QuoteIt's been suggested ad nauseam but we do seem to be crying out for a wing back formation, with Coleman right of the three. Kenny is hardly going to discard his 4-3-3 just like that though while trying to put his stamp on the team.
Doherty is the better player between him and Coleman. Has a better touch, an eye for goal, clever passes with a certain accuracy and finesse as it showed today. Can hold midfield as well, versatile can cope as a right back, left back, center back, central mid, right mid in a 3 players midfield.Originally Posted by Trequartista20
Coleman used to play right midfielder when younger, but became an specialist as right back and he is a leader. And he sticks with one position his.
Doherty has to play vs Slovakia but where?
It's been suggested ad nauseam but we do seem to be crying out for a wing back formation, with Coleman right of the three. Kenny is hardly going to discard his 4-3-3 just like that though while trying to put his stamp on the team.
if so.....doherty mc carthy and hendrick in midfield for me. long mc goldrick and conolly/mcclean up front .......coleman--duffy--egan--stevens...randy as gk
On yesterday's evidence I think you're doing Coleman a real disservice.
I thought Coleman had a blinder yesterday. Doherty’s best moments are flashier but I think Coleman exuded quality yesterday. I was watching his communication with his CBs too and it was really good, a few times a simple word or point to a teammate to restore shape where it had been temporarily lost.
But what Doc does in the attacking third is a great asset to any team. He seemed to be starting very high up. Sky’s pundits commented on it, saying that he was becoming easier to mark because he was permanently positioned over the half way line, whereas he’d be more dangerous arriving late into the space he was attacking. I just don’t see how Ireland can get the best out of him in this way – though Kenny did say he had watched Spurs under Mourinho and that his back 4 was basically a kind of back three with one or other full back always forward. But for a team that struggles to play on the front foot I don't see us being able to adopt that approach too often.
It’s a real conundrum. I can’t stand round pegs in square holes. We have two great attacking full backs on the RHS, one a swashbuckling attacking wing back type, the other a highly accomplished all round full back. Can room be found for each?
3-5-2 with Coleman in the 3? Round peg/square hole but not an insurmountable problem. Kieran Tierney is a similar player and has the nous and awareness to do this in Arsenal’s new system.
442 with Coleman at RB, Doc RM? You can see why they didn’t gel in Gibraltar. They both like to attack the same area of the pitch. I think Mick discarded this too early though. Given time they may have come to an understanding. Same formation with Doc RB and Coleman RM? Maybe this’d allow Doc the space to attack from deep?
433 with Coleman RB and Doc tight right? Again this might allow each more room on that side. It’d require dropping Hendrick who seems to be playing well now. 4312 probably best. 4231 takes us back to the 442 problem though?
433 with Doc forward right. This’d be more of a round peg / square hole solution. I’m sure Doc could do OK here but we have specialist forwards. And starting Doc advanced takes us back to the problem that he is best arriving in that part of the pitch rather than being stationed there.
he very much hasn't gone away. His performances since the start of 2020 have been very much like the Seamus Coleman of old and i said as much before SKs first team selection. We simply cant afford to be leaving out a player of his class.
We just don't have to the players not to play both
Seamus Coleman played right wing for Blackpool, if memory servers
Doherty is an attaching wing back. Both as we know can play full back
I don't want to harp on about this but this 433 will be the death of us,
I have the complete opposite view to most on this it seems, but here goes.
We can't successfully play both of them at the same time. And for that reason we shouldn't.
Both are right wing backs or right full backs. Once you take either out of that position you negate most of what makes them so good, so why do it? Let's look at the options.
4-3-3 or 4-5-1 (or any other variation of this formation). This either means playing one of the two of them as a right sided central midfielder, completely unbalancing our midfield, or playing one as a right sided forward. Doherty is already on record as saying he doesn't like playing in a more advanced role, his game is about taking the ball forward from right wing back or right back. Similarly (hopefully) nobody is suggesting playing Coleman as a right wing forward. So it doesn't work, you need a player up there who suits the position.
4-4-2. This means playing one of them at right midfield. Two problems here, one is that one of the two players are too advanced to play their natural game, the other is that 4-4-2 will see us overrun in central midfield anyway, like we were under Trap when we played that system. So that's no good.
Next up is the great white hope, 3-5-2. This involves playing Coleman as a centre back to squeeze the two lads in. So under this system we can forget about Coleman's attacking abilities from right back as they will not be getting used. At that point you have to ask whether it is worth changing the entire system to fit in a player who would still be playing out of position and wouldn't be able to use the best elements of their game anyway. In any case what would be the justification for picking Coleman at centre back ahead of Egan, Clark or Duffy, all three are better centre backs than Coleman is? So again it doesn't work.
Look, it's unfortunate that two of our best players play in the same position, but that's just what happens sometimes in international football. I have watched and listened to Scottish supporters and journalists spend the last two years coming up with all kinds of madcap alternative formations to get all their midfielders and left backs into their team at the same time. Finally last week Steve Clarke cracked and went for it. He played Scott McTominay at centre back. And it was a disaster. Funnily enough all the same supporters and journalists now want "players picked in their best positions or not picked at all" as though Clarke was mad to ever consider the idea.
