sheepheid Posted May 7, 2008 Report Posted May 7, 2008 Fit aboot at 3-5-2? Touzani in the hole in between the defence and midfield so, kind of a 3-1-4-2? Quote
rocket_scientist Posted May 7, 2008 Report Posted May 7, 2008 Formation will depend on what style JC will prefer next year. Quote
LondonScottish Posted May 7, 2008 Report Posted May 7, 2008 With some decent signings 3-4-3 should be considered imo. We have the players for it. We've hardly got a capable back 4, let alone the skill and experience to regularly play just three in defence. (successfully!) Quote
Reekie_Red Posted May 7, 2008 Report Posted May 7, 2008 He kind of reminds me a bit of Deloumeaux. Quiet, humble, never rants on about what he can do and what he's gonna do. He just gets on with doing his job in a cool, calm and collected fashion. And, just like Deloumeaux, Touzani is a very gifted footballer! Quote
rocket_scientist Posted May 7, 2008 Report Posted May 7, 2008 We've hardly got a capable back 4, let alone the skill and experience to regularly play just three in defence. (successfully!) DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM... why don't you go back to kkk? No. You're right. I agree. There are more than two sides to schizophrenia, neither of which are treatable with drugs. Quote
baggy89 Posted May 7, 2008 Report Posted May 7, 2008 We've hardly got a capable back 4, let alone the skill and experience to regularly play just three in defence. (successfully!) Then again we don't own any fullbacks. Unless you count Foster. Quote
Sharpie Posted May 7, 2008 Report Posted May 7, 2008 He kind of reminds me a bit of Deloumeaux. Quiet, humble, never rants on about what he can do and what he's gonna do. He just gets on with doing his job in a cool, calm and collected fashion. And, just like Deloumeaux, Touzani is a very gifted footballer! Wooah! This isnae Jim Bett or Eoin Jess you are talking about here. Quote
Guest ally s Posted May 7, 2008 Report Posted May 7, 2008 We've hardly got a capable back 4, let alone the skill and experience to regularly play just three in defence. (successfully!) Apart from Maybury we don't have any decent full backs and I can't see that changing any time soon. Saturday proved we can play 3 at the back comfortably. The skill level of the players is also irrelevant. You don't need any more skill to play 3 at the back than you would a back 4. Quote
LondonScottish Posted May 7, 2008 Report Posted May 7, 2008 DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM... why don't you go back to kkk? No. You're right. I agree. There are more than two sides to schizophrenia, neither of which are treatable with drugs. Who would you suppose would be an efficient goal tight three out of who we have at present? We've been fairly leaky all season with four! Quote
Guest ally s Posted May 7, 2008 Report Posted May 7, 2008 Diamond, Touzani, and 1 other which I'm assuming JC will bring in for next season. It's possible for a back 3 to be tighter than a back 4. It's all to do with how you play that formation. Quote
LondonScottish Posted May 7, 2008 Report Posted May 7, 2008 Diamond, Touzani, and 1 other which I'm assuming JC will bring in for next season. It's possible for a back 3 to be tighter than a back 4. It's all to do with how you play that formation. Thats going to put the fear of God into an attack minded team. Quote
Guest ally s Posted May 7, 2008 Report Posted May 7, 2008 Wise up, there's not a defence in the SPL that puts the "fear of God into an attack minded team". The only one that'd come close would be Rangers imo. Besides if we were to actually come out and attack teams and changed our approach to games (especially away from home) then we wouldn't have to rely on the defence as much. Quote
LondonScottish Posted May 7, 2008 Report Posted May 7, 2008 Wise up, there's not a defence in the SPL that puts the "fear of God into an attack minded team". The only one that'd come close would be Rangers imo. Besides if we were to actually come out and attack teams and changed our approach to games (especially away from home) then we wouldn't have to rely on the defence as much. Wise up? It takes a very good three man defence to be water tight. Diamond Touzani and 1 other wouldn't be good enough to run that even with the equivalent of Simpson , Cooper, Strachan etc in front of them. Quote
SWA Posted May 7, 2008 Report Posted May 7, 2008 It takes a very good three man defence to be water tight. Diamond Touzani and 1 other wouldn't be good enough to run that even with the equivalent of Simpson , Cooper, Strachan etc in front of them. 3 man defence would essentially be 5 with wingbacks Quote
Guest ally s Posted May 7, 2008 Report Posted May 7, 2008 Wise up? It takes a very good three man defence to be water tight. Diamond Touzani and 1 other wouldn't be good enough to run that even with the equivalent of Simpson , Cooper, Strachan etc in front of them. We'll have to agree to disagree. As I said earlier we played a back 3 last Saturday and it worked very well, there's no reason why it couldn't work or that we shouldn't at least try it for a while. Imo the communication and understanding with your team mates is a lot better when playing in a back 3. You're a lot tighter and more compact. Quote
SWA Posted May 7, 2008 Report Posted May 7, 2008 We'll have to agree to disagree. As I said earlier we played a back 3 last Saturday and it worked very well, there's no reason why it couldn't work or that we shouldn't at least try it for a while. Imo the communication and understanding with your team mates is a lot better when playing in a back 3. You're a lot tighter and more compact. How many teams in the SPL still play wi 2 attackers? Quote
SWA Posted May 7, 2008 Report Posted May 7, 2008 Dunno, quite a few I'd suspect why? Just wondered because the trend at the mo is for teams to play with 1 upfront. 3 at the back really only works against teams that play 2 strikers, hence why most international teams (where it was more common) that played 3-5-2 have changed to 4-5-1 in recent years. Quote
Penfold Posted May 7, 2008 Report Posted May 7, 2008 I remember one of Touzani's first Aberdeen games away to Motherwell, might have been the 2-0 (Mackie double) one. He was superb that day and I thought we'd found a gem. Not really happened for him since but I'm hoping for a repeat performance from him this sat. I'm fairly sure we played 3-5-2 that day aswell. Quote
Northfield Quine Posted May 7, