Match Thread Motherwell V Aberdeen (1 - 2)

[Guest]

Best leaving formations to the manager guys, he gets paid well to sort these things out and see's the players most days in training.

 

What's the point of a football forum if you're telling us we can't discuss formations?

[Guest]

All 5 league goals we have had this season have originated from wing play or set pieces, our weak area...

 

Goodwillie cross in to McLean to head

Shinnie overlap on Hayes and finish

Pass from wing with Flood bursting through to get penalty

Cross from McGinn, straight in

Freekick from wide area for Taylor to head in

 

While the standard is inconsistent, I don't get why folk are over the top on how bad we are at it.

 

Probably because of one very bad hour from about 10 minutes to 65/70 minutes in the first match of the season.

[Foster14]

I like the idea of Goodwillie in the number 10 position, just not too keen on that leaving the combo of McLean and Jack behind him. Need a bit more grit in there and inhibits McLean a fair bit.

[Guest]

I don't see any other way of playing them both. I think our best 11 is obvious. Not sure McInnes agrees.

 

Have to find a way of giving a role to GW week in, week out. He's never started a long sequence and he's never had a defined role.

 

Feed him off Rooney. He'll come deep to contribute with balls into the box too. He's fit and strong.

[wullfo]

McMaster was an attacker as well as a left back.

 

Logan is an attacker as well as a right back.

 

Eric Black was a winger as well as a CF. I may need to explain this one. When our LB or RB had the ball, Black would whip out to the wings to receive it. This was exactly the same trait that made that boy fae DUFC such a great footballer, who's name escapes me just now but will come back shortly.

 

Speaking in numbers fails to see the whole flexible unit of an effective attacking team.

 

Defending is different. The best teams score more goals than the opposition and therefore attacking is slightly important in this game.

 

Paul Sturrock or Eamon Bannon perhaps?

[Henry]

 

What's the point of a football forum if you're telling us we can't discuss formations?

 

I thought it was to tell folk what you had for lunch.

 

And how much you spend p/a in local restaurants.

[Guest]

 

Paul Sturrock or Eamon Bannon perhaps?

 

Kevin Gallacher.

 

Thanks for the inspiration that reminded me.

[Guest]

 

I thought it was to tell folk what you had for lunch.

 

And how much you spend p/a in local restaurants.

 

[The Oxford Don]

Sturrock was also terrific at drifting wide, and was an excellent crosser of the ball, something which is often overlooked when looking back on his playing career.

 

A lot of apparent 4-4-2s are really 4-2-3-1s - Ferguson's first great United side, with Keane and Ince sitting deep in midfield, Giggs left, Kanchelskis right and Cantona in behind Hughes was effectively a 'modern' 4-2-3-1 except that at the time we all just called it 4-4-2. No reason we couldn't do something similar with Goodwillie sitting in behind Rooney, though it's a hooring attacking line-up and would probably leave us horribly exposed against better sides.

[Guest]

Sturrock was also terrific at drifting wide, and was an excellent crosser of the ball, something which is often overlooked when looking back on his playing career.

 

A lot of apparent 4-4-2s are really 4-2-3-1s - Ferguson's first great United side, with Keane and Ince sitting deep in midfield, Giggs left, Kanchelskis right and Cantona in behind Hughes was effectively a 'modern' 4-2-3-1 except that at the time we all just called it 4-4-2. No reason we couldn't do something similar with Goodwillie sitting in behind Rooney, though it's a hooring attacking line-up and would probably leave us horribly exposed against better sides.

 

Agree re Sturrock and SAF.

 

However, we have ELEVEN best payers and they happen to fit a mould where the team can perform attack and defence.

 

I don't get this too attacking and exposed thing.

 

When we don't have the ball, we have 11 defenders. Hayes, Jack, Goodwillie, McLean plus our back five are all more than good enough to break up the opposition.

 

It's McGinn and Rooney we can't rely on for defence but they are undoubtedly in our best 11 so we have to play your best team.

