Solving the left side of the defence

msomerton · January 25

oohaahmortimer said:

I know I’m cleverer than the majority of people (I’m no relation of Doucher’s )

If you were like me and said no we should not play him then you are. I wanted us to put out the bits and pieces players, like Rousillon.

MrOneLung · January 25

Makes me laugh people saying we have not got centre backs that can play in a four.

That’s their bread and butter.

se9addick · January 25

MrOneLung said:

Makes me laugh people saying we have not got centre backs that can play in a four.

That’s their bread and butter.

Quite, that why I said if it really is the case that we’ve left ourselves in the situation where we can’t actually play the most basic defensive formation the its utterly negligent.

fenaddick · January 25

MrOneLung said:

Makes me laugh people saying we have not got centre backs that can play in a four.

That’s their bread and butter.

But that doesn’t factor in that Ramsay and Bell are really fullbacks who were converted into playing CB so it isn’t really their bread and butter at all

sam3110 · January 25

fenaddick said:

MrOneLung said:

Makes me laugh people saying we have not got centre backs that can play in a four.

That’s their bread and butter.

But that doesn’t factor in that Ramsay and Bell are really fullbacks who were converted into playing CB so it isn’t really their bread and butter at all

But in a back 4 they'd both play fullback anyway.

The issue is Burke, Jones and Gillesphey all being slow, physical centre backs, they're all too similar. We need a left footed centre back with pace to play alongside Jones, or you accept a right footed centre back at LCB (of the 3 it would be Jones again) but have a pacier option with them at RCB.

NabySarr · January 25

MrOneLung said:

Makes me laugh people saying we have not got centre backs that can play in a four.

That’s their bread and butter.

Well not really considering our centre back options are a mix of full backs and then the actual centre backs have only really done well playing in a 3 in their careers

So I really don’t think it’s laughable, in fact it’s more laughable to think they can play in a four when there is very little evidence to support that

Crispywood · January 25

MrOneLung said:

Makes me laugh people saying we have not got centre backs that can play in a four.

That’s their bread and butter.

Ramsay and Bell were both wingbacks/fullbacks beforehand used to playing wider in defence than central. Jones + Macca have performed much better in a 3 for us than a 4 we’ve seen proof over the last 18 months-2 years of that. Burke have no clue on but he can’t even stay fit enough to test the theory anyway

elbiglad · January 25

sam3110 said:

fenaddick said:

MrOneLung said:

Makes me laugh people saying we have not got centre backs that can play in a four.

That’s their bread and butter.

But that doesn’t factor in that Ramsay and Bell are really fullbacks who were converted into playing CB so it isn’t really their bread and butter at all

But in a back 4 they'd both play fullback anyway.

The issue is Burke, Jones and Gillesphey all being slow, physical centre backs, they're all too similar. We need a left footed centre back with pace to play alongside Jones, or you accept a right footed centre back at LCB (of the 3 it would be Jones again) but have a pacier option with them at RCB.

Unfortunately I think every team is constantly looking for good left footed centre backs with pace. Not that easy to find - and when you do they cost a fair bit of money.

elbiglad · January 25

I think we have to stick with a five. The majority of the players we have suit it so unless we are bringing in quite a few before the end of the week I don’t think it makes sense to change. We have seen that we can be solid with a five earlier this year. To try and get back to that I would go for:

RWB: Ramsay/Clarke RCB: Burke/Clarke CB: Jones LCB: Bell / NEW SIGNING LWB: Chambers / NEW SIGNING.

That relies on three things: some injury prone players staying fit, one player rediscovering his form and us bringing in a left footed defender who can cover two positions. Not sure which if those is least likely…

CaptainRobbo · January 26

elbiglad said:

I think we have to stick with a five. The majority of the players we have suit it so unless we are bringing in quite a few before the end of the week I don’t think it makes sense to change. We have seen that we can be solid with a five earlier this year. To try and get back to that I would go for:

RWB: Ramsay/Clarke RCB: Burke/Clarke CB: Jones LCB: Bell / NEW SIGNING LWB: Chambers / NEW SIGNING.

That relies on three things: some injury prone players staying fit, one player rediscovering his form and us bringing in a left footed defender who can cover two positions. Not sure which if those is least likely…

Probably got more chance of winning the euro millions.

NabySarr · January 26

elbiglad said:

I think we have to stick with a five. The majority of the players we have suit it so unless we are bringing in quite a few before the end of the week I don’t think it makes sense to change. We have seen that we can be solid with a five earlier this year. To try and get back to that I would go for:

RWB: Ramsay/Clarke RCB: Burke/Clarke CB: Jones LCB: Bell / NEW SIGNING LWB: Chambers / NEW SIGNING.

That relies on three things: some injury prone players staying fit, one player rediscovering his form and us bringing in a left footed defender who can cover two positions. Not sure which if those is least likely…

Agree with this but if we get the left sided signing right then that will hopefully also mean we can add Apter back in to RWB

Radostanradical · August 22

NabySarr said:

Radostanradical said:

NabySarr said:

Radostanradical said:

NabySarr said:

Radostanradical said:

NabySarr said:

So to answer your question

Everyone fit: Bree, Ramsay, Jones, Bell, Edwards

Now: Bree, Gough, Jones, Bell, TC

I’d also bring back Zach Mitchell and start him over Gough, if we haven’t brought in a new centre back or got Ramsay/Burke fit again by the Sheff Utd game

Absolute incredible take - lets call back a kid who cant get a game at Hibs to start in the Championship to shoehorn players (who arent CURRENTLY good enough) in to a system that clearly isnt working. Incredible.

