Does our 3-4-1-2work without Coutts?

[BushBlade]

The best solution I can think of to get them all in the team is this 4-3-1-2.


Blackman

Baldock CCV O'Connell Stevens

Duffy Basham Fleck

Brooks

Sharp Clarke


Demanding role for Duffy but a perfect role for Carruthers, who could regularly replace him there.

But the negatives probably outweigh the positives here because you wouldn't want to change Duffy's role at all, or lose the 3 centre backs.

It would easily switch to the 3-5-2 with Basham moving to RCB. But that would still mean Duffy in a deeper role.

I think we have to stick to the existing formation if possible but we could go

4213 with Bash and Fleck in cm, Duffy just in front, dropping back when out of possession, Sharp wide left cutting in onto his right and Brooks wide right cutting in onto his left. Not ideal for Sharp and although Thomas has been learning to play right wing back apparently, he could be an option to bring on late when Billy's knackered. I think Sharp would accept playing out of position for a few games for the sake of the team. And this would only be once we've exhausted all other options to make our existing formation work so would probably only be for four or five games.

 

[RammyBlade]

Personally think Lundstram will be fine, but the defenders will have to be on their toes for a couple of games while he works out a few issues with vision and possession. He won't be a Rolls Royce straight away like Couttsy, but he'll be a nice Audi, with the potential to be a Bentley by January if we keep playing him.

If they don't go Lundstram long term, if I was the manager, I'd stick with the tried and tested formation and play Fleck in Coutts' position, and then Duffy in Flecks and Carruthers/Brooks where Duffy was, see if that works at all, but I have faith Wilder and Knill will get it right.

Lets hope he isnt a Reliant Robin or a Trabant !!

 

[Ainsley Harriott]

“Neon Leon Clarke”

I can just see his goal celebration being a steelers-esque lights out followed by Gary Sinclair giving it a “scorer for the blades - neon leoooooonnnn Clarke” as Leon celebrates in front of the kop by lighting up his neon shirt, shorts, socks and gloves
View attachment 33420

Funny you should say this. Slap bang underneath your post is an advert for LED clothing

 

[Dec]

View attachment 33426


Funny you should say this. Slap bang underneath your post is an advert for LED clothing

That's part of his post......

...

 

[Sheffsteel]

I don't get to see as much United in the flesh as I'd like but long before we brought Carruthers in he was a 'wanted player', what's changed? Have our standards upped that much? Is he too weak defensively? Or something else?
Whiteman can't find it, may have been on RS but I'm pretty sure Wilder has already said he'll be with Doncaster for the season.
'Neon Leon' I remember hearing that from his Wednesday days and for that reason was glad we'd avoided it so far.

Coutts was Mr Reliable, he was like a metronome, showed for the ball and kept it simple passing for fun.
He always seemed to have time, so calm on the ball and it’s true “he never gives the ball away”,
Another quality of Coutts was the consistency of his long pass, spraying it out to the wing for our attacking wingbacks Stevens and Baldock.

Carruthers is more like David Brooks (but lacks his pace).
Samir is better than Coutts dribbling past defenders and he has more tricks and flicks.
But like Brooks, his tricks and flicks means he can lose possession when the simple ball might have been the better option.
Also Samir is better when we have the ball compared to when we don’t have the ball.

I’d say Carruthers is more of a luxury player, not reliable enough but he has loads of talent and when he plays well is a top quality player. Until he becomes more consistent he’s someone you bring on as a sub because he has the potential to change a game.
Although regards subs Wilder has tended to go for either Brooks (attacking option) or Lundstrum (defensive option) as the subs.

 

[stringer]

Also Samir is better when we have the ball compared to when we don’t have the ball.

As is Coutts. Lundstram will play on Tuesday no doubt but Samir’ll get more opportunities now to show what a big player he can be.

 

[Tunstall Fred]

As the quarterback in the midfield three his is an intrical part of the system, as are:
- O’Connell and Basham bombing on from RCB and LCB to support the wingbacks
- Fleck advancing the ball from our third to theirs
- Duffy looking for openings in the final third
- Billy and Leon firing them in

I’ll be interested to see if Wilder considers more formation changes.

At the end of the day whilst we are all about TEAM, you do ideally want your best XI on the pitch.

