What Should Our Shape Be? - General Morton Chatter - TheMortonForum.com Jump to content
TheMortonForum.com

What Should Our Shape Be?


BishopBrennan

Recommended Posts

I'll keep this separate from the match thread, but it's been quite obvious from the last few matches that this squad does not suit 4-4-2. This is in no small part down to King Snake assembling a squad for 4-3-3. Having viewed the squad, here are the two rough shapes I'd like us to employ;

 

 

 
 
 
 

DnuQrENWsAEt1Zh.jpg

 

A similar style 4-3-3 that we played under King Snake, however I'd like to make some changes. I'd suggest our attacking three stayed far more narrow when attacking, and have the full backs provide our attacking width. Because of the full-backs being further up the pitch, more emphasis is put on the defensive duties of the two sitting central midfielders. 

I'd like a good level of fluidity between the midfield and front line, with 8, 10 and 11 all interchanging and providing good front movement and 9 offering the more traditional physical presence. This should also be dynamic enough to provide us with a number of attacking options. My 'Plan A' would be to play through the middle and outmanoeuvre teams using fluid attacking movement. Plan B would be the wing backs clipping the ball into 9 for the players around him to feed off of.  

I'd like to think this system would allow us to get the best out of players like Tidser, Millar, Telfer and Johnstone. It would allow Johnstone to add more dynamics to his name and take advantage of the movement behind him, while having Millar's passing range, Telfer's creativity and Millar's range of passing all contributing to our attacking play.

The main issue I can see with this formation is that our attacking midfielders would be required to drop into wide defensive positions that would not necessarily be natural to them, which would require a lot of coaching. However, players like Iredale could be capable of adapting to a role like this against a team with strong full-backs. 

 

My preferred starting line up would be; 

 

Scully

 

Tumilty Buchanan Kilday McKeown

 

Millar McAlister

 

Tidser 

 

Oliver           Telfer

 

Johnstone

 

DnuQrEOX4AAaQXi.jpg

 

A 3-5-2 would be another way of utilising the depth and quality we have in central midfield. Again, this would involve playing with two wing backs, but having seen McKeown and Tumilty all season I wouldn't have any concerns about them adapting to the role. 

This shape would allow us to maintain our midfield shape and utilise our strengths while adding a degree of defensive stability. Our two preferable patterns of play would be similar to those above, which isn't accidental. It would lesser the defensive responsibilities of the attackers, which consider a weakness of the 4-3-3. My concern about this shape is the lack of depth defensively, both centrally and the wing-backs. One bad injury/suspension and we would be looking to players like Tiffoney to fill in there. 

 

My preferred line up for the 3-5-2 would be the following; 

 

Scully

 

Buchanan Kilday Waddell

 

Tumilty                                          McKeown

Millar Tidser

 

Telfer

 

Johnstone Oliver

 

While there are obvious limitations in both these squads, I'd like to think they utilise our strengths and minimise our weaknesses more than any variation of 4-4-2. 

You address me by my proper title, you little bollocks! 


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll keep this separate from the match thread, but it's been quite obvious from the last few matches that this squad does not suit 4-4-2. This is in no small part down to King Snake assembling a squad for 4-3-3. Having viewed the squad, here are the two rough shapes I'd like us to employ;

 

 

 

 

 

 

DnuQrENWsAEt1Zh.jpg

 

A similar style 4-3-3 that we played under King Snake, however I'd like to make some changes. I'd suggest our attacking three stayed far more narrow when attacking, and have the full backs provide our attacking width. Because of the full-backs being further up the pitch, more emphasis is put on the defensive duties of the two sitting central midfielders.

I'd like a good level of fluidity between the midfield and front line, with 8, 10 and 11 all interchanging and providing good front movement and 9 offering the more traditional physical presence. This should also be dynamic enough to provide us with a number of attacking options. My 'Plan A' would be to play through the middle and outmanoeuvre teams using fluid attacking movement. Plan B would be the wing backs clipping the ball into 9 for the players around him to feed off of.

I'd like to think this system would allow us to get the best out of players like Tidser, Millar, Telfer and Johnstone. It would allow Johnstone to add more dynamics to his name and take advantage of the movement behind him, while having Millar's passing range, Telfer's creativity and Millar's range of passing all contributing to our attacking play.

The main issue I can see with this formation is that our attacking midfielders would be required to drop into wide defensive positions that would not necessarily be natural to them, which would require a lot of coaching. However, players like Iredale could be capable of adapting to a role like this against a team with strong full-backs.

