Dear Guest
Thank you for visiting! est189 will soon be closing its doors (do forums have doors?) please visit the following thread - (to wail & cry perhaps?)
https://www.est1892.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?p=4002484#post4002484
Thanjk you.
Paul.S
The only gracious way to accept an insult is to ignore it; if you can't ignore it, top it; if you can't top it, laugh at it; if you can't laugh at it, it's probably deserved.
I just hope we don't play 3 centre backs like we did against Stoke which left us short of an attacking player & left us with a redundant extra defender...
Bolton are at home and desperate for points so I would expect them to attack us from the off which is good news because it will leave gaps in their defence for us to exploit.
I just hope we don't play 3 centre backs like we did against Stoke which left us short of an attacking player & left us with a redundant extra defender...
Not really sure that this is true. Against Stoke we had 6 players freely attacking - with Johnson and Enrique down the flanks. I'm not sure that with Bellamy unable to play all games that the alternative available were more attacking.
The tactics were sensible - 3 CBs with Coates to move the ball into midfield and both fullbacks pushed on. The problems were no different IMO to those we have faced in other formations - i.e. creativity in the final third and the conversion of chances (Kuyts being the one I thought of).
I now that Stoke withdrew Walters into midfield which made 3 at the back a less optimal strategy but it's not as if they gained possession in dangerous areas by doing so. We were secure and attacking with 6 players. Not sure we (or other teams) do more than that in general.
Bolton don't play a high pair of forwards and use the wings less/in a different way so I don't think a back three makes sense. But it's because the challenge is different to Stoke.
"The man who never alters his opinion is like standing water, and breeds reptiles of the mind."
-- William Blake
Not really sure that this is true. Against Stoke we had 6 players freely attacking - with Johnson and Enrique down the flanks. I'm not sure that with Bellamy unable to play all games that the alternative available were more attacking.
The tactics were sensible - 3 CBs with Coates to move the ball into midfield and both fullbacks pushed on. The problems were no different IMO to those we have faced in other formations - i.e. creativity in the final third and the conversion of chances (Kuyts being the one I thought of).
I now that Stoke withdrew Walters into midfield which made 3 at the back a less optimal strategy but it's not as if they gained possession in dangerous areas by doing so. We were secure and attacking with 6 players. Not sure we (or other teams) do more than that in general.
Bolton don't play a high pair of forwards and use the wings less/in a different way so I don't think a back three makes sense. But it's because the challenge is different to Stoke.
Are you suggesting that if Agger was fit vs. Stoke we would have played with 3 centrebacks?
Yikes, we started the game with 6 defenders in the team. Maybe that’s where we slipped up this year – instead of having 5 defenders on the pitch we should have had 6. (Note: I still class a player such as Aurelio or Kelly playing in wide midfield for eg. as a defender, as opposed to a specialised midfielder/attacker).
I don’t really see how a game from last season is relevant though; did we play that formation away from home in the two previous games vs. Stoke this season (League and Carling Cup)? Based on how the game panned out, the extra defender was a waste and we could have done with the extra man further up field.
Comment