the jambo-rocker Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 I disagree with the notion that playing 3 at the back requires the wide players to be defensive. The centre mids can drop back and fill gaps left by any of the CBs been drawn out wide. Interesting fact from Martin O'Neil's Celtic formation, was that neither of his 'wing-backs' were defenders. Didier Agathe was a converted striker and Alan Thomson considered himself to be 'an attacking left-sided central midfielder'. Yes but that was Celtic against the SPL most of the time. Celtic were expected to steamroller teams. Scotland is nowhere near strong enough to pull that off in comparison. I do like the sentiment, and I wish we were capable of playing it, but there simply isn't a good enough team to carry out the formation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garethbalesstupidface Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 thats absolute nonsense, you dont need to be good or bad to play any formation, scotland are clearly capable of playing 352 532 451 433 or 8 at the back its totally irrelevant, you just pick the right players for the right formation. what you're probably trying to say is that might not be the best formation for our best players, but thats a different point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garethbalesstupidface Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 I mean what a ridiculous thing to say really, a nation of 5 million people isnt 'capable' of playing 352, really? there arent 3 central defenders 3 midfielders 2 wingbacks and 2 strikers available to our entire country? are you seriously suggesting that? course not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aufc Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 thats absolute nonsense, you dont need to be good or bad to play any formation, scotland are clearly capable of playing 352 532 451 433 or 8 at the back its totally irrelevant, you just pick the right players for the right formation. what you're probably trying to say is that might not be the best formation for our best players, but thats a different point. I mean what a ridiculous thing to say really, a nation of 5 million people isnt 'capable' of playing 352, really? there arent 3 central defenders 3 midfielders 2 wingbacks and 2 strikers available to our entire country? are you seriously suggesting that? course not. You are a fool Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garethbalesstupidface Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 it seems Im one of the few around here that isnt actually Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the jambo-rocker Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 thats absolute nonsense, you dont need to be good or bad to play any formation, scotland are clearly capable of playing 352 532 451 433 or 8 at the back its totally irrelevant, you just pick the right players for the right formation. what you're probably trying to say is that might not be the best formation for our best players, but thats a different point. I mean what a ridiculous thing to say really, a nation of 5 million people isnt 'capable' of playing 352, really? there arent 3 central defenders 3 midfielders 2 wingbacks and 2 strikers available to our entire country? are you seriously suggesting that? course not. K. xxx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garethbalesstupidface Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 you have no point you mean. thats why people reply with a smilley or something lame like that. at least you know now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the jambo-rocker Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 you have no point you mean. thats why people reply with a smilley or something lame like that. at least you know now. K. xxx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garethbalesstupidface Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 another one on ignore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the jambo-rocker Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 another one on ignore K. xxx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sonofjenova Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 The main problem is that our defence isn't great (though I do have confidence it'll improve), and we still lack a brilliant defensive midfielder. That means our midfield have to sit deeper than they should, and this means we get hemmed in. If we get that sorted, I'm sure Scotland will be more expansive in the future. I don't think these problems can be addressed, even short team, by a system change. 3-5-2 wouldn't work - you'd have three defenders marking one striker for the most part, and be exposed on the wings (as if we aren't exposed there enough already). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garethbalesstupidface Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 finally a reasonable post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam4267 Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 Most teams play a variant of 4-5-1 nowadays which - by it's nature - will beat a similar level team playing 3-5-2. It makes absolutely no sense to change the entire team when playing against weaker sides at home when playing 4-4-2 would quite easily solve the problem and is a formation most players know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garethbalesstupidface Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 what on earth makes you think 451 would beat a similar level 352? these are the sort of comments that get me annoyed, thats just absolute drivel, and spoken as if you have some sort of insight. for example, 352 puts 2 centre forwards directly up agaisnt 2 cb's in that scenario, whereas the 3 at the back have only 1 to deal with, which do you think puts the oppositions goal under more threat? the correct answer is actually neither as players win games but its illustrative of how much nonsense was in that post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam4267 Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 what on earth makes you think 451 would beat a similar level 352? these are the sort of comments that get me annoyed, thats just absolute drivel, and spoken as if you have some sort of insight. for example, 352 puts 2 centre forwards directly up agaisnt 2 cb's in that scenario, whereas the 3 at the back have only 1 to deal with, which do you think puts the oppositions goal under more threat? the correct answer is actually neither as players win games but its illustrative of how much nonsense was in that post. You've clearly never watched a football match in your life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garethbalesstupidface Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 its not me talking drivel and Ive played in over a thousand. believe it or not the most likely result between two teams of a similar level is a draw, amazingly enough, assuming its played at a neutral venue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
South Lanarkshire Jag Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 its not me talking drivel and Ive played in over a thousand. believe it or not the most likely result between two teams of a similar level is a draw, amazingly enough, assuming its played at a neutral venue. Bullshit. Back it up with proof. Why does everyone advocate a 2 up front system? Our 4-2-3-1 is infinitely better than any system that plays 2 up front. The results, and performances, in our last 4 games prove this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garethbalesstupidface Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 haha back what up, I'm not making any assertions, or saying that we should play 2 up front, I'm simply saying to say one formation is 'better' than another is laughably stupid and completely wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam4267 Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 haha back what up, I'm not making any assertions, or saying that we should play 2 up front, I'm simply saying to say one formation is 'better' than another is laughably stupid and completely wrong. So do you think 1-1-8 and 4-4-2 are equally good formations? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garethbalesstupidface Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 118 isnt a formation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.