 

Simple, no?

[boboisared]

I'm not against Goodie playing behind Rooney, plenty on here have said that would be their preferred choice. McLean looks much better playing in behind a striker than he did last season beside Jack so there may be an issue there.

[daytripping]

 

What's the point of a football forum if you're telling us we can't discuss formations?

 

To discuss what you're having for lunch, stuff like that.

[daytripping]

 

I thought it was to tell folk what you had for lunch.

 

And how much you spend p/a in local restaurants.

 

Hahaha, just read this, spot on.

[The Oxford Don]

 

Agree re Sturrock and SAF.

 

However, we have ELEVEN best payers and they happen to fit a mould where the team can perform attack and defence.

 

I don't get this too attacking and exposed thing.

 

When we don't have the ball, we have 11 defenders. Hayes, Jack, Goodwillie, McLean plus our back five are all more than good enough to break up the opposition.

 

It's McGinn and Rooney we can't rely on for defence but they are undoubtedly in our best 11 so we have to play your best team.

 

Simple, no?

 

Agreed on playing your strongest XI, but I think the point about being too exposed comes back to the 'horses for courses' argument. I would still worry that, even with the type of 'everyone defends' ethos you're advocating, against better sides (Celtic, basically, maybe Hearts at Tynie) our 4-4-2 would look a bit exposed when we don't have the ball.

 

Then again, we got skelped at Parkhead playing one up top anyway. It's a tricky one...

[boboisared]

 

Agreed on playing your strongest XI, but I think the point about being too exposed comes back to the 'horses for courses' argument. I would still worry that, even with the type of 'everyone defends' ethos you're advocating, against better sides (Celtic, basically, maybe Hearts at Tynie) our 4-4-2 would look a bit exposed when we don't have the ball.

 

Then again, we got skelped at Parkhead playing one up top anyway. It's a tricky one...

We were exposed at home to St Mirren (the worst team in the league) last season when we played 4-4-2.

[The Oxford Don]

We were exposed at home to St Mirren (the worst team in the league) last season when we played 4-4-2.

 

That the game we drew with them scoring a last-minute equaliser? I was working in London at the time, following the game on text commentary, and had that horrible sixth-sense feeling that we were about to chuck away a comfortable lead.

[AFCaketin]

We were exposed at home to St Mirren (the worst team in the league) last season when we played 4-4-2.

 

To be fair, we hammered St Mirren that night. 442 didn't leave us exposed - strikers not taking chances, clangers being clangers and Reynolds having a brain fart cost us that night.

[Guest]

It's not the formations that cost us good or bad performances against the likes of Smurren, managed by whoever the fuck last season. He wouldn't have had the intelligence or tactical nous to recognise the opposition formation and change his plan accordingly. Not that he had good enough players to hurt us... barring McLean right enuf.

 

It's simply the players not doing a good job.

 

Identify your best players. Recruit for the right and left sides of the park, for between the sticks, for outright defending and providing goal threats - supply and execution - then give them a game plan and defined roles within the team objectives and then simply do it.

 

As Steve Jobs said (post 368, page 13), it's harder to get your thinking clean but the best do it and they move mountains with simplicity.

[Foster14]

We were exposed at home to St Mirren (the worst team in the league) last season when we played 4-4-2.

 

Possibly, but that was a freak result, with a ridiculous penalty given away by Reynolds and poor conversion of chances. We had 4 matches running where Rooney and Goodwillie started up front, getting 10 points, scoring 11 goals and conceding 6 goals. It was exciting, people were happy with it and it got results, albeit against Ross County, Dundee and Inverness.

 

Then they started a 5th game together, we lost 3-0 to Hamilton, and that was that!

 

If they played together again, it was back to the 4-2-3-1. They did play some games together soon after that, where we got results.

[ericblack4boss]

3-5-2, what's your view on that for me we have the perfect squad for that.

[MMG]

 

That isn't what Goodwillie is. He played his best football when he was facing the goal and Daly was the one with his back to goal.

