Our best 11?

[eirebhoy]

I suppose this would be an interesting enough thread now that we put in a decent performance against the Czechs and have 14 or 15 players to come back.

Given is obviously 1st name on the teamsheet. Finnan, Dunne and now McShane are certs for me. It's a choice between O'Shea and Harte for left back. Tough choice but I'd probably have to go with Harte. He's a natural left back and was in great form when Kerr brought him back into the team.

Carsley, S.Reid and Duff are again definite starters for me in midfield if fit. There's 3 spots left and 4 players that I'd like to start:
A.Reid, McGeady, Doyle, Keane

I'm finding it really hard to choose 3 out of that lot. When fully fit I believe A.Reid will be a definite starter for us but if we were playing tomorrow I'd have to go with:

---------------Given---------------
Finnan----Dunne---McShane---Harte
McGeady--Carsley---S.Reid---Duffer
------------Doyle--Keane----------

That's an excellent team on paper and stronger a 1st choice than anything since Charlton's imo. I'd have Doyle staying in the box for the most part with Keane dropping off and McGeady and Duff supporting.

[endabob1]

---------------Given---------------
Finnan----Dunne---McShane---Harte
McGeady--Carsley---S.Reid---Duffer
------------Doyle--Keane----------

I wouldn't have Harte at left back, it would have to be O'Shea I think despite his shortcomings he's a better defender than Harte.
McShane was fantastic against the Czechs but he is only 20 and very inexperienced, 1 swallow does not make a summer and all that but at the moment he's in the shirt so I suppose it's up to O'Brien to get playing again and try to get back in the team.
Apart from that I think the rest of the side looks good, well balanced in midfield but McGeady is another 'prospect' I hope he delivers but only time will tell. As you said if Andy Reid could shed some pounds he'd be close and to be honest Kilbane out wide still works as well as anyone in a green shirt and would add some height and a bit of protection to a weak left back (who ever plays there).

[DmanDmythDledge]

Given
Finnan
Dunne
McShane
Kelly
Duff
Carsley
S. Reid
McGeady
Keane
Doyle

Carr would be the cover at FB, with Finnan slotting to LB if Kelly is unavailable. Douglas and Andy Reid cover in midfield and god knows who covers up front. Switching to 4-5-1 would be the best option if Doyle or Keane are out IMO.

[drinkfeckarse]

I'd like to see us try a 3-5-2 sometime. Doubt it will happen like but I think it would open up some different options for us.

------------------Given------------------

--------Finnan - Dunne - McShane

-McGeady - Carsley - S Reid - Duff-
-----------------A Reid--------------------

-----------Keane -- Doyle-----------

Plenty of options there like swapping McGeady and Andy Reid. Also you could stick O'Shea in the left hand side of the back 3, put McShane on the right and push Finnan into the wing back role instead of McGeady.

There's plenty of cover in the midfield and both wing backs can defend as well as getting forward. I'd love to see something like that tried in a friendly.

[Dr. Ogba]

I'd like to see us try a 3-5-2 sometime. Doubt it will happen like but I think it would open up some different options for us.

------------------Given------------------

--------Finnan - Dunne - McShane

-McGeady - Carsley - S Reid - Duff-
-----------------A Reid--------------------

-----------Keane -- Doyle-----------

Plenty of options there like swapping McGeady and Andy Reid. Also you could stick O'Shea in the left hand side of the back 3, put McShane on the right and push Finnan into the wing back role instead of McGeady.

There's plenty of cover in the midfield and both wing backs can defend as well as getting forward. I'd love to see something like that tried in a friendly.

3-5-2 with Finnan at CB???? Are you Mick McCarthy in disguise?

[endabob1]

No offence drinkfeckarse but that team would be ripped apart, McGeady & Duff are attacking players, in a 442 Duff is honest enough to track back, and McGeady does it to a lesser degree but they are not defenders and would get torn apart. Even if you put Finnan on the right we'd be lopsided.As a relatively weak side we should stick to a solid formation that is easy to play in and that the players are used to, messing about with it would be disastrous.

