I thought against Brentford his desire to get on the ball and make something happen mean't he was all over the pitch and never in shape at right mid which left us a bit exposed. Depends on the game/opposition strengths etc but thought it made sense last night against a side who were supposed to be good on the counter. Could argue having Skalak/Murphy wide, who hold their shape better, protected the back 4 better than on Saturday. AK certainly seems more effective right midfield but we've got good options to change things about as needed game by game.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Knocky up front!
- Thread starter The Fifth Column
- Start date
BBassic
I changed this.
- Jul 28, 2011
- 12,337
I was quite excited when I saw what looked to be 4-2-3-1 or 4-4-1-1 based on the team sheet but I did expect that central role to be played by Skalak. He's a bit bigger than Knocky and has played there before.
Though he does fall over more than any Albion player I can remember.
Though he does fall over more than any Albion player I can remember.
Greg Bobkin
Silver Seagull
- May 22, 2012
- 14,862
I seem to recall Poyet putting Vicente up front for a few games (or parts of games) and he/it was awful. Knock wasn't as bad as that, but it means he played a completely different game as he usually does, which didn't really work. Maybe it will in the future, but why bother? He's SO good in his normal position, why would you change it?
Tom Hark Preston Park
Will Post For Cash
- Jul 6, 2003
- 70,266
For sure, that was maybe the end result, but his sheer over-riding desire to take the game by the scruff of the neck and FORCE us to get something out of it was one of the few highlights of the game for me on an otherwise wretched day.
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
His interview on Seagulls Player, says that he played that position, for quite a long time, in France, so it's not as if he doesn't know how.
Greg Bobkin
Silver Seagull
- May 22, 2012
- 14,862
Fair enough then. There is obviously something there, which is probably why CH tried it...
CH tried it because he had no other option.
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
That's not what CH said in his interview on Player. He said that Huddersfield were very good at defending and scoring on the break, so having two up front, would have left us too open.
durrington gull
Well-known member
Skalak struggled again last night, barely has any impact in the game
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
Watch the highlights. Skalak and Bruno had a great understanding, nearly scoring a goal, when Skalak did a great backheel, for Bruno to take a shot.
Spiros
Well-known member
Exactly. I also thought Skalak did a great job of creating space for Bruno, especially in the first half. I lost count of the number of times Dunk pinged a ball out wide to Bruno and it was made easier because he had a player in loads of space to hit.
The Fifth Column
Retired ex-cop
- Thread starter
- #33
What? that Bobby Zamora who has not had a pre-season and would take a good 4-6 weeks to get match fit if his hip could stand up to that which we know can't as he didn't even train every day last season because of it, that Bobby Zamora?? great idea.
BensGrandad
New member
He may have kept himself fit in case a deal came his way from somewhere but I do appreciate it is highly unlikely and perhaps not practical to even consider.
The Fifth Column
Retired ex-cop
- Thread starter
- #35
Manu would be a better option, I still think he might come good. Mind you I thought that for a long time about that fat freeloading excuse of a football player that was Kemy Agustien!
BensGrandad
New member
I would think that is the hope of most until January but also hope that the club are working hard at bringing in a new face in January for the final push, which we failed to do last season.
sussex_guy2k2
Well-known member
- Jun 6, 2014
- 3,751
I missed the game on Tuesday due to being on holiday, but just to be clear, most of us didn't say play him up front. Most of us that thought he could be used centrally figured it would be as a result of a change of formation that would allow him to pick the ball up in deeper areas centrally, run at teams and be in even better positions to arrive late. If Hughton has played him right up front as one of the two strikers as it sounds like he has, then that is just Hughton shoe horning our best player into a position that doesn't suit him rather than adapting the role to fit our best player - basically, Tuesday proves nothing from the sounds of it.
Dirty Dave
Well-known member
He was played more as a no. 10 in a 4-4-1-1
Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk