Bluepeter9 5,167 Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 (As inspired by papaguy51 - ) In the thread about Walter (latest one) - papaguy51 said we have alll bein telling Walter to play players in their 'natuarl' positions. I just think that in the Modern game that this is NOT the same as it used to be. On Wed against DU, a performance we all rave about) we had Broadfoot and Papac Novo and McColloch all not playing in their 'natuaral positions (2 center halfs as full backs and Novo a forward as a winger and McColloch - well a forward (ish)- not a 'natural' sitting midfielder). There are ceratin player who have to play in natural positions (Goalkeepers being the most obvious) BUT no one would have had may issues if Bougherra was asked to play right back, but certain folks like Weir need to play in their natuarl position. In modern squads it is NOT unusual for player to be able to play a number of positions - Davis (to me) looks as effective in the middle as he is on the right - good for us, Mendes you would NOT play any place but the middle (so a team with both is likely to have Davis right, Mendes Middle) - Novo is a CF (in his eyes) but has doesn't effective jobs for us both wings and center of the forward line - I have seen the same argument about Little - (and this one annoys me) if Our management, who see him every day and want to play himm as a back - then thats fine by me - just because NI played him else where does NOT make his natuaral (!?) position a forward - it means he is a quality player who can do a number of jobs. Some players have 'natural' positions Soe players can do a number of jobs The two above are not mutually exclusive. Why do we give WS a hard time for not playing players in their 'Natural' position given that team balance is more important? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSifter 181 Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 Why do we give WS a hard time for not playing players in their 'Natural' position given that team balance is more important? Agree to a point about versatility but all being fit I think most players have one specialised position. I've seen Smith do things like move three players to accomodate one and the team looks unbalanced. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bakbear 3,586 Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 I almost started a similiar thread a while back but filed it in the "too hard" basket... In my opinion, in this day and age, professional footballers should be able to adapt to more than one position. I understand your frustration at Little as mine was directed at Fleck, my point was going to be at what age is their natural position defined is it 10? 12? 14? They are only 17 now so when did the natural selection happen... What about Papac? Can he really be called a natural CH? he has played almost exclusively at left back for us and we all consider him a bomb scare at CH so is he now a "natural" left back? What about McCulloch what sport is he a natural at because it doesn't appear to be football?? sorry no need Weir is a natural CH because he has played there since the birth of the game, can't teach an old dog new tricks... Mendes is also a bit long in the tooth to be changing... but any player under the age of 20 with enough talent should be able to adapt to any outfield position on the park, limited only by their physique in some cases.... i.e. someone with the physique of DMB probably wouldn't cut it at CH... Having said all that, if a player is limited in their ability and they have played striker their whole career then it doesn't help to play them in the centre of the park... there are some individuals that simply have to play in their correct position and Walter often fails to acknowledge this Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boab 73 Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 'Best' position then? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSifter 181 Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 Lets not forget Walter played a young Craig Moore on the right hand side of midfield and Albertz at left back. This was a criminal waste of both players. I'm sure people would have plenty to say if young Wilson was stuck on the left wing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orangeclement 588 Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 Why do we give WS a hard time for not playing players in their 'Natural' position given that team balance is more important? Agree to a point about versatility but all being fit I think most players have one specialised position. I've seen Smith do things like move three players to accomodate one and the team looks unbalanced. see Davis for your first sentance Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tumshie 205 Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 I've got to say I'm not a fan of these 'jack-of-all trades master of fuck-all' players. I wish they would just stick to one position and master it. Ideally you have two players for each position. If they are both get injured you bring in a reserve. That's how it should work Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orangeclement 588 Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 there is a good saying for this : Square pegs dont fit in round holes Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