Ok then let’s hear yours, without cheating and including Ramsay who is injured.

The question was to pick a defence based on what we have available now. Bree, Jones and Bell are the obvious picks but then it’s either Mitchell, Gough or Gillesphey. Every fan on here was agreeing Gough should have come on instead of Gillesphey last night, I think Mitchell is better than Gough

Obviously Mitchell probably isn’t ready for the championship but if we haven’t signed a new player and don’t have Ramsay or Burke back then who else do you play?

I gave my answer and in my expert opinion it was correct but Im sure those who have never played the game to such a high standard as mine are right its insane to expect a player playing CB to carry on in a 2 instead of a 3. So for me right now -

Bree Jones Macca Bell.

And then you use your midfield to plug gaps, ultimately like the last few seasons (Bar last and start of season) our defence as a team hasnt been great. We started okay but our system has been figured out.

Anyone who knows anything about football knows that playing in a 3 is very different and the attributes you need are different to playing in a 2. That’s why Ramsay and Bell have never been put there starting a game and probably never will be

So you switch to a back 4 (with Gillesphey in a 2 which is a whole other issue of madness) are you then changing the only good thing about our team at the moment which is Leaburn and Kelman playing up front together? Surely someone who has played to such a high standard wouldn’t be changing that?

Thank you for explaining 2 is different to 3, I feel like my parents may have wasted money on my education now.

Yes it is but is it so different we couldnt expect professional players to do it when we have an injury crisis? Macca isnt great ill agree but he is certainly better than option right now than a kid or a kid that cant get a game at Hibs.

You could even keep Kelman and Leaburn playing up top together in a diamond or as part of a 3. Do you honestly think it’s better when we have an injury crisis to play all our defenders if we get another injury or two at centre back who starts?

Personally I’d rather play Mitchell or Gough in a 3 alongside Jones and bell, than play Gillesphey in a 2. It’s a lot easier to cover a weakness in a back 3 than it is in a 2.

We’ve seen us try a diamond against Middlesbrough and it wasn’t pretty, and if we hadn’t changed it early in the game we’d have been absolutely thrashed. You’re also then relying on full backs for width which risks Bell getting re-injured and also further exposes Gillesphey at LCB.

4-3-3 with Kelman out wide is also not good at all when he’s finally looking great as a striker next to Leaburn. The whole squad has been built to play 3-5-2 so it just is our best set up. All the defenders are better in a 3, none of the strikers could play at this level as a lone striker.

This whole discussion basically sums up Jones problem recently. Whatever team and formation he picks it isn’t good enough for this level with the players we have available. He’s picking what he thinks is the least bad option, and also closest to our usual system so that when we have a good RCB and LWB available he can plug them in and we will quickly improve

As for your last point I’m confused. Your back 4 had all of our senior fit defenders playing in it. Mine has Gillesphey on the bench spare, so if there was another injury then him or Gough could step in

Needless to say, I have had the last laugh.

Gisappointed · August 22

Billy, Bell, Edwards, Mesik, plus Burke has played there, what is the problem?

I'm sure LWB TC could do a job!

NabySarr · August 22

Radostanradical said:

NabySarr said:

Radostanradical said:

NabySarr said:

Radostanradical said:

NabySarr said:

Radostanradical said:

NabySarr said:

So to answer your question

Everyone fit: Bree, Ramsay, Jones, Bell, Edwards

Now: Bree, Gough, Jones, Bell, TC

I’d also bring back Zach Mitchell and start him over Gough, if we haven’t brought in a new centre back or got Ramsay/Burke fit again by the Sheff Utd game

Absolute incredible take - lets call back a kid who cant get a game at Hibs to start in the Championship to shoehorn players (who arent CURRENTLY good enough) in to a system that clearly isnt working. Incredible.

Ok then let’s hear yours, without cheating and including Ramsay who is injured.

The question was to pick a defence based on what we have available now. Bree, Jones and Bell are the obvious picks but then it’s either Mitchell, Gough or Gillesphey. Every fan on here was agreeing Gough should have come on instead of Gillesphey last night, I think Mitchell is better than Gough

Obviously Mitchell probably isn’t ready for the championship but if we haven’t signed a new player and don’t have Ramsay or Burke back then who else do you play?

I gave my answer and in my expert opinion it was correct but Im sure those who have never played the game to such a high standard as mine are right its insane to expect a player playing CB to carry on in a 2 instead of a 3. So for me right now -

Bree Jones Macca Bell.

And then you use your midfield to plug gaps, ultimately like the last few seasons (Bar last and start of season) our defence as a team hasnt been great. We started okay but our system has been figured out.

