Wednesday, 27 January 2010
Five in midfield
Let's be honest we played our very best football when we had five in midfield and Burton up front on his own. The majority of Burton's goals have also arrived when we played in that formation. Akpo's gone, so has McLeod, most of us have accepted that Dickson is a waste of space, Mooney is too similiar to Deon and that leaves McKenzie.
I was all for a Plan B but seriously has this produced better performances, more goalscoring chances, a tighter defence, or a more entertaining style of play?
Five in midfield allows us to play Shelvey in a more advanced role and not have him shackled with defensive responsibilites or be forced to play out wide. McKenzie or Wagstaff can vie for the left side, or McKenzie can play instead of Shelvey at the tip, and then we can have Semedo as our fulcrum, where he is so much more effective. Nicky Bailey can continue his box to box role. This system also allows greater flexibility to play Matt Spring and Racon, who I believe has the most tools to unlock airtight eleven men defences. Plan A. What's not to like? ¶ 14:25
I was all for a Plan B but seriously has this produced better performances, more goalscoring chances, a tighter defence, or a more entertaining style of play?
Five in midfield allows us to play Shelvey in a more advanced role and not have him shackled with defensive responsibilites or be forced to play out wide. McKenzie or Wagstaff can vie for the left side, or McKenzie can play instead of Shelvey at the tip, and then we can have Semedo as our fulcrum, where he is so much more effective. Nicky Bailey can continue his box to box role. This system also allows greater flexibility to play Matt Spring and Racon, who I believe has the most tools to unlock airtight eleven men defences. Plan A. What's not to like? ¶ 14:25
