STFC Transfer Rumours

[RobertT]

The full back signings did hint at going with a 3 man central defence, which may also play to Conroy's strength's?  Now that he has hinted at it specifically, his forward needs might be a hint at going for a 3-4-3, using the number 10/winger terms to reference those two players with more freedom to roam, similar to how he had the front players moving about at the end of the season.  The holding midfielder would give the option to go 4-3-3 or 4-4-2 as well.  It does seem like he has plans and is filling people that fulfill that plan, unlike last season where a degree of squad building blindness set in.

[Audrey]

So, back to the striker he wants. Is he looking for the big lump, hold-up type or, as I think now, yet another mobile, pacy striker.

The set up seems to point to the midfielders threading balls in behind for the likes of Woolery, Yates etc to run on to.

I think the option of the lump is handy to have on the bench.

[Reg Smeeton]

The full back signings did hint at going with a 3 man central defence, which may also play to Conroy's strength's?  Now that he has hinted at it specifically, his forward needs might be a hint at going for a 3-4-3, using the number 10/winger terms to reference those two players with more freedom to roam, similar to how he had the front players moving about at the end of the season.  The holding midfielder would give the option to go 4-3-3 or 4-4-2 as well.  It does seem like he has plans and is filling people that fulfill that plan, unlike last season where a degree of squad building blindness set in.

Not an overly massive fan of a back 3, especially at Div 3/4 level.  It's only ever really worked for us once with a further semi successful season.

92/93 the standout, mostly because the spare man was Hoddle, who happened to be the most gifted English player of his generation.

It semi worked with Nathan back there, but ultimately just too much defensive frailty.  However I think it is worth having as an option.

[Reg Smeeton]

So, back to the striker he wants. Is he looking for the big lump, hold-up type or, as I think now, yet another mobile, pacy striker.

The set up seems to point to the midfielders threading balls in behind for the likes of Woolery, Yates etc to run on to.

I think the option of the lump is handy to have on the bench.

To go into a Div 4 campaign without at least a hold up player of say Theo's abilities would be remarkably brave.

[Cowley38]

To go into a Div 4 campaign without at least a hold up player of say Theo's abilities would be remarkably brave.

Dont agree

Bury were second - With Mayor/Maynard - Neither hold up players
Franchise were 3rd - With Agard/Aneke - Neither hold up players
Mansfield - play offs - Rose/ Walker - Neither hold up players
Tranmere - Play offs - Jennings/Norwood - Neither hold up players
Newport - Play Offs - Armond/Matt - Neither hold up players(Matt maybe at a stretch)

Only Lincoln with Akinde and Forest Green with Doidge could be called hold up players

[Oldwembley69]

Thought the first half last night was encouraging. The full backs got into the wide area's and we put crosses into the box. Big issue was getting people on the end of the crosses. Oh for a Chief or the like. A striker to get on the end of these crosses is a must! Quentin was a tidy player but maybe a little light weight for L2

[Berniman]

I am liking the cut of Cowley's jib in his early days of being a TEF member...

[Trashbat?]

Dont agree

Bury were second - With Mayor/Maynard - Neither hold up players
Franchise were 3rd - With Agard/Aneke - Neither hold up players
Mansfield - play offs - Rose/ Walker - Neither hold up players
Tranmere - Play offs - Jennings/Norwood - Neither hold up players
Newport - Play Offs - Armond/Matt - Neither hold up players(Matt maybe at a stretch)

Only Lincoln with Akinde and Forest Green with Doidge could be called hold up players

But all of those teams had at least a player in the squad who could hold the ball up. Although I actually disagree with what you say about Aneke, as he is a beast and definitely holds the ball up.

You have to have that sort of player, as not only do they add a different dimension to the attack they also relieve pressure at the other end if you are being pinned back IMO.

[RobertT]

Not an overly massive fan of a back 3, especially at Div 3/4 level.  It's only ever really worked for us once with a further semi successful season.

92/93 the standout, mostly because the spare man was Hoddle, who happened to be the most gifted English player of his generation.

It semi worked with Nathan back there, but ultimately just too much defensive frailty.  However I think it is worth having as an option.

95/96?

The times we have deployed it as a club with a method - i.e. signing or having players that fit the style, it's been a success to some degree or another.

[RobertT]

But all of those teams had at least a player in the squad who could hold the ball up. Although I actually disagree with what you say about Aneke, as he is a beast and definitely holds the ball up.

You have to have that sort of player, as not only do they add a different dimension to the attack they also relieve pressure at the other end if you are being pinned back IMO.

There is a difference between the Div4 Lump being discussed and a player who can hold up the ball and play with their back to goal.  You don't have to be one to be the other.  Robinson surprised me in that he could be pretty effective at holding up play at times, as well having something about him facing goal.

It would be nice to have Robinson and a more poacher style player to choose from, with a Bennett or two added - as Wellens is claiming 4.

[theakston2k]

But all of those teams had at least a player in the squad who could hold the ball up. Although I actually disagree with what you say about Aneke, as he is a beast and definitely holds the ball up.

You have to have that sort of player, as not only do they add a different dimension to the attack they also relieve pressure at the other end if you are being pinned back IMO.

There's a difference between a striker with a bit of height or aerial prowess rather than what Reg wants in the shape of a Jon Parkin, Trevor Benjamin or Matt Rhead types who are nothing but big lumps and target men. We don't need that type in my opinion

[Reg Smeeton]

Dont agree

Bury were second - With Mayor/Maynard - Neither hold up players
Franchise were 3rd - With Agard/Aneke - Neither hold up players
Mansfield - play offs - Rose/ Walker - Neither hold up players
Tranmere - Play offs - Jennings/Norwood - Neither hold up players
Newport - Play Offs - Armond/Matt - Neither hold up players(Matt maybe at a stretch)

Only Lincoln with Akinde and Forest Green with Doidge could be called hold up players

But you completely miss the point.... a hold up player of Theo's ability, in other words someone mobile who can play at times with back to goal to bring others in, we're not talking brick shithouse.

To play without a forward at least able to do some hold up play, you're into the realms of the false 9.  

Now I've recently watched Spain win the Euro U 21's, playing with Mikel Oyarzabal reluctantly playing the role.... Spain do it out of necessity, as they still produce talented midfield players, but next to no forwards.  

[Sippo]

Be interested to see the starting lineup. I am guessing the new Arsenal lad has to start.

[Reg Smeeton]

95/96?

The times we have deployed it as a club with a method - i.e. signing or having players that fit the style, it's been a success to some degree or another.

I remember 95/96 as mostly a basic 4-4-2,  Culverhouse did give options though.

Trashbat, I wouldn't mind a lump as an option, but not necessarily as a starter to base the game around.

[Panda Paws]

Be interested to see the starting lineup. I am guessing the new Arsenal lad has to start.

Why would he have to start? The myth that loans are signed with guaranteed starting spots was put to bed years ago I thought?