Anyone who knows anything about football knows that playing in a 3 is very different and the attributes you need are different to playing in a 2. That’s why Ramsay and Bell have never been put there starting a game and probably never will be

So you switch to a back 4 (with Gillesphey in a 2 which is a whole other issue of madness) are you then changing the only good thing about our team at the moment which is Leaburn and Kelman playing up front together? Surely someone who has played to such a high standard wouldn’t be changing that?

Thank you for explaining 2 is different to 3, I feel like my parents may have wasted money on my education now.

Yes it is but is it so different we couldnt expect professional players to do it when we have an injury crisis? Macca isnt great ill agree but he is certainly better than option right now than a kid or a kid that cant get a game at Hibs.

You could even keep Kelman and Leaburn playing up top together in a diamond or as part of a 3. Do you honestly think it’s better when we have an injury crisis to play all our defenders if we get another injury or two at centre back who starts?

Personally I’d rather play Mitchell or Gough in a 3 alongside Jones and bell, than play Gillesphey in a 2. It’s a lot easier to cover a weakness in a back 3 than it is in a 2.

We’ve seen us try a diamond against Middlesbrough and it wasn’t pretty, and if we hadn’t changed it early in the game we’d have been absolutely thrashed. You’re also then relying on full backs for width which risks Bell getting re-injured and also further exposes Gillesphey at LCB.

4-3-3 with Kelman out wide is also not good at all when he’s finally looking great as a striker next to Leaburn. The whole squad has been built to play 3-5-2 so it just is our best set up. All the defenders are better in a 3, none of the strikers could play at this level as a lone striker.

This whole discussion basically sums up Jones problem recently. Whatever team and formation he picks it isn’t good enough for this level with the players we have available. He’s picking what he thinks is the least bad option, and also closest to our usual system so that when we have a good RCB and LWB available he can plug them in and we will quickly improve

As for your last point I’m confused. Your back 4 had all of our senior fit defenders playing in it. Mine has Gillesphey on the bench spare, so if there was another injury then him or Gough could step in

Needless to say, I have had the last laugh.

You were arguing we should play a back 4 with Bell, Ramsay or Gillesphey at centre back next to Jones. If we had done that we’d be in league 1 now

Jones was proven right that we should not have done that. We stuck to the back 3 and stayed up

Since then we’ve spent a summer recruiting new defenders that suit a back 4. And now we’ve switched to it

If anything you’ve been proven wrong by us staying up last season, and then having to sign a load of new defenders to be able to switch to a 4

NabySarr · August 22

Quite tragic that you’ve gone back to a post from January to try and prove a point, which only makes you look silly

Just enjoy the win ffs, and be thankful we spent this summer signing players so that we can now play a back 4

Crispywood · August 23

NabySarr said:

Radostanradical said:

NabySarr said:

Radostanradical said:

NabySarr said:

Radostanradical said:

NabySarr said:

Radostanradical said:

NabySarr said:

So to answer your question

Everyone fit: Bree, Ramsay, Jones, Bell, Edwards

Now: Bree, Gough, Jones, Bell, TC

I’d also bring back Zach Mitchell and start him over Gough, if we haven’t brought in a new centre back or got Ramsay/Burke fit again by the Sheff Utd game

Absolute incredible take - lets call back a kid who cant get a game at Hibs to start in the Championship to shoehorn players (who arent CURRENTLY good enough) in to a system that clearly isnt working. Incredible.

Ok then let’s hear yours, without cheating and including Ramsay who is injured.

The question was to pick a defence based on what we have available now. Bree, Jones and Bell are the obvious picks but then it’s either Mitchell, Gough or Gillesphey. Every fan on here was agreeing Gough should have come on instead of Gillesphey last night, I think Mitchell is better than Gough

Obviously Mitchell probably isn’t ready for the championship but if we haven’t signed a new player and don’t have Ramsay or Burke back then who else do you play?

I gave my answer and in my expert opinion it was correct but Im sure those who have never played the game to such a high standard as mine are right its insane to expect a player playing CB to carry on in a 2 instead of a 3. So for me right now -

Bree Jones Macca Bell.

And then you use your midfield to plug gaps, ultimately like the last few seasons (Bar last and start of season) our defence as a team hasnt been great. We started okay but our system has been figured out.

Anyone who knows anything about football knows that playing in a 3 is very different and the attributes you need are different to playing in a 2. That’s why Ramsay and Bell have never been put there starting a game and probably never will be

So you switch to a back 4 (with Gillesphey in a 2 which is a whole other issue of madness) are you then changing the only good thing about our team at the moment which is Leaburn and Kelman playing up front together? Surely someone who has played to such a high standard wouldn’t be changing that?

Thank you for explaining 2 is different to 3, I feel like my parents may have wasted money on my education now.

Yes it is but is it so different we couldnt expect professional players to do it when we have an injury crisis? Macca isnt great ill agree but he is certainly better than option right now than a kid or a kid that cant get a game at Hibs.

You could even keep Kelman and Leaburn playing up top together in a diamond or as part of a 3. Do you honestly think it’s better when we have an injury crisis to play all our defenders if we get another injury or two at centre back who starts?

Personally I’d rather play Mitchell or Gough in a 3 alongside Jones and bell, than play Gillesphey in a 2. It’s a lot easier to cover a weakness in a back 3 than it is in a 2.

We’ve seen us try a diamond against Middlesbrough and it wasn’t pretty, and if we hadn’t changed it early in the game we’d have been absolutely thrashed. You’re also then relying on full backs for width which risks Bell getting re-injured and also further exposes Gillesphey at LCB.

4-3-3 with Kelman out wide is also not good at all when he’s finally looking great as a striker next to Leaburn. The whole squad has been built to play 3-5-2 so it just is our best set up. All the defenders are better in a 3, none of the strikers could play at this level as a lone striker.

This whole discussion basically sums up Jones problem recently. Whatever team and formation he picks it isn’t good enough for this level with the players we have available. He’s picking what he thinks is the least bad option, and also closest to our usual system so that when we have a good RCB and LWB available he can plug them in and we will quickly improve

As for your last point I’m confused. Your back 4 had all of our senior fit defenders playing in it. Mine has Gillesphey on the bench spare, so if there was another injury then him or Gough could step in

Needless to say, I have had the last laugh.

You were arguing we should play a back 4 with Bell, Ramsay or Gillesphey at centre back next to Jones. If we had done that we’d be in league 1 now

Jones was proven right that we should not have done that. We stuck to the back 3 and stayed up

Since then we’ve spent a summer recruiting new defenders that suit a back 4. And now we’ve switched to it

If anything you’ve been proven wrong by us staying up last season, and then having to sign a load of new defenders to be able to switch to a 4

Any way to like a post twice

Radostanradical · August 23

NabySarr said:

Radostanradical said:

NabySarr said:

Radostanradical said:

NabySarr said:

Radostanradical said:

NabySarr said:

Radostanradical said:

NabySarr said:

So to answer your question

Everyone fit: Bree, Ramsay, Jones, Bell, Edwards

Now: Bree, Gough, Jones, Bell, TC

I’d also bring back Zach Mitchell and start him over Gough, if we haven’t brought in a new centre back or got Ramsay/Burke fit again by the Sheff Utd game

Absolute incredible take - lets call back a kid who cant get a game at Hibs to start in the Championship to shoehorn players (who arent CURRENTLY good enough) in to a system that clearly isnt working. Incredible.

Ok then let’s hear yours, without cheating and including Ramsay who is injured.

The question was to pick a defence based on what we have available now. Bree, Jones and Bell are the obvious picks but then it’s either Mitchell, Gough or Gillesphey. Every fan on here was agreeing Gough should have come on instead of Gillesphey last night, I think Mitchell is better than Gough

Obviously Mitchell probably isn’t ready for the championship but if we haven’t signed a new player and don’t have Ramsay or Burke back then who else do you play?

I gave my answer and in my expert opinion it was correct but Im sure those who have never played the game to such a high standard as mine are right its insane to expect a player playing CB to carry on in a 2 instead of a 3. So for me right now -

Bree Jones Macca Bell.

And then you use your midfield to plug gaps, ultimately like the last few seasons (Bar last and start of season) our defence as a team hasnt been great. We started okay but our system has been figured out.

Anyone who knows anything about football knows that playing in a 3 is very different and the attributes you need are different to playing in a 2. That’s why Ramsay and Bell have never been put there starting a game and probably never will be

So you switch to a back 4 (with Gillesphey in a 2 which is a whole other issue of madness) are you then changing the only good thing about our team at the moment which is Leaburn and Kelman playing up front together? Surely someone who has played to such a high standard wouldn’t be changing that?

Thank you for explaining 2 is different to 3, I feel like my parents may have wasted money on my education now.

Yes it is but is it so different we couldnt expect professional players to do it when we have an injury crisis? Macca isnt great ill agree but he is certainly better than option right now than a kid or a kid that cant get a game at Hibs.

You could even keep Kelman and Leaburn playing up top together in a diamond or as part of a 3. Do you honestly think it’s better when we have an injury crisis to play all our defenders if we get another injury or two at centre back who starts?

Personally I’d rather play Mitchell or Gough in a 3 alongside Jones and bell, than play Gillesphey in a 2. It’s a lot easier to cover a weakness in a back 3 than it is in a 2.

We’ve seen us try a diamond against Middlesbrough and it wasn’t pretty, and if we hadn’t changed it early in the game we’d have been absolutely thrashed. You’re also then relying on full backs for width which risks Bell getting re-injured and also further exposes Gillesphey at LCB.

4-3-3 with Kelman out wide is also not good at all when he’s finally looking great as a striker next to Leaburn. The whole squad has been built to play 3-5-2 so it just is our best set up. All the defenders are better in a 3, none of the strikers could play at this level as a lone striker.

This whole discussion basically sums up Jones problem recently. Whatever team and formation he picks it isn’t good enough for this level with the players we have available. He’s picking what he thinks is the least bad option, and also closest to our usual system so that when we have a good RCB and LWB available he can plug them in and we will quickly improve

As for your last point I’m confused. Your back 4 had all of our senior fit defenders playing in it. Mine has Gillesphey on the bench spare, so if there was another injury then him or Gough could step in

Needless to say, I have had the last laugh.

