Should we be playing 4-3-3 with the current players?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

BigBed

BigBed

Aboard the sinking ship......
Joined
Jun 8, 2016
Messages
14,225
Reaction score
14,560
Keep watching us fall apart and can see we need something different, our defence has been poor this season so far, well, since our new "defence" coach arrived anyway, and we desperately miss Baldock helping out, as Bogle isn't very good defensively at all.
I don't understand why we dont use the players we have better?
Trusty and Bash are just sat doing nothing, and 2 up top isn't working, so why not try 4 at the back, a flat 3 or midfield diamond, with a number 10?
Or just 3 up top??
The 5-3-2 isn't working for us, what have we got to lose??
Something like:
Wes
Bash Anel Trusty Robbo

Davies Souza Hamer

Mcatee Archer Mcburnie

Egan hasn't been great, so he misses out, Baldock is injured, Bogle hasn't been very good for me, Thomas has done well, but I've gone with Robbo/Hamer on the left.
It might not work, but something has to be done?
 

Take away the little goal threat we have? Bit to risky for me.
 
Thought the back 5 worked well defensively against spurs unitl we had injurys
Id give it one more go without egan fucking everything up and see how it goes
Trusty deserves a start now either on the right of a three
Down the middle of a three or as part of a two
 
Frank the tank said:
Thought the back 5 worked well defensively against spurs unitl we had injurys
Id give it one more go without egan fucking everything up and see how it goes
Trusty deserves a start now either on the right of a three
Down the middle of a three or as part of a two
Click to expand...
But we need Baldock for that, and he should be wearing the armband whilst doing it!
 
BigBed said:
Keep watching us fall apart and can see we need something different, our defence has been poor this season so far, well, since our new "defence" coach arrived anyway, and we desperately miss Baldock helping out, as Bogle isn't very good defensively at all.
I don't understand why we dont use the players we have better?
Trusty and Bash are just sat doing nothing, and 2 up top isn't working, so why not try 4 at the back, a flat 3 or midfield diamond, with a number 10?
Or just 3 up top??
The 5-3-2 isn't working for us, what have we got to lose??
Something like:
Wes
Bash Anel Trusty Robbo

Davies Souza Hamer

Mcatee Archer Mcburnie

Egan hasn't been great, so he misses out, Baldock is injured, Bogle hasn't been very good for me, Thomas has done well, but I've gone with Robbo/Hamer on the left.
It might not work, but something has to be done?
Click to expand...
A back four? Rewatch the period of the Newcastle match from half time until the 74th minute when we brought Basham on and tell me we should play four at the back.

That period of the match was a non-league vs champions league 16-0 match up, one of the most anxiety inducing episodes of play of ever seen watching the Blades
 
ReeceofBDTBL said:
A back four? Rewatch the period of the Newcastle match from half time until the 74th minute when we brought Basham on and tell me we should play four at the back.

That period of the match was a non-league vs champions league 16-0 match up, one of the most anxiety inducing episodes of play of ever seen watching the Blades
Click to expand...
We were just as bad with a back 3, theres no real argument, other than the defence coach wants kicking in the bollocks.
 
BigBed said:
We were just as bad with a back 3, theres no real argument, other than the defence coach wants kicking in the bollocks.
Click to expand...
We absolutely weren’t, that period they were absolutely flying through us and would’ve breezed into double figures until we went back to three at the back.

We could’ve been drawing at half time, the last 25 minutes we made daft mistake that lead to an extra goal.

But that period with 4 at the back the basic shape and set up of the team was an absolute dogs dinner and we were lucky they only scored 4 in that period.
 
ReeceofBDTBL said:
We absolutely weren’t, that period they were absolutely flying through us and would’ve breezed into double figures until we went back to three at the back.

We could’ve been drawing at half time, the last 25 minutes we made daft mistake that lead to an extra goal.

But that period with 4 at the back the basic shape and set up of the team was an absolute dogs dinner and we were lucky they only scored 4 in that period.
Click to expand...
We couldve been drawing at half time!!!??? What absolute bollocks!
We were out played from beginning to end, 3-0 down at half time shows there was no chance we couldve been level!
Were you actually there to witness how bad we were!?
 
