rex hunt Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 Don't have a problem with Mrowiec, just think he is generally a limited footballer - and will add nothing in terms of going forward and creativity. Would happily play Mrowiec against the OF but don't see why we need him at home to the likes of Killi and ICT etc. Who would you have in a midfield 4 instead? Suso, mrowiec/black, taoul/Robinson, novikovas/rudi Temps Elliot up top Back 4 pick themselves for me with McGowan at rb grainier at lb Zal and Webster in middle of defence. Don't fancy McDonald one bit though unfortunately. Inspires no confidence in the back 4 in front of him. And doesn't have enough presence Also don't understand how driver can get a game for us despite him handing in transfer request, refusing to play apparently. But Marian Kello is committed to seeing out his contract with us and play for us and give his all. I feel sorry for Kello. He is the best keeper in the league and we miss him badly too. Maybe if he had signed for Austria Vienna we wouldn't have had to ship off Sutton to get a tan for 4 months. Now it looks like we've lost the both of them. I'm confident Sutton will be back for next season as we will have at least 6 players out of contract. Some of them heavy earners. I just want a cup run. We need to beat st Johnstone on Tuesday so badly. Will lift the team fans etc. then a home tie quarter final to st mitten or Ross county.(prob county) A wee semi to Hamden would be great. Then the pissibility of a final. We need it so much Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOak88 Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 Templeton Black Mrowiec Skacel However, I quite like 4-2-3-1 formation. I understand you are going for a bit more physicallity with your choice of Mrowiec, but this whole thread has been full of people highlighting how negative, dull and uncreative our midfield is. I really don't see how Mrowiec deviates from that. If anything he is probably the poster boy for our uncreative midfield. Personally I wouldn't bother with him for the above reason and the fact I would imagine he will probably be out the door in the summer, why not give Robinson and Black the opportunity to play together and try to build a partnership that could be carried on into next season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Brightside Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 Not sure why you quoted what I said, or how it related to what you said??. I didn't mention playing 1 striker or creativity in midfield?? Confused Just a general response to your comment on how barca and real play a different style to the SPL. Agreed that their players on a different level but doesn't mean that we and other SPL teams can't play a similar formation to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 Just a general response to your comment on how barca and real play a different style to the SPL. Agreed that their players on a different level but doesn't mean that we and other SPL teams can't play a similar formation to them. True,but in every walk of life you get graded and just because you as an apprentice do a job doesn't mean you can do it as well as a tradesman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOak88 Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 Just a general response to your comment on how barca and real play a different style to the SPL. Agreed that their players on a different level but doesn't mean that we and other SPL teams can't play a similar formation to them. Ok cool. I just don't think we should be looking at these teams, and then try to emulate them, in a completly different environment and with players of a completly different ability. From what I can see 4-5-1/4-3-3 is actually quite an intricate and difficult system to play and requires pacey players who can counterattack fast with slick passing and movement. It also seems to require great ability and intelligence from the front 3, as they seem to be expected to float into different positions and change things up very frquently. So whoever is playing up front for example has to have the ability to also play as a winger (either side) and visa versa. IMO the system seems to be like Total Football for the 3 in the front line. I just don't think teams at our level with our ability, on the small bumpy pitches we play on can handle it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southside1874 Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 True,but in every walk of life you get graded and just because you as an apprentice do a job doesn't mean you can do it as well as a tradesman. A good apprentice would never think he could do a job as well as his tradesman. Only good tradesmen make good apprentices though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 A good apprentice would never think he could do a job as well as his tradesman. Only good tradesmen make good apprentices though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amadjambo Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 The reality is we don't create chances to score away from home. From what I watch it is due to never having bodies in scoring positions. Impossible to play a defence splitting through ball to nobody. Playing 2 up front would at least give us more opportunity to have men in the box. 1 up would be fine if we had Hartley, Cameron, Fulton etc in midfield and the likes of Jankauskas or Bednar up front. We don't. The reason we continue to play wingers on their 'wrong' side is we are hoping they can beat 3 players, cut inside, and score