 

My preferred starting line up would be;

 

 

Scully

Tumilty Buchanan Kilday McKeown

Millar McAlister

Tidser

Oliver Telfer

Johnstone

DnuQrEOX4AAaQXi.jpg

 

A 3-5-2 would be another way of utilising the depth and quality we have in central midfield. Again, this would involve playing with two wing backs, but having seen McKeown and Tumilty all season I wouldn't have any concerns about them adapting to the role.

This shape would allow us to maintain our midfield shape and utilise our strengths while adding a degree of defensive stability. Our two preferable patterns of play would be similar to those above, which isn't accidental. It would lesser the defensive responsibilities of the attackers, which consider a weakness of the 4-3-3. My concern about this shape is the lack of depth defensively, both centrally and the wing-backs. One bad injury/suspension and we would be looking to players like Tiffoney to fill in there.

 

My preferred line up for the 3-5-2 would be the following;

 

Scully

Buchanan Kilday Waddell

Tumilty McKeown

Millar Tidser

Telfer

Johnstone Oliver

While there are obvious limitations in both these squads, I'd like to think they utilise our strengths and minimise our weaknesses more than any variation of 4-4-2.

 

Think you have nailed what the shape should be and agree with the players involved except Oliver, would rather have MacLean in there as he has a lot of energy and tests defenses.

 

I think that any system which gets Tidser, McAllister, Millar and Telfer on the pitch is a winner. We have enough experience in midfield to read the game and allow fullbacks to push high up the pitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think it needs to be 4-5-1 with the two wide players coming in to make a 4-3-3 when attacking today.

 

3-5-2 is another option but, paying the fullbacks we have as wingbacks would us exposed like today.

 

Tiffoney added a different dimension today and as much a cunt he is, he should start next week.

 

If Waddle is a competent Centre back then he should play alongside Buchanan as Kilday is not convincing. Iredale would be my choice for left back.

 

Right back we are stuck as one option.

 

Upfront, McHugh is hopeless and we need to move him and Thomson on at Xmas and get better options in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without reading the whole opening post cos I'm pretty pished the immediate and obvious flaw is our full backs won't be capable of providing any attacking width as from what I've seen so far this season we've downgraded from Russell and Doyle. Both look strong yet impotent in an attacking sense and neither have any mobility or an engine to speak of.

"CORNBEEF IS A BELLEND"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without reading the whole opening post cos I'm pretty pished the immediate and obvious flaw is our full backs won't be capable of providing any attacking width as from what I've seen so far this season we've downgraded from Russell and Doyle. Both look strong yet impotent in an attacking sense and neither have any mobility or an engine to speak of.

Both are a serious improvement on what we had last season IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Russell clearly isn’t a major absence considering he couldn’t even make the squad for Falkirk in their latest doing today.

 

The obvious choice with this squad and at this level is a 3-5-2. This builds the team around its genuinely strong area in the centre of the park and also offers genuine support for Johnstone; I’m not convinced he is an effective lone striker, which is one of the reasons why a 4-3-3 isn’t our best option.

 

You could push on to a 3-4-3 as well but that’s mostly an option for when losing or playing against absolute dross in the cup.

The site is supposed to be a place for the extended 'family' of Morton supporters - having an affinity with people that you don't know, because you share a love of your local football club. It's not supposed to be about point scoring and showing how 'clever' or 'funny' you are, or just being downright rude and offensive to people you don't know, because you can get away with it. Unfortunately, it seems the classic case of people who have little standing/presence in real life, use this forum as a way of making themselves feel as if they are something. It's sad, and I've said that before..

 

So, having been on Morton forums for about 15 years I guess, I've had enough... well done t*ssers, another Morton supporter driven away. You can all feel happy at how 'clever' you are

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think it needs to be 4-5-1 with the two wide players coming in to make a 4-3-3 when attacking today.

 

3-5-2 is another option but, paying the fullbacks we have as wingbacks would us exposed like today.

 

Tiffoney added a different dimension today and as much a **** he is, he should start next week.

 

If Waddle is a competent Centre back then he should play alongside Buchanan as Kilday is not convincing. Iredale would be my choice for left back.

 

Right back we are stuck as one option.

 

Upfront, McHugh is hopeless and we need to move him and Thomson on at Xmas and get better options in.

Tiffoney should not start next week. He can fuck off back to Livingston, the wee rat cunt that he is.

