I agree shooting can always earn you points but I think that goal came from a cross which only goes to prove. GET THE ****ING BALL IN THE BOX and something, just something might happen. Are you listening Elmo?
Lone strikers....
- Thread starter Top_Tiger
- Start date
-
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
-
I agree shooting can always earn you points but I think that goal came from a cross which only goes to prove. GET THE ****ING BALL IN THE BOX and something, just something might happen. Are you listening Elmo?
Now that would be interesting but didn't we do that when we were losing and SB was in charge?
I seriously doubt it (5 forwards!). I think it was abandoned around the early 1970s.
Cousin & King were relatively successful for us until King ****ed up & we ****ed him off, then we struggled.
Deano & Campbell were very successful for us, Long & Jelavic.
It is a lot to do with how the rest of the team is set up, but 2 up front does give us an option of an outlet, with 1 up front we struggle due to the rest of the team being slow to catch up due to the defensiveness of how we play.
Whatever the set up at the moment, none of our strikers can play the lone role.
Rodriguez is not the answer either, we have enough injuries without buying another one.
Deano & Campbell were very successful for us, Long & Jelavic.
It is a lot to do with how the rest of the team is set up, but 2 up front does give us an option of an outlet, with 1 up front we struggle due to the rest of the team being slow to catch up due to the defensiveness of how we play.
Whatever the set up at the moment, none of our strikers can play the lone role.
Rodriguez is not the answer either, we have enough injuries without buying another one.
More like 1930s.
Incidentally, the 2 3 5 formation is what led to shirts carrying the numbers they way the they do. 2 and 3 for full backs through to 11 and 7 being left and right wingers. Better not mention them though, Lambo will lock,the thread for mentioning politics.
I too happened to be thinking about the old 2 3 5 system, it was invariably more enjoyable to watch than modern football, apart from todays very top teams.
I don't think any of us really saw 2 3 5. The alteration of the offside brought about a change in tactics.. It had basically finished by 1930 or so. The Brazil team of 1958, the first tournament I watched,was 4 2 4. England in 1966 was 4-1-3-2 formation. Then there were myriad versions of 4-4-2, sweepers, that awful unpronounceable Italian system of the sixties. Now we have various different ones but my favourite is stil 4-4-2.
Yes. But they didn't play that way.
Any team playing that formation would get slaughtered.
Possibly successful with lone strikers:
Who played up front with Alexander when Dudfield got injured (the season Alexander got 19 after being the one teeing up LD for first half of season)? Did we stick with 2 up or go 1 behind the front man?
Pretty much anyone who played up front when Barmby was here as we went 4411 most of the time. Obviously first season of that Elliott bypassed the strikers by scoring from the left wing every time he got the ball but after that. Also possibly when Koren was here someone would have been a lone striker.
Other than possibly Alexander you'd have to judge success by how they contributed in holding it up for midfielders to score from knockdowns or layoffs, because the return from strikers has been **** for years. (Hernandez the first striker since Windass in his original spell with our first team to score 20 in a season)
Who played up front with Alexander when Dudfield got injured (the season Alexander got 19 after being the one teeing up LD for first half of season)? Did we stick with 2 up or go 1 behind the front man?
Pretty much anyone who played up front when Barmby was here as we went 4411 most of the time. Obviously first season of that Elliott bypassed the strikers by scoring from the left wing every time he got the ball but after that. Also possibly when Koren was here someone would have been a lone striker.
Other than possibly Alexander you'd have to judge success by how they contributed in holding it up for midfielders to score from knockdowns or layoffs, because the return from strikers has been **** for years. (Hernandez the first striker since Windass in his original spell with our first team to score 20 in a season)
Quite likely, I agree. But I'd still like to see someone give it a go.Yes. But they didn't play that way.
Playing as a kid in the 1950s we aspired to Walter Winterbottom's WM formation - I have seen it described as a sort of 3-4-3 - it was torn apart by the Hungarians.
Yes. Hungary were the first to use the 4-2-4 which the Brazilians later used to great effect. Looking at Puskss's goal scoring record you have to wonder what he would be worth now. And all done with one foot.
Of course Winterbottom wasn't helped by the fact that the FA Committee picked the team.
I wouldn't have a problem with 1 up-front if a) we had a forward, other than perhaps Mbokani, who can hold the ball up effectively and bring others into play, and, b) we had midfielders willing, able, or instructed to burst forward in support and get beyond the striker.
Of course, playing 2 up front would be helped if we ever had Hernandez and Mbokani available at the same time....at the moment, our only realistic option would be to move Snodgrass around to support a lone striker or play a kid whose game time barely adds up to 90 minutes in total
Of course, playing 2 up front would be helped if we ever had Hernandez and Mbokani available at the same time....at the moment, our only realistic option would be to move Snodgrass around to support a lone striker or play a kid whose game time barely adds up to 90 minutes in total
The only England match I have ever attended was the 1953 Hungary match at Wembley. I remember it as 2-3-5 against 4-2-4 with Hidegkuti playing as a deep lying centre forward with England having no answers.
I played football from 1947 until 1977 and all teams I played for mostly played 2-3-5. Once for a season in a school team as captain I played as a centre-half sweeper and just before I finished playing here in Aus was used as a deep lying centre forward.
They must have been the only teams playing that formation. Herbert Chapman had altered things in this country.
Interesting read of various formations, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_(association_football)
Brilliant team of that era, Ferenc Puscas in particular was a fabulous player, as school lads we knew about such stuff.
