Blunts v 10 Men Cyberkop

Discussion on LUFC and absolutely anything... welcome to the Dark Side
User avatar
the flying pig
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 8:24 am

Re: Blunts v 10 Men Cyberkop

Postby the flying pig » Mon Feb 12, 2018 3:21 pm

Quiffy wrote:...the new ian rush...


:roll:

the outstanding thing about 'rushie' [in his early days anyway, obviously pre leeds, mostly to be fair pre juve] was his speed, the guy moved [& was built like] a greyhound, not dissimilar to jamie vardy when leicester won the league a couple of yrs ago. based on that vid this guy isn't noticeably quick at all. but, i mean, he could be a pretty decent player, to the dubious extent that you can discern anything from a youtube showreel with footage drawn from that kind of level of football.

Wing Wizard
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 8:48 am

Re: Blunts v 10 Men Cyberkop

Postby Wing Wizard » Mon Feb 12, 2018 4:43 pm

Since we paid £2.5 million for Roberts and £1.5 million (I think) for Ekuban, wouldn't it make more sense to build a formation around these players rather than PML who is unlikely to be here after the summer? We're unlikely to be able to match the wages he is on and I'm not sure he'll be willing to drop to £15,000 a week which is rumoured to be our maximum salary. Both Roberts and Ekuban are more mobile than PML so we'd need to work on implementing that into our forward play, it should make us better at counter attacking as well.

As far as formation is concerned I liked the 4231 we played at the beginning of the season, since it creates a role for Saiz our most creative player. It also seemed to suit Ekuban and Alioski and means when Saiz is next suspended Pablo can step in.

I'd play

Felix
Berardi (until Ayling returns) Pennington, Pontus, De Bock
Forshaw, Vieira
Alioski, Saiz or Pablo, Dallas
Roberts or Ekuban

Next season get a decent right and left winger and put Dallas and Alioski on the bench but of our current choices they work the hardest for the team and give most support to the full backs.

User avatar
Phil LUFC
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2008 12:26 pm
Location: Scunthorpe

Re: Blunts v 10 Men Cyberkop

Postby Phil LUFC » Mon Feb 12, 2018 5:01 pm

Depends on what Roberts can do really? I have a feeling we'd still be in contention if Ekuban had stayed fit but for a number of weeks we were left with Lasogga or Roofe, neither able to fully play that role effectively and no plan B. I'm not expecting Roberts to be anything other than a Roofe upgrade at this stage, assume given he can play wide he's more of a striker who needs a partner but that's pure speculation on my part.

Planning for next season can happen when this one is fully gone. 11 wins from 15 needed to get enough points on the board, likely to be 10 from 11 by the end of this current run of games so not long to wait (yes, I know it's done already in reality).

Mr Reality
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2012 2:17 pm

Re: Blunts v 10 Men Cyberkop

Postby Mr Reality » Mon Feb 12, 2018 8:06 pm

Phil LUFC wrote:Son of Leeds: Earlier in the season I wouldn't have considered Berardi and I'd also have been torn between RCB or RWB for Ayling's best position in that system too. After January though, the job Berardi did at Newport (good and bad) followed by the 2nd half vs Millwall, I think he can play that role, it might even suit him better given his primary weakness is his attacking game.

Dirty Leeds: I agree with everything you've written. When we first played Sheff Utd, I felt it was still early enough to make the shift, given we were in a rut at that time too. Now, I don't see it happening really but you never quite know what a new manager will do after assessing his squad properly. It is very much the 2nd half vs Millwall driving my thinking but the 2nd half against Cardiff (albeit against a side in a very comfortable position) reinforced that somewhat. It just appears to suit us. I'd also say it's natural enemy as a formation is 442, which pretty much no-one plays any more - its more of less the only system which allows for using the width whilst also occupying the back 3 enough to prevent them easily shuffling across to cover.

In terms of the need to adjust to cover, we have players in Berardi and Ayling very much able to cover both CB and FB (though I would worry about having both in the same back 3 in terms of a lack of height). In Alioski, Dallas, Le Bock, Ayling I think we have 4 players who could play WB effectively (3 of them I'd expect to be as good as if not better than in their so called primary position), in different styles (Le Bock and Ayling might be the options away to Wolves for example). Forshaw has enough about him to drop into any position in the back line during the flow of a game. Saiz in a #10 free role has the intelligence to find space anywhere across the park and support whatever he needs to, Pablo too but with more of a (new found) defensive work rate. Up top, if Lasogga's role is to stay in and around the box, Roofe, Ekuban and (I assume) Roberts seem suited to running the channels (Ekuban in particular could do it in the style Sharp did the other day).

I also think it's an easy transition to 442 if its not working, whatever line up we went with and only 1 sub from 4231.

To me its a no brainer but I'd also happily accept it really needs a full pre-season or at absolute minimum an international break to work on it. It'd also be a pisser for De Bock as he's an out and out LB, the shift would be a case of doing a job or drop him - and very much a case of deja vu given the reason he came here.