[drinkfeckarse]

That's why I said in a friendly. Gary Neville has often played on the right hand side of a back 3 for England. Why can't Finnan. He's a very good defender and you don't have to be 6ft 4" to slot in there in fact I think to have 3 big bulky centre halfs in there could be a disadvantage. It helps to have mobility.

Personally I'd rather have Finnan in a back 3 than John O'Shea as he's a better defender.

Duff is well used to playing that sort of system as he was deployed there a lot at Chelsea albeit detrimental to his attacking play but I blame Mourinho rather than the systen for that.

Strachan will tell you that he's worked with Aidan McGeady constantly to improve his workrate off the ball and his tracking of players. That's why I think he could play that role. I'd prefer him to have more of an attacking role which he would have playing in behind the front 2 but you can't have Andy Reid as a wing back!!

Do you really think we can get any more predictable playing that way than we are playing a 4 4 2. Thats the old Dave Bassett/ Harry Redknapp days. You have to try things my friend.

It's something I would like to see us try as I've said. If it doesn't work then you haven't lost anything, you can only gain.

[shakermaker1982]

I love how the English media are blaming the 3-5-2 formation as the reason for John Terry to lose his marker for the first goal. Hilarious!!!

My strongest 11?

Given
Finnan
Dunne
McShane
Kelly

McGeady
Carsley
S Reid
Duffer

Keano
Doyle

This is a bloody decent side IMO: Douglas, A Reid and co would all be pushing for places and competiiton is hopefully going to spur the starting 11 on to bigger and better things.

[Istabraq]

You cant have Kelly at left back. He is very uncomfortable on his left foot. Almost refusing to use it. He nearly got badly caught out a few times by trying to switch on to his right. He had a decent game, but I guarantee he would be found out in no time.

Given

Finnan
Dunne (c)
McShane
Harte

McGeady
S Reid
Carsley
Duff

Keane
Doyle

[Dr. Ogba]

Fair enough trying it in a friendly but I'd have to agree with endabob in that both Duff and especially McGeady would be tempted to turn a blind eye to defensive duties from time to time and I'd sooner have Finnan at the RWB position.

I was actually quite pleasantly surprised with how well 4-5-1 worked and think its definitely a viable option if one of our main strikers are missing.

If 4-5-1 I'd go for:

Given

Finnan------------McShane-------Dunne-------Harte

--------------------Carsley------------------------

McGeady-----------S.Reid-------------Duff

--------------------A.Reid----------------------

---------------Keane/Doyle------------------


If 4-4-2 it gets a bit more tricky, Doyle would have to come in and maybe McGeady would have to be sacrificed...

Edit: I forgot about S. Reid - Would put him in there instead of S. Ireland

[OwlsFan]

Has to be 4-5-1 due to our weakeness in midfield. Worked well on Wednesday. Doyle/Keane to share run the socks off burden up front.

People who put Harte in the team have short memories - he is a defensive liability full stop. O'Shea is slightly less of a liability and has the height in a otherwise small team. I'd play Kilbane for the kick outs and height instead of McGeady who can come on in the 70th minute or so if needs be.

Otherwise team as above although McShane needs a few more games to see whether he is the real deal.

[endabob1]

That's why I said in a friendly. Gary Neville has often played on the right hand side of a back 3 for England. Why can't Finnan. He's a very good defender and you don't have to be 6ft 4" to slot in there in fact I think to have 3 big bulky centre halfs in there could be a disadvantage. It helps to have mobility.

Personally I'd rather have Finnan in a back 3 than John O'Shea as he's a better defender.

Duff is well used to playing that sort of system as he was deployed there a lot at Chelsea albeit detrimental to his attacking play but I blame Mourinho rather than the systen for that.

