Sir Alex?Quote:
Originally Posted by nigel-harps1954
Printable View
Sir Alex?Quote:
Originally Posted by nigel-harps1954
Well..if you want.Quote:
Originally Posted by tetsujin1979
mind you, he did think the same about Alan Smith!Quote:
Originally Posted by nigel-harps1954
Well there was also some crazy folk that thought Alan Smith was a striker too.
Alan Smith was actually a good striker until he broke both his legs 14 times. Why on earth anybody thought that was the perfect preparation for a central midfield role I have no idea, but there you go.
I could just about see Duff being the "1" in a 4-3-1-2 but I think employing him out of his natural position would just imbalance the team. Point taken re-Giggs, though he never fully impressed me in CM and he had far better players around him than we do.
I think it's more a case of Duff being a good reader of the game. Cool head who can hold up a ball, but can also pick out the killer pass. He'd be ideal in a 4-3-1-2 situation if you ask me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuttgart88
I have noticed that sometimes during matches that Duff drifts into the centre, probably out of pure frustration of watching the barren void that is Whelan/Andrews. And when he does, he does very well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuttgart88
Duff and Ireland centre mids with Green and Whelan out wide? Mouthwatering prospect!
It kind of reminds me of Milan's midfield of old - creative central players in Pirlo and Kaká, flanked by more physical ball-winners (Gattusso and I don't remember). Granted, we have no players of that quality, but perhaps something similar could be achieved with Gibson being minded by Andrews and Whelan while Duff gets a free role further ahead. It would seem to lack width, but a number of our strikers are happy to operate fairly wide a lot of the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by SkStu
Ambrosini I assume? Or Seedorf, but he's hardly a physical ball-winner. Even if we had players of sufficient quality, I don't think that formation is any more appropriate to combat a five-man midfield than our current system.
I agree. It'd give us more cover in the centre, but our full backs would be badly exposed.
...or it'd give our full backs room to get forward. Full backs are a vital proactive cog in the wheel and should not just be seen as being reactive.
Watching some teams at the Euros was a delight - the way the whole team was fluent and interacted. In most teams only the CBs and maybe a deep-lying midfielder were essentially fixed in position. Midfielders would cover for full backs, forwards would drop deep if midfielders advanced. Great stuff.
Our national XI at the Euros (and beforehand) is a metaphor for the whole structure of the game in Ireland. 3 distinct units with no conjoining thread.
I'd agree in principle, but I think we're relatively weak at full back, particularly left back. Thinking of the protection McGeady and particularly Duff offered the full backs in key games in qualifying, I'd expect trouble if they were left to their own devices.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuttgart88
Yep, it'd help if we actually had good full backs. You could easily see Coleman or Kelly being a proper pro-active right back though.
Other teams seem to manage quite well to manage the threat of Duff and McGeady on the flanks, sometimes doubling and tripling up. It's rare to find a team that leaves its full back all alone to deal with the threat of a tricky wide midfielder.
Croatia really figured us out. They basically said "right, they aren't even going to try attack from the middle so mark the wingers like crazy and Ireland won't bother us." How right they were.Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
According to Paul Rowan in yesterdays times, Duff spent a few days recently with the Irish forces (in Lebannon I think it was). This was in Rowans opinion reason to think that Duff might not be retiring after all!!!
Why would that necessarily mean Duff wasn't going to retire? :confused:
My point exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible