|
Welly Cobb
|
 |
« on: July 14, 2017, 16:08:23 pm » |
|
First-half team: Cornell; Moloney, Poole, Ash Taylor, Buchanan; O'Toole, McWilliams, Foley; Lobjoit, Revell, Powell.
Think that looks like a possible 1st 11, with the exclusion of Waters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aitobs
|
|
« Reply #1 on: July 14, 2017, 16:12:30 pm » |
|
Your thread beat me to it! Hopefully a mod can delete my match thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Rauldinho
|
|
« Reply #2 on: July 14, 2017, 16:31:50 pm » |
|
So are we thinking 4-2-3-1 again like this:
Cornell
Moloney Ash Poole Buchs
JJ McWilliams
Powell Lobjoit Foley
Revs
|
|
|
|
|
|
EssTeeFree
|
|
« Reply #3 on: July 14, 2017, 16:34:33 pm » |
|
I'd hazard a guess at 433
Cornell
Moloney Taylor Poole Buchs
JJOT McWilliams Foley
Lobjoit Revs Powell
|
|
|
|
|
|
Welly Cobb
|
|
« Reply #4 on: July 14, 2017, 16:39:53 pm » |
|
"Looks like a solid 4-3-3 for Cobblers with Lobjoit and Powell flanking Revell"
"GOAL! Revell gets the opener!"
Good start.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Welly Cobb
|
|
« Reply #5 on: July 14, 2017, 16:52:11 pm » |
|
Revell hit's one against the bar from a Lobjoit cross, Maloney has another shot turned around for a corner, and Birmingham then equalise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Welly Cobb
|
|
« Reply #6 on: July 14, 2017, 17:36:02 pm » |
|
Second half team: Goff; Phillips, Barnett, McWilliams, Smith; Matt Taylor, Kasim, Bowditch; Iaciofano, Richards, Waters.
McWilliams getting a second half, but moved into CB.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Welly Cobb
|
|
« Reply #7 on: July 14, 2017, 17:44:22 pm » |
|
2 - 1. Waters picking up the scraps from a free-kick.
Iaciofano has one ruled out, the second disallowed Cobblers goal this game.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 14, 2017, 17:50:23 pm by Welly Cobb »
|
Report Spam
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
TownOwl
|
|
« Reply #8 on: July 14, 2017, 18:24:05 pm » |
|
Nice 4-1 win. I'd expect this against an XI side, but so far so good. Nice to see the new lads get their first action for the Cobbs too.
|
|
|
|
|
The Rauldinho
|
|
« Reply #9 on: July 14, 2017, 20:36:24 pm » |
|
Good to see the strikers scoring.
Did McWilliams play at CB second half?
|
|
|
|
|
|
JohnWally
|
Yes and he played very well. Ran the show from midfield first half too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cobbler78
|
Yes and he played very well. Ran the show from midfield first half too.
He looked really good at Silbey also, we now have 5 centre midfielders, do we really need Crooks to make is 6? Only 2 will start each week, so we only need 4, lots of wasted budget, esp Matt Taylor who will be our highest paid player but will struggle to make the squad! |
|
|
|
|
|
Cobbler78
|
Yes and he played very well. Ran the show from midfield first half too.
What was the first half formation? Looks 4-3-3 or 4-5-1 to me. |
|
|
|
|
|
EssTeeFree
|
He looked really good at Silbey also, we now have 5 centre midfielders, do we really need Crooks to make is 6? Only 2 will start each week, so we only need 4, lots of wasted budget, esp Matt Taylor who will be our highest paid player but will struggle to make the squad!
I think JED prefers a 3 in midfield (including as part of his diamond if that makes sense), a deep playmaker (Kasim/Taylor) and box to box types either side (Foley/JJOT/McWilliams). Crooks would at to that and give us 2 players for every position I guess. Would mean we would either play the diamond (with an attacking player at the tip) 4-3-3 as last night or go with wing backs I guess. Whether that lets us get enough of our attacking players in the game is another matter. |
|
|
|
|
|
Cobbler78
|
I think JED prefers a 3 in midfield (including as part of his diamond if that makes sense), a deep playmaker (Kasim/Taylor) and box to box types either side (Foley/JJOT/McWilliams). Crooks would at to that and give us 2 players for every position I guess.
Would mean we would either play the diamond (with an attacking player at the tip) 4-3-3 as last night or go with wing backs I guess.
Whether that lets us get enough of our attacking players in the game is another matter.
Which is odd, as we have perfect players for 4-2-3-1 with at least 2 players for every position (more than 2 for the 2 holding midfielders) |
|
|
|
|
|
EssTeeFree
|
Which is odd, as we have perfect players for 4-2-3-1 with at least 2 players for every position (more than 2 for the 2 holding midfielders)
Yep and would be my preferred line up but looking at 1) the line up last night 2) the pursuit of crooks and 3) JEDs history makes me think we won't see 4-2-3-1 as much as other variants. Maybe at home when we're strong favourites. I'm only guessing of course, it's likely I'm wrong. Maybe JED sees JJOT or Crooks or even Foley in the no. 10 role, but I hope not. |
|
|
|
|
|
Gaston
|
Which is odd, as we have perfect players for 4-2-3-1 with at least 2 players for every position (more than 2 for the 2 holding midfielders)
Maybe you need a decent plan b. |
Hugs and Kisses xoxox
|
|
|
|
Poggy
|
Fully expected us to win this game. The team looked focused all week like they meant business.
Hopefully JE let them have a good p155 up after the game... would seem a shame to go all that way and not finish off with a decent session.
|
|
|
|
|
|
