| Why not Jackson 10:55 - Sep 17 with 4264 views | wkj |
I have seen a fair few people posting fantasy line ups omitting Jackson from the team, I find that a little odd as he's probably been more industrious than Norwood, while both have been good, no doubt. Is the draw vs Donny really that much of a flinch we would risk dropping one of our best players for a new system? |  |
| |  |
| Why not Jackson on 10:59 - Sep 17 with 2461 views | homer_123 |
Norwood scored 20/30 odd goals playing the lone striker last year? |  |
| |
| Why not Jackson on 11:00 - Sep 17 with 2460 views | TRUE_BLUE123 |
I think it is a chance to try the 433
Back 4 as Donny
Huws Nolan Skuse
Edwards Nors Georgiou
Let Jackson have a rest. |  |
| |
| Why not Jackson on 11:00 - Sep 17 with 2454 views | wkj |
| Why not Jackson on 10:59 - Sep 17 by homer_123 |
Norwood scored 20/30 odd goals playing the lone striker last year? |
Maybe so, but changing a system to drop a good partnership seems a bit knee jerk to me. | |
| |
| Why not Jackson on 11:01 - Sep 17 with 2444 views | homer_123 |
| Why not Jackson on 11:00 - Sep 17 by wkj |
Maybe so, but changing a system to drop a good partnership seems a bit knee jerk to me. |
The partnership is fine....the supply to that partnership however. | |
| |
| Why not Jackson on 11:02 - Sep 17 with 2441 views | wkj |
| Why not Jackson on 11:01 - Sep 17 by homer_123 |
The partnership is fine....the supply to that partnership however. |
More scrutiny on that left wing is needed, either that or a diamond surely | |
| |
| Why not Jackson on 11:02 - Sep 17 with 2440 views | Herbivore |
| Why not Jackson on 11:00 - Sep 17 by TRUE_BLUE123 |
I think it is a chance to try the 433
Back 4 as Donny
Huws Nolan Skuse
Edwards Nors Georgiou
Let Jackson have a rest. |
I'd have Jackson as a wide forward in that system. He played there a lot at Accrington and we need someone else getting up to support Norwood so he doesn't get isolated. [Post edited 17 Sep 2019 11:05]
|  |
| |
| Why not Jackson on 11:03 - Sep 17 with 2432 views | wkj |
| Why not Jackson on 11:02 - Sep 17 by Herbivore |
I'd have Jackson as a wide forward in that system. He played there a lot at Accrington and we need someone else getting up to support Norwood so he doesn't get isolated. [Post edited 17 Sep 2019 11:05]
|
I forgot about that, I think in a 433 that would have to be tried. | |
| |
| Why not Jackson on 11:03 - Sep 17 with 2434 views | homer_123 |
| Why not Jackson on 11:02 - Sep 17 by wkj |
More scrutiny on that left wing is needed, either that or a diamond surely |
I'd stick with 4-4-2 but play Garbutt at LB and Georgiou at LM. Drop judge and player Rowe or Edwards down the right.
Leave the rest as is. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Why not Jackson on 11:04 - Sep 17 with 2429 views | wkj |
| Why not Jackson on 11:03 - Sep 17 by homer_123 |
I'd stick with 4-4-2 but play Garbutt at LB and Georgiou at LM. Drop judge and player Rowe or Edwards down the right.
Leave the rest as is. |
As much as I appreciate Judge, I think he is a square peg. If we are doing okay come Christmas, and Judge doesn't suddenly live up to his cult status, I think we should consider offers for him and use the money to tighten up a week area, LB comes to mind. [Post edited 17 Sep 2019 11:08]
| |
| |
| Why not Jackson on 11:11 - Sep 17 with 2371 views | TRUE_BLUE123 |
| Why not Jackson on 11:02 - Sep 17 by Herbivore |
I'd have Jackson as a wide forward in that system. He played there a lot at Accrington and we need someone else getting up to support Norwood so he doesn't get isolated. [Post edited 17 Sep 2019 11:05]
|
I think in a 433 I would rather the wingers hug the touchline. Jackson as with sears when he is fit, will be wanting to drift in and play just off Norwood, I think that works better in a 4231 as oppose to a 433. | |
| |
| Why not Jackson on 11:19 - Sep 17 with 2332 views | StokieBlue |
| Why not Jackson on 11:00 - Sep 17 by TRUE_BLUE123 |
I think it is a chance to try the 433
Back 4 as Donny
Huws Nolan Skuse
Edwards Nors Georgiou
Let Jackson have a rest. |
You mean the formation that was totally awful against Wimbledon?