If Coutts is out then undoubtedly number 12 is Brooks.

Would Chris consider whatever modern derivation there is to 4-4-2?

He’d still have Billy and Leon.

Having lost Coutts, he’d have a midfield of Bash and Fleck, combative but with Free roles out wide for Duffy and Brooks.

CCV and O’Connell could be a decent pairing and you’d still encourage attacking full back play.

In doind this you acknowledge you’d rather Brooks on the field than say Lundstram. You’d also lose Wright in favour of Baldock.

But you lose the attacking centre back element we’ve cone to love, at least to some extent.

Hope someone can step in to keep 3-4-1-2 working well but this must be a consideration if only to get Brooks involved. Unless Chris goes gung-ho with 3-3-2-2 and just has Fleck deep-lying, plays Brooks and Duffy as 2 number 10s and just goes “we’ll score more than you!”. To go even more attacking would not surprise me in the slightest under Wilder. Let’s see how Kev McDonald goes with Brooks and Duffy all over him for instance.

Stopped reading after the use of the word quarterback FFS quarterback Jesus wept

 

[ljk]

Just as the Hull game carried extra significance because we'd fallen flat at QPR, winning the Fulham game would be a big psychological boost after losing Coutts.

If we get a couple of bad results in the next few games - even if we play well, and don't the rub of the green - I could see the 'we can't play without Coutts' narrative going into overdrive.

I'm still pretty optimistic that won't happen, though.

I'm hoping that Lundrum has a really good game on Tuesday. He's had a few unconvincing cameos but, as others have mentioned, has also been consistently improving, and played well against Ipswich.

Every player that has had an extended spell in Wilder's team has improved as a player, without exception (as far as I can think of). I don't think Lundstrum hasn't shown the potential that he could do the same.

 

[SwissBlade]

View attachment 33426


Funny you should say this. Slap bang underneath your post is an advert for LED clothing

Ainsley Harriott i think Dec has answered this for me...

That's part of his post......

...

 

[Pinchy]

He’s the MVP for the winningest franchise in the Steel City, the Sheffield Blades. And it’s big game time next Tuesday under the light at the Bramall Bowl, where the Fulham Cottagers are the visitors. Here’s hoping tight end Billy Sharp and running back Neon Leon Clarke are fully fit, backed up by the nickel formation, and the special team players David “The Kid” Brooks and Samir “The Urinator” Carruthers are primed and ready to go.

Hope that clears things up. Go Blades!

I don’t do silly text abbreviations, but as you often do, you made me laugh out loud. Bravo.

The analogy is a good one, though. From the little I see of the American rubbish, isn’t the quarter-back the fellow who starts all the moves and dictates the play? Coutts. There it is.

 

[Ginger Gnome]

The formation will work without Coutts, but it's not a position someone can easily drop into and be as effective. As timing goes, if we were ever going to lose Coutts, now is probably ideal as it's not too far from the transfer window if we need to bring someone in, but it gives Lundstram the opportunity to show if he's up to the task. Basham could do it, but might take a while to adapt from his roaming role he has been playing.

Changing the entire system because he's missing would be a mistake though, a back four would kill our overlapping centre backs tactic and O'Connell never looks as comfortable in a back four. Bringing Brooks in and only playing one striker doesn't do anything to fill the Coutts role, and any change in the midfield shape risks losing the effectiveness of Duffy.

For now, Lundstram will get the chance in the current system, there might be a slight tinkering with Fleck's role as a result and if it doesn't work, it's more likely to be the player than the system that changes.

 

[Bergen Blade]

Oxford fans' view on Lundstram:

https://roysviewfrom.wordpress.com/2017/07/25/oxford-fans-view-on-john-lundstram/

Apart from Lundstram's lacking Coutts excellent ability to keep the ball under pressure, he sounded like a poor man's Coutts. But at the moment many seem to suggest he's a more defensive type. Will we change our views if he gets a run in the side?

 

[HarryBassett]

We can't replace coutts I think Wilder will switch between lundstram and carruthers till Jan depending on who were playing

 

[Champagneblade]

Okay. Quarterback - deep lying playmaker. One who dictates the direction of play. The one to instigate the moves.

Hope that clears up what i meant