Go wide or suck

[pabird]

 

Kennedy - 6

Another player that didn't look 100% today. Hopefully he's not carrying any injury. Had to fight hard against a strong side today.

Dobinson - 7

Like last week he really got stuck in. Ran all over the midfield today and made some good tackles. Although hurting himself in the process too.

Minton - 7

Didn't settle at first, but in the second half he was battling hard and trying to win everything. Done to work of two players on more than one occasion.

Duffy - 6

Duffers still isn't quite 100% and seemed to be lagging behind a fast Maidenhead midfield throughout the length of the game he played.

 

Called into work on Saturday and had to miss the game but according to Mervs report Maidenhead dropped 8 in front of goal and settled for anything left on the table at the end of the day, The mid-field appeared nullified by the Maidenhead tactic (above from Mervs report)

 

I just wondered if we went for any change during the game to break the deadlock IE two wingers and one striker (gregors) with Boylan tucked in behind in an attempt to open them up or go 4 at the back and one less than them in mid-field in an attempt to draw them out and create some space

What would concern me is that several of the teams we are still to play in our run-in will have to resort to similar tactics to survive

[Matt H]

Would you settle for maybe three up front, (Gregory, Boylan & Berquez)?

 

Matt CIFC <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

[pabird]

Yes three up front but not those three

Why? because they are all natural in their desire to play in the middle of the attack

At least one (natural) width player must be included

Any of these three can deliver from wide but not on a regular basis and if you play three up front all in the middle you now depend on mid-fielders getting wide and making quality delivery

This does leave the mid-field a bit thin if they are not natural box to box players (only JK truly box to box)

For me it would be four at the back with JK and Duffers pushed further forward and gregors up front middle with Boylan coming through behind gregors but in front of the mid-field

 

[Matt H]

Although we won last night, I would also like to see 4 at the back.

 

Hendon launched their attacks right into the corner flags which stretched the three at the back the entire width of the the pitch.

 

Wardy, Roscoe and Crow did well to keep them at bay, but against a quality side like Aldershot, we could get very much caught out. Especially if when they attack their forwards and the midfielder on the far side push up. Three against four won't favour us.

 

I think, bar injuries, having Wardy, Cheners, Cowan & Crow across the back (in that order, from right to left) would stand a better chance.

 

Matt CIFC <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

[pabird]

More so as every game left is a one off must win for as long as shots keep winning

Keeping Mum on who? for the obvious

Further to your comment, all well coached sides go into the corners against three at the back in an attempt to open space for their own mid-field attackers

The side playing with three at the back must have a highly disciplined mid-field that falls into place as cover (those mid-fielders also need solid defending skills)