You've also taken away a striker and replace him with two wingers (Edwards is hardly a goalscorer). You've dropped Downes, one of our best performers all season. You've lessened the protection for Kenlock when if anything he needs a lot more or needs to be replaced.
It's a bit of a weird team and reasoning.
SB |  |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| Why not Jackson on 11:20 - Sep 17 with 2322 views | Herbivore |
| Why not Jackson on 11:11 - Sep 17 by TRUE_BLUE123 |
I think in a 433 I would rather the wingers hug the touchline. Jackson as with sears when he is fit, will be wanting to drift in and play just off Norwood, I think that works better in a 4231 as oppose to a 433. |
But if you have wingers hugging the touchline in a 4-3-3 you have just one very isolated striker. In a 4-2-3-1 you at least have a number 10 centrally to support the main striker. If anything it's more essential for the wide forwards to support the front man in a 4-3-3 otherwise they become really cut adrift. | |
| |
| Why not Jackson on 11:25 - Sep 17 with 2296 views | TRUE_BLUE123 |
| Why not Jackson on 11:20 - Sep 17 by Herbivore |
But if you have wingers hugging the touchline in a 4-3-3 you have just one very isolated striker. In a 4-2-3-1 you at least have a number 10 centrally to support the main striker. If anything it's more essential for the wide forwards to support the front man in a 4-3-3 otherwise they become really cut adrift. |
Fair point, but I guess that it is what u do with the midfield in the 433. if you swap Huws and Judge you could essentially play with a number 10. But you make a good point.
In the long run I think a move away from wingers is best. At least until we have Sears and Lankaster back, they would fit perfectly as your wide forwards in the 4231. | |
| |
| Why not Jackson on 11:30 - Sep 17 with 2270 views | Marshalls_Mullet |
| Why not Jackson on 11:03 - Sep 17 by homer_123 |
I'd stick with 4-4-2 but play Garbutt at LB and Georgiou at LM. Drop judge and player Rowe or Edwards down the right.
Leave the rest as is. |
I agree, drop Judge. |  |
| |
| Why not Jackson on 11:33 - Sep 17 with 2259 views | TRUE_BLUE123 |
| Why not Jackson on 11:03 - Sep 17 by homer_123 |
I'd stick with 4-4-2 but play Garbutt at LB and Georgiou at LM. Drop judge and player Rowe or Edwards down the right.
Leave the rest as is. |
Why do people keep putting Garbutt Lb, when he got dropped by Oxford for a lot of games, because he was rubbish at left back? | |
| |
| Why not Jackson on 11:39 - Sep 17 with 2244 views | StokieBlue |
| Why not Jackson on 11:33 - Sep 17 by TRUE_BLUE123 |
Why do people keep putting Garbutt Lb, when he got dropped by Oxford for a lot of games, because he was rubbish at left back? |
Why do people keep putting their faith in what happened at Oxford? Did you see him at Oxford?
He will be playing in a better team at town with probably less exposure to attacks. Surely best to at least try him given how poor Kenlock has been or do we let the opinions of other teams determine our selection?
Quite a few players in our history wouldn't have played if we had done that.
SB | |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| Why not Jackson on 11:39 - Sep 17 with 2246 views | itfcjoe |
| Why not Jackson on 11:19 - Sep 17 by StokieBlue |
You mean the formation that was totally awful against Wimbledon?
You've also taken away a striker and replace him with two wingers (Edwards is hardly a goalscorer). You've dropped Downes, one of our best performers all season. You've lessened the protection for Kenlock when if anything he needs a lot more or needs to be replaced.
It's a bit of a weird team and reasoning.
