Switch it up Giles high, mattocks low!

[Stonigut]

If these two play together, I think it may be better to switch the order and play mattocks behind Giles and Giles up top.

Giles does not play enough defense, while mattocks is constantly in the mix defense and attack wise, Giles behind mattocks will create an immediate gap in the centre of the top part of the defense, we can possibly afford that as the lone striker. That in itself is not optimal but his strengths in attack outweigh the costs as a lone striker. There is also cost of switch in attack as Giles is probably better coming from the pack than as a sole target. Mattocks can do both and maybe with being in the thick of the mix may be better.

What do you all think?

[Sir X]

I have no clue how our midfield will set up and that will dictate the tempo of the game,not the attack or defence.

[Dunny]

Giles Barnes is an attacking midfielder or second striker

[Peter R]

Looks like good weather to play ball, and they're on the coast so no altitude issues.
http://www.weather.com/weather/today...+CIXX0001:1:CI

[Stonigut]

Exactly and if we play 4-4-2 with him at am then we are exposed through the middle, if we play 4-5-1 and pull mcanuff into dm with Austin then he is the am.

The core thought is his defensive capabilities is not the best thus if you play a superior opponent you sure up your greatest weak point which is the start of the d set with the early press creating havoc at the start of the ball possession of Uruguay. You have mcleary on one wing and possibly Dawkins on the next who is also weak on d, what do you do.


Dawkins and Giles are your best attacking options but weakest on defense, so when playing tougher opponents you have to address this issue, we know mattocks mixes it up and runs quite a bit, so if we play 4-4-2 then giles is first striker and mattocks second.

Conventional tags must be put on their head in unusual match ups to focus on area of clear weakness.

[Dunny]

Exactly and if we play 4-4-2 with him at am then we are exposed through the middle, if we play 4-5-1 and pull mcanuff into dm with Austin then he is the am.

The core thought is his defensive capabilities is not the best thus if you play a superior opponent you sure up your greatest weak point which is the start of the d set with the early press creating havoc at the start of the ball possession of Uruguay. You have mcleary on one wing and possibly Dawkins on the next who is also weak on d, what do you do.


Dawkins and Giles are your best attacking options but weakest on defense, so when playing tougher opponents you have to address this issue, we know mattocks mixes it up and runs quite a bit, so if we play 4-4-2 then giles is first striker and mattocks second.

Conventional tags must be put on their head in unusual match ups to focus on area of clear weakness.

Stoni please don't complicate the thing. Mattocks is the target man and Barnes will be the most advanced of the midfielders we attack as a team and defend from the front. Do you think we going to the Copa to just defend?

[Stonigut]

No, but all I can think about is a stand around Giles in the middle with attacks originating and developing right through that soft center.

Effective pressing truly needs all hands on deck, if we going to be complacent then let it be the sole striker in the 4-5-1 up top or the lead striker in the 4-4-2.

[Assasin]

Mattocks is up there for his speed and hold up play. He was against two very good defender and he was up there with them for most of the game.

Watch Copa and see how many other time that center half pair will be split the like that, the way how Mattocks did it.

[Assasin]

MOST attacking mid are not really strong at defending. It is ok Stoni, you will see Barnes real role another time and you will change your mind. Barnes can't be a target man and he can't make the runs Mattocks make.

[Stonigut]

That may be so, but we are not technically proficient as some teams we play thus the press and organized approach on defense by all players is essential, as we saw today. Weakness in one section of the fort does after all lead to a breach of the fort, sacrifice of the outlying scout sometimes is an easier alternative even though you may sacrifice something in the attack.

[Assasin]

We had at least 4 good chances so what you complaining about?? you won't get much more than that in a match with good teams and they had at best 3 good chances. We have a good defense and the defensive mid stood up. We need people who can be threat upfront, not defenders playing upfront.

[Stonigut]

Total defense brother, total. We have never had any success with big teams playing attacking ball first, we must be total masters of defense and organized response to opposing attack and it takes all hands at this level. Anyway Barnes played better on the d than I expected. Our fitness and organization, size and speed was startling and really put the brakes on their attack. We must build on this,not sure if I see value add in attack from mcleary, but his d is also very goo, tough to replace him.

[Assasin]

Trust me 11 defenders can't work.

[Stonigut]

Just ten we need in the field. Mattocks was out there working hard today.

[Assasin]

and who going to run down the balls over the top? Barnes can't do it. Who going to hold it up?

Wining the long ball and hold it up for Barnes and others to come into the play is an outlet for the defense.