Not sure Ayling is somebody to play rwb his tendancy to drift inside would be a bigger problem as the only wide player on a side.

Wouldn't put Berardi in that role either. Dallas is probably the only person with the legs to play the role but we know he's not good enough.

Would stick with De bock on the left above Alioski.

User avatar
Tommy
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2010 7:07 pm
Location: UK

Re: Blunts v 10 Men Cyberkop

Postby Tommy » Mon Feb 12, 2018 9:03 pm

Heckingbottom tried to sign Roberts a couple of times and after the Barnsley game earlier this season he was said to be very impressed by Ekuban. Once they're both match fit we're spoiled for choice in terms of young, relatively pacey and energetic forwards. I wonder what it'd be like to field both of them, perhaps late on in a game once Soggy Pete has retreated to the iron lung they have to put him in between matches.

User avatar
Phil LUFC
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2008 12:26 pm
Location: Scunthorpe

Re: Blunts v 10 Men Cyberkop

Postby Phil LUFC » Mon Feb 12, 2018 9:28 pm

Mr Reality wrote:Not sure Ayling is somebody to play rwb his tendancy to drift inside would be a bigger problem as the only wide player on a side.

Wouldn't put Berardi in that role either. Dallas is probably the only person with the legs to play the role but we know he's not good enough.

Would stick with De bock on the left above Alioski.

Yeah, fair comment on Ayling. I'd prefer him on the right of the back 3 but as an option if we wanted it to be a back 5 for any reason...

You say we know about Dallas, I'd say we don't, not as a wing back anyway. Good enough or not in general, he deserves a run of games ahead of our other wide men right now (Sacko and Roofe certainly and Alioski hasn't been great for a while now but IMO that's because he's an out of position wing back).

Alioski is only good enough for the role he played last season because he was in a shitter league - he's had the Aidy White conversion in his career but with a few more good moments as a result. Might do alright wide left in a 442 I suppose, got to learn to go outside now and then if he's to play on the right.

I would play him at wing back ahead of De Bock but it does depend on the opposition.

User avatar
Quiffy
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 6:56 pm

Re: Blunts v 10 Men Cyberkop

Postby Quiffy » Mon Feb 12, 2018 9:49 pm

i was looking for differences in the style of our play on saturday, hoping to gain some tactical wisdom, but the only thing i spotted was that we hoofed it forward more when we were in our own third. it normally meant we wasted possible possession but avoided any risky stuff when the ball was bouncing awkwardly. apart from that i didn't really spot any differences, pablo's introduction changed the game more than any tactical change, with the only negative consequence of that being that forshaw seemed usurped in his role as the ball player and was a tad redundant.

dunno if anyone else noticed anything?

(i don't reckon sloggy pete's performance had much to do with the heck, it just seemed a continuation of his recent improvement, alioski's continued to struggle for form, nowt to do with the heck either)
increasing doubt, decreasing hope, even my imaginary friend went and changed his mind.

User avatar
welshwhite
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 9:15 pm

Re: Blunts v 10 Men Cyberkop

Postby welshwhite » Mon Feb 12, 2018 10:02 pm

At the end of the season we'll have 6 players listed as strikers here, some have had their chances and can't hack it, some are unproven and therefore cannot be trusted to start the new season as first choice strikers. Going to have to shift at least three of them.

Antonsson
Grot
Roofe
Cibicki
Ekuban
Roberts

If we're going to succeed in our five year plan we'll need players that are able to contribute straight away - no passengers.

User avatar
Tommy
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2010 7:07 pm
Location: UK

Re: Blunts v 10 Men Cyberkop

Postby Tommy » Mon Feb 12, 2018 10:12 pm

Quiffy wrote:dunno if anyone else noticed anything?

We were proper shite but that wasn't owt new. Heckingbottom had only been there a few days so it's probably too early to ascertain what if any impact he's going to have on our playing style. My concern is we might end up a bit more streetwise but also perhaps a bit more uh, agricultural. Hopefully this isn't the case.

Mr Reality
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2012 2:17 pm

Re: Blunts v 10 Men Cyberkop

Postby Mr Reality » Mon Feb 12, 2018 10:56 pm

Phil LUFC wrote:
Mr Reality wrote:Not sure Ayling is somebody to play rwb his tendancy to drift inside would be a bigger problem as the only wide player on a side.

Wouldn't put Berardi in that role either. Dallas is probably the only person with the legs to play the role but we know he's not good enough.

Would stick with De bock on the left above Alioski.

Yeah, fair comment on Ayling. I'd prefer him on the right of the back 3 but as an option if we wanted it to be a back 5 for any reason...

You say we know about Dallas, I'd say we don't, not as a wing back anyway. Good enough or not in general, he deserves a run of games ahead of our other wide men right now (Sacko and Roofe certainly and Alioski hasn't been great for a while now but IMO that's because he's an out of position wing back).

Alioski is only good enough for the role he played last season because he was in a shitter league - he's had the Aidy White conversion in his career but with a few more good moments as a result. Might do alright wide left in a 442 I suppose, got to learn to go outside now and then if he's to play on the right.

