Jonesy Posted February 22, 2011 Report Share Posted February 22, 2011 That's just a plain 3 man midfield then is it not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hammy Posted February 22, 2011 Report Share Posted February 22, 2011 That's just a plain 3 man midfield then is it not? Sorry forgot about Murph as the attacking midfielder just behind the strikers. Emphasis really was that we had noone out wide. Base positions kinda went like -----------------------Forbes--------------- ---------Jennings------------------Murphy -----------------------Lasley--------------- So it completes a diamond. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonesy Posted February 22, 2011 Report Share Posted February 22, 2011 Ah, it's starting to make sense now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haggischomper Posted February 22, 2011 Report Share Posted February 22, 2011 I get the diamond part, I'm not getting the flat part. To me 'flat' would imply 3 (0r 4) playing in flat line, not in a diamond. But I might be being a bit of a mong about this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sdt Posted February 22, 2011 Report Share Posted February 22, 2011 For me, to get the best out of Forbes we should be playing with a formation like this: --------------------------Jennings------------------------------ -------------------Hately----------Lasley------------------ ---------------------------Forbes----------------------------------- ----------------------Sutton------Murphy And to give us width we could even have a back four like this: --------Humphrey-------Craigan------Hutchison-------Hammell With Humphrey and Hammell bombing up and down the wings and Hateley and Jennings stepping in at the back when needed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kmcalpin Posted February 22, 2011 Report Share Posted February 22, 2011 he was excellent up at aberdeen and decent on saturday. By all accounts he was very good at Aberdeen last week but I thought no more than "fair" on Saturday - not good enough to play for 90 minutes. I'd be tempted to give him a few months of speed training, thats what he needs and badly - would that make a difference? Good luck to the lad though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Diggle Posted February 22, 2011 Report Share Posted February 22, 2011 I genuinely think he suffers from lack of confidence at Fir Park and that affects his game. He had a decent game on Saturday but apparently he was significantly better at Pittodrie. there must be a reason for stuff like that. I think it would have been better if consecutive away games followed the Pittodrie match as opposed to successive home ones. I know they're diminishing in number but the guys that support the team away from home don't seem to include the wife beaters so that's always been a plus to guys like Forbes as the support is more positive and consistent throughout the 90. I'm hoping the OP means "give the guy a good few games in his favoured position" as opposed to "lets give it 35 mins instead of 15 before we get on this disgrace's back" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fat_tony Posted February 22, 2011 Report Share Posted February 22, 2011 aberdeen seemed a bit suprised by our formation. you can still see the weakness at their goal however, hateley has to push out because their is no midfield cover and hutchinson is left exposed. billy reid was at that match and obviously decided rather than try and counter with width he'd block up the middle of the field and man mark murphy. you've got to imagine that inverness, killie and dundee united will attempt to use their wingers against if we play that way. for the celtic game we should be lined up as we were in the semi. That's where the benefit of having guys like Humphrey and Jones lies. For the past several years we've either been set up to play with a narrow midfield (McGhee's first season with O'Donnell - Hughes - Lasley) or with wingers (Brown etc with O'Brien/Humphrey). At these times we've had one gameplan and that's it. Now we have the benefit of having a gameplan that utilises the likes of Forbes and Murphy in effective positions (as seen in the diamond), as well as the option to lineup with a wide midfield with one or two wingers. Add to that the fact that McCall seems to be unafraid to change his tactics around and we genuinely have, for the first time in years, a squad that can be adapted to handle a couple of different tactical approaches. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gary_411 Posted February 22, 2011 Report Share Posted February 22, 2011 For the past several years we've either been set up to play with a narrow midfield (McGhee's first season with O'Donnell - Hughes - Lasley) or with wingers (Brown etc with O'Brien/Humphrey). At these times we've had one gameplan and that's it. not really true, Lasley, O'donnell and Hughes very rarely played in the same midfield, McGarry probably featured just as heavily if not moreso than Lasley at times, and he was playing as a 'winger' I'd say, with McCormack doing similar. But we had options to switch to a narrow midfield when needed. Fair enough under Brown we were pretty much "if Plan A doesn't work we're fucked". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fat_tony Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 not really true, Lasley, O'donnell and Hughes very rarely played in the same midfield, McGarry probably featured just as heavily if not moreso than Lasley at times, and he was playing as a 'winger' I'd say, with McCormack doing similar. But we had options to switch to a narrow midfield when needed. Fair enough under Brown we were pretty much "if Plan A doesn't work we're fucked". I may be remembering incorrectly then, as I thought it was usually Lasley. However we were setup, you're kind of getting to part of my point there. McGarry was never a winger and it's nice that now, we have the players (even if only for 6 months) to be able to switch our team around and play people in their favoured/most effective positions in a couple of different systems. We have natural wingers in Jones and Humphrey so don't need to play Murphy, Sutton or Forbes out wide so we can go 4-4-2 and get some width in the team. Or we can play the "diamond" like we have recently and accommodate the likes of Forbes and Murphy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tartan Copper 2 Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 It appears the Diamond Formation suits young Forbes, but i still think theres a place for Forbes in the team ... even with Wingers.... just a point on who would drop out to accomodate him Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybug Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 aberdeen seemed a bit suprised by our formation. you can still see the weakness at their goal however, hateley has to push out because their is no midfield cover and hutchinson is left exposed. billy reid was at that match and obviously decided rather than try and counter with width he'd block up the middle of the field and man mark murphy. you've got to imagine that inverness, killie and dundee united will attempt to use their wingers against if we play that way. for the celtic game we should be lined up as we were in the semi. Is Mark Murphy a new signing? 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.