26-02-2017, 13:11
I love you guys. The image of 6' 5" Dancing pissed and slowly sliding under the table is great.
There's nothing actually wrong with three at the back - lots of European teams use it successfully. You do however have to have the right players.
I think many new departures in football are really echoes of the past. I learnt the game playing three at the back; for Matt's benefit I'll describe how it worked in the men's football team my dad ran .........
Nowadays the three at the back tend to play much closer together, but then it was two genuine full backs and a centre half. What was vital and allowed this not to be an open-space fest for forwards were things called WING HALVES. In my dad's very successful team the wing halves were one small, stocky, aggressive all-action player who would tackle, work and run throughout a game AND a much more elegant player of Frank-Lampard build, much lazier, could tackle if needed, much nastier at times, could also get forward, pass and score some crackers from outside the box. So the centre half had cover in front of him AND his full backs tucked in with him when they were needed to cover. Two of the three at the back were young and mobile and the third was a former pro who knew the game inside out. But I reckon it was wing halves who were pivotal, they were the first line of defence and the base of the attack .........
Now Mr Caldwell's problem seems to be that at least two of his back three are immobile and the third's fitness seems as though it will now permanently be in doubt AND in front of them he isn't playing anybody who resembles any kind of old-fashioned wing half. Angel seems to be able to read the game and is a controlling midfielder so should win interceptions, but like Dancing I'd think Dimaio would be the nearest approximation to a partner for him.
Unfortunately selections are fairly inexplicable ahead of our failing defensive capability. If Evans was fit enough to come on, even though he has failed for us, surely he's a better bet as a starter than Faupala, Dennis and SEB? We're not winning, we always bring Simons on, but he's never worth more than 25 minutes ....... for me it's a case of start him a few times or ditch him (or else how will estimate whether he's making the grade at the end of the season). SEB, what is going on, wasn't good enough for us, wasn't wanted at Shrewsbury, what's happened, did he visit Lourdes? Stuckmann, if we had to sign a keeper (at the risk of sounding like a escapee from a Bunter book) why did we have to come up with one of the most mistakeful ones in the country and then play him rather put him on the bench to which he is highly suited?
We aren't winning at Walsall ..... or even holding them. I've only been to their ground twice and we didn't manage a shot either time.
How does Caldwell think fans will react to played seven won none? Danny would surely have done better than that even if we would still have been anchored in the drop zone. The Hump would clearly have done better, but I still say Caldwell was given an impossible job - I worry about his judgement that he decided to take it. But the fans do need to take into account that the reason we are at the bottom is that AS A CLUB we are currently crap. Why can't we say that about something we love? WE ARE CRAP!
There's nothing actually wrong with three at the back - lots of European teams use it successfully. You do however have to have the right players.
I think many new departures in football are really echoes of the past. I learnt the game playing three at the back; for Matt's benefit I'll describe how it worked in the men's football team my dad ran .........
Nowadays the three at the back tend to play much closer together, but then it was two genuine full backs and a centre half. What was vital and allowed this not to be an open-space fest for forwards were things called WING HALVES. In my dad's very successful team the wing halves were one small, stocky, aggressive all-action player who would tackle, work and run throughout a game AND a much more elegant player of Frank-Lampard build, much lazier, could tackle if needed, much nastier at times, could also get forward, pass and score some crackers from outside the box. So the centre half had cover in front of him AND his full backs tucked in with him when they were needed to cover. Two of the three at the back were young and mobile and the third was a former pro who knew the game inside out. But I reckon it was wing halves who were pivotal, they were the first line of defence and the base of the attack .........
Now Mr Caldwell's problem seems to be that at least two of his back three are immobile and the third's fitness seems as though it will now permanently be in doubt AND in front of them he isn't playing anybody who resembles any kind of old-fashioned wing half. Angel seems to be able to read the game and is a controlling midfielder so should win interceptions, but like Dancing I'd think Dimaio would be the nearest approximation to a partner for him.
Unfortunately selections are fairly inexplicable ahead of our failing defensive capability. If Evans was fit enough to come on, even though he has failed for us, surely he's a better bet as a starter than Faupala, Dennis and SEB? We're not winning, we always bring Simons on, but he's never worth more than 25 minutes ....... for me it's a case of start him a few times or ditch him (or else how will estimate whether he's making the grade at the end of the season). SEB, what is going on, wasn't good enough for us, wasn't wanted at Shrewsbury, what's happened, did he visit Lourdes? Stuckmann, if we had to sign a keeper (at the risk of sounding like a escapee from a Bunter book) why did we have to come up with one of the most mistakeful ones in the country and then play him rather put him on the bench to which he is highly suited?
We aren't winning at Walsall ..... or even holding them. I've only been to their ground twice and we didn't manage a shot either time.
How does Caldwell think fans will react to played seven won none? Danny would surely have done better than that even if we would still have been anchored in the drop zone. The Hump would clearly have done better, but I still say Caldwell was given an impossible job - I worry about his judgement that he decided to take it. But the fans do need to take into account that the reason we are at the bottom is that AS A CLUB we are currently crap. Why can't we say that about something we love? WE ARE CRAP!