Danny 0 Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 Healy is a goalscorer. He'd be no good at all in a supporting striker role. Be like putting Boyd there. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 Healy is a goalscorer. He'd be no good at all in a supporting striker role. Be like putting Boyd there. If Healy plays up front with Jelavic they'll support one-another and switch around depending on the situation. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
theboyharley 5 Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 Healy is a goalscorer. He'd be no good at all in a supporting striker role. Be like putting Boyd there. So was McCoist and he formed a pretty good partnership with a tall frontman. I dont think we have the midfield to play with only 4 in the middle of the park. centrally anyways. Ness and Hutton maybe in a year or so maybe 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
juffery 0 Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 I think formations are a moot point at the moment. The lack of form, belief, willing and determination throughout the team are far more glaring concerns than whether to play a terrible two or horrible three in midfield. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gribz 743 Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Something needs changed and if its the formation to see if gets a spark then give it a try. Either the Motherwell 6-0 was a one off or the OF defeat was a one off. But based on certain players performances it is more likely the 6-0 win was a one off. We have plenty of strikers who are fresh and actually needing game time to get fully match fit - Diouf, Jelavic, Fleck, Healy and Lafferty so playing 2 upfront would make a bit of sense. At the back put Bartley next to Bougherra and we have 2 pacey centre halfs which mean we can move further up the park. Id even suggest moving Papac to centre half and using Foster at full back as its a fact that Weir just isnt going to gain 3 yards of pace between now and May. The best we can hope from Weir is to have a week or 2 off and be used in home games against the poorer SPL sides. When is Broadfoot back anyway? Cant believe that we have missed him! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aftershock 0 Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 I actually think thats the make or break decision for WS now. If he drops Weir we have a chance of getting something this season, if he doesn't its more of the same I'm afraid! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,182 Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 David Weir is not the sole problem here. His lack of pace certainly hinders our tactical outlook but generally he's not had a that bad a season - certainly no worse than any other player who has under-performed. However, I do agree that Thursday may be a good time to experiment with Bartley at centre-half to give us a more streamlined team. The problem is you're trading massive experience and knowledge for inexperience and rashness. Moreover, if Bartley doesn't work, what then? Back to Weir or do we move Papac inside - another player who has been less than convincing in the centre? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest carmylebear Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 What system you play is not the be all and end all the most important thing is having the right players to play in your chosen system and obviously we don't have this. WS made Scotland hard to beat simply by having workhorses and playing a negative/defensive system. He did exactly the same when he returned to Ibrox. We sit back and allow other teams to play. Can you name any other major team in Europe that does not have a tremendoes work rate and continually close the opposition down? Even the lesser Euro teams play like this. If you sit back you invite trouble especially teams geared to attack. Pace is a problem throughout the team, not just Davie Weir, so perhaps this again is why WS sets out his team in the way he does but if that is the case then he can only blame himself. It's players and his team. Big Lee gets slagged off every game but at least he can tackle and dish out the dirt maybe time some others took a leaf out his book. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,182 Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Yep, a lack of pace is really evident throughout our side. We obviously have a few individuals who are athletic/mobile enough but generally we struggle to up the speed of our attacks. Even Diouf who is a fine player slows the game down and only Weiss (or the lesser spotted Wylde) can really be considered fast. That makes us easy to defend against and when we consider our slow defence, it leaves susceptible to the counters we seen Celtic make on Sunday. Like carmyle says, Smith built his team that way so it's up to him to solve the problem. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totti 0 Posted February 22, 2011 Author Share Posted February 22, 2011 Healy is a goalscorer. He'd be no good at all in a supporting striker role. Be like putting Boyd there. News to me that he's a goalscorer. He's scored about 2 goals in the last 5 years at club level and his international record in the past couple of years has plummeted 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.