Arachnophile Posted August 29 Share Posted August 29 6 minutes ago, Alan Twelve said: He's said a couple of times in interviews that the lack of centre backs is the reason for playing with three centre backs. I don't think he will either, which is a shame. Never quite got the logic of that... We're short of centre backs so let's play more of them? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starshot131 Posted August 29 Share Posted August 29 32 minutes ago, Arachnophile said: Never quite got the logic of that... We're short of centre backs so let's play more of them? I believe the thinking was guys like Kerr or Mauchin could fit into a 3cb system, so we would only need one proper cb, whereas in a back 4 you really need 2 Flimsy, but it's the only justification I can think of 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Twelve Posted August 29 Share Posted August 29 23 minutes ago, starshot131 said: I believe the thinking was guys like Kerr or Mauchin could fit into a 3cb system, so we would only need one proper cb, whereas in a back 4 you really need 2 Flimsy, but it's the only justification I can think of I do think that's what he means (and it does seem reasonable to me, I supoose), but he doesn't really express it well. Also, we have more than one fit specialist centreback at present, so if it's a back three at Partick, he just doesn't want to change, I reckon. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hampden Diehard Posted August 29 Share Posted August 29 As long as we pump about five past them, he can play whatever setup he likes! 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QPEast Posted August 29 Share Posted August 29 The notion that having three centre backs is more defensive than having two centre backs is a bit of a dinosaur opinion. Wingbacks can be great for attacking options 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arachnophile Posted August 29 Share Posted August 29 31 minutes ago, QPEast said: The notion that having three centre backs is more defensive than having two centre backs is a bit of a dinosaur opinion. Wingbacks can be great for attacking options True. But so can having more attacking midfielders or strikers or wingers. For me, it's about getting as close as you can to getting your best 11 players on the park, & as much as possible playing in their best positions. A case can be made for either system. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starshot131 Posted August 29 Share Posted August 29 59 minutes ago, QPEast said: The notion that having three centre backs is more defensive than having two centre backs is a bit of a dinosaur opinion. Wingbacks can be great for attacking options I'm not sure it's a "dinosaur opinion", it still holds true in a lot of cases. I think generally a lot of 4-at-the-back teams have got more defensive in the last decade by having one of their full backs stay back at all times, but that doesn't make the 5-at-the-backs less defensive. What's been good is guys like Ujdur getting forward in attacks, which makes it a lot more conducive to nice attacking movement and goal-threats 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Twelve Posted August 29 Share Posted August 29 I don't think there's anything wrong with three at the back, I just think that it's not the best approach with the squad we have. Welsh and Thomson would, I reckon, be a great shield in the midfield, both protecting the defence and allowing for Ujdur (or Fox)'s forays forward, as either could drop in to cover if we lose the ball. More to the point, having three attackers behind a full forward would get the best out of Rudden playing with his back to goal, and there's plenty of goals there in Thomas, McGregor and Turner (and Savoury), and it would allow us to unleash Hinds, who doesn't really fit at the moment. But like HD says, if we pump Thistle, I can live with it. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spider1975 Posted August 30 Share Posted August 30 15 hours ago, QPEast said: The notion that having three centre backs is more defensive than having two centre backs is a bit of a dinosaur opinion. Wingbacks can be great for attacking options True, especially if you have a CB that can progress vertically, (ie Fox/Udjur). My issue is I dont think we have two wingbacks - Scott potentially is one but Longridge isn’t, (wasn’t at the AIrdrie game so didn’t see the Aberdeen lad) and what we have seen is when defending, other teams overwhelming that wingback, especially on the right, which then draws out one of the CB’s, creating space in the middle; or offensively the wingback having no outlet forward. Also, we have attacking options, especially when/if Savoury returns and that third CB limits the talent we can put out offensively. Udjur alongside Murray or Fieldson, with Scott and Kerr either side I reckon would be pretty solid and able to cope with most of what the Championship could throw at them - might even allow for Welsh or Thomson to act as a single CDM, to get Thomas, MacGregor, Turner and AN Other, (Savoury/Hinds) all on at the same time with Rudden, or allow MacKenzie to partner Rudden up front. After having palpitations about the lack of cover at CB, we’re now in a position where if I was Tizzard or Reid, I’d be wondering where I was in the pecking order, especially if we extend Fox’s contract, (which I hope we do) 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waspie Posted August 30 Share Posted August 30 Might be of interest