Strachan will tell you that he's worked with Aidan McGeady constantly to improve his workrate off the ball and his tracking of players. That's why I think he could play that role. I'd prefer him to have more of an attacking role which he would have playing in behind the front 2 but you can't have Andy Reid as a wing back!!

Do you really think we can get any more predictable playing that way than we are playing a 4 4 2. Thats the old Dave Bassett/ Harry Redknapp days. You have to try things my friend.

It's something I would like to see us try as I've said. If it doesn't work then you haven't lost anything, you can only gain.

Yeah, Englands experiments with 352 have worked a treat so far
Duff has never played in that system Chelsea play 4 at the back, under Morinhio they played 433 where duff was the left side of the front 3 there was still an orthodox left back behind him.

I'm all for a bit of experimentation but considering the crap we have produced in 3 of the 5 games under Stan I'd rather have a solid system where players know their roles and exactly what is expected, once you have that you can look to expand the flexibility. So you start 442 but you encourage the second striker to drop into midfield when we lose the ball, and the defensive midfielder to drop deeper, so it becomes more a 4141 formation etc... but with our weakness at the back the last thing we should be doing is trying Duff &/or Mcgeady out as wingbacks.

[drinkfeckarse]

I'm all for a bit of experimentation but considering the crap we have produced in 3 of the 5 games under Stan I'd rather have a solid system where players know their roles and exactly what is expected

Really don't understand your logic there at all. The crap we have produced in 3 of the last 5 games has been under the same solid system you talk about (4 4 2). It obviously hasn't worked so far.

Also just because a player hasn't done something before it doesn't mean he wouldn't be able to do it at all. If that was the case you'd never try anything because "he hasn't done that before". Heaven forbid getting them to try something new. What they are used to clearly isn't working or helping us.

[Dr. Ogba]

Really don't understand your logic there at all. The crap we have produced in 3 of the last 5 games has been under the same solid system you talk about (4 4 2). It obviously hasn't worked so far.

Also just because a player hasn't done something before it doesn't mean he wouldn't be able to do it at all. If that was the case you'd never try anything because "he hasn't done that before". Heaven forbid getting them to try something new. What they are used to clearly isn't working or helping us.

Yes but the 442 Stan has been playing has been with players out of position in the most important positions (namely O'Shea and Kilbane) and you're suggesting the exact same thing with effectively naming 3 players out of position with Finnan at CB and Duff and McGeady as WBs...I'd have to say that would leave us quite vulnerable at the back...

[endabob1]

Yes but the 442 Stan has been playing has been with players out of position in the most important positions (namely O'Shea and Kilbane) and you're suggesting the exact same thing with effectively naming 3 players out of position with Finnan at CB and Duff and McGeady as WBs...I'd have to say that would leave us quite vulnerable at the back...

Spot on
If playing a 442 means having O'Shea and Kilbane in the centre then we're starting to lose the solid bit aren't we.... Finnan at left back......
O'Shea has started in 3 different positions in 3 games I think that is an indication of a lact of solidity in our selections.

Aslo I think asking Duff & McGeady to defend is wasting their natural abilities which should be used at the other end of the pitch

[eirebhoy]

I'd like to see us try a 3-5-2 sometime. Doubt it will happen like but I think it would open up some different options for us.

------------------Given------------------

--------Finnan - Dunne - McShane

-McGeady - Carsley - S Reid - Duff-
-----------------A Reid--------------------

-----------Keane -- Doyle-----------

That looks very good on paper as it fits in arguably our 11 best players and leaves out the weak link at left back. I couldn't see it working in real life though (probably with the exception of San Marino). A 3-5-1 is just another version of the 5-3-1 with your full backs playing in a more attacking role. Duff and McGeady aren't full backs. Maybe Duff could play the wing back role but your sacrifising him taking on players.

People who put Harte in the team have short memories - he is a defensive liability full stop. O'Shea is slightly less of a liability and has the height in a otherwise small team.