themselves. Temps did this for half a season. Other than that none of our wingers have looked likely. Why not have men in the box and wingers putting great crosses in instead. This they can do, at least some of the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Sheldon Cooper Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 For me: Templeton Robinson Black Suso. This is what I mean about needing to have a midfield with balance to it. With Templeton and Suso as wingers, you are asking one of Robinson and Black to act as the ball-winner, which suits neither of them. If you're playing with two wingers, then you have to play Mrowiec in midfield in my eyes. Templeton Black Mrowiec Skacel However, I quite like 4-2-3-1 formation. That's more like it, a midfield with good balance. If we were to play a 4, Skacel would need to play wide because he doesn't have the work rate to play in the middle of a midfield 4. Mrowiec is the guy in the team who sits off and allows the team to attack, that is why he plays every week because he is integral to the set-up and formation of the team. Also agree with your second sentence. 4-2-3-1 is the 'best' formation you can play imo. It is very flexible and with the right players, you can turn it into 4-4-2, 4-4-1-1, 4-3-3 etc. After reading PJ1's post I wanted to mention this. He spoke about going 4-4-2 against Hibs and St Mirren, this didn't happen in either game. Against Hibs we started with the usual 4-3-3, then in the second half we brought on Skacel and Sutton for Templeton and Robinson, pushed Elliott out to the right and had Skacel sitting in the space behind Sutton in a 4-2-3-1. This worked because Sutton held the ball up superbly, creating space for the attacking players in the side. Against St Mirren, we started with a 4-4-2 diamond and after the sending off, changed to a 4-4-1 with Elliott going out to the left of midfield. When we had the ball, Elliott pushed forward to play alongside Sutton with Skacel coming into the middle and forming a midfield three with Black and Robinson. This worked because it gave Skacel more of a free role, and as a team our discipline was superb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJGJ Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 Physically we are of a decent size at the back but as we move to midfield and forwards we lack physical size -- at times you need that. There is no forward scoring goals and we need a midfield player who gets into the box ala Cameron. A solid not spectacular team but oh for a forward with pace and a little bit of strength. And as an extra our set pieces especially free kicks have been dreadful -- what do they practice ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOak88 Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 This is what I mean about needing to have a midfield with balance to it. With Templeton and Suso as wingers, you are asking one of Robinson and Black to act as the ball-winner, which suits neither of them. If you're playing with two wingers, then you have to play Mrowiec in midfield in my eyes. Understand what you are saying but, surely if you are only playing 2 in center midfield you want 2 who are more all rounders. Mrowiec will only do a very specific job and that is it, he won't contribute anything else beyond that. Black IMO is more of an all rounder and would be able to win the ball back for us but can also make a forward pass, beat a man, and take a shot/corner etc..... At home especially (against Non-OF teams) I don't see why a striker should be sacrificed in place of a ball winner as we should have the majority of the possesion anyway so there is no ball for him to win in those situations. And even in the games when we don't have the ball, away from home - we play Mrowiec the ball winner and we rarely get a result anyway, so what would be the big fuss about dropping him in place of a striker in those games?. Even at home against the OF we play Mrowiec the ball winner but it doesn't make a difference - as much as I hate to admit it Scott Brown ran riot the other Wednesday, he was running around Tynecastle like it was his playground - where was our ball winner, who is in the team to do that 1 very specific job - he should have been on Brown like glue. I never saw him get near Brown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Sheldon Cooper Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 Understand what you are saying but, surely if you are only playing 2 in center midfield you want 2 who are more all rounders. Mrowiec will only do a very specific job and that is it, he won't contribute anything else beyond that. Black IMO is more of an all rounder and would be able to win the ball back for us but can also make a forward pass, beat a man, and take a shot/corner etc..... At home especially (against Non-OF teams) I don't see why a striker should be sacrificed in place of a ball winner as we should have the majority of the possesion anyway so there is no ball for him to win in those situations. And even in the games when we don't have the ball, away from home - we play Mrowiec the ball winner and we rarely get a result anyway, so what would be the big fuss about dropping him in place of a striker in those games?. Even at home against the OF we play Mrowiec the ball winner but it doesn't make a difference - as much as I hate to admit it Scott Brown ran riot the other Wednesday, he was running around Tynecastle like it was his playground - where was our ball winner, who is in the team to do that 1 very specific job - he should have been on Brown like glue. I never saw him get near Brown. I