Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
beararse

Let’s play Tavernier at left back!

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, beararse said:

Flanagan.

Until we get a genuine left back thro the door who can defend, then Tav moves back to right back, Flanagan becomes back up and *new LB* restores order.

My theory, much derided, is that it is universally agreed that Tav is not great when defending. 

Flanagan however can defend. Stick him in his natural position in the right and you play to his strengths.

You therefore ‘gain’ an improved defensive position and move the guy who can’t defend into the opposite side where in theory he’ll struggle to get any worse. 

Tav can support midfield and attack thro the middle, opening up opportunities to shoot with his favoured foot in a better position. 

We ain’t swapping roles in the team, just the side of the pitch  they operate on. 

The principles of playing fullback doesn’t change because you are on the opposite side.

It was just a thought as we’ve already got a right footed left back playing at the moment in most games.

 

 

You were doing so well there anaw, .......pity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, beararse said:

The counter to that is ...

So, we persevere with a right back deemed better than any left back we have at the club and who offers next to nothing going forward and will be infinitely better played as a right back AND keep a right  back who can’t defend as a right back and who has also proven to be excellent bombing forward through the middle of the pitch.

By TRYING Tav as left back you instantly improve the defending at right back and the status quo remains at left back (ie square peg in a round hole), but Tav doesn’t really defend. He’s an attacking wing back.

Its not about making way for Flanagan.

Would it not be better to have a full back who can defend in his natural position and one who can’t defend, rather than one who is playing out of position and one who can’t defend?

So move a rb that can't defend to lb that can't defend? And move a rb that plays lb that can't attack to rb that can't attack?. Where in any of that is the issues we currently have solved. Stephen hawking got nothing on you for the brains department 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, DBBTB said:

 

So you’re grand plan to address our weakness at left back is to weaken us at right back by replacing our perfectly good right back with somebody who  offers a fraction of what they do and move the right back to a position that he’s never played to any lengthy extent in his career just because you think it means he can cut inside and shoot on his stronger foot...thank fuck you aren’t our gaffer is all I can say to that :lol:

 

But he’s not ‘perfectly’ good  though is he?

If he was there wouldn’t  be countless debates on RM about his ability to defend, his positioning or switching off (I accept his defending has improved under Gerrard).

I never said at any point it would work.

By ‘why not give it a go’ I meant ‘try it’.

If it doesn’t work then don’t do it again.

Someone referenced Callum McGregor being played at left back as a reason not to do it.  McGregor isn’t a full back. He’s an attacking midfielder and a bloody good one at that so it weakened their team. Tav’s a full back. He should be able to switch, as Flanagan has done to reasonable effect.

Plus it’s was never meant as a long term solution: Only until we sorted out the LB position.

what is perfectly clear is that I am in a minority of one on this subject.

🙂

 

Blue Avenger and richles1872 like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Tomatasauce said:

tav has been our BEST defender so far this season so I wouldn’t listen to the fuckin headbangers

every time a cross has come in from our left side to the back post this season tav has been there to defend it as good as anybody else

Hardly.

Also, what about stopping the ball coming in in the first place? Anything to do with playing a right back at left back?

So, swapping them over you would have a decent defender playing his natural position and a dodgy (IMO) defender on the other who remains dodgy but can excel  moving forward. So, in my mind at least, there is a potential nett gain in the quality of defending.

Bear in mind it is a temp solution, as a few on here pointed out with the examples I provided (Lahm being of them)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, gogzy said:

No it isn't universally agreed, not in the slightest.  Tav is good at defending too.  

Tav can't defend is one of the biggest myths on the forum.

Is he great defender?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Hadron Collider said:

C’mon for fucksakes all!   Beararse got us talking and lightened things up. In his defence he kept up to his task for his point and never backed down.  Kudos to him. Give the boy some grace now. He’s taken a beating. 

I think this thread is the only one I’ve ever seen on RM where there is not one single person agreeing or siding with the poster.

Now that is quite a feat.

Even King Kirk had has backers

Im away for a lie doon ..,.. 🙂

rabc10000 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, beararse said:

But he’s not ‘perfectly’ good  though is he?

If he was there wouldn’t  be countless debates on RM about his ability to defend, his positioning or switching off (I accept his defending has improved under Gerrard).

I never said at any point it would work.

By ‘why not give it a go’ I meant ‘try it’.

If it doesn’t work then don’t do it again.

Someone referenced Callum McGregor being played at left back as a reason not to do it.  McGregor isn’t a full back. He’s an attacking midfielder and a bloody good one at that so it weakened their team. Tav’s a full back. He should be able to switch, as Flanagan has done to reasonable effect.

