ranger_syntax 4,316 Posted October 21 Share Posted October 21 4 minutes ago, BlackSocksRedTops said: Why not go 3 at the back Because he knows that it would be the same but worse. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackSocksRedTops 3,751 Posted October 21 Share Posted October 21 3 minutes ago, ranger_syntax said: Because he knows that it would be the same but worse. Why would it be worse? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ranger_syntax 4,316 Posted October 21 Share Posted October 21 4 minutes ago, BlackSocksRedTops said: Why would it be worse? Ask the manager. Quite safe to assume that he thinks every alternative is worse. Unless you think 3-at-the-back never occurred to the manager. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rousseau 10,602 Posted October 21 Share Posted October 21 16 minutes ago, BlackSocksRedTops said: I genuinely wish Clement would at least try something different. Why not go 3 at the back yesterday with big Kasa and play two up top? The lack of flexibility is the biggest red flag for me. Oh and the the lack of desire in the players. And the lack of tempo. And the lack of aggression...etc etc... It is strange, because it's not as if he hasn't used back-three formations before in his mangerial career - most notably at Brugge, iirc, which brought silverware. I did think he'd be quite flexible in that regard. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CammyF 8,079 Posted October 21 Share Posted October 21 4 minutes ago, BlackSocksRedTops said: Why would it be worse? We wouldn't know until we tried it but I don't know of any of our CBs have played in a 3 (maybe Souttar for Scotland)? But we all know Clement is going to change his formation. Also, I'd be playing Balogun in defence as think he's the best natural defender we have. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackSocksRedTops 3,751 Posted October 21 Share Posted October 21 Just now, ranger_syntax said: Ask the manager. Quite safe to assume that he thinks every alternative is worse. Unless you think 3-at-the-back never occurred to the manager. After yesterday I wouldn't rule it out... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ranger_syntax 4,316 Posted October 21 Share Posted October 21 3-at-the-back is not a radical solution It only seems that way when your struggling team plays 4-at-the-back and you are posting on a football forum. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackSocksRedTops 3,751 Posted October 21 Share Posted October 21 1 minute ago, CammyF said: We wouldn't know until we tried it but I don't know of any of our CBs have played in a 3 (maybe Souttar for Scotland)? But we all know Clement is going to change his formation. Also, I'd be playing Balogun in defence as think he's the best natural defender we have. Did Souttar not play in a 3 for Hearts or maybe Dundee United? I may be mistaken. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sutton_blows_goats 5,327 Posted October 21 Share Posted October 21 I think that the formation and style of play the manager wants to go with needs a #9 who can hold up the ball and pass to a team mate. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackSocksRedTops 3,751 Posted October 21 Share Posted October 21 2 minutes ago, Sutton_blows_goats said: I think that the formation and style of play the manager wants to go with needs a #9 who can hold up the ball and pass to a team mate. We don't have that. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.