BigBed said:
We couldve been drawing at half time!!!??? What absolute bollocks!
We were out played from beginning to end, 3-0 down at half time shows there was no chance we couldve been level!
Were you actually there to witness how bad we were!?
Click to expand...
We coukd have been 3 up
 
BigBed said:
We couldve been drawing at half time!!!??? What absolute bollocks!
We were out played from beginning to end, 3-0 down at half time shows there was no chance we couldve been level!
Were you actually there to witness how bad we were!?
Click to expand...
At least one if not two of the goals shoud've been disallowed and we could've scored two. Also, i said we 'could' have been drawing so thats not to say we were necessarily as good as newcastle.

My point, which is still correct, is that we were miles better with three at the back. Saying we should still go 4 at the back after what happened last week is utter idiocy
 
ReeceofBDTBL said:
At least one if not two of the goals shoud've been disallowed and we could've scored two. Also, i said we 'could' have been drawing so thats not to say we were necessarily as good as newcastle.

My point, which is still correct, is that we were miles better with three at the back. Saying we should still go 4 at the back after what happened last week is utter idiocy
Click to expand...
I didn't say we should go 4 at the back, I simply asked if we should, given the players we have and the shite defending we've seen so far this season.
And I also asked, were you actually there to see it??
 

Frank the tank said:
Until they scored we were the better side and had three chances to their none
Click to expand...
We weren't the better side at all, we simply played a high tempo first 10 mins, then we looked knackered and fell apart, the chances we had weren't brilliant, they were just chances, and none were near going in.
 
BigBed said:
We weren't the better side at all, we simply played a high tempo first 10 mins, then we looked knackered and fell apart, the chances we had weren't brilliant, they were just chances, and none were near going in.
Click to expand...
Youre not making any sense
 
BigBed said:
We weren't the better side at all, we simply played a high tempo first 10 mins, then we looked knackered and fell apart, the chances we had weren't brilliant, they were just chances, and none were near going in.
Click to expand...
Similar to the early chances vs Newcastle then really
 
ReeceofBDTBL said:
A back four? Rewatch the period of the Newcastle match from half time until the 74th minute when we brought Basham on and tell me we should play four at the back.

That period of the match was a non-league vs champions league 16-0 match up, one of the most anxiety inducing episodes of play of ever seen watching the Blades
Click to expand...
Playing a centre back (on a yellow card) at right back against a fast winger and another centre back (Egan) who throughout his career has proven time and time again he can’t operate in a back 4.

Second half against Newcastle should not be used to dismiss going to a back 4 as it was a cobbled together effort full of strange decisions by the manager.
 
BigBed said:
I'm not making sense?, you've just said "we were the better side"! And I'm not making sense!!??
Click to expand...
Frank the tank said:
Until they scored we were the better side and had three chances to their none
Click to expand...
Its pretty simple what i said and much harder to misunderstand so your reply doesnt make sense
BigBed said:
We weren't the better side at all, we simply played a high tempo first 10 mins, then we looked knackered and fell apart, the chances we had weren't brilliant, they were just chances, and none were near going in.
Click to expand...
It disagrees with me
Then it agrees with me then it just gets a bit stupid
 
Frank the tank said:
Its pretty simple what i said and much harder to misunderstand so your reply doesnt make sense

It disagrees with me
Then it agrees with me then it just gets a bit stupid
Click to expand...
None of it agrees with you, and how does it get stupid?, thinking we were the better team, well that's stupid, thinking we coludve been 3 up from the 3 shots we had, thats also stupid, did you actually see them??
And my reply makes perfect sense, to anyone that actually saw the game first hand anyway.
 
BigBed said:
None of it agrees with you, and how does it get stupid?, thinking we were the better team, well that's stupid, thinking we coludve been 3 up from the 3 shots we had, thats also stupid, did you actually see them??
And my reply makes perfect sense, to anyone that actually saw the game first hand anyway.
Click to expand...
I really cant explain it any clearer than i just have
 
BigBed said:
Rose tinted glasses are obviously being worn.
Click to expand...
Its not exactly turning the table upside down to say we could have been 3 up in a game we lost 8 -0
Just that sometimes people like you who wallow in self pity need putting straight
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Back
Top Bottom