Disappointed.

[busby1985]

17 minutes ago, Pans Jambo said:

This FFS!

I am also delighted to be through. The weather was atrocious and to be honest, should’ve been called off. We experimented with a formation that didn’t work and Falkirk rattled the post and bar three times. I am DELIGHTED to be through. Just a little disappointed that we’ve blamed the formation instead of dropping Joel. 

[grumpy rebus]

22 hours ago, TheBigO said:

Leaving the keeper debate aside (cos we're goosed in that dept and we don't see training either so who knows, right?), I had similar concerns about 3 at the back. We never play it well and personnel hadn't changed to change that.

 

That said, I wonder if Dan wanted to test it in the cup game to see what he thought. Risky, but theory being irrespective of formation, we should be winning. And we did. Just!

 

I really hope the experiment ends there. Not against us putting Smith back to RB to solidify things a bit. But then playing him CM maybe does that.

 

I wonder if we should go more of a 433 now. 2 midfielders a bit more Conservative (Smith and Irving/Sibbick/Langer) , one who plays ahead (Walker/Irving) and 3 up top. Allows fullbacks up the park more if you have 2 midfielders as watchmen

 

Keeper

 

Clare

Halks

Soapy

Hickey

 

Smith

Sibbick

 

Walker/Irving

 

Boyce

Naismith

Walker/McD/Donis/Ryo

This makes a lot os sense. A 4-3-3/4-3-2-1 would work well. I’d have Irving play between the 2 more defensive midfielders (I’d prefer Smith and Sibbick as it gives us a calm head and energy) and Boyce up to with a combination of the others you mention playing behind/beside him. It’s still a similar formation and style, just with a little more solidity when we dispossessed further up the field.