| Could we evolve to three at the back when everyone is fit? 21:45 - Aug 24 with 2130 views | GlasgowBlue |
Walton/Hladky (Gk)
Williams, Woolfy, BUrgess (CB’s)
Clarke, Davis (Wingbacks)
Morsy, Luongo (Midfield)
Chaplin, Broadhead (No 10’s)
Hirst (CF)
Harsh on Burns? Think this would also benefit Broadhead playing a bit more centrally. |  |
| |  |
| Could we evolve to three at the back when everyone is fit? on 21:46 - Aug 24 with 2102 views | pointofblue |
IF we did, I'd say we'd have to switch Williams and Clarke around. |  |
| |
| Could we evolve to three at the back when everyone is fit? on 21:49 - Aug 24 with 2081 views | Herbivore |
Can't see Williams as a CB, more likely Clarke. |  |
| |
| Could we evolve to three at the back when everyone is fit? on 21:53 - Aug 24 with 2034 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Could we evolve to three at the back when everyone is fit? on 21:49 - Aug 24 by Herbivore |
Can't see Williams as a CB, more likely Clarke. |
Didn’t Clarke say he was more used to playing in Burns role and Williams prefers defending to attacking? | |
| |
| Could we evolve to three at the back when everyone is fit? on 21:56 - Aug 24 with 2028 views | LancsBlue |
That's a really good shout. Looks strong and balanced. All sentiment aside, Burns has been terrific for us but I don't see him as a top six championship player. |  |
| |
| Could we evolve to three at the back when everyone is fit? on 22:09 - Aug 24 with 1929 views | Herbivore |
| Could we evolve to three at the back when everyone is fit? on 21:53 - Aug 24 by GlasgowBlue |
Didn’t Clarke say he was more used to playing in Burns role and Williams prefers defending to attacking? |
Not seen that from Clarke myself but he's played that hybrid RCB/RB role for us well. Williams at 5'7" doesn't strike me as a CB. | |
| |
| Could we evolve to three at the back when everyone is fit? on 22:15 - Aug 24 with 1895 views | SheffordBlue |
| Could we evolve to three at the back when everyone is fit? on 22:09 - Aug 24 by Herbivore |
Not seen that from Clarke myself but he's played that hybrid RCB/RB role for us well. Williams at 5'7" doesn't strike me as a CB. |
It will be interesting to see how tall Williams is when he lines up against the rest of our squad. A lot of the stats sites are wrong on heights and in photos he looks as tall as OGS. I think he's probably about 5'9 - which still isn't huge for a CB but would be okay in a back 3 I think. | |
| |
| Could we evolve to three at the back when everyone is fit? on 23:24 - Aug 24 with 1740 views | Rozz |
Surely much more likely to see Fridge or Donacien on the right of the three? Donacien's game I think would suit that role far better.
I think Williams is pure competition for Clarke and Davis, especially if it's a straight loan as has been stated today without the buy option. The two that perform best or stay fit will play, and it's likely the sub will get minutes as fresh legs towards the end of games.
We don't need to shoehorn Williams in. The lift that Ladapo received when Hirst came in was palpable - and Leif has our highest resale potential if he continues his development on the same trajectory. I have absolutely no qualms sitting a kid with 50 odd prem appearances behind him on the bench and seeing what happens. |  | | |
| Could we evolve to three at the back when everyone is fit? on 06:53 - Aug 25 with 1565 views | ibbleobble |
What’s wrong with the asymmetrical system that has got us promoted and seen us on an impressive unbeaten run where we routinely shift to a back three and how is changing a winning system an evolution??? [Post edited 25 Aug 2023 9:00]
| | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Could we evolve to three at the back when everyone is fit? on 07:21 - Aug 25 with 1485 views | garyinavault |
We already play 3atb in our defensive shape. Wouldn't take much evolution. | | | |
| Could we evolve to three at the back when everyone is fit? on 07:41 - Aug 25 with 1419 views | Kieran_Knows |
| Could we evolve to three at the back when everyone is fit? on 07:21 - Aug 25 by garyinavault |
We already play 3atb in our defensive shape. Wouldn't take much evolution. |
This, I don’t see how people don’t see it. |  |
| |
| Could we evolve to three at the back when everyone is fit? on 08:21 - Aug 25 with 1344 views | textbackup |
| Could we evolve to three at the back when everyone is fit? on 07:41 - Aug 25 by Kieran_Knows |
This, I don’t see how people don’t see it. |
I always thought that too… burns and Davis as wingbacks, shows what I know |  |
| |
| Could we evolve to three at the back when everyone is fit? on 08:24 - Aug 25 with 1335 views | NthQldITFC |
| Could we evolve to three at the back when everyone is fit? on 07:21 - Aug 25 by garyinavault |
We already play 3atb in our defensive shape. Wouldn't take much evolution. |
I'd say we're three at the back in our attacking shape, but morph into four at the back when we're defending. |  |
| |
| Could we evolve to three at the back when everyone is fit? on 08:28 - Aug 25 with 1328 views | tractordownsouth |
| Could we evolve to three at the back when everyone is fit? on 08:24 - Aug 25 by NthQldITFC |
I'd say we're three at the back in our attacking shape, but morph into four at the back when we're defending. |
Yeah it’s 3atb in slow build up with Burgess and Donacien/Clarke splitting either side of Woolfenden and Davis pushed up. |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
