decent players, and 2 mediocre backups to fill 2 spaces
Currently we have 2 (being generous) decent players plus 1 young striker to fill 1 space, so the ratio isn't much different...
You talk about Benson and Euell being mediocre, there is currently no proof that Novak is better than that anyway.
We were lucky with injuries and not sure Yann and BWP could be replaced too effectively, but I would still prefer those squad numbers than what we have now.
The latest movement is back to a 3-5-2/3-4-3. I think on the opening weekend something like all but four teams played with a back three. But these things are cyclical.
Personally, if we were going to change formation I'd think a 3-4-3 would make better sense for the players we have, especially given our quality in depth at CB. DaSilva is very much a wing back, and I think Solly could do a job on the right, or maybe RCC or Barnes with their athleticism. Alternatively, someone like Fosu or Holmes could be tried on the right. Something Dortmund sometimes did last year in their 3-4-3 was play one full back and one winger, so perhaps something like that, especially if Solly gets hurt.
First impressions that day were that he was a donkey albeit one with goal scoring record