Conflicting messages from our new signings?

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
K

kingstontiger

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2012
1,352
1,787
113
Was looking at a review of new signings made by all PL clubs in the Independent this morning and it feels like we have spent more and on some decent players than many of our rivals. However, I do think our signings are a bit odd. When we bought Snodgrass and Ince (who are surely wide midfield players, not wing backs or 'second forwards'), I hoped we were going to abandon 3-5-2 - which I still think has served us badly in the second half of the last 2 seasons. But we still seem focussed on having 5-6 centre backs in the building which suggests we are going to continue 3-5-2. In which case, I think Snodgrass and Ince were odd signings.

Still keep thinking we haven't strengthened in 2 key areas - a third striker (I really don't think anyone other than Long and Jelavic will get many goals) and a midfielder who stops the opposition playing and therefore releases Thud to get forward more.

As ever, in Brucey we trust - but he does have me a bit confused at the moment.
 
Thanks for posting that - v interesting article. Yes, I know Brucey is regarded as a bit of a pioneer for 3-5-2 and I do see that people like Elmo and Brady can play the wing back thing pretty well. But our results I'm sure were better with 4-4-2 last year, and I saw a number of away games last season where with 3-5-2 we just didn't get out of our own half enough and Elmo was basically playing more like right back anyway even though he was nominally wing back. Plus as I said it doesn't feel like it suits Snodgrass and Ince.

Ah well, as ever, interesting times!
 
kingstontiger said:
Thanks for posting that - v interesting article. Yes, I know Brucey is regarded as a bit of a pioneer for 3-5-2 and I do see that people like Elmo and Brady can play the wing back thing pretty well. But our results I'm sure were better with 4-4-2 last year, and I saw a number of away games last season where with 3-5-2 we just didn't get out of our own half enough and Elmo was basically playing more like right back anyway even though he was nominally wing back. Plus as I said it doesn't feel like it suits Snodgrass and Ince.

Ah well, as ever, interesting times!
Click to expand...

I suspect that Snodgrass will play as one of the three central mids, probably at the expense of Meyler and that Ince will be up against Aluko for the second striker slot with Long and Jelavic alternating the main striking role. The good thing for SB now is the wealth of options available in virtually all positions, although I think we still need another central midfielder.
 
kingstontiger said:
Thanks for posting that - v interesting article. Yes, I know Brucey is regarded as a bit of a pioneer for 3-5-2 and I do see that people like Elmo and Brady can play the wing back thing pretty well. But our results I'm sure were better with 4-4-2 last year, and I saw a number of away games last season where with 3-5-2 we just didn't get out of our own half enough and Elmo was basically playing more like right back anyway even though he was nominally wing back. Plus as I said it doesn't feel like it suits Snodgrass and Ince.

Ah well, as ever, interesting times!
Click to expand...

I certainly felt we were better balanced when playing 442 with Rossy at right back, was much safer than having Elmo play in the right wing back position in 352. Elmo and Rossy combined well on the right, and Elmo look more confident getting forward knowing Rossy was behind him.
 
I agree that it doesn't suit Snodgrass or Ince, both will surely be suited better to 4-4-2 or 4-2-3-1. The only obvious theme to the signings from what I can see is that we're going for depth and a lot of different options.

I do think we've strengthened better than our rivals, but they remind me a lot of Norwich's activity last summer. We look good on paper but it always takes a good few years to slowly establish yourself as a mid-table side. Hopefully it won't go the same way as Norwich.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back