Thetownend.com

Pericard says Austin may have to wait for starting berth
           

  TOP scorer Vincent Pericard has warned teammate Charlie Austin he could face a spell on the substitutes bench, with Town’s new-look formation bringing the best out of the French striker.

           

http://www.thisisswindontownfc.co.uk/news/headlines/8449829.Pericard_says_Austin_may_have_to_wait_for_starting_berth/?ref=rss
           

How to get the fans to hate you in one easy step

Viva la Pericard!

In Vince we trust!

Why do people keep say it's 4-3-3 when it's 4-5-1?

hahahahaha

I see nothing wrong in Vince showing confidence and hoping to keep his place, what do people want to say 'it's good to have Charlie back, I will take my rightful place warming the bench'.  Vinny has come in held the ball up and scored goals and got assists, he has done well.  We all know Austin is an asset and one of our best players but some of the comments towards Vince following that article on both the adver and facebook are shocking, you would think he played for a rival club the abuse dished out!

the question is, when Charlie is back fully fit, can he play that lone striker role that VP is playing now, or do we change the system again. Just when we seem to have found a system that suits the players we have (we've won 2 out of 2 since we started playing it), do we really want to go and change it again ?
Put yourselves in Vinnies shoes, if the team keeps winning and you keep scoring, why the hell should Charlie get straight back into the team ?

because he's a better goalscorer than pericard and more of a handfull for defenders? I reckon austin could cope more than well enough up front on his own. He may not win as many flick ons as pericard, but when it comes to running the channels and hasseling defenders, Austin would be a better option than pericard all day long.

Having austin up front may see us pass the ball more, instead of hoofing it to pericards head like we have been doing too often recently

Agreed, Vinnie is just showing a bit of confidence not cockiness. he's not being disrespectful to Austin. Despite what Vinnie says thuogh I'd still have Austin even if it means changing the system back to 4-4-2

because it's meant to be 4,3,3.morrison said so in the interview with sky post match

I’d have been worried if Pericard hadn’t of said that.

Nothing wrong with confidence at all! Isn't that what big Vince has been missing?
Played very well for 70-75 minutes the other night. Looked shagged after that amount of time. Why change a winning formula? I'm in agreement that Austin is probably the best striker at the club but it's about the competition for places and Austin needs to work his way back in, just like any other player!

.....probably go back to 4-4-2 eventually.

Only playing 4-5-1 (it is a 4-5-1) because we only have one striker and David Ball who Wilson doesnt want to play upfront.

so the players are wrong then in saying it's 4,3,3?

I have no beef with Vince or what he is saying, but I think most managers would change a winning formula to accommodate their best striker, and Charlie is ours.

But this is where Managers often go wrong (the England team being the prime example) - they pick their best players, not the best team. Others may be right in saying that Charlie could play up front on his own, I'm not convinced, but if we keep winning playing VP up front, why change things ?

Yeah I'd steer clear of the facebook page. Full of fucking retards.

This is the point i was trying to get across! If we have a winning formula and our best striker is trying to get after coming back from injury then surely he has to fight/prove himself to be in that team. Correct about the England team. Pick players on performance. Pick them for their performance at club level not because they're big name player. Personally, Rooney shouldn't of been in the squad this time. They need to be taught a lesson.

That, or they can't work out how to play a 4-3-3.

To me it looks like 4-5-1 when defending, with Ritchie and Ball trying to get it 4-3-3 when attacking. Obviously when we break quickly from defence to attack Ball and Ritchie aren't always able to do that.

Oh and OT, Austin > Perricard. Therefore Austin will be a regular starter sooner or later. Can't think we'd keep 4-3-3/4-5-1 forever.

reading the comments made me angry. just to bang on again i don't know what people expect him to say!

maybe a media blackout would be best?

racist

Excactly

Yes.

Ball, JPM, Douglas, Ferry, Ritchie in midfield, thats 5.

Ball and Ritchie have more licence to go forward because there are 3 central midfielders but its definitely a 5.

And you know this to be a fact because................

because we've seen it with our own eyes?

Well you not lookng hard enough then bevause from my view on Monday it was neither

Neither what? 4-5-1 (which it was) or 4-3-3 (which it wasnt)

If you think it was neither of those, then what exactly were you watching?

I think it was a combination of the both. To me, it looked liked we played 4-5-1 but using the counter attack and pace of Ball and Ritchie on the wings to link up with Pericard would make it the 4-3-3 perhaps???

Well, i thought Bell was pushed right up against the left back for most of the first half cutting in to support Vince when he could. He certainly wasn't playing right mid in a flat 5 accross the park.

Still you seem convinced of a 4-5-1.

Bell?

Sorry, fat fingers.

Put the custard creams down!  ;)

It looked a bit 451 in the first half. But at times as mentioned Ball pushed on to support Vince. Whereas in the 2nd half it was more 433 as we were on the front foot.

Like a 4-5-1 on one side but like a 4-3-3 on the other?

Exactly.

It was 4-4 1/2-1 1/2

I dont see much difference between the 2. When a team like Chelsea plays with attacking full backs, they are still part of the back 4 even if they do spend lots of time playing further up the pitch than some midfielders. So you can't always categorise every team into a set formation.

And just for the hell of it, I thought it was more of a 4-3-2-1

All this deliberation between the two formations could mean we weren't playing either.

Ball and Ritchie weren't playing up front and they weren't in the midfield. They were playing as attacking midfielders- on the wings, just behind Pericard and in front of the midfield 3.

:nod:

fair enough, he's not meant to say he'd be happy to bench warm...but he's living in clown coocoo land if he thinks his performances have been good enough to keep a fully fit Austin on the bench.

madness.people still arguing about the formation that has been confirmed by one of the players as 4,3,3.
get a fucking grip.

We should be playing four, four, fucking two!!!!!!!!

Ha, ha, yep. Maybe the discrepancy stems from the difference between what they've been told to play (ie 4-3-3) and what they actually play

Fair play Vinny - Austin's shit anyway, so it shouldn't be too hard to keep your place in the team