The bottom line is that you either pick Coleman or you pick Doherty, and the one you don't pick sits on the bench. You can always start one and sub on the other I suppose. Or, at the rate Stevens is going, we might be calling for Doherty at left back before too long, and that might actually work. But aside from that, you can't successfully have both of them in the team at the same time. People really need to accept that and move on.
Personally, in the short term at least, I'd pick Coleman. If he has run himself into the ground after 65 minutes I'd sub on Doherty and get him to run at tired defenders. But if Coleman is flying I'd leave Doherty on the bench.
cant agree. I couldn't see doherty offering any less than our other options in the right of a 3 man CM for example.
SC could play right of a back 3 with doherty as right wing back.
I'm a bloke,I'm an ocker
And I really love your knockers,I'm a labourer by day,
I **** up all me pay,Watching footy on TV,
Just feed me more VB,Just pour my beer,And get my smokes, And go away
Can you copy the full article?
Good post. I would see more merit in this formation though overall. I think Coleman's best work these days is defensively, so it would be worth a try. On the right of a three he could pick up a player like Son in a similar way to what he did yesterday, and he's good enough on the ball to carry it out and find passes into midfield in the way SK would like. He did seem to do okay there on a couple of occasions for Everton last season too, by all accounts.
Added to that, it allows the rest of the back 'five' to play the system they're playing at club level, so it wouldn't be changing the entire system 'just' to get Coleman into the side.
I haven't seen much of Scotland myself but they seem to accommodate both Tierney & Robertson, which was a similar conundrum to our own. Robertson is generally moved forward to the left wing I think? I know Tierney was injured for a good while but how is this working out for them?
I think that's probably the bottom line for now anyway, just can't see Kenny moving away from 4-3-3 this early.
Tierney has done very well left CB in a 3 at Arsenal. It does help when Aubameyang is the guy who is your out ball of course. But Tierney and Coleman have similar attributes imho. Busy, good with ball at feet, good in tight spaces, mature, good decision making...
Last edited by Stuttgart88; 14/09/2020 at 11:45 AM.
Eamon Sweeney is becoming a ringer for Heston Blumenthal.
Agree with this, forgetting what he offers for wolves/spurs, he would be just as good as anything that is currently in our midfield on the right side
I'm a bloke,I'm an ocker
And I really love your knockers,I'm a labourer by day,
I **** up all me pay,Watching footy on TV,
Just feed me more VB,Just pour my beer,And get my smokes, And go away
i dont have a subscription, anyway its reinforced my point of having coleman in a defensive capacity for ireland even as a player sitting in front of the defense. Or just having doherty right midfield. Clearly doherty has learnt and adapted through his career anyway, as has coleman, both need to be playing, and certainly we can't afford to lose the defensive capability of Coleman. That was our weakest point over the two games. Bringing Coleman in, in whatever capacity(bar goalie maybe) will give us a bit more steel and anticipation there.
I'm a bloke,I'm an ocker
And I really love your knockers,I'm a labourer by day,
I **** up all me pay,Watching footy on TV,
Just feed me more VB,Just pour my beer,And get my smokes, And go away
I think I'd still be picking Coleman ahead of Doherty if the both cannot be accommodated.
He is the captain and he is far more experienced at international level.
My preference would be to fit Coleman into a three man CB with Doherty as a WB
Folding my way into the big money!!!
That's the nicest thing you've ever said about Randolph!
I'd like to think they can both be accomodated somehow but just saying one in defence the other in midfield isn't really enough. Or maybe it is, but I like to think of the consequences / likely outcomes. What role in what kind of midfield is the key question for me.
On the Tierney/Robertson thing, the current Scottish approach is to play Robertson at left back and Tierney inside him at left centre back. It gets both players on the pitch but they lose a lot of Tierney's attacking game as a result.
However, the big difference between Scotland and Ireland on this is that Scotland have no international quality centre backs at all, it's a huge problem position for them. So, even though you lose a lot of Tierney's attacking game, without it he's probably still a better centre back than the next best option (Grant Hanley or someone similar).
Whereas we have three good centre back options at least, and a few more developing nicely behind them. Coleman isn't a better centre back than any of those three (imo). So I don't think the Tierney Robertson example really fits with our Coleman Doherty situation.
Fair enough. I think Coleman could potentially give us a bit more in the RCB position of a three than some of those alternatives though, but it remains to be seen of course.
I can't see us switching from 4-3-3 ahead of the Slovakia game. That's the system and formation the players worked on under Kenny and played in both matches.
If Coleman is playing at 80% plus of his best then we can't leave him out I would think, even if it means sacrificing some attacking purpose. So, assuming a 4-3-3 that means dropping Doherty or accomodating him elsewhere, i.e. right sided of the central three or right sided attacker in place of o'dowda. He could perhaps play the latter sitting further back to give us a bit more protection but it does seems to create imbalance in the team...
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks