In another of his local paper exclusives yesterday Kit extols the virtue of our two CBs – “It’s very early days for the boys, but I would like to think with time they [Stearman and Ream] could be up with Hughes and Hangeland,” Symons said. “Knowing they would compliment each other, they were signed as a pair. Once they’ve got a better understanding, they will help the rest of the back four get a better understanding - and then the rest of the team as well.” There’s certainly a steeliness about Stearman, evidenced by that last ditch tackle in the final seconds against Charlton on Sunday which meant we came away with at least a point. And I like the composure of Ream when under pressure. However there is one terribly worrying issue: our inability to defend corners and free kicks. Keeping it relevant to our next match – away to ‘Boro - the 5 goals conceded in or last two away games have come from crosses; 4 of them from the left hand side. Despite his buoyancy, perhaps because of it, Kit doesn’t seem capable of getting to grips with this problem. The more I think about it the more I’m coming round to SuperBri’s proposal (numerous times) that we go 3 at the back. This would allow Fredericks or Richards and Husband or Garbutt to play as wing backs – positions they seem to prefer in any event. More importantly, for me, it would open up the opportunity to play Cairney in the middle – his preferred position. Who would partner Stearman and Ream in the back three is a wee dilemma. Burn gets the vote because of his aerial ability but you’re then stuck with two left-footers, and Hutchinson is arguably the natural choice, playing on the right side. With those crosses in mind though, I’d go with the height of Burn. So, our formation would look like – ………………………………..…...Lonergan……………….. ………………….Stearman………..Burn………….Ream…….. ..Fredericks/Richards……Tunnicliffe/Matilla………………Husband/Garbutt.. ………………………Cairney……………………..O’Hara……. …………………………………….<McCormack>………. …………………………………………..Dembele……… PS Aware that Cairney isn't available for the 'Boro game, just talking general terms here.
That formation would accommodate McCormack much better and I wouldn't mind seeing it tried out. My preference would be stick with 4 at the back and drop one of the strikers so that we set up 4-1-2-2-1 with a DM holding only to give protection and the two wingers playing further forward. The problem at set pieces stems from the coaching, this is something we should be practicing relentlessly in training. The system at the moment is better than the diamond but still needs refining. I think McC is a good player but have said before that we his presence undermines our system because he doesn't really have a position - he was a left winger for a good portion of his career. He and Moussa have had good moments, but the 4 behind them don't offer enough protection. First and foremost I think we need to be hard to beat and right now we're giving away goals too easily.
Another ploy from that formation I would like to see is some time during the game the full backs make up a back 4 again and Burn is pushed up front, the mid-field falls back to give cover and we do launch balls up the pitch. Try and do this 2 or 3 times a game, Why wait till the last 5 minutes to do this as when it has been done a few times it panicks the opposition defense, and opponents midfield drop deeper, the height of Burn unsettles them. Burn is not the finished article by any means (if only we had a fully fit Hangeland type), but his height makes them have to adjust their crosses coming in to the box. I'd also like to see how well Dembele and Smith could partner each other if McC was injured or suspended, Smith has the strenght to worry most defenses and Dembele has speed and goal instinct.
