Unfortunately I don't think starting Kelly at RB & shifting Flanagan across improves the situation.
Liverpool vs Everton. Tuesday, 28th January, 20.00
- Thread starter Frogfish
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
Unfortunately I don't think starting Kelly at RB & shifting Flanagan across improves the situation.
I think it clearly does !
For this formation to work, we need Coutinho to play a lot closer to Gerrard and Henderson in more of a 4-3-3, however I don't think that's his game. This formation is suicide, only derby passion can save us. I predict 3-1 to Everton.
Only if you base it on Kelly's performances from several years ago and not on recent ones - which are no better then Cissoko's.
Skrtel makes me cringe everytine I watch him play. He is a penalty waiting to happen. He should learn to use his head and feet more not his hands.
With our fullbacks so poor, 3-5-2 should be a real option. We must take the game to the Bitters.
I agree. There will be a reckoning with him at some stage. He needs to cut that shit out.
Doc, whats scares me most is its bound to happen against the Bitters or Scum. Murphy's Law!
You'll not hear me say this very often, but...
Formations are largely irrelevant for this game. It's just gonna be one of those mental derby games with cunts charging everywhere really. Sure we've gotta have some semblance of shape, but I'm imagining a first half hour if mental was that will do nothing for tactics if formation. Chelsea 05 CL semi final style madness.
The crowd will be up, Gerrard will be monstering everywhere, there'll be last ditch tackles, shite refereeing, Suarez diving all over the show, counts screaming "HANDBAAAALLLLLLL" for 90 minutes, and all sorts of goals.
An old school merseyside derby.
Formations are largely irrelevant for this game. It's just gonna be one of those mental derby games with cunts charging everywhere really. Sure we've gotta have some semblance of shape, but I'm imagining a first half hour if mental was that will do nothing for tactics if formation. Chelsea 05 CL semi final style madness.
The crowd will be up, Gerrard will be monstering everywhere, there'll be last ditch tackles, shite refereeing, Suarez diving all over the show, counts screaming "HANDBAAAALLLLLLL" for 90 minutes, and all sorts of goals.
An old school merseyside derby.
I think it'll be a shite 1-1
It is that time of month again? I'm posing a question about an area of weakness, I don't have the answers Sherlock, but last time I checked flanno is a defender and sterling has shown more promise as a fullback this season then Kelly. How toy conclude this means 11 attackers is beyond me.
Martin Kelly will be 24 in April. He's leaving it a bit late to look anything other than a journeyman defender. He also looks too tall to be a fullback (6"3') so I'm presuming a conversion to centreback is due at some point in his career. Does anyone know if anything is happening in training regarding that? For information, Carragher made a permanent switch to centre-back aged 26, having played predominantly as a fullback until then.
He's been out for ages and had only reserve team football. Against Villa he was being pulled back into central defence due to Cissokho's disappearance into the ether so I still believe (hope) that in a more stable defence he is good enough. To say nothing of the fact Flanagan has been ace at LB and as a lcal lad is goping to be well up for this one ! Surely Kelly at RB is better than Cissokho at LB.
I've never really rated Kelly that highly and don't get what the hype is. He played in a Merseyside derby a few years ago and ended up getting injured and taken off, which while was really unlucky for the lad, was actually a bit of a blessing for us, because we were getting torn a new one down his side, because his positional sense is dire, he's also pretty lax at picking up players from setpieces, so the improvement on Johnson is more than questionable, as is this notion that he should be a centre back.
His forward ability seems to consist of whack it and chase it, which usually ends up in a pulled hamstring. I just don't get the hype, add that he looks like he's been out for ages and well short on stamina to play a high intensity game, I'm more than worried. Cissokho is rubbish aswell, but I wouldn't be surprised if Flano starts at right back.
His forward ability seems to consist of whack it and chase it, which usually ends up in a pulled hamstring. I just don't get the hype, add that he looks like he's been out for ages and well short on stamina to play a high intensity game, I'm more than worried. Cissokho is rubbish aswell, but I wouldn't be surprised if Flano starts at right back.
Actually I agree with Tal, there have been very, very few good tall full backs. Obviously there have been a few like Marcus Babbel but most full backs are under 6ft and the main reason would be that full backs have to be quick on the turn i.e. when marking speedy wide players etc and tall gangly players are less adept at being quick on the turn.
In general, taller people don't turn or get up to sprinting speed as quickly as shorter people. Since fullbacks are often up against the fastest, trickiest players on the opposition team, those two attributes can't be overlooked. Obviously you've never noticed the almost complete lack of really tall fullbacks and wondered why that is.
Well he doesn't have to turn, tsk.
He does in the 200m!
Why not say he's too slow to accelerate then?
Sure, but I don't say "tall FB's are bad", that's inherently flawed. That's like me seeing no females in my engineering classes and saying females are terrible at math and science. Okay, maybe not the best example...
Then say he's not quick enough to turn, not that he's too tall to be a FB!
I understand the logic you two are using, but surely you have to see why it doesn't quite make sense.
I think he's just trying to say he's not agile enough, it depends what you want from your fullback. Some players are just great at defending and reading the game, so they can get away without having a low centre of gravity etc. Not that I think Kelly warrants being placed into that category, but anyway..
There aren't many wingers who go on a run of 90 degrees over a 50m distance.
IMO 99% of players who are 6'3'' or over aren't gonna be able to turn quickly enough to play the full back role well so it seemed appropriate to use his height as the main reason but to clarify.................he's not quick enough on the turn to play full back................................
......because he's too tall.
Makes the loaning of wisdom even more questionable, we should call him back!
I understand what he's saying, but where I'm at is if you look around the world at other sports you'll see being 6'3 doesn't mean you're not agile.
And that's mainly because from what I can see football treats its players as endurance athletes - and there are very few tall endurance athletes - like marathon runners essentially.
Whether that is the best approach to it is questionable in my book.
I'm not feeling too confident about this game ... I just think the morale of the squad must be low considering a) the injury situation and b) the fact we're not strengthening despite such a strong first half.
This game is up to our two strikers - how capable are they of winning this game by themselves.
This game is up to our two strikers - how capable are they of winning this game by themselves.
Please allow me to apologise for using the phrase "...too tall to be a fullback..." without fully explaining every implicit element in that statement, but instead assuming that people would be able to 'do the (football related) math' for themselves. Foolishly, I had thought people on here......aah, forget it.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