You were arguing we should play a back 4 with Bell, Ramsay or Gillesphey at centre back next to Jones. If we had done that we’d be in league 1 now

Jones was proven right that we should not have done that. We stuck to the back 3 and stayed up

Since then we’ve spent a summer recruiting new defenders that suit a back 4. And now we’ve switched to it

If anything you’ve been proven wrong by us staying up last season, and then having to sign a load of new defenders to be able to switch to a 4

No I didnt. You said Lloyd Jones couldnt play in a 4, I said he could. Its unimportant now but what is important is the fact I was right and you were wrong.

I won't say I told you so but I will say I put forward a theory which you dsagreed with and has since been proven to be correct.

Alwaysneil · August 23

Alwaysneil said:

Maybe because we have only one centre back that can play in a back 4

I am sure you aim ti be deliberately dislikable, with excellent success. But no one said Lloyd Jones couldn't play in a 4. The discussion was all around whether we had the rest of the players, and depth of cover to play it instead of a 5.

We didn't, and now we do.

NabySarr · August 23

Radostanradical said:

NabySarr said:

Radostanradical said:

NabySarr said:

Radostanradical said:

NabySarr said:

Radostanradical said:

NabySarr said:

Radostanradical said:

NabySarr said:

So to answer your question

Everyone fit: Bree, Ramsay, Jones, Bell, Edwards

Now: Bree, Gough, Jones, Bell, TC

I’d also bring back Zach Mitchell and start him over Gough, if we haven’t brought in a new centre back or got Ramsay/Burke fit again by the Sheff Utd game

Absolute incredible take - lets call back a kid who cant get a game at Hibs to start in the Championship to shoehorn players (who arent CURRENTLY good enough) in to a system that clearly isnt working. Incredible.

Ok then let’s hear yours, without cheating and including Ramsay who is injured.

The question was to pick a defence based on what we have available now. Bree, Jones and Bell are the obvious picks but then it’s either Mitchell, Gough or Gillesphey. Every fan on here was agreeing Gough should have come on instead of Gillesphey last night, I think Mitchell is better than Gough

Obviously Mitchell probably isn’t ready for the championship but if we haven’t signed a new player and don’t have Ramsay or Burke back then who else do you play?

I gave my answer and in my expert opinion it was correct but Im sure those who have never played the game to such a high standard as mine are right its insane to expect a player playing CB to carry on in a 2 instead of a 3. So for me right now -

Bree Jones Macca Bell.

And then you use your midfield to plug gaps, ultimately like the last few seasons (Bar last and start of season) our defence as a team hasnt been great. We started okay but our system has been figured out.

Anyone who knows anything about football knows that playing in a 3 is very different and the attributes you need are different to playing in a 2. That’s why Ramsay and Bell have never been put there starting a game and probably never will be

So you switch to a back 4 (with Gillesphey in a 2 which is a whole other issue of madness) are you then changing the only good thing about our team at the moment which is Leaburn and Kelman playing up front together? Surely someone who has played to such a high standard wouldn’t be changing that?

Thank you for explaining 2 is different to 3, I feel like my parents may have wasted money on my education now.

Yes it is but is it so different we couldnt expect professional players to do it when we have an injury crisis? Macca isnt great ill agree but he is certainly better than option right now than a kid or a kid that cant get a game at Hibs.

You could even keep Kelman and Leaburn playing up top together in a diamond or as part of a 3. Do you honestly think it’s better when we have an injury crisis to play all our defenders if we get another injury or two at centre back who starts?

Personally I’d rather play Mitchell or Gough in a 3 alongside Jones and bell, than play Gillesphey in a 2. It’s a lot easier to cover a weakness in a back 3 than it is in a 2.

We’ve seen us try a diamond against Middlesbrough and it wasn’t pretty, and if we hadn’t changed it early in the game we’d have been absolutely thrashed. You’re also then relying on full backs for width which risks Bell getting re-injured and also further exposes Gillesphey at LCB.

4-3-3 with Kelman out wide is also not good at all when he’s finally looking great as a striker next to Leaburn. The whole squad has been built to play 3-5-2 so it just is our best set up. All the defenders are better in a 3, none of the strikers could play at this level as a lone striker.

This whole discussion basically sums up Jones problem recently. Whatever team and formation he picks it isn’t good enough for this level with the players we have available. He’s picking what he thinks is the least bad option, and also closest to our usual system so that when we have a good RCB and LWB available he can plug them in and we will quickly improve

As for your last point I’m confused. Your back 4 had all of our senior fit defenders playing in it. Mine has Gillesphey on the bench spare, so if there was another injury then him or Gough could step in

Needless to say, I have had the last laugh.

You were arguing we should play a back 4 with Bell, Ramsay or Gillesphey at centre back next to Jones. If we had done that we’d be in league 1 now

Jones was proven right that we should not have done that. We stuck to the back 3 and stayed up

Since then we’ve spent a summer recruiting new defenders that suit a back 4. And now we’ve switched to it

If anything you’ve been proven wrong by us staying up last season, and then having to sign a load of new defenders to be able to switch to a 4

No I didnt. You said Lloyd Jones couldnt play in a 4, I said he could. Its unimportant now but what is important is the fact I was right and you were wrong.