papaguy51 912 Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 Naismith in central midfield. Stevie Smith as a left winger. Rothen as a right winger. Kenny Miller as a left winger. Whittaker as a central midfielder, and as a left winger. Laffery on the right. Just a few odd tactical decisions I've seen by Smith in his return here! There are very few players that are comfy in three or four positions. Andy Little might be one, but apart from him, I don't think we have any. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaz52 11,837 Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 Smith seems to have this theory that if a player has even a slight bit of pace they can automatically be used on the wing Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tosh 0 Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 Naismith in central midfield. Stevie Smith as a left winger. Rothen as a right winger. Kenny Miller as a left winger. Whittaker as a central midfielder, and as a left winger. Laffery on the right. Just a few odd tactical decisions I've seen by Smith in his return here! There are very few players that are comfy in three or four positions. Andy Little might be one, but apart from him, I don't think we have any. McCulloch on the park ... I still dont get his think in the 3-5-2 Stuttgart game Papac plays left mid almost and McCulloch at centre half when they normally play the reverse! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nvager 498 Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 Sorry OP, but in my view Broadfoot and Papac are better at fullback than CHs and have played there much more often for Rangers so I see that at least now as their natural positions. Novo and McCulloch were playing out of position and thankfully both had a good game. Novo has a lot of pace so is somewhat suited for the wing. Add the fact that Beasley apart we had no other winger so Novo was the most natural choice there. (Unless we brought in a youngster!) McCulloch is or was a striker, but has played in this position before and was only playing as Thomson, Edu, Mendes were all injured and McMillan out on loan. Therefore all but those two were in their natural positions and the fact we had two pacy wingers and width - that gave us balance and led to a great display. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluepeter9 5,167 Posted December 17, 2009 Author Share Posted December 17, 2009 'Best' position then? But in what context for the player, him, the team? - I think Davis is super on the right (although no real complaints at the moment about him in the middle) but last season he went missing often therfore was 'better' for the team on the right. What is Litlles 'best' position - Remember Derek Johnstone was his best position CF or CB ? Who is the judge of a players 'best' position - The Player, Manager or Fans ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluepeter9 5,167 Posted December 17, 2009 Author Share Posted December 17, 2009 Naismith in central midfield. Stevie Smith as a left winger. Rothen as a right winger. Kenny Miller as a left winger. Whittaker as a central midfielder, and as a left winger. Laffery on the right. Just a few odd tactical decisions I've seen by Smith in his return here! There are very few players that are comfy in three or four positions. Andy Little might be one, but apart from him, I don't think we have any. I go back to Broadfoot - looks v. comfortable at RB - Davis looks comfortable at RM and CM. As some earlier poster said - what is Flecks 'natural' or even 'best' position - CM (which he thinks) - Just of the front 2 (Like many have said) or does he still have time to grow. Perhaps the question is, given any specific weekend, depending on player availability, is where does any player fir in for the benefit of the whole team (like if Mendes is available do you drop Davis for him or accomodate both by playing Mendes in his 'best' role (CM) and Davis at RM for the betterment of the team? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluepeter9 5,167 Posted December 17, 2009 Author Share Posted December 17, 2009 I almost started a similiar thread a while back but filed it in the "too hard" basket... In my opinion, in this day and age, professional footballers should be able to adapt to more than one position. I understand your frustration at Little as mine was directed at Fleck, my point was going to be at what age is their natural position defined is it 10? 12? 14? They are only 17 now so when did the natural selection happen... What about Papac? Can he really be called a natural CH? he has played almost exclusively at left back for us and we all consider him a bomb scare at CH so is he now a "natural" left back? What about McCulloch what sport is he a natural at because it doesn't appear to be football?? sorry no need Weir is a natural CH because he has played there since the birth of the game, can't teach an old dog new tricks... Mendes is also a bit long in the tooth to be changing... but any player under the age of 20 with enough talent should be able to adapt to any outfield position on the park, limited only by their physique in some cases.... i.e. someone with the physique of DMB probably wouldn't cut it at CH... Having said all that, if a player is limited in their ability and they have played striker their whole career then it doesn't help to play them in the centre of the park... there are some individuals that simply have to play in their correct position and Walter often fails to acknowledge this Excellent post but I disagree with the last sentence somewhat - Walter does what is best from a team perspective and as manager that is his right to call - he may make mistakes but he gets the vast majority of team decisions right (and I use winning games as the measure of that) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts