• Welcome to the ShrimperZone forums.
    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which only gives you limited access.

    Existing Users:.
    Please log-in using your existing username and password. If you have any problems, please see below.

    New Users:
    Join our free community now and gain access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and free. Click here to join.

    Fans from other clubs
    We welcome and appreciate supporters from other clubs who wish to engage in sensible discussion. Please feel free to join as above but understand that this is a moderated site and those who cannot play nicely will be quickly removed.

    Assistance Required
    For help with the registration process or accessing your account, please send a note using the Contact us link in the footer, please include your account name. We can then provide you with a new password and verification to get you on the site.

Joined
Nov 13, 2011
Messages
8,958
Location
SW1A 0PW
This is probably quite an out of fashion idea but I have always favoured having pairs of strikers on the pitch. It is based on a 4-4-2 formation rather than some modern 4-1-3-1-1 idea (although I remember when 4-4-2 was rather new).

You have 2 strikers on who know each other and how they play and give them 60 minutes or so. If they aren't getting anywhere, you bring them off and put on your 2nd pair of strikers.

And your 2nd pair of strikers might contain a player coming through who benefits from the time on pitch and playing against tiring opponents.

So we might start with Corr and Barney .... and then switch to, say, Sharky and Williams.

And one benefit is that this changes your attacking options in a manner known to the other 9 players on the pitch and removes some of the 'chopping and changing' that seems to go so that there is no settled line up.

As I say, this is a rather old fashioned .... but there can still be value in the 'old ways', can't there?
 
Exactly ! I don't buy into this "we need a proven goalscorer". We've already got them (Corr and Barney, and maybe Shaq in time. Weston is quick and should cause problems). Problem is, they're playing as a lone striker to accomodate Payne in the team. I'm not sure you get the best out of strikers if they have to do all the hold-up play and chasing down defenders all on their own.
 
That's it. Or Freddy and the Goat. We played most of pre season with Corr and Weston to be fair.
 
Weston is not a striker. He has been a left winger all his pro career. I hope that PB has worked this one out now, no matter what Weston says himself.
 
I'd always prefer we play 4-4-2. Brown started playing that way when he came in and again at the start of last season. He only changed due to circumstances.

Players must naturally prefer 4-4-2 as it is the formation they've been brought up to play.
 
Problem is we have got to have a pair of strikers first .We have 4 in the club I think thats what they are called Strikers .They might be called Stikers but they dont perform like one any of them .So I will reserve my judgement .Strikers are ment to score goals IE bill garner Billy best The goat Eastwood first time around . So why do we call the likes of CORR BARNARD and WESTON strikers when they have not scored more than a couple between then .
 
Never a basic 4 4 2 if we want payne in the team.

You are right and think this is one of the problems Brown has.
There has been a big cry to Payne to start as he is seen as potentially our most creative player.
I think this is true , but still think as it's his first season it's a big ask to make him the saviour.
The boy is still learning his trade , so needs time.
But , as you say , he does not fit as a striker and may be seen as a liability in central midfield if we play 4-4-2.
Tough one for Brown , but that's his job I guess to make these calls.
 
You are right and think this is one of the problems Brown has.
There has been a big cry to Payne to start as he is seen as potentially our most creative player.
I think this is true , but still think as it's his first season it's a big ask to make him the saviour.
The boy is still learning his trade , so needs time.
But , as you say , he does not fit as a striker and may be seen as a liability in central midfield if we play 4-4-2.
Tough one for Brown , but that's his job I guess to make these decisions

Or bring on Payne after 60 minutes or so to create more chances (although this might be at the expense of less defensive formation).
 
Payne could go into one of the wide positions easily enough I'd have thought.
 
Problem is we have got to have a pair of strikers first .We have 4 in the club I think thats what they are called Strikers .They might be called Stikers but they dont perform like one any of them .So I will reserve my judgement .Strikers are ment to score goals IE bill garner Billy best The goat Eastwood first time around . So why do we call the likes of CORR BARNARD and WESTON strikers when they have not scored more than a couple between then .

The point is that in a 4-4-2 you're giving your strikers the best opportunity to score. 4-3-3/4-5-1 doesn't do that because the striker is typically there to create chances for other players.
 
Change the lot
3 5 2
Bolger prosser as CBs with thompson as sweeper.
williams and lenny as wingbacks (or white when fit) meaning three in the middle thus accommodating payne and have two up top.
 
Change the lot
3 5 2
Bolger prosser as CBs with thompson as sweeper.
williams and lenny as wingbacks (or white when fit) meaning three in the middle thus accommodating payne and have two up top.

Suggested before and no for me because it has no width and the centre halves are never comfortable with it.

The "wingbacks" are still expected to defend and if you play a team with wingers then have a winger and a fullback to cope with.

If our 433 gets translated to 451 then 352 is just 532, so one more striker but less attacking players overall.
 
Suggested before and no for me because it has no width and the centre halves are never comfortable with it.

The "wingbacks" are still expected to defend and if you play a team with wingers then have a winger and a fullback to cope with.

If our 433 gets translated to 451 then 352 is just 532, so one more striker but less attacking players overall.

Indeed a proper wing back system needs the right players but can be effective.
 
Brown tried a 3-5-2 vs Walsall earlier this season and we just did not look comfortable in that formation.. thats not to say that with work on the training ground it couldn't work, but just to show that Brown has thought of it.
 
Back
Top