marinermick
Moderator
Coming to Bay 16 Soon
Posts: 8,657
|
Post by marinermick on Feb 21, 2006 14:16:06 GMT 10
the question is are we really game enough to do 'experimenting' 1 game away from the grand final. I can see the arguments for the 3-5-2 formation and I would like to see us use it, I just don't know if I want to see the guys risk a different formation in the next two weeks. my opinon is that we are underdogs for the next two games why not use it now? that is only if it has been worked on at training would certainly give the surprise factor as no doubt the opposition coaches will be instructing their players on our tactics
|
|
|
Post by Farthing on Feb 21, 2006 17:57:48 GMT 10
the question is are we really game enough to do 'experimenting' 1 game away from the grand final. I can see the arguments for the 3-5-2 formation and I would like to see us use it, I just don't know if I want to see the guys risk a different formation in the next two weeks. my opinon is that we are underdogs for the next two games why not use it now? that is only if it has been worked on at training would certainly give the surprise factor as no doubt the opposition coaches will be instructing their players on our tactics I agree with you MM, try something new, we are where we are ment to finish because we got 3rd and it is a chance for us to try something diffrent. i think alot of teams have picked up on the way we play and you notice alot more now teams throwing two men on Gumps but i still cant see Lawrie changing his formation now
|
|
|
Post by Rubbernose on Feb 21, 2006 18:12:35 GMT 10
Then again, it's not like changing personnel and positions is new to us this year.
We've proved we're very versatile - we've had to be - and could probably do it next Sunday with minimal fuss.
Probably more comfortably than any other team.
|
|
|
Post by brett on Feb 21, 2006 20:56:54 GMT 10
I dont agree with changing system now, we've been playing the 4-4-2 all season and now we are hard (impossible?) to beat in it.
But I do agree with putting Wilko on Carney.
|
|
|
Post by jollyroger on Feb 21, 2006 21:01:35 GMT 10
I have always believed we played better with a 3-5-2 formation and i think you are right WT about nick. Having the right players available to play a 3-5-2 is important, and i think his absence has probably upset the balance to play this formation.
One player who appears to be left out of some combinations proposed in this format is jamie mcmaster. He impressed me enough in the queensland game to be considered in a five man midfield, or pushed up front with tommy playing back in the middle with gumps.
One thing i have noticed in the past few games is that gumps has been clearly identified as our main man in midfield and as a result, he has been marked out of the game.
I think the extra man in the middle would free him up to do his stuff. While i wouldnt advocate a change this late in the season, if things arent happening for us by half time on the weekend my second half formation would be.
-----------Tommy-------Petrie -----Heff---Jamie--Spenny--Gumps------Sully -------------Wilko-----Clark------Beauchamp Danny or i would move tommy back to replace Jamie and push Jamie or play Adam up front.
|
|
|
Post by jollyroger on Feb 21, 2006 21:29:19 GMT 10
Your right rubbernose in relation to your comments about a 3-5-2. The flankers need to be very fit. You run your ass off all game because you are both an attacker and defender in this system.
I played in this format several years ago with a lot of success. We overcame the defensive weaknesses by using a sliding backline (sideways across the field) which moved as a unit across the park. With wingbacks dropping back to make a fourth fullback in defensive situations. Hense is why you need to be super fit to play in the wide role because you are up and down the park all day.
Another comment is that the three man backline needs to be very organised. I think our boys are and therefore i think it would work.
|
|
|
Post by Rowdy on Feb 21, 2006 22:15:19 GMT 10
I'm for both, great to watch varying styles of play but with those points on backline of 3 being highly organised:
Meggsy does have a habit of letting defenders getting inside of him when the ball is being crossed in by a wide attacking player.
Clarkey also (not through lack of fitness), sometimes loses his man in-behind him when moving back to the 6 yard box. He focuses on the wide attacker, drifting out slightly, especially on the LHS, waiting for the crossing-ball in, either trying to intercept the header or shutting him down if the attacker is succesful in beating our right defender and continuing to goal or byline, who then knocks the ball back to the man that clarkey has drifted off or left behind him.
These types of lapses result in those goals 'down the middle' that Kev reffered to us conceding.
|
|