|
Post by shrewforever on Jan 4, 2004 12:16:16 GMT 1
Can we play anyone of Cramb.....Rodgers.........Banim..........up front WITHOUT a "target man",type,hold the ball up sort of player ie Darby or Quinn a la Jemmo? Or can an effective partnership actually be formed from any two of the Cramb,Rodgers,Banim threesome??? Cramb is not an out and out striker in my book and would have a different role to play on the field if down to me but he is our leading goalscorer .......... Rodgers and Banim appear to me to be very similar.......... as do Darby and Quinn.............. so what would you come up with as our best ATTACKING combination.......2 or 3 of said players maximum please...................
|
|
|
Post by El Huracán!!!! on Jan 4, 2004 12:19:43 GMT 1
I
|
|
|
Post by ProfessorPatPending on Jan 4, 2004 12:21:06 GMT 1
I don't think that Rodgers and Banim could play together as a pair, but Cramb, Banim and Rodgers would work
As for a target man, no we don't need one, that is a fallacy, if you play a proper pass and move game then height isn't essential
Darby isn't the traditional target man as he can play with the ball to feet so that doesn't rule him out
Personally i'm happier when we play 4-4-2, any combination (other than Rodgers/Banim) that doesn't include Quinn is okay by me
Hang 'em up Jimmy, times up owd lad!
|
|
|
Post by El Huracán!!!! on Jan 4, 2004 12:22:08 GMT 1
I still think that even if He is haveing a poor season Luke is still the best striker at the club, so the question is who should play with him when fit. I as a preference would like the target man style player with him and so Cramb and banim are out of the quesion - so i would like to see Dearby given a go with luke, which has not happened yet
|
|
|
Post by Theoneandonly on Jan 4, 2004 12:24:04 GMT 1
Does it matter if the "Target" men are old, slow, and make a noise like "EEEE-OOOOOORH"? ;D
|
|
|
Post by MRJPSHREW on Jan 4, 2004 12:31:22 GMT 1
Cramb is a target man.
Why cant Rodgers and Banim play together? Town have proved before they can play without a big man up front, Colin Robinson did it with some one else....name escapes me now. We could play to their strengths rather than to the strengths of the defenders. Banim has bags of skill and Luke has bags of pace...use their strengths!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by ProfessorPatPending on Jan 4, 2004 12:35:37 GMT 1
I don't think they can play together as they're too similar, one player needs to be more creative, the role currently played by Cramb
Neither Rodgers or Banim can play the creative role in my opinion
I would see Rodgers and Banim playing largely as two individuals without much link up play and see a lot of moves breaking down as a result
|
|
|
Post by ShrewsandRoyals on Jan 4, 2004 12:41:09 GMT 1
Undoubtedly Rogers has proved that he can play well with a player whose role is to hold up and distribute the ball. This season the chances of seeing how this would work has been limited to a certain extent by both a lack of use of such a player earlier on and injuries. Cramb reminds me of Dean Horrix a lot - and he played well with a target man in a 2,4,4 formation. I don't think that Darby is the answer to a big target man as he seems too immobile - probably due to him carrying his injury. A lot of the good play this season seen players cutting in from the wing rather than passing the ball through the channels and bursting runs onto it. To me Banim looks like he could do well by bringing the ball forward more from midfield as he is more than capable of beating players a la Aiston - and can finish given his record. This begs the question as to whether Banim could play right wing allowing him to cut in, and he can certainly cross too. If players were fully fit, then this would allow Rogers up front and Cramb in a freer role, as Jemson had to a certain degree, and also allow for what are 3 talented scorer on the field together. Could Rogers and Banim play together as a pure front line? Would need a fit Tolley and free role for Cramb, plus O'connor and Sedge would need to offer defensive qualities for balance in midfield. Against big lumbering defenders it could be effective if the ball is played to feet. Should it be totally ruled out? Probably not, new trends in football tend to stem from trying things. I'm not sitting on the fence but offeing a preference without totally ruling out a viable possiblity.
|
|
|
Post by MRJPSHREW on Jan 4, 2004 12:44:50 GMT 1
Typical woman sitting on the fence ;D
|
|
|
Post by ShrewsandRoyals on Jan 4, 2004 12:45:45 GMT 1
But one who offers opinions on formations rather than who has nice legs!
|
|
|
Post by MRJPSHREW on Jan 4, 2004 12:48:09 GMT 1
Good answer
|
|
|
Post by shrewforever on Jan 4, 2004 12:59:53 GMT 1
interesting,cheers.......
My view re UPFRONT ONLY......... any 2 of Cramb,Rodgers,Banim..ok any 1 of above plus Darby..ok.. Rodgers plus Banim..non starter.
preferred option however,very much along lines of ShrewandRoyals post..... Cramb playing deeper more as attacking midfielder in a creative role,certainly until Tolley returns and possibly even after that. I'll get some stick for this but what the heck.I rate Cramb.I think he has one of the best creative footballing brains in the Club and is currently playing in the wrong position.He gets very poor service playing where he does and would be better employed providing that service to someone else.h................e should play behind a front two ie a forward central midfielder,from where he can also pick up 10 or 12 goals a season. People have been saying that is the role Tolley should fill,dont agree,Tolley is capable of it but in our current squad Cramb should do it with Tolley playing his central holding midfield role going forward on the odd run during a game. Complex issue,interesting and varied opinions,cheers.....................I just want the Management to make a decision and stick to it,thats my only criticism of JQ to date,apart from the left back issue of course......to much variety of tactics up front and it doesnt lead to consistent performance..............
|
|
|
Post by ProfessorPatPending on Jan 4, 2004 13:03:27 GMT 1
Sounds like you're advocating a diamond midfield formation?
