Right back choice?

[forlanssister 3,114]

Flanagan, I'd punt Tavernier.

[craig 5,199]

30 minutes ago, Rousseau said:

Yes, which they've looked able to do thus far. I think Jack, Coulibaly and Arfield are extremely disciplined.

 

I does also give the option of a back three, as you suggested. 

The only issue with going to a back 3 is that we then have no cover for that back 3 as we only really would have the 3 CB's and, even then, only really if you include Flanagan as a CB.  But what it does is provide flexibility depending on availability of players to play a back 3 or a back 4 or even a back 5.  Lets us choose formations according to the task at hand.

[craig 5,199]

22 minutes ago, Darthter said:

One (quite) important point is that we haven't see Flanagan playing RB yet.....

Its actually avery good point.  We would really need to see Flanagan playing at RB to see how he would do over that side.  Why ?  Because he is presently hampered on the left by being right footed and needing to cut back inside.  

 

If he were on his more natural right hand side we would get a better chance at seeing what he offers - for example, first time ball into the box.  That wont happen when he plays LB due to being right footed, but could very well happen at RB.  Would his quality of delivery be as good, or better, than Tav's ?

 

We already know that Flanagan is a better defender than Tav so it very much depends on what he would offer offensively on that side.

[Dave M609 100]

For me Flannigan defensively seems more capable than Tav and just on that alone I would rather have Flannigan in there

[DMAA 3,658]

I feel a bit for Flanagan with a LB being signed, he's been a very good signing considering he cost us nothing.

 

I think Gerrard has given us every reason to believe he'll be flexible with his formation and strategy unlike Murty so Flanagan will still get plenty games I'm sure.

 

It's hard to believe we've gone from Hodson on the bench for full back cover last season to the possibilty of Flanagan on the bench this season.

[JFK-1 1,693]

Gerrard said right from the start that he's not going to be a fixed formation guy and that it's going to be horses for courses. There may even be the opportunity to rotate from game to game depending on the opposition just to give players game time.

[MrGaryValentine 85]

Tavernier is captain, for that reason I believe he will start. His delivery into the box and goal scoring threat are a weapon we should use to our advantage. 

 

Flanagan will still have a role in certain matches though. 

[alexscottislegend 2,325]

I mentioned this conundrum on another thread. Wouldn't be a problem if Tav wasn't captain and a reliable penalty taker. We can all remember countless examples from previous seasons when his lack of defensive discipline gave us problems. Now, I think his stock has risen nonetheless so wouldn't be surprised if we could get decent money for him from a West Brom or a Bournemouth or a Burnley for example. The captaincy problem can be easily resolved: gentlemen I give you Mr Ryan Jack. Penalties I'm unsure about. Arfield?

 

We get Barasic then we pretty much have 2 players of quality for each position 'cept maybe striker.

[alexscottislegend 2,325]

2 hours ago, craig said:

The only issue with going to a back 3 is that we then have no cover for that back 3 as we only really would have the 3 CB's and, even then, only really if you include Flanagan as a CB.  But what it does is provide flexibility depending on availability of players to play a back 3 or a back 4 or even a back 5.  Lets us choose formations according to the task at hand.

McCrorie could fit in to a back 3 at a pinch. And what about the young lad Bradley? Ok I know he looked shaky in the friendly but he must have potential. If we keep Tav. he would be an ideal wing back.

[Rousseau 10,630]

41 minutes ago, alexscottislegend said:

McCrorie could fit in to a back 3 at a pinch. And what about the young lad Bradley? Ok I know he looked shaky in the friendly but he must have potential. If we keep Tav. he would be an ideal wing back.

That is an option, but I think SG stated he doesn't see McCrorie as a CB.