I won't say I told you so but I will say I put forward a theory which you dsagreed with and has since been proven to be correct.

I literally haven’t said that though. I said we didn’t have the players for a back 4, which we didn’t. Specifically we didn’t have the centre back partner for Jones to play with

Addick Addict · August 23

Alwaysneil said:

Alwaysneil said:

Maybe because we have only one centre back that can play in a back 4

I am sure you aim ti be deliberately dislikable, with excellent success. But no one said Lloyd Jones couldn't play in a 4. The discussion was all around whether we had the rest of the players, and depth of cover to play it instead of a 5.

We didn't, and now we do.

The bloke thinks he's the second coming of Lyle Taylor. He could start a row in a room, when he's the only one in it, just so he can tell his massive alter ego that he was right all along.

Radostanradical · August 23

NabySarr said:

Radostanradical said:

The answer is so blindly obvious we can just close the thread after i share the correct answer. We have to go to a back 4, we just dont have the personel to stick with the back 5 and anyone we could recall wouldnt be of the required quality either. So its a back 4 - Bell (until Edwards is back), Jones, Ramsay, Bree. When edwards is back have Jones and Bell in centre and move Ramsay to RB, even if we dont move ramsay to RB just give us so much more options.

The either go 4-5-1 if we need to accept we are going to have to flood the midfield when playing better teams or go 4-3-3 at home or where we can get a win. It’s important to remember that defending isnt just the defences job and our shape at times this season in midfield has been dreadful.

The only thing blindingly obvious is that this is a terrible take. Ramsay and Bell are not back 4 centre backs, they never have been and never will be. It completely removes from their game one of the things they are best at in carrying the ball forward. They are both so key to us being able to progress the ball from the back and in retaining possession, but they aren’t going to be able to do that from CB in a back 4. They are both also brilliant 1v1 defenders in wide areas, Ramsay especially. Playing either of them as a CB in a back 4 is removing most of what makes them brilliant players.

If we play a back 4, then Jones and Burke are the only 2 centre backs I’d trust in it. And even both of them are much much better in a back 3. We will continue to play a back 3 though, because it’s what we’ve signed each defender we have to play in and it’s what they are best at

fenaddick · August 23

Look at the sentence before the one you've put in bold!

"If we play a back 4, then Jones and Burke are the only 2 centre backs I’d trust in it."

How does that say back up your argument here?

Radostanradical said:

NabySarr said:

Radostanradical said:

NabySarr said:

Radostanradical said:

NabySarr said:

Radostanradical said:

NabySarr said:

Radostanradical said:

NabySarr said:

So to answer your question

Everyone fit: Bree, Ramsay, Jones, Bell, Edwards

Now: Bree, Gough, Jones, Bell, TC

I’d also bring back Zach Mitchell and start him over Gough, if we haven’t brought in a new centre back or got Ramsay/Burke fit again by the Sheff Utd game

Absolute incredible take - lets call back a kid who cant get a game at Hibs to start in the Championship to shoehorn players (who arent CURRENTLY good enough) in to a system that clearly isnt working. Incredible.

Ok then let’s hear yours, without cheating and including Ramsay who is injured.

The question was to pick a defence based on what we have available now. Bree, Jones and Bell are the obvious picks but then it’s either Mitchell, Gough or Gillesphey. Every fan on here was agreeing Gough should have come on instead of Gillesphey last night, I think Mitchell is better than Gough

Obviously Mitchell probably isn’t ready for the championship but if we haven’t signed a new player and don’t have Ramsay or Burke back then who else do you play?

I gave my answer and in my expert opinion it was correct but Im sure those who have never played the game to such a high standard as mine are right its insane to expect a player playing CB to carry on in a 2 instead of a 3. So for me right now -

Bree Jones Macca Bell.

And then you use your midfield to plug gaps, ultimately like the last few seasons (Bar last and start of season) our defence as a team hasnt been great. We started okay but our system has been figured out.

Anyone who knows anything about football knows that playing in a 3 is very different and the attributes you need are different to playing in a 2. That’s why Ramsay and Bell have never been put there starting a game and probably never will be

So you switch to a back 4 (with Gillesphey in a 2 which is a whole other issue of madness) are you then changing the only good thing about our team at the moment which is Leaburn and Kelman playing up front together? Surely someone who has played to such a high standard wouldn’t be changing that?

Thank you for explaining 2 is different to 3, I feel like my parents may have wasted money on my education now.

Yes it is but is it so different we couldnt expect professional players to do it when we have an injury crisis? Macca isnt great ill agree but he is certainly better than option right now than a kid or a kid that cant get a game at Hibs.

You could even keep Kelman and Leaburn playing up top together in a diamond or as part of a 3. Do you honestly think it’s better when we have an injury crisis to play all our defenders if we get another injury or two at centre back who starts?

Personally I’d rather play Mitchell or Gough in a 3 alongside Jones and bell, than play Gillesphey in a 2. It’s a lot easier to cover a weakness in a back 3 than it is in a 2.

We’ve seen us try a diamond against Middlesbrough and it wasn’t pretty, and if we hadn’t changed it early in the game we’d have been absolutely thrashed. You’re also then relying on full backs for width which risks Bell getting re-injured and also further exposes Gillesphey at LCB.

