SWEEPER SYSTEMTHE

[ANGLE]

Nothing wrong with it as long as you have got the personel to play that way,Smith mopping up the the loose balls,and RT pushing the line,this will free up the wing backs,and the proof is in the pud so to speak,the trouble is we should have deployed this formation sooner.

[Chris1]

We are not playing sweeper system Angle. It is a flat back 3 with a 5 across the middle.

[Wellsie]

I agree Chris. And I like the way we are able to double up in defensive wide positions when we need to: Trotty and Skins, Smith and Oates.

[ANGLE]

Ok Chris i stand corrected,this new system is good for us and what a great win yesterday,i missed the Ramsgate game,so not seen us play with the new formation,i hope we make the play off.

[Wellsie]

I was struck at yesterday's game by the three at the back and a number of long balls forward. Did it remind anyone else of another manager?

[djw]

Jay was dropping off on Saturday acting as a kind of sweeper. Great game he had to !

[Balmoral Claret]

"It is a flat back 3 with a 5 across the middle".

 

It doesn't work for EVERYBODY Chris1 (especially if your back 3 are a bit slow)!!!!!!

 

[MargateFan]

Didn't always work for us, I think it is a sign of Trotty's progress as a manager to use different formations to suit different conditions. Worked so far.

[Cookie]

Originally Posted By: Balmoral Claret

"It is a flat back 3 with a 5 across the middle".

It doesn't work for EVERYBODY Chris1 (especially if your back 3 are a bit slow)!!!!!!

We realise we have a difficiency in that department re: pace, but lets face it, it didnt affect us yesterday did it? Well, the result says so anyway. How slow are your forwards if this were the case? Sometimes pure "noddle" pure graft & pure determination can overcome things like this.

[Balmoral Claret]

Originally Posted By: Cookie

Originally Posted By: Balmoral Claret

"It is a flat back 3 with a 5 across the middle".

It doesn't work for EVERYBODY Chris1 (especially if your back 3 are a bit slow)!!!!!!

We realise we have a difficiency in that department re: pace, but lets face it, it didnt affect us yesterday did it? Well, the result says so anyway. How slow are your forwards if this were the case? Sometimes pure "noddle" pure graft & pure determination can overcome things like this.

Err....I was intimating that it doesn't work for the CLARETS, Cookie. It would seem that it was OK for you yesterday (judging from various reports - I wasn't there), despite the fact that our young Ricky Holmes tends to be a nippy little fellow at times!

[Cookie]

I beg your pardon.I misunderstood your post then.Thought you were having a dig at our back-line there though we DO have that lack of pace back there. Seems both our clubs have problems with pace at the back then.

[ANGLE]

Cookie we have found the correct formation,but sometimes its horses for courses,you mix it up and sometimes change formation on the field of play.

[Cookie]

Originally Posted By: ANGLE

Cookie we have found the correct formation,but sometimes its horses for courses,you mix it up and sometimes change formation on the field of play.

What you say is common sense isn't it.Of course you change things to suit & there could be many reasons for doing so even during play.Don't think I even referred to those things though did I ?
I'm more than happy with the new formation.Its one that I and many others have been asking for for a while.More in midfield with more emphasis on holding that midfield & attacking rather than defending.Lets face it sometimes we have had only 2 in midfield.Its just a shame that it took the Slough result to have it brought into action.
I merely mentioned that we lack pace at the back.That has been evident all season,but I also said that there are other ways to counteract this & for most part of the season thats just what these players have done,used other attributes they possess to counter that deficiency. Good on em'.

[ANGLE]

Well said old chap,i agree with you,it would be nice to meet you some time as i always enjoy your view on football,have a nice day, Angle

[Chris1]

Interesting debate. I think it is more a case of finding a system to suit the players available. With McKimm injured and Proths out of favour (and finding the heavy pitches difficult), we were left with too big a gap in midfield.

 

The 3-5-2 (or 3-4-1-2 with Pinns 'in the hole') is a more attacking formation and needs a lot of skill to work. We have only used it twice, both against teams we had the measure of anyway, so the jury is still out on its long-term success.

 

However three people in particular should take credit: Louis Smith, superb in central defence; Rob Haworth who has worked like hell up front and gives us real attacking options (also taken the pressure off Danny); and not least Mr Trott for the inspired thinking.

 

I must admit I was dead against the 5-3-2 we used to play under previous management. Even though it brought success in the 90s, at the end it seemed tired and old-hat, and opponents seemed to be able to nullify it easily. Now we are playing a similar system and taking everybody by surprise. As somebody (Cookie?) stated elsewhere, the difference could be in the class of player we have now.

 

Either way let's not knock it if it is working!

 

And congrats to RT on the renewed contract.