I would play him at wing back ahead of De Bock but it does depend on the opposition.


How many more chances does one player need?

Do we expect Dallas to morph in to something special he would be functional but the best wing backs are dynamic.

He's probably the best option we have at the moment it doesn't mean he's good enough.

Although I wouldn't be averse to giving sacko a run.

User avatar
LSD&2Es
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 10:06 am
Location: Surrey

Re: Blunts v 10 Men Cyberkop

Postby LSD&2Es » Mon Feb 12, 2018 11:33 pm

Tommy wrote:....... My concern is we might end up a bit more streetwise but also perhaps a bit more uh, agricultural. Hopefully this isn't the case.



Isn't that exactly what we do need to grind out some ugly wins and get the confidence back?

User avatar
Tommy
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2010 7:07 pm
Location: UK

Re: Blunts v 10 Men Cyberkop

Postby Tommy » Mon Feb 12, 2018 11:42 pm

Maybe, though I mostly think the teams it would help us against are the likes of Cardiff, Ipswich and Millwall. I think we've played them twice already.

User avatar
Oheddieeddie
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 1:35 pm
Location: Tacky with sweat and poisonous particulates.

Re: Blunts v 10 Men Cyberkop

Postby Oheddieeddie » Mon Feb 12, 2018 11:51 pm

What you can't underestimate with Dallas is his work rate. His graft is fairly competent too so he helps the players around him. He will never be a world beater but a decent water carrier is an asset on occasion.

It seems a long time since Sakho looked like a game changer despite managing it a couple of times early on in his career. What he doesn't have is football-intelligence, despite some physical gifts. I'm loathe to write him off for good but I think the championship is beyond him currently. He needs a loan spell where he gets game time.

I'm reading some of these formations, where people suggest round pegs in square holes. (eg some of the makeshift centre backs suggested) I mean lateral thinking is alright on a message board a manager would be crucified for it after any loss.

Mind you Shane Lowry would thrive in a system where he wasn't expected to operate as a full back or a centre back as a rightful position.

(Scott Wootton reads this and says "right hold my pint")

User avatar
LSD&2Es
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 10:06 am
Location: Surrey

Re: Blunts v 10 Men Cyberkop

Postby LSD&2Es » Tue Feb 13, 2018 1:50 pm

Penners, Pontus & Cooper as a back 3

Beradi and De Bock if we need more 5-3-2, Dallas and Alioski if we're going more 3-5-2

Ayling can cover either RCB, RB or RWB.

User avatar
welshwhite
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 9:15 pm

Re: Blunts v 10 Men Cyberkop

Postby welshwhite » Tue Feb 13, 2018 2:25 pm

LSD&2Es wrote:Penners, Pontus & Cooper as a back 3

Beradi and De Bock if we need more 5-3-2, Dallas and Alioski if we're going more 3-5-2

Ayling can cover either RCB, RB or RWB.


Looking there at the players we now have to choose from caused me to sigh out loud.

Hello 15th place, keep our seat warm for us.

User avatar
LSD&2Es
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 10:06 am
Location: Surrey

Re: Blunts v 10 Men Cyberkop

Postby LSD&2Es » Tue Feb 13, 2018 5:45 pm

welshwhite wrote:
LSD&2Es wrote:Penners, Pontus & Cooper as a back 3

Beradi and De Bock if we need more 5-3-2, Dallas and Alioski if we're going more 3-5-2

Ayling can cover either RCB, RB or RWB.


Looking there at the players we now have to choose from caused me to sigh out loud.

Hello 15th place, keep our seat warm for us.


Why?

That leaves Viera/Philips, Samu/Pablo, Forshaw, Ekuban and Lasogga to go all out and attack, attack, attack!

User avatar
welshwhite
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 9:15 pm

Re: Blunts v 10 Men Cyberkop

Postby welshwhite » Tue Feb 13, 2018 6:10 pm

LSD&2Es wrote:
welshwhite wrote:
LSD&2Es wrote:Penners, Pontus & Cooper as a back 3

Beradi and De Bock if we need more 5-3-2, Dallas and Alioski if we're going more 3-5-2

Ayling can cover either RCB, RB or RWB.


Looking there at the players we now have to choose from caused me to sigh out loud.

Hello 15th place, keep our seat warm for us.


Why?

That leaves Viera/Philips, Samu/Pablo, Forshaw, Ekuban and Lasogga to go all out and attack, attack, attack!


I think you're overating players that the only consistency they have shown is being able to consistantly let us down.

I'd not put a penny on our current squad to win any particular one of our remaining games.
Their inability to compete straight from the kickoff, coupled with rock bottom confidence, not to mention now having fuck all to play for, has dropping further down the table writen all over it.

PH has a mammoth task to try to lift moslty the same players that have overseen two major crashes.
Will he play solid formations to build for next season, or maybe as you say go for all out attack and see where that takes us.


Return to “The Square Ball”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Oheddieeddie and 2 guests