v Watford (a) - 13/9/25

[London blue]

2 hours ago, rigger said:

We do have the option of playing three at the back, until one of the three get injured or suspended. It is a risky strategy, but it is available. If VI does choose this plan, and it is successful, happy days. If not then he will have to try another plan.  

I disagree. You can't expect to play a formation when you have close to zero depth in 3 positions.

[rigger]

2 minutes ago, London blue said:

I disagree. You can't expect to play a formation when you have close to zero depth in 3 positions.

Explain to me why three center-halves can't be played, when we have three center-halves available. If one or more get injured or suspended, then the formation has to be changed. I am not saying it is the most favoured system with our available players. But it is playable.

[London blue]

6 hours ago, rigger said:

Explain to me why three center-halves can't be played, when we have three center-halves available. If one or more get injured or suspended, then the formation has to be changed. I am not saying it is the most favoured system with our available players. But it is playable.

Sorry I mean the broader sense of 'play 3 centre backs' as in regularly. 

I don't think it's advisable to have all 3 senior centre backs on the pitch at any one time.

[rigger]

8 minutes ago, London blue said:

Sorry I mean the broader sense of 'play 3 centre backs' as in regularly. 

I don't think it's advisable to have all 3 senior centre backs on the pitch at any one time.

 

8 minutes ago, London blue said:

Sorry I mean the broader sense of 'play 3 centre backs' as in regularly. 

I don't think it's advisable to have all 3 senior centre backs on the pitch at any one time.

If it is what the manager thinks is the best formation for the players he has at his disposal, That is his decision. If a center-back becomes unavailable, you revert to a back four. Plan B's are not just for the forwards.

Edited Saturday at 17:32 by rigger

[London blue]

Sorry mate but I thought it was generally accepted on this board that something being the managers decision doesn't automatically make it the right one?

I understand that, literally speaking, playing all 3 is an option. I just don't think it's advisable, given the limited players in that position, and their respective injury records.

[rigger]

9 minutes ago, London blue said:

Sorry mate but I thought it was generally accepted on this board that something being the managers decision doesn't automatically make it the right one?

I understand that, literally speaking, playing all 3 is an option. I just don't think it's advisable, given the limited players in that position, and their respective injury records.

It also doesn't make it the wrong one. What it does make it, is the one we will play.

[London blue]

No, but in my opinion it would be. 

We've a difference in opinion, let's leave it there.

[Lancaster Rover]

If we had kept Travis I thought 2 - box - 3 would work quite well, getting 2 10's on the pitch and using the full backs for width as we've not got much quality out wide. With the sales we've made and the personnel we have 4-2-3-1 is the most obvious choice to persevere with, although with Cantwell often dropping deep it's more of a 4-2-1-2-1

[Ghost7]

pretty poor when you're struggling to put a defence together at the very beginning of the season.... and injuries will come. We will be down there come Christmas.