Pre-Match Thread Oxford United vs Southend United

danburyshrimper said:

A mate has just texted from Boots+Laces .... the supposed starting 11 are playing a game against the yoofs

You will be shocked by the line up !!!!! 2 changes from saturday but not necessarily the ones everyone is guessing :omg:

Click to expand...

danburyshrimper said:

A mate has just texted from Boots+Laces .... the supposed starting 11 are playing a game against the yoofs

You will be shocked by the line up !!!!! 2 changes from saturday but not necessarily the ones everyone is guessing :omg:

Click to expand...

danburyshrimper said:

A mate has just texted from Boots+Laces .... the supposed starting 11 are playing a game against the yoofs

You will be shocked by the line up !!!!! 2 changes from saturday but not necessarily the ones everyone is guessing :omg:

Click to expand...

dannypav said:

And why not say the team or are you waiting to be asked first ?

Click to expand...

Ayrshire Blue said:

Tbh I would buy this. I went down to B&L a few days after Brown was appointed before his first game against Bradford and we did a similar thing vs the kids and that 11 started against Bradford

Click to expand...

Ayrshire Blue said:

With all of yesterday's excitement out of the way I think its time we started one of these.

I'd like to see us line up with...

Bentley

White Thompson Barrett Coker

Deegan

Worrall.....................Timlin

Payne

Piggott Cassidy



SUBS: P.Smith, Prosser, Hurst, Leonard, Corr, Coulthirst, J.Williams​

I don't have the issue of Prosser and Barrett playing alongside each other because they're both left footed. No one bats an eyelid at two right footers playing together. With Thompson, I see a player in there somewhere just bursting to come out. I think having someone of Barrett's experience alongside him is really going to help progress his game.

Click to expand...

Romford Shrimper said:

Yep - 100% agree with this

Click to expand...

chapperzUK said:

He will be on the right wing.

As for Thompson, apart from giving away an easy pass I thought he put in a solid performance against Plymouth and had Reid in his pocket winning every header.

Click to expand...

mrsblue said:

If we play 442 with the forwards playing just apart from each other we will spank them,however if Phil does his usual then I expect anything from 0 0 to 1 0 either way.

Attack attack attack.Stuff the 4411 stuff the 451..either 442 or 352 the only way forward.

Click to expand...

Jam_Man said:

If you play 442 diamond he cant play on the wing.

Click to expand...

chapperzUK said:

Yes he can. The 4-4-2 diamond is essentially just a standard 4-4-2 but with one central midfield in a more attacking position and the other in a more defensive position.

Click to expand...

danburyshrimper said:

Maybe a team that keeps a clean sheet should not change its defence ? Would be a major shock but i wonder if we will start with
.....................Bentley.....................
White...Thompson...Binnon Williams...Coker
Worrall....Leonard....Deegan.......Timlin
........Cassidy..............Piggott.........

Click to expand...

Ayrshire Blue said:

Leonard is in need of a benching but appears to be a teachers pet

Click to expand...

kingSHRIMPER said:

I’m going to bore the pants off you all now. I actually studied the origin of the 4-4-2 diamond and it’s evolution. Flamengo are widely regarded as the first team to use a diamond with one deep man, two shuttling and one creating, at least that was the theory. The diamond is supposedto be played with a DM, 2xCM and an AMC. Flamengo had a Hungarian coach who played 3-2-2-3 which was relatively successful but not popular with the fans who thought it stifled natural creativity. The next coach saw the benefits ofthe system but knew he had to adapt to appease the fans so it became 3-1-2-1-3 which is where the diamond was created. Despite its success it evolved further into the 4-2-4 that Brazil won the world cup with in 1958 and the diamond wasn’t seen again for a long time. The 60’s saw the return of a man in front of the defence for solidity, Ratin for Argentina is the best example but teams were still reluctant to lose width. Alf Ramsey saw the benefit of a Ratin style player and put Nobby Stiles in that role for England with Ball, Charlton and Peters all given licence to get up with the front two, this was not a diamond though and widely considered a 4-1-3-2. Yugoslavia played a true diamond in the00’s but came unstuck against width and teams playing an orthodox 4-4-2. I think the formation chapperz is referring to is one known as a wide diamond which I’m not convinced by, I understand that modern footballers should be fluid but I think it asks too much of the wide men. I think with our players we would bebetter off letting our strikers drift wide and keep the midfield solid,Coulthirst would be good for this role and maybe Weston, Payne would have to be making runs into the box and the 2 CM’s should not be far behind. I can find faults in any way we play a diamond though as it either stops key players doing what they are good at (ie Coker getting forward as much) or getting some of our best players on the pitch (i.e Worrall & our new strikers) If we take the width from the full backs it gives them a lot to do and I’m not sure the role suits White. It’s a real conundrum!