SB |
We can't just never play 433 again because we were rubbish at it in one game |  |
| |
| Why not Jackson on 11:39 - Sep 17 with 2241 views | haynes_toe1 |
Jackson should be in the starting eleven. His pace at the very least gives the defence something to think about and he's started well. Don't see why he couldn't be pushed further out wide if needed. |  | | |
| Why not Jackson on 11:40 - Sep 17 with 2227 views | TractorCam |
Norwood has played upfront on his own successfully, Jackson hasn't. And Jackson is good off the bench thanks to his pace. |  |
| |
| Why not Jackson on 11:41 - Sep 17 with 2226 views | StokieBlue |
| Why not Jackson on 11:39 - Sep 17 by itfcjoe |
We can't just never play 433 again because we were rubbish at it in one game |
That is a fair point however we were very rubbish.
Other options are available to try as others have pointed out. It does seem that some people want to change formations just to shoehorn in players who haven't done well thus far at the expense of players who have (see Judge/Jackson).
SB | |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| Why not Jackson on 11:42 - Sep 17 with 2216 views | StokieBlue |
| Why not Jackson on 11:40 - Sep 17 by TractorCam |
Norwood has played upfront on his own successfully, Jackson hasn't. And Jackson is good off the bench thanks to his pace. |
There is no evidence that Jackson is good off the bench. There is far more evidence that he's been more effective when he's started games (such as this season).
You can't just say someone is fast and thus will be better later in the game against allegedly tired players.
SB | |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| Why not Jackson on 11:46 - Sep 17 with 2196 views | TRUE_BLUE123 |
| Why not Jackson on 11:39 - Sep 17 by StokieBlue |
Why do people keep putting their faith in what happened at Oxford? Did you see him at Oxford?
He will be playing in a better team at town with probably less exposure to attacks. Surely best to at least try him given how poor Kenlock has been or do we let the opinions of other teams determine our selection?
Quite a few players in our history wouldn't have played if we had done that.
SB |
Kenlock can't have been that bad considering we have only conceded 4 goals all season, why change the defence?
In answer to your other point about Edwards not being a goalscorer. Edwards who was our top scorer last season scoring 6 goals from the wing in a team that didnt score? | |
| |
| Why not Jackson on 11:48 - Sep 17 with 2188 views | TRUE_BLUE123 |
| Why not Jackson on 11:42 - Sep 17 by StokieBlue |
There is no evidence that Jackson is good off the bench. There is far more evidence that he's been more effective when he's started games (such as this season).
You can't just say someone is fast and thus will be better later in the game against allegedly tired players.
SB |
Except of course when he came off the bench against Wimbledon and changed the game. | |
| |
| Why not Jackson on 11:48 - Sep 17 with 2184 views | homer_123 |
| Why not Jackson on 11:33 - Sep 17 by TRUE_BLUE123 |
Why do people keep putting Garbutt Lb, when he got dropped by Oxford for a lot of games, because he was rubbish at left back? |
Had Kenlock been showing any kind of form then I'd say leave Kenlock at LB and pop Garbutt back in at LM ahead of Judge.
However, Kenlocke has been very poor and could do with a break. Garbutt is a natural alternative in that position to Kenlocke and therefore seems eminently sensible to pop him there with someone like Georgiou ahead of him.
Why can the formation to suit players like Nolan and Judge who haven't showed any kind of form and therefore don't warrant such a change.
Stay with 4-4-2 but play a natural winger in the LM role, perm one from Edwards or Rowe at RM. Balanced, with players that will stay in position and formation but with Garbutt and KVY offersa genuine threat down either flank with both being able to get beyond the LM and RM players.
Leaves the spine of the team intact with Downes and Skuse doing well in the middle and continues to allow Norwood and Jackson to develop as a partnership.
I'm not against playing Judge or Nolan in the AM role but neither have shown they really deserve to warrant such an significant change. | |
| |
| Why not Jackson on 11:49 - Sep 17 with 2179 views | homer_123 |
| Why not Jackson on 11:39 - Sep 17 by itfcjoe |
We can't just never play 433 again because we were rubbish at it in one game |
True but nor should we change to 433 just to accomodate a couple of players who can't really play anywhere else.
If either showed any kind of form - then fine but they haven't. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