Last season, 5 of Goodwillies 6 goals were scored when he was playing alongside Rooney. He's definitely more prolific when part of a two pronged attack as opposed to by himself.

[Guest]

3-5-2 works with me thus: -

 

Ward, Taylor, Reynolds the 3. EVERY great side has a triangle/bedrock 3.

 

SAF built his reputation on them and became the best manager ever as a result.

 

Miller, McLeish, Leighton. Bruce, Pallister, Schmeichel.

 

Two main target men up front (GW & Rooney) and five others.

 

As I say, players more than numeric formations. I detest Sky commentators and their focus on the wrong things.

 

Edit: Doh! Six others. I'm getting sucked into numbers here.

 

Those six being Shinnie, Logan, Jack, McLean, Hayes and McGinn.

 

When all fit, that's not a bad 11.

 

Just not a deep enough squad and a manager yet to prove himself.

[tommo1903]

Goodwillie in behind Rooney wouldn't work. Rooney loses more flick ons than he wins and those he does win are aimless. The only way ut would work together is if they both played in a front 2 with someone in behind the both.

 

Would love to see this if we somehow become stale.

 

Ward

Logan Taylor Reynolds Considine Shinnie

Hayes and Jack centre mid

MacLean or McGinn in front

Goodie Rooney up top.

[Quagmire]

3-5-2 works with me thus: -

 

Ward, Taylor, Reynolds the 3. EVERY great side has a triangle/bedrock 3.

 

SAF built his reputation on them and became the best manager ever as a result.

 

Miller, McLeish, Leighton. Bruce, Pallister, Schmeichel.

 

Two main target men up front (GW & Rooney) and five others.

 

As I say, players more than numeric formations. I detest Sky commentators and their focus on the wrong things.

 

Edit: Doh! Six others. I'm getting sucked into numbers here.

 

Those six being Shinnie, Logan, Jack, McLean, Hayes and McGinn.

 

When all fit, that's not a bad 11.

 

Just not a deep enough squad and a manager yet to prove himself.

 

If he's playing 3 at the back then Quinn or Considine will play.

[ericblack4boss]

For me three at the back is perfect for us now clangers has gone,perm three from Reynolds, Considine, Quinn, Taylor.

 

Logan, and Hayes are perfect as wing backs,

 

I've always been a fan of back three, as long as you have good central defenders, then for me three is the way to go,

T can be quickly adapted to back five when defending,

And when attacking front 4 or 5.

[Guest]

I don't agree with "three at the back" unless the 3 includes the GK and we're talking 2 x CB's.

 

We ALWAYS need a RB and LB. This is what killed the past 20 years. We never had decent full backs.

 

Having people to guard against the left and right flank attacks is essential.

 

Having a Logan or a Shinnie or a Kennedy or a McMaster is a bonus, good quality defenders who can attack.

 

Alec Lindsay at Liverpool and Denis Irwin at Man U were brilliant footballers. The boy Willian is the best today in my book in this role.

 

Edit: Pepe and Dani Alves are phenomenal examples too.

 

Edit Edit: Lahm too.

[tommo1903]

Willian is the best what defender that can attack? Are you getting him mixed up with someone else?

[Guest]

Willian is the best what defender that can attack? Are you getting him mixed up with someone else?

I don't think I am. I see him as having a superb mix of both defensive AND attacking instincts. He's one of the best players I've seen in this last two years. I love his versatility. Do you not rate him?

[ericblack4boss]

Dani alves, is like a wing back.

 

I'm sorry I can't see any bad points with 3 centre backs.

Logan and Hayes have credentials to be wing backs,

 

I've always hated the zonal marking, it's a fucking sham, abysmal, when's the last time space scored a goal, ok discount games clangers played.

[ericblack4boss]

I don't think I am. I see him as having a superb mix of both defensive AND attacking instincts. He's one of the best players I've seen in this last two years. I love his versatility. Do you not rate him?

Christ rs, that's taking it too far.