Plus it’s was never meant as a long term solution: Only until we sorted out the LB position.

what is perfectly clear is that I am in a minority of one on this subject.

🙂

 

Tav is a perfectly good right back. In fact he’s more than that. He’s the best right back in the country by an absolute mile. 

TheCutch likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DBBTB said:

Tav is a perfectly good right back. In fact he’s more than that. He’s the best right back in the country by an absolute mile. 

Might be the best left back too....we’ll never know 🙂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, willygers4life said:

So move a rb that can't defend to lb that can't defend?

Yep.

Result is a LB that can’t defend, so no change there.

3 hours ago, willygers4life said:

And move a rb that plays lb that can't attack to rb that can't attack?

Yep.

Result is a RB that can’t attack but improves defending by playing on his natural side, so we’ve strengthened the defensive aspect of the full back positions.

3 hours ago, willygers4life said:

Where in any of that is the issues we currently have solved

Tav is very good going forward so I would expect him to take to attacking from the left without much difficulty. 

So, in theory, we strengthen the defence without weakening the attack.

Like I've said many a time on this thread, it was a suggestion to temporarily solve a problem with the defence. If it didn’t work then bin it immediately.

Tav isn’t a bad defender, far from it but he’s no better than Flanagan (who is currently playing out of position) when tasked with defending  as things stand (ie with Flanagan in the left). Tav is however  infinitely better moving forward and a very good footballer.

Good players can play on either side of the pitch without a dip in form.

Im not expecting to convert anyone’s opinion on this. Just explaining where I was coming from....which ironically, is left field 🙂

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, beararse said:

Yep.

Result is a LB that can’t defend, so no change there.

Yep.

Result is a RB that can’t attack but improves defending by playing on his natural side, so we’ve strengthened the defensive aspect of the full back positions.

Tav is very good going forward so I would expect him to take to attacking from the left without much difficulty. 

So, in theory, we strengthen the defence without weakening the attack.

Like I've said many a time on this thread, it was a suggestion to temporarily solve a problem with the defence. If it didn’t work then bin it immediately.

Tav isn’t a bad defender, far from it but he’s no better than Flanagan (who is currently playing out of position) when tasked with defending  as things stand (ie with Flanagan in the left). Tav is however  infinitely better moving forward and a very good footballer.

Good players can play on either side of the pitch without a dip in form.

Im not expecting to convert anyone’s opinion on this. Just explaining where I was coming from....which ironically, is left field 🙂

 

 

 

Flanagan played in his "natural position" against Cowdenbeath and Kilmarnock and was the worst player on the park, so i don't know where you're getting the idea that he's a better defender than Tav from.

Tav is on another level to Flanagan in every department and you're an idiot if you can't see that tbh.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, BlueMe said:

Flanagan played in his "natural position" against Cowdenbeath and Kilmarnock and was the worst player on the park, so i don't lnow where you're getting the idea that he's a better defender than Tav from.

Tav is on another level to Flanagan in every department and you're an idiot if you can't see that tbh.

 

I'm far from an idiot....just have a different opinion to yours

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, HuistraHairDo said:

Your opinion is idiotic.

6 pages say so.

My opinion may be idiotic, doesn’t make me an idiot tho’

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, BlueMe said:

Old enough to know you're an idiot.

Yet not old enough to accept a different view without name calling, it would appear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, gogzy said:

No it isn't universally agreed, not in the slightest.  Tav is good at defending too.  

Tav can't defend is one of the biggest myths on the forum.

Its stuck with him throughout his time here, people expect Tav to make these lung bursting runs up to the opposition box but still be in the line of defence if the other team breaks on us, he litreally cannot win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely the principle Occam's Razor provides the answer here?

Even if Tav were to excel at LB, we would still need to secure an excellent RB to replace him. We have OK backups at RB, nothing more. So two positions in doubt instead of one.

Just bite the bullet and find a good LB. We don't even need a great one to improve the team. Even a competent one would do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, beararse said:

Yet not old enough to accept a different view without name calling, it would appear

I can accept a different opinion when it's backed up with facts and the person at least has a bit of knowledge on the subject that they're discussing.

My opinion of you being an idiot is backed up with facts (this thread) and i've used my knowledge on the subject and given you an example of why playing Flanagan at RB instead of Tav is stupid. 

I don't know why you're getting offended at someone calling you an idiot after posting this thread and some of the posts you've made in it tbh.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...