I don't know. I think if we had this thread after the last Swiss game almost everyone would have Harte at left back. He was playing very well under Kerr.

http://foot.ie/showthread.php?t=30179

^^ A lot of them use his set pieces as the reason to have him in the team but he was very sound defensively for us at that time too. Actually, I think you'll find the last post in that thread very interesting...

[shakermaker1982]

I'm sticking by Kelly - Finnan will only do the same thing that Kelly and every other RB would do when asked to play on the left i.e. use your right foot!!!

[Dr. Ogba]

That looks very good on paper as it fits in arguably our 11 best players and leaves out the weak link at left back. I couldn't see it working in real life though (probably with the exception of San Marino). A 3-5-1 is just another version of the 5-3-1 with your full backs playing in a more attacking role. Duff and McGeady aren't full backs. Maybe Duff could play the wing back role but your sacrifising him taking on players.


I don't know. I think if we had this thread after the last Swiss game almost everyone would have Harte at left back. He was playing very well under Kerr.

http://foot.ie/showthread.php?t=30179

^^ A lot of them use his set pieces as the reason to have him in the team but he was very sound defensively for us at that time too. Actually, I think you'll find the last post in that thread very interesting...

The thing I find quite interesting about that thread is the slating "that donkey" Dunne gets....What a difference a year makes!

[drinkfeckarse]

Yes but the 442 Stan has been playing has been with players out of position in the most important positions (namely O'Shea and Kilbane) and you're suggesting the exact same thing with effectively naming 3 players out of position with Finnan at CB and Duff and McGeady as WBs...I'd have to say that would leave us quite vulnerable at the back...

I see it differently though. You're not an out and out centre half in the traditional sense when you play on the flanks of the 3. Dunne in this instance would the pinnacle of the defence. I really don't think it would affect Finnan at all.

I play in a back 3 most of the time and the one constant is that the middle man holds his position and keeps the shape of the 3 together. He is marking 99% of the time and the 2 attackers are passed along the line constantly between the 3.

Duff and McGeady are not out of position on the wings. It just means they have more defensive duties at times. In fact in an attacking sencse it will benefit us as they will be hugging the touchlines and taking players on and getting crosses in for the 2 forwards and the 2 of the 3 central midfielders.

The fact that you have i.e. Carlsey in the middle gives the back 3 protection as he will always be holding a deeper position.

It definately should be employed for the "easier" games in my view. San Marino are unlikely to trouble us (I hope!) and playing that system I believe would afford us a lot more attacking play and options. A strong back 3 against a relatively weak attck would negate the need for Duff and McGeady to have much defensive duties IMO.

[Dr. Ogba]

I see it differently though. You're not an out and out centre half in the traditional sense when you play on the flanks of the 3. Dunne in this instance would the pinnacle of the defence. I really don't think it would affect Finnan at all.

I play in a back 3 most of the time and the one constant is that the middle man holds his position and keeps the shape of the 3 together. He is marking 99% of the time and the 2 attackers are passed along the line constantly between the 3.

Duff and McGeady are not out of position on the wings. It just means they have more defensive duties at times. In fact in an attacking sencse it will benefit us as they will be hugging the touchlines and taking players on and getting crosses in for the 2 forwards and the 2 of the 3 central midfielders.

The fact that you have i.e. Carlsey in the middle gives the back 3 protection as he will always be holding a deeper position.

It definately should be employed for the "easier" games in my view. San Marino are unlikely to trouble us (I hope!) and playing that system I believe would afford us a lot more attacking play and options. A strong back 3 against a relatively weak attck would negate the need for Duff and McGeady to have much defensive duties IMO.

I'm not saying that 3-5-2 doesn't have its merits - i.e definitely being stronger down the middle which is where we've struggled of late but I just feel that 4-5-1 similar to that which was played on Wednesday gives us solidity in the middle while also allowing the wingers to have licence to attack without worrying as much about defence. Again the 352 you mention could be utilised and utilised well against the weaker teams but I think against the stronger teams in the group and against any manager with tactical nous we could be caught on the counter and badly exposed down the flanks...