completely get where you're coming from but in a midfield 4 you run the risk of it being over-run if you don't get the balance right. It's all fine and well having an energetic, attacking midfield but if you don't have someone capable of sitting off, breaking up the play and doing the dirty stuff then teams can just sit off and hit you on the counter attack. Your midfield would be fine if Black could control his tackling because Robinson has the energy to be the perfect box-to-box midfielder for us. Against Aberdeen early in the season, we played a midfield of Novikovas Robinson Mrowiec Templeton. It worked a treat because Robinson and Mrowiec complimented each other perfectly and they allowed Novikovas and Templeton to do their thing going forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Debut 4 Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 Celtic pumped us 4 nil with 1 striker. It's all about creativity in the midfield. They`ve played 2 up on many ocassions aswell this season and won. It comes down to the opposition you play that may influence a change in formation but i really think we should go two up far more often. Im not saying suddenly launch balls if we did go 2 up, the midfield should still have the discipline to make passes and get people wide. Rudi scored a wonder hat trick v StMirren but that doesn`t happen every week. We`ve toiled to score recently and have started conceding too many. Going 2 up gives you the option, if needed, to knock it forward earlier on ocassion. Especially at Tynie. It`s such a tight park the midfield find it hard to find space and create at times. For full backs or central midfielders to look up and see two options to hit rather than one would be comforting. Its about discipline. We could easily play two up against half the sheight int he spl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Brightside Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 They`ve played 2 up on many ocassions aswell this season and won. It comes down to the opposition you play that may influence a change in formation but i really think we should go two up far more often. Im not saying suddenly launch balls if we did go 2 up, the midfield should still have the discipline to make passes and get people wide. Rudi scored a wonder hat trick v StMirren but that doesn`t happen every week. We`ve toiled to score recently and have started conceding too many. Going 2 up gives you the option, if needed, to knock it forward earlier on ocassion. Especially at Tynie. It`s such a tight park the midfield find it hard to find space and create at times. For full backs or central midfielders to look up and see two options to hit rather than one would be comforting. Its about discipline. We could easily play two up against half the sheight int he spl. Its just my opinion that there is more to be gained with our squad to play one up front. We don't have the target man to win long balls or the mobile ball winning midfielder to play 442. Motherwell have played a variation of 451 this season and scored plenty of goals and are above us in the league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Debut 4 Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 Its just my opinion that there is more to be gained with our squad to play one up front. We don't have the target man to win long balls or the mobile ball winning midfielder to play 442. Motherwell have played a variation of 451 this season and scored plenty of goals and are above us in the league. And, as you point out in yer last line...have we? Some things work for others because they maybe contruct their team a bit better to suit it. We are now conceding more often then we were previously and are rarely scoring? whats the cure then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Brightside Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 My point re Motherwell is that a 451 or 4231 can be used successfully by a non OF SPL team. Apart from the Celtic game we haven't been conceeding many goals per game, the St Mirren game is the only one I can think of where we conceeded more than one. So I don't think the problem is at the back. In my opinion we have poor options for strikers and to put 2 ineffectual players up front will mean losing a more effective midfield player and result in less goals being scored rather than more. I don't really think there is a cure with our current crop of players and need to improve our striking options in the summer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Debut 4 Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 My point re Motherwell is that a 451 or 4231 can be used successfully by a non OF SPL team. Apart from the Celtic game we haven't been conceeding many goals per game, the St Mirren game is the only one I can think of where we conceeded more than one. So I don't think the problem is at the back. In my opinion we have poor options for strikers and to put 2 ineffectual players up front will mean losing a more effective midfield player and result in less goals being scored rather than more. I don't really think there is a cure with our current crop of players and need to improve our striking options in the summer. My opinion is to play Robinson further up the park just behind Elliot. I think he is wasted playing deeper as his pace, tenacity and touch would be put to better use if he was receiving the ball in and around the box. I think he played there under Csaba and scored at Ibrox as well as puting in some decent shows at home. He can strike a ball too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.