to QP fans: 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spiderman1867 Posted August 30 Share Posted August 30 4 hours ago, Spider1975 said: True, especially if you have a CB that can progress vertically, (ie Fox/Udjur). My issue is I dont think we have two wingbacks - Scott potentially is one but Longridge isn’t, (wasn’t at the AIrdrie game so didn’t see the Aberdeen lad) and what we have seen is when defending, other teams overwhelming that wingback, especially on the right, which then draws out one of the CB’s, creating space in the middle; or offensively the wingback having no outlet forward. Also, we have attacking options, especially when/if Savoury returns and that third CB limits the talent we can put out offensively. Udjur alongside Murray or Fieldson, with Scott and Kerr either side I reckon would be pretty solid and able to cope with most of what the Championship could throw at them - might even allow for Welsh or Thomson to act as a single CDM, to get Thomas, MacGregor, Turner and AN Other, (Savoury/Hinds) all on at the same time with Rudden, or allow MacKenzie to partner Rudden up front. After having palpitations about the lack of cover at CB, we’re now in a position where if I was Tizzard or Reid, I’d be wondering where I was in the pecking order, especially if we extend Fox’s contract, (which I hope we do) Mackenzie to partner rudden?He's a full back is he not? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dooflick Posted August 30 Share Posted August 30 7 minutes ago, spiderman1867 said: Mackenzie to partner rudden?He's a full back is he not? Think he means McGregor!!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dooflick Posted August 30 Share Posted August 30 4 hours ago, Waspie said: Might be of interest to QP fans: It is, but what does say and where can it be seen? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spidersmad Posted August 30 Share Posted August 30 1 hour ago, Dooflick said: It is, but what does say and where can it be seen? You can just click on the player in Waspie's post to watch. There's also an option to watch on X (twitter as was). Interesting that Roddy can speak Gaelic. Callum speaks in English though and also comes across well. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waspie Posted August 30 Share Posted August 30 20 minutes ago, Spidersmad said: You can just click on the player in Waspie's post to watch. There's also an option to watch on X (twitter as was). Interesting that Roddy can speak Gaelic. Callum speaks in English though and also comes across well. Google can do a translation of sorts on the written piece there too, which also says more on BBC Alba from 7 tonight. But Roddy basically says he's really happy at QP. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Velvet Donkey Posted August 30 Share Posted August 30 No mention of Jack Thomson in the injury chat, but hoping to 'make space' for another striking option. Hopefully I'm over-thinking the trauma of deadline day! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qpfc Posted August 30 Share Posted August 30 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Velvet Donkey said: No mention of Jack Thomson in the injury chat, but hoping to 'make space' for another striking option. Hopefully I'm over-thinking the trauma of deadline day! Suggesting that we might need 1 or 2 out to finance another addition. Is our squad big enough to let players go yet, even if it’s on loan ? Can’t think of any players who would be a certainty to be let go. Maybe a Tizzard? Or could just be a couple B team guys, who knows Obviously loan window to get guys on loan domestically doesn’t end until end of September but if we’re to get anyone down south on loan, it would need to be done tonight? Wouldnt be against a wee deadline move but can’t see it really tbh Edited August 30 by qpfc 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bring Your Own Socks Posted August 30 Share Posted August 30 I’m afraid “financing another addition” means it’ll need to be a net zero, or near enough, transaction. Which means more than B squad. The committee were the same with McKinnon and Coyle. Here’s your budget, make it work. Timings tricky too. When Callum rhymes off all his injury list I wonder where all these defenders are going to fit in. Hard to sell a guy who’s on the medics table. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomGuy. Posted August 30 Share Posted August 30 On 29/08/2024 at 16:23, Alan Twelve said: I do think that's what he means (and it does seem reasonable to me, I supoose), but he doesn't really express it well. Also, we have more than one fit specialist centreback at present, so if it's a back three at Partick, he just doesn't want to change, I reckon. I say it a lot, but he spent about 3 years with us saying a back 3 wasn't his preferred option and he wanted to play a back 4, built about 3 separate squads, and played a back 4 in about 3 games in that entire period. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Twelve Posted August 30 Share Posted August 30 23 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said: I say it a lot, but he spent about 3 years with us saying a back 3 wasn't his preferred option and he wanted to play a back 4, built about 3 separate squads, and played a back 4 in about 3 games in that entire period. And I remember you saying it here before, and it does concern me a little. 0 Quote Link to comment 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.