Jump to content

Rhodeswatch


F_T_Y

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 608
  • Created
  • Last Reply
12 hours ago, skippy2015 said:

2 different argument with Rhodes 1. Does he deserve a place in the squad - you could easily argue either way as our strikers are poor 2. Will he make a great deal of difference and have an impact on the team? - prob not is he really that much better than Griffiths And Martin?

Behave.

He is twice the player Leigh Griffths is. Lets not forget he also played in the championship but achieved little with wolves.

Martin is more of a target man but both have impressive scoring records, why not play both, you are allowed to play more than two strikers in a game of football.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Behave.
He is twice the player Leigh Griffths is. Lets not forget he also played in the championship but achieved little with wolves.
Martin is more of a target man but both have impressive scoring records, why not play both, you are allowed to play more than two strikers in a game of football.

Griffiths has improved as a player since being at Wolves and he also did ok at Wolves 12 goals in 26 games. Griffiths would like Rhodes and Martin would be a good championship player but probably wouldn't be able step up to Premiership level which is exactly my point. Rhodes Martin and Griffiths are just Championship standard players and wouldn't make a great deal of difference who we play. If Rhodes is twice the player Griffiths is why did no team in any top league in the world want to buy him? Why did the 19 other premier league teams not buy him? The tartan army tend to overate every striker not getting into the squad like Rhodes and McCormack when in reality they just aren't as good as we think they are.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the second point very few teams in the world now play 2 out and out strikers and with our poor defensive record already and the fact midfield is where all our strongest players I would go with one up front . If we played 442 we would prob get over run in midfield if we played 3 5 2 I would be even more worried lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, skippy2015 said:

On the second point very few teams in the world now play 2 out and out strikers and with our poor defensive record already and the fact midfield is where all our strongest players I would go with one up front . If we played 442 we would prob get over run in midfield if we played 3 5 2 I would be even more worried lol

Yeah it'd have to be a 4-4-1-1 for me. Would be up for trying a 352 but I don't think it'll happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, skippy2015 said:

On the second point very few teams in the world now play 2 out and out strikers and with our poor defensive record already and the fact midfield is where all our strongest players I would go with one up front . If we played 442 we would prob get over run in midfield if we played 3 5 2 I would be even more worried lol

So your reckoning is defence were very poor so best play a defensive style....there lies the issue with near 99% of tartan army posters on here posting that we should be more defensive and in the same line that were shite in defence. Amusing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So your reckoning is defence were very poor so best play a defensive style....there lies the issue with near 99% of tartan army posters on here posting that we should be more defensive and in the same line that were shite in defence. Amusing.

Yes of course.... defending doesn't just involve the defenders on the pitch but the whole team starting with the strikers. If we look back to some of our better times in the last 30 years our best results come when we play more defensive style ( obviously this is dependent on a number of different variables who we are playing etc) under Mcleish and smith we played a much more defensive style than we do now. My point was going with 2 strikers isn't the answer name 3 top nations in the top 50 who play 2 out and out strikers?
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Yes of course.... defending doesn't just involve the defenders on the pitch but the whole team starting with the strikers. If we look back to some of our better times in the last 30 years our best results come when we play more defensive style ( obviously this is dependent on a number of different variables who we are playing etc) under Mcleish and smith we played a much more defensive style than we do now. My point was going with 2 strikers isn't the answer name 3 top nations in the top 50 who play 2 out and out strikers?

Ironically we played with 2 strikers in a lot of the Smith mcleish games (Georgia, Ukraine etc)! 442 was still popular then tho. It's all about balance I suppose. Playing 2 strikers doesn't automatically make you more of a threat but neither does playing with 1 make you water tight (evidently)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

why dont we try taking the game to our opponents for once, and i mean all opponents not just the diddies (below us diddies)

we know our defence is utter rank, yet we continue to try and bolster it by playing a defensive formation, only issue is our midifled (the defensive ones anyone) are shite as well,

one of our big problems is, once we go a goal down, we're set up in such a defensive manner that its almost impossible for us to change to an attacking style to try get back in the game

if we are gonna get pumped we are gonna get pumped, at least go down fighting

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we would be more attacking if our players could keep possession in a competent manner. I don't know if you'd noticed but it's not as easy as just telling players to attack more otherwise they probably would. Without decent centre halves or centre mids to start attacks, how are you expecting us to be able to dominate games?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, MarkoRaj said:

I think we would be more attacking if our players could keep possession in a competent manner. I don't know if you'd noticed but it's not as easy as just telling players to attack more otherwise they probably would. Without decent centre halves or centre mids to start attacks, how are you expecting us to be able to dominate games?

This.  Although I wouldn't say it's as simle as keeping possession.  A lot of games we fall down in have seen us get a lot of possession.  Against Lithuania we had 61.5%, against Georgia we had 55%.  I expected it to be more against Georgia given my memory of the game - apart from the goal - was us just keeping the ball in front of their massed ranks, but creating nothing.  We created ore against Lithuania, but nothing of a decent enough standard.  Possession is a good base, but against better teams we obviously don't keep it well enough, and against the weaker ones when he inevitably shoot ourselves in the foot, we don't have enough quality possession to make a difference.  

But you're right about the rest.  It's not as if they're sending them out there and saying "don't attack".  We don't have players that can make something out of nothing, so forwards need something created for them.  Personally, I think our problem is that the strongest part of the team on paper - our midfield - just aren't living up to their potential and influencing enough.  If they're not producing, our forwards won't score, and we're likely to let in at the back.  Good combination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...