rbr 1,247 Posted June 7, 2010 Share Posted June 7, 2010 Word has it that Lafferty has been given the nod that he will be given the No9 shirt next year , make of that what you will 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ascender 352 Posted June 7, 2010 Share Posted June 7, 2010 I really, really hope that he comes good next season, presumably while getting a run up front, through the middle. Having said that, the same could be said for Naismith, would be good to see him come in from the wide left. Based on last season though, I'm not overly optimistic that'll happen as he was rank rotten for most of it and seems to get drawn in to playing silly buggers instead of just getting on with things. Like I said before, I'd loved to be proved wrong on this, but at the moment it doesn't fill me with confidence, that's all. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian1964 10,415 Posted June 7, 2010 Share Posted June 7, 2010 Word has it that Lafferty has been given the nod that he will be given the No9 shirt next year , make of that what you will Personaly I think he deserves a chance,I do think he can be a decent striker for us and is young enough not to be written off,if he works hard he may just come good 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stefanovitch 0 Posted June 7, 2010 Share Posted June 7, 2010 Given we only have a small squad of 14 or 15 then there isn't likely to have been much of a fight over shirt numbers. Having said that I don't think it matters nowadays what number you are given. Didn't Boyd have a different number before 9 became available? Whittaker is our regular RB and hasn't had No. 2 etc. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Flying Hippo Posted June 7, 2010 Share Posted June 7, 2010 Hopefully having that shirt provokes a good reaction from him. He really needs to be played up front every week though. I still fear he'll start the season on the left wing with Naismith or Velicka up front instead 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ascender 352 Posted June 7, 2010 Share Posted June 7, 2010 If this season has confirmed anything, its that neither Laffery or Naismith should be played out wide on the left. Whether its a winger or a left-sided midfielder, we badly need one to bring some balance to how we play. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
metlika 0 Posted June 7, 2010 Share Posted June 7, 2010 Knew it would be either him or Miller getting the number 9. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Flying Hippo Posted June 7, 2010 Share Posted June 7, 2010 If this season has confirmed anything, its that neither Laffery or Naismith should be played out wide on the left. Whether its a winger or a left-sided midfielder, we badly need one to bring some balance to how we play. Said it many times and i'll say it again; we should be playing 4-3-3 with the flankers being any 2 from Naismith, Lafferty, and Fleck, with no onus on them to track back 4-4-2 is such an ugly formation when you have no wingers 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ascender 352 Posted June 7, 2010 Share Posted June 7, 2010 Said it many times and i'll say it again; we should be playing 4-3-3 with the flankers being any 2 from Naismith, Lafferty, and Fleck, with no onus on them to track back 4-4-2 is such an ugly formation when you have no wingers The problem with that formation is that it can very quickly lead to one up front with the two flankers being drawn out very wide and playing as wingers. Although like you say, if there's no onus on them to track back, that can help. What about the midfield 3, how do you see them lining up? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete 2,499 Posted June 7, 2010 Share Posted June 7, 2010 Said it many times and i'll say it again; we should be playing 4-3-3 with the flankers being any 2 from Naismith, Lafferty, and Fleck, with no onus on them to track back 4-4-2 is such an ugly formation when you have no wingers 4-3-3 with no onus on the wingers to track back. That is playing Russian roulette. Any 4-3-3 has to break into a 4-5-1 when defending for it to work. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.