Click to expand...

kingSHRIMPER said:

I’m going to bore the pants off you all now. I actually studied the origin of the 4-4-2 diamond and it’s evolution. Flamengo are widely regarded as the first team to use a diamond with one deep man, two shuttling and one creating, at least that was the theory. The diamond is supposedto be played with a DM, 2xCM and an AMC. Flamengo had a Hungarian coach who played 3-2-2-3 which was relatively successful but not popular with the fans who thought it stifled natural creativity. The next coach saw the benefits ofthe system but knew he had to adapt to appease the fans so it became 3-1-2-1-3 which is where the diamond was created. Despite its success it evolved further into the 4-2-4 that Brazil won the world cup with in 1958 and the diamond wasn’t seen again for a long time. The 60’s saw the return of a man in front of the defence for solidity, Ratin for Argentina is the best example but teams were still reluctant to lose width. Alf Ramsey saw the benefit of a Ratin style player and put Nobby Stiles in that role for England with Ball, Charlton and Peters all given licence to get up with the front two, this was not a diamond though and widely considered a 4-1-3-2. Yugoslavia played a true diamond in the00’s but came unstuck against width and teams playing an orthodox 4-4-2. I think the formation chapperz is referring to is one known as a wide diamond which I’m not convinced by, I understand that modern footballers should be fluid but I think it asks too much of the wide men. I think with our players we would bebetter off letting our strikers drift wide and keep the midfield solid,Coulthirst would be good for this role and maybe Weston, Payne would have to be making runs into the box and the 2 CM’s should not be far behind. I can find faults in any way we play a diamond though as it either stops key players doing what they are good at (ie Coker getting forward as much) or getting some of our best players on the pitch (i.e Worrall & our new strikers) If we take the width from the full backs it gives them a lot to do and I’m not sure the role suits White. It’s a real conundrum!

Click to expand...

kingSHRIMPER said:

I’m going to bore the pants off you all now. I actually studied the origin of the 4-4-2 diamond and it’s evolution. Flamengo are widely regarded as the first team to use a diamond with one deep man, two shuttling and one creating, at least that was the theory. The diamond is supposedto be played with a DM, 2xCM and an AMC. Flamengo had a Hungarian coach who played 3-2-2-3 which was relatively successful but not popular with the fans who thought it stifled natural creativity. The next coach saw the benefits ofthe system but knew he had to adapt to appease the fans so it became 3-1-2-1-3 which is where the diamond was created. Despite its success it evolved further into the 4-2-4 that Brazil won the world cup with in 1958 and the diamond wasn’t seen again for a long time. The 60’s saw the return of a man in front of the defence for solidity, Ratin for Argentina is the best example but teams were still reluctant to lose width. Alf Ramsey saw the benefit of a Ratin style player and put Nobby Stiles in that role for England with Ball, Charlton and Peters all given licence to get up with the front two, this was not a diamond though and widely considered a 4-1-3-2. Yugoslavia played a true diamond in the00’s but came unstuck against width and teams playing an orthodox 4-4-2. I think the formation chapperz is referring to is one known as a wide diamond which I’m not convinced by, I understand that modern footballers should be fluid but I think it asks too much of the wide men. I think with our players we would bebetter off letting our strikers drift wide and keep the midfield solid,Coulthirst would be good for this role and maybe Weston, Payne would have to be making runs into the box and the 2 CM’s should not be far behind. I can find faults in any way we play a diamond though as it either stops key players doing what they are good at (ie Coker getting forward as much) or getting some of our best players on the pitch (i.e Worrall & our new strikers) If we take the width from the full backs it gives them a lot to do and I’m not sure the role suits White. It’s a real conundrum!

Click to expand...