 

He's not good enough and a half-decent speculative strike from distance (which btw, only went in bcos Robinson is an absolute diddy) doesn't disguise the fact that he's inadequate and in no way deserve's the absolute honour of wearing the blue and white hoops.

 

Especially after his pre-season behaviour on Twitter and his utter laziness last week at tannadice which cost us 2 points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tiffoney should not start next week. He can **** off back to Livingston, the wee rat **** that he is.

 

He's not good enough and a half-decent speculative strike from distance (which btw, only went in bcos Robinson is an absolute diddy) doesn't disguise the fact that he's inadequate and in no way deserve's the absolute honour of wearing the blue and white hoops.

 

Especially after his pre-season behaviour on Twitter and his utter laziness last week at tannadice which cost us 2 points.

 

While this is clearly a post-pub post, I couldn't agree more.

EOho8Pw.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually didn't have an issue with Tiffoney over leaving, although his twitter behaviour left a bad taste - he's got an offer from a club in a higher division and taken it, fine. My issue was entirely with whoever at the club decided to bring him back because he was clearly being brought in as a winger when all of his rare good performances came as a second striker through the middle. That makes him a complete waste of a signing who clearly isn't good enough and the suspicion that the loan has to an extent come in lieu of compensation makes it even worse, but that isn't his fault.

 

However, in every one of his appearances since he returned he couldn't be more blatantly failing to give a shit. Normally people who talk about players 'not looking interested' are only betraying their own inability to read a game of football and understand the tactical reasons for players having a bad game, but in Tiffoney's case that's entirely true. He doesn't bother to track back, he stands and watches men he's supposed to be marking drift past him, he doesn't show for passes, he doesn't attempt tackles.

 

He just doesn't care in the slightest, he's making no attempt to disguise it, he's already cost us two points with this attitude at Tannadice and hitting a speculative shot straight at an impostor of a goalkeeper that was somehow allowed to cross the line doesn't make up for any of that. Unfortunately you can't officially terminate loans outwith transfer windows now but I don't want to see him in a Morton strip again.

Brian Wake my Lord, Brian Wake

Brian Wake my Lord, Brian Wake

Brian Wake my Lord, Brian Wake

Oh Lord, Brian Wake

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the system, while we have two competent full backs now and didn't then, I can't help thinking of how shambolic our performance at Ayr was when 3-5-2 is suggested. McKeown and Tumilty at wing back rather than Iredale and McAlister should give it a lot more defensive organisation, but I'm unconvinced.

 

It worked fine at Tannadice, but we switched to it when we were already sitting with 10 men behind the ball with a lead to hold. In a more open game where we need to step up and attack can we be confident that it's not going to leave gaps behind the midfield and wing backs that can't be covered? It's certainly preferable to a flat 4-4-2 in that regard, but it's far from as simple as saying we have an extra centre back to cover the midfield frailties and that makes it fine.

 

You can't just switch to a back three on a whim with centre backs accustomed to playing in a four and expect it to work - again look at Ayr and how often a runner got free or the ball didn't get closed down because the centre backs didn't know which one was supposed to be picking any of them up and when, with the midfield not doing much better and being stretched more than they have been in a three.

 

The logic behind not playing as many wide players when we have more depth in the middle is sound, but if it leaves us considerably more exposed out wide it could end up negating any benefit from getting all those players into the middle of the park. I'm inclined to stick with 4-5-1/4-3-3 and live with having Telfer out of position in one of the wide roles rather than having McHugh or Tiffoney starting.

Brian Wake my Lord, Brian Wake

Brian Wake my Lord, Brian Wake

Brian Wake my Lord, Brian Wake

Oh Lord, Brian Wake

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We should be playing 433. Tiffoney should be starting (great strike for the goal and then a great cross for what should have been our winner) and telfer needs to earn his place by displacing one of the central midfielders, not be thrown out on a wing where he's pish.

I want a pretentious signature too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What actually happened with that last chance,? From where I was standing in the Cowshed it looked like it was going in and then one of our players, possibly Oliver somehow scooped it over the bar. However it was all a bit crowded and difficult to be sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Especially after his pre-season behaviour on Twitter and his utter laziness last week at tannadice which cost us 2 points.

Not long after coming on yesterday he refused to track back to help defend when Dunfermline were running down that side. Could have cost us again.

 

Obviously missed the post match analysis after last week where he caused us the goal because he trains up at Livingston most of the week.

 

Absolutely appalling arrangement for a player that is just not very good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...