4-3-3 with Kelman out wide is also not good at all when he’s finally looking great as a striker next to Leaburn. The whole squad has been built to play 3-5-2 so it just is our best set up. All the defenders are better in a 3, none of the strikers could play at this level as a lone striker.

This whole discussion basically sums up Jones problem recently. Whatever team and formation he picks it isn’t good enough for this level with the players we have available. He’s picking what he thinks is the least bad option, and also closest to our usual system so that when we have a good RCB and LWB available he can plug them in and we will quickly improve

As for your last point I’m confused. Your back 4 had all of our senior fit defenders playing in it. Mine has Gillesphey on the bench spare, so if there was another injury then him or Gough could step in

Needless to say, I have had the last laugh.

You were arguing we should play a back 4 with Bell, Ramsay or Gillesphey at centre back next to Jones. If we had done that we’d be in league 1 now

Jones was proven right that we should not have done that. We stuck to the back 3 and stayed up

Since then we’ve spent a summer recruiting new defenders that suit a back 4. And now we’ve switched to it

If anything you’ve been proven wrong by us staying up last season, and then having to sign a load of new defenders to be able to switch to a 4

No I didnt. You said Lloyd Jones couldnt play in a 4, I said he could. Its unimportant now but what is important is the fact I was right and you were wrong.

I won't say I told you so but I will say I put forward a theory which you dsagreed with and has since been proven to be correct.

NabySarr · August 23

Radostanradical said:

NabySarr said:

Radostanradical said:

The answer is so blindly obvious we can just close the thread after i share the correct answer. We have to go to a back 4, we just dont have the personel to stick with the back 5 and anyone we could recall wouldnt be of the required quality either. So its a back 4 - Bell (until Edwards is back), Jones, Ramsay, Bree. When edwards is back have Jones and Bell in centre and move Ramsay to RB, even if we dont move ramsay to RB just give us so much more options.

The either go 4-5-1 if we need to accept we are going to have to flood the midfield when playing better teams or go 4-3-3 at home or where we can get a win. It’s important to remember that defending isnt just the defences job and our shape at times this season in midfield has been dreadful.

The only thing blindingly obvious is that this is a terrible take. Ramsay and Bell are not back 4 centre backs, they never have been and never will be. It completely removes from their game one of the things they are best at in carrying the ball forward. They are both so key to us being able to progress the ball from the back and in retaining possession, but they aren’t going to be able to do that from CB in a back 4. They are both also brilliant 1v1 defenders in wide areas, Ramsay especially. Playing either of them as a CB in a back 4 is removing most of what makes them brilliant players.

If we play a back 4, then Jones and Burke are the only 2 centre backs I’d trust in it. And even both of them are much much better in a back 3. We will continue to play a back 3 though, because it’s what we’ve signed each defender we have to play in and it’s what they are best at

Thanks for highlighting me literally saying I would trust Jones in a back 4. I then said he’s better in a back 3, which he is

Read it back, all I was saying is we didn’t have the players to play a back 4 last season, because Jones and Burke were the only players we had that could play centre back, and you can’t rely on Burke. So we should have stuck to the 3, which we did and we stayed up

We’ve since signed Koumetio, a partner for Jones, and can now play a back 4

Honestly I’d forgotten this conversation had even happened. Absolutely mental behaviour going back to it 7 months later just to highlight you were wrong

stoneroses19 · August 23

Radostanradical said:

NabySarr said:

Radostanradical said:

NabySarr said:

Radostanradical said:

NabySarr said:

Radostanradical said:

NabySarr said:

Radostanradical said:

NabySarr said:

So to answer your question

Everyone fit: Bree, Ramsay, Jones, Bell, Edwards

Now: Bree, Gough, Jones, Bell, TC

I’d also bring back Zach Mitchell and start him over Gough, if we haven’t brought in a new centre back or got Ramsay/Burke fit again by the Sheff Utd game

Absolute incredible take - lets call back a kid who cant get a game at Hibs to start in the Championship to shoehorn players (who arent CURRENTLY good enough) in to a system that clearly isnt working. Incredible.

Ok then let’s hear yours, without cheating and including Ramsay who is injured.

The question was to pick a defence based on what we have available now. Bree, Jones and Bell are the obvious picks but then it’s either Mitchell, Gough or Gillesphey. Every fan on here was agreeing Gough should have come on instead of Gillesphey last night, I think Mitchell is better than Gough

Obviously Mitchell probably isn’t ready for the championship but if we haven’t signed a new player and don’t have Ramsay or Burke back then who else do you play?

I gave my answer and in my expert opinion it was correct but Im sure those who have never played the game to such a high standard as mine are right its insane to expect a player playing CB to carry on in a 2 instead of a 3. So for me right now -

Bree Jones Macca Bell.

And then you use your midfield to plug gaps, ultimately like the last few seasons (Bar last and start of season) our defence as a team hasnt been great. We started okay but our system has been figured out.

Anyone who knows anything about football knows that playing in a 3 is very different and the attributes you need are different to playing in a 2. That’s why Ramsay and Bell have never been put there starting a game and probably never will be

So you switch to a back 4 (with Gillesphey in a 2 which is a whole other issue of madness) are you then changing the only good thing about our team at the moment which is Leaburn and Kelman playing up front together? Surely someone who has played to such a high standard wouldn’t be changing that?

Thank you for explaining 2 is different to 3, I feel like my parents may have wasted money on my education now.

Yes it is but is it so different we couldnt expect professional players to do it when we have an injury crisis? Macca isnt great ill agree but he is certainly better than option right now than a kid or a kid that cant get a game at Hibs.

You could even keep Kelman and Leaburn playing up top together in a diamond or as part of a 3. Do you honestly think it’s better when we have an injury crisis to play all our defenders if we get another injury or two at centre back who starts?

Personally I’d rather play Mitchell or Gough in a 3 alongside Jones and bell, than play Gillesphey in a 2. It’s a lot easier to cover a weakness in a back 3 than it is in a 2.

We’ve seen us try a diamond against Middlesbrough and it wasn’t pretty, and if we hadn’t changed it early in the game we’d have been absolutely thrashed. You’re also then relying on full backs for width which risks Bell getting re-injured and also further exposes Gillesphey at LCB.

4-3-3 with Kelman out wide is also not good at all when he’s finally looking great as a striker next to Leaburn. The whole squad has been built to play 3-5-2 so it just is our best set up. All the defenders are better in a 3, none of the strikers could play at this level as a lone striker.

This whole discussion basically sums up Jones problem recently. Whatever team and formation he picks it isn’t good enough for this level with the players we have available. He’s picking what he thinks is the least bad option, and also closest to our usual system so that when we have a good RCB and LWB available he can plug them in and we will quickly improve

As for your last point I’m confused. Your back 4 had all of our senior fit defenders playing in it. Mine has Gillesphey on the bench spare, so if there was another injury then him or Gough could step in

Needless to say, I have had the last laugh.

You were arguing we should play a back 4 with Bell, Ramsay or Gillesphey at centre back next to Jones. If we had done that we’d be in league 1 now

Jones was proven right that we should not have done that. We stuck to the back 3 and stayed up

Since then we’ve spent a summer recruiting new defenders that suit a back 4. And now we’ve switched to it

If anything you’ve been proven wrong by us staying up last season, and then having to sign a load of new defenders to be able to switch to a 4

No I didnt. You said Lloyd Jones couldnt play in a 4, I said he could. Its unimportant now but what is important is the fact I was right and you were wrong.

I won't say I told you so but I will say I put forward a theory which you dsagreed with and has since been proven to be correct.

95% of your posts read like you’re a 15 year old. Bizarre.

Radostanradical · August 23

NabySarr said:

Radostanradical said:

NabySarr said:

Radostanradical said:

The answer is so blindly obvious we can just close the thread after i share the correct answer. We have to go to a back 4, we just dont have the personel to stick with the back 5 and anyone we could recall wouldnt be of the required quality either. So its a back 4 - Bell (until Edwards is back), Jones, Ramsay, Bree. When edwards is back have Jones and Bell in centre and move Ramsay to RB, even if we dont move ramsay to RB just give us so much more options.

The either go 4-5-1 if we need to accept we are going to have to flood the midfield when playing better teams or go 4-3-3 at home or where we can get a win. It’s important to remember that defending isnt just the defences job and our shape at times this season in midfield has been dreadful.

The only thing blindingly obvious is that this is a terrible take. Ramsay and Bell are not back 4 centre backs, they never have been and never will be. It completely removes from their game one of the things they are best at in carrying the ball forward. They are both so key to us being able to progress the ball from the back and in retaining possession, but they aren’t going to be able to do that from CB in a back 4. They are both also brilliant 1v1 defenders in wide areas, Ramsay especially. Playing either of them as a CB in a back 4 is removing most of what makes them brilliant players.

If we play a back 4, then Jones and Burke are the only 2 centre backs I’d trust in it. And even both of them are much much better in a back 3. We will continue to play a back 3 though, because it’s what we’ve signed each defender we have to play in and it’s what they are best at

Thanks for highlighting me literally saying I would trust Jones in a back 4. I then said he’s better in a back 3, which he is

Read it back, all I was saying is we didn’t have the players to play a back 4 last season, because Jones and Burke were the only players we had that could play centre back, and you can’t rely on Burke. So we should have stuck to the 3, which we did and we stayed up

We’ve since signed Koumetio, a partner for Jones, and can now play a back 4

Honestly I’d forgotten this conversation had even happened. Absolutely mental behaviour going back to it 7 months later just to highlight you were wrong

Tbh I was just bored and on a wind up mate. It just randomly came back to me yesterday when I saw we were playing a 4 and knew I had a debate on the subject with someone on here about it.

Also yes I am on wind up and you didnt say Jones couldnt play in a back 4.

Zulu · August 23

yawn

Garrymanilow · August 23

Imagine it, your team goes away to West Ham and beats them for the first time since playing them in the Premier League in 2007 and your immediate response is to go onto the Charlton forum and go after another fan 'on a wind up' instead of just enjoying the win. What a life that must be.

Solving the left side of the defence

Comments

Categories