Ross McCrorie started training

[Rousseau 9,882]

39 minutes ago, Gaffer said:

I understand that, but would you think McCrorie moving into midfield causes more of an attacking threat (or advantage) than our wingbacks?  Tav and John are two of our best attackers so I'd prefer they were moving forward rather than a CB.  I do however accept that in a 3-4-3, the wingbacks are generally not doing the same overlapping runs as they do in our current formation.  It just seems a big change to accommodate McCrorie, albeit he is someone worth building a team around.

 

Whatever happens, the manager will have a tough challenge in working out how best to set the team up when all players are fit.  Bates, McCrorie, Tav, John, Wallace, Docherty, Dorrans, Goss, Jack, Murphy, Candeias, Morelos are all players that we'd want on the field, and possibly one or two others.  It'll be interesting to see how it all fits.  We have the freedom to speculate without the threat of losing our jobs if it doesn't work.

 

Mark Allen also has a tough job because to a certain extent he'll want to know the system we are playing to know what players to go after in the summer.  If we change the coach, will he be able to change the system, and therefore require a change of player?

I agree. Perhaps I wasn't clear. I don't see us adopting the Ajax way of dropping their FBs back into the back-three, because, as you say, our Full-backs are too important and too attacking to do that -- Ajax have centre-backs playing at full-back because of their usual rotation policy, of playing players in a variety of positions. 

 

I thought perhaps starting as a 3-4-3, with McCrorie in defence; and with our full-backs deployed high and wide. Then with McCrorie pushing forward into midfield to create a 4-3-3, the Full-backs are perhaps a tad more defensively organised, but it'd be similar to what they do now; I don't see the role of our Wing-backs changing.  

 

I don't see that switch as being a problem, as we do that now, in a lot of respects. 

 

I think the wingers are the issue: can they play narrower, a la Liverpool? And then widen as and when required? 

 

I think it just creates a greater midfield superiority in terms of numbers; it's needed at times. Switching between a two- and three-man midfield has its benefits. It would also allow us to get the most out of McCrorie. 

 

I was just thinking about where his best role is, and thought, why does it have to be either/or?