one up front - is it working

[Lord Lockin 3,923]

Against Hamilton in Pedros first game he went with 2 up front and got the ball forward at pace and I thought at last, since then he's gone to 1 up front and personally I don't think it's working, the 1 up front no matter who it is finds himself isolated, the wide men don't come inside and no one from midfield gets forward and the result of this we are creating very few chances as the other night proved - keeper in a very bad team made 2 saves. Me personally I would like to see him abandon the 1 up and go back to a 4 4 2 and get the ball forward a bit faster.

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,959]

424 eh?

[Inigo 32,553]

Give it a chance. He's not even had one game with his own team of half decent players yet. Be better asking this question in a couple of months when the players he thinks can play the way he wants are playing and have been for a while.

[quabba 440]

we should never play only 1 up front especially at ibrox. we should now have the strikers to play a couple of front. will be a lot more dangerous imo 

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,959]

I'd go for a 4-0-6 myself.

[.Williamson. 82,938]

Doesn't matter what formation he plays, as long as he's playing Waghorn we're going to be playing with 10 men 

[.Williamson. 82,938]

1 minute ago, Inigo said:

Give it a chance. He's not even had one game with his own team of half decent players yet. Be better asking this question in a couple of months when the players he thinks can play the way he wants are playing and have been for a while.

Couple of months, pfttt.

He gets one game with them all playing and that's it. You've much to learn my Spanish friend.

[KBOO72 4,410]

Don't see us having any success with this current 433 formation. Don't like it at all. We don't have the quality up top to make it work imo regardless of who our central striker is. 

[Guest Lloyd72]

Just now, KBOO72 said:

Don't see us having any success with this current 433 formation. Don't like it at all. We don't have the quality up top to make it work imo regardless of who our central striker is. 

We never played a 433

[KBOO72 4,410]

Just now, Lloyd72 said:

We never played a 433

Aye, alright. 

[Lord Lockin 3,923]

5 minutes ago, Sportingintegritymyarse said:

424 eh?

thanks for that just noticed - meant 4 4 2 - hung over 

[.Williamson. 82,938]

Id go for the 1-9 formation.

Bruno cutting cunts down for 90 minutes and punting it into their box where the rest of our team are standing waiting to score 

[Camshy 812]

Although the game was a bit of a damp squib with no intensity and no doubt better to come from the team there were a few issues I felt will shine through even when the team is up to speed..........to me it looked too similar to MWs style, slow and laboured build up against a packed defence. We struggled to get at them through the middle and while its clear Pedro wants to use the width more and get the ball in early, even the training footage has shown this, what good is it when we have 1 guy up top marked by 3 or 4 of the opposition ?

At this momemt in time it looks like we will be facing the same old 10 behind the ball and if our play style resembles Thursday night then we are going to struggle breaking that down......I agree with earlier comment in the game v Accies when we went 2 up top and were far more direct and able to mix it up.

[Inigo 32,553]

10 minutes ago, .Williamson. said:

Couple of months, pfttt.

He gets one game with them all playing and that's it. You've much to learn my Spanish friend.

Agua por favor.

[the_r_sole 366]

One up top might work if that one wasn't absolutely fucking shite

[.Williamson. 82,938]

2 minutes ago, Inigo said:

Agua por favor.

No surrender mate 

[j1mgg 3,766]

When that man is waghorn, no.

[Lord Lockin 3,923]

17 minutes ago, .Williamson. said:

Doesn't matter what formation he plays, as long as he's playing Waghorn we're going to be playing with 10 men 

gae it a rest 

[Smell the hotdog 4,021]

Waghorns the problem, he's always the fuckin problem.

Why he's not been chased yet is my biggest worry about Caixinha.

[.Williamson. 82,938]

1 minute ago, Lord Lockin said:

gae it a rest 

Fuck up, Martyn

[Lord Lockin 3,923]

2 minutes ago, .Williamson. said:

Fuck up, Martyn

original

[NeoGeo7 10,578]

I've always said i like 2 strikers that form a good partnership but 4-2-3-1 has its own benefits too I just feel we lose our shape too much.

On Thursday Kranjcar very much lived up to the quarterback reference that was used by Pedro to describe what he'd do for us this year which was fine against this team but I think based on what I've seen of Pena he's going to get himself in the box more plus I'd like to see the opposing winger attack the back post for crosses.

Once we know our squad and they have some time to settle we'll see if the formation is working or not.

[Inigo 32,553]

6 minutes ago, .Williamson. said:

No surrender mate 

Si. Gracias.

[Misteral 2,932]

Too much obsession with starting formations being better than others. We should line up to beat the opposition so it depends on who and where we are playing whether we start start with a 442/ 433/4141/ 4231/ 352 formation. That would be my approach. 

[NeoGeo7 10,578]

4 minutes ago, Smell the hotdog said:

Waghorns the problem, he's always the fuckin problem.

Why he's not been chased yet is my biggest worry about Caixinha.

I think it's just timing. Does Pedro rate Waghorn more than Herrera or Morelos? Highly unlikely in Herrera case as he has worked with him before and has raved about him. Waghorn has been with us for 2 years, he's had longer in the pre-season to gain fitness plus I think Pedro isn't wanting to field 80% of the starting line up as new signings......not yet.

Its easy to say just play all the new players at once but he's being cautious so if come the Motherwell game Waghorn is still starting then I'd be worried that Pedro rates him.

Still think someone will buy him from down south before the window is shut.