Summer 2021 Transfers

No to Gilleiad. No better than Crankshaw or Vernam. A poverty stricken man's Adam Reach.

 

I agree, Gilliead is not at all the kind of player we'd need in a 4-2-3-1.

He's more an out and out wide man.

 

Funny, this was something MacAnthony was alluding to in his latest podcast in that a manager decides how he wants to play and buys specific players for that side. Like us with Danny Rowe when people were trying to shoehorn him in anywhere just because he had a fierce shot on him. Take Callum Cooke for instance,you either play him as a ball playing number 10 or not at all. If your manager is a 4-2-3-1 kinda guy the personnel you buy will be specific for that set up.

 

Million percent right.

I keep reading posts on Facebook about which strikeforce we should sign, and if we brought in Cook (which we probably won't), we'd have to bring in a complimentary striker. But that is absolutely incorrect, that's not how 4-2-3-1 works, so if we bring in Wellens or the Morecambe fella or even Kenny Jackett, our fans need to grasp that we aren't signing a two-man strike force akin to Hanson and Wells because we won't be playing two out-and-out centre forwards. We don't need out-and-out wide men like Gilliead, we need attacking winger/forwards, and we need to build around players that suit the formation and tactics like Callum Cooke.

 

Absolutely spot on both you and Roger.

 

Bang on. But then most of our fan base only know 4-4-2 and nowt else. Doesn't matter what players we have or what their specific qualities are, just play 4-4-2 innit. Our best player last year was Cooke and Cooke cannot play in a 4-4-2 set up. Well you could, but it would just be a waste of a spot in the team.

 

Agreed, before Cooke's injury we were scoring goals - in that 10 position, he was more useful to us than Rowe would have been playing alongside Cook in a front two - but people still wanted Rowe and Cook because, you know, strikers. And like you said, because Rowe cud kik it reet ard.

 

I'd like to think we can sign good players to fit in the new mans preferred way of playing without doubt, but also like to think we could sign a few to enable us to mix our game up when needed, unlike this seasons predictable like for likes every match.

 

I agree with the point of the post but I do believe Cook can do the job of lone striker effectively. I just think his form tailed off due to having no one within 20 yards of him everyone he got the ball.

 

I agree that Cook would be good enough, I just don't think we're going to end up signing him.

 

More often than not a successful manager won't have to change formation often if not at all because his formation and the players he has recruited to play it works so well. That's the whole idea of football management, to create a system and personnel that dominates other teams. Look at the success Parky had here, very very rarely did he venture away from his own take on 4-4-2. The managers that make the least changes are statistically the most successful managers.

 

I think the fan base “ knows” 442 because it’s probably bought us the most success in the last , what........... 50 years?
Corner/Ham
Bobby/ Daisy
Bobby/ Hawley
Blake and Mills
Hanson/ Nahki

and many more.

All with wide men?

Football is changing faster than we are?

 

TBF 4-4-2 has worked best for us and thats why folk gravitate towards it.

Ive been going since 1990 and I dont remember any other formation bringing us success. Kamara, Jewell, Parkinson, McCalls first spell....

I think at this level football should be simple. Seen far too many managers in recent years clowning about and over complicating things. Completely agree players should be signed for a system though.

 

I agree but it's not the go to formation with managers anymore. When we had our good spell under T and S it was down to the formation that suited the players. As soon as form dropped the predictable cries for 4-4-2 were heard yet we didn't have the personnel for it. And a new manager coming in will hopefully understand that. I'm not against any formation but you have to have the squad to play it.

 

As you mention Kev the cornerstone of all those is a front two that complement each other. If our new manager wants to go that way then it's essential he looks for two new strikers like that and then two wide players to complement that. And the all. Important midfield 'general' which we don't have.

 

Yeah I think I read the post wrong. Apologies.

 

Form dropped when Cooke got injured I think. No natural number 10.

Id have gone 442 with Cook and Rowe/Donaldson personally. Vernan and Crankshaw/Stevens out wide, Sutton and Watt in the middle. 4231 didnt work anyway and we struggled for goals so play 2 up top and hope for change in fortunes.

Teams found us out, we were so predictable. I think thats why folk wanted change. McCall didnt adapt either.

Totally get what you saying though. It wasnt the perfect solution.

 

What people misunderstand about 4-4-2 in the modern games is people seem to think it's attacking but it's not - it's a defensive, conservative approach which allows (more often than not) the opposition to control the game and the majority of possession with their extra man in midfield whilst you hold on and hope to hit them on the break.That's the reason where there was a season under Parky we had one of the best records against the top 12 and the absolute rank worst against the bottom 12, because if you play 4-4-2 and teams let you have the ball you quickly run out of ideas with it. People think because two up front is more than one up front it's more attacking but it's not the mid-90s any more - if you try playing expansive football with two out and out wingers in a 4-4-2 these days you'll get mullered every week

 

Yes agree.

 

Problem is we've had some pretty damn good out and out wingers over the time, Hutchins, Ellis, Hendrie (when he played there), Beagrie, Reid. Its ingrained in us. I have no truck with 4/2/3/1 or even 4/3/2/1 as long as its used properly and doesnt default to 4/5/1 like T&S did in the last dozen matches.