We have the players to play it, i.e. O'Connor at the back of the diamond and Cramb at the front
The only problem is where does that leave Aiston?, could he play in that formation?
|
|
|
Post by ShrewsandRoyals on Jan 4, 2004 13:26:39 GMT 1
How about: (the formation ddn't stay on when it uploaded to the site!)
Rogers Cramb Aiston Tolley Banim
O'Connor
Sedge Moss
Ridler Tinson
Allowing movement between the front "five" to a certain degree and flexibilty with regard to formation. Putting a fixed formation on paper isn't really appropriate in this case however.
This wouldn't work with Rioch as speed would be required for covering.
|
|
|
Post by Jonah on Jan 4, 2004 13:29:07 GMT 1
No way should Quinn be mentioned in this thread.He is past it and should be concentrating on what he was employed as and that is Managing.
Time for Roland to have a word with him.
|
|
|
Post by shrewforever on Jan 4, 2004 13:30:57 GMT 1
For STFC in Conference standard footie yea I'd give him ago in that role..........no its not ideal hes a winger but you can only fill positions with the players you have. Sammy has to play at the moment as he is the only driving force we have,that lifts the crowd and the team. What I believe we could do far more affectively than we are is produce much more effective driving force up the centre and inner channels which IMO is needed with strikers like Rodgers and Banim around,Cramb playing behind a front two would help that. What really needs to happen is for me to win the rollover of course,take over the reigns and completely balls it up on my own................or perhaps with just a little help from the Prof
|
|
|
Post by ShrewsandRoyals on Jan 4, 2004 13:35:56 GMT 1
That's what I meant in the flexibility part of the team. Banim could move up and Cramb drop back within that team "formation" during a game or for specific games. Tolley could move out as with Cramb in the middle the aim would be to build more from there. Tolley is quite capable of defense breaking long cross park passes from there and totally switching the play too. Edwards could even come into play then if Tolley not available.
I understand to a certian degree why JQ has to have mixed it up so much. New players together, injuries and suspensions have all contributed to needing to try some stuff.
This would allow variation of formation within the same group of players and help consistancy and a building of understanding hopefully.
|
|
|
Post by shrewforever on Jan 4, 2004 13:51:43 GMT 1
Totally with you on this one S&R.......twice in two days now .......... There is one problem however,you mention it re Riochs lack of speed, mobility...........he may not be the only one of our defenders who aint too quick and nimble,very solid(usually)yes,but quick and nimble,not sure.............. Not wanting to name drop,but of course I will ,my mate Gary.......Gary Hill that is, the D&R Manager, was giving me his opinion of STFC based on watching us several times this season,in the Social Club prior to yesterdays game........ In a nutshell.......good upfront....too slow in midfield and square and static at the back................... What did they do everytime they had the ball.......run at us with speed and really attacked us...............they won 5-0................ Best defence against that...............run at them................I think we have the players capable of doing that but we seem fixated with only doing it down the flanks...................just a thought thats all. I also asked him if he wanted a left back.............put in as few nd polite words as I can remember.......... not your left back.......................
|
|
|
Post by ProfessorPatPending on Jan 4, 2004 13:55:26 GMT 1
Best defence against that...............run at them................I think we have the players capable of doing that but we seem fixated with only doing it down the flanks...................just a thought thats all. That's why Tolley is SO important to us, he provides that impetus from the centre of midfield and the link between midfield and attack Name dropper
|
|
|
Post by ShrewsandRoyals on Jan 4, 2004 14:03:25 GMT 1
Don't start me on best form of defense! Leave two upfront for corners so they have to cover them. Can't abide all being back for corners and needs to be at least one! More pet annoyances: Put a player deep behind the penalty area for flick ons for attacking corners - they need to cover that too! Shielding the ball for time wasting (well done John Peel on Room 101) - if they get it you are then chasing. Players who group together in 10% of the field and lose width and depth by doing so. People standing offside and looking down the line. And Tolley IS important for that PPP - Cramb could be too - not fixated here! Careful SF....you may agree with some of those too! That wouldbe scarey! ;D I'm off out to recover from all this like minded stuff!
|
|
|
Post by shrewforever on Jan 4, 2004 14:10:14 GMT 1
Seriously we had an interesting chat.......fascinating to hear how another professional saw us as opposed to the view of fans.................... have to say that his view of you know who was very similar to that of the fan on the terrace..........colourful language included Starting to feel a little guilty I'm afraid,the guy is a human being after all and there is only so much stick any one person can take or deserve............so I am not going to say anymore on the Rioch issue after this post................... Gregor thank you and goodbye,you tried but failed,time to move on..................Not that it is of any great consolation but you are a better left full back than I am or ever was,but sadly the fact that I am contributing to you wages means that,that counts for bugger all................ and Jimmy WTF...........how much longer is this ludicrous situation going to be allowed to continue.You've got two weeks now to get it sorted..............F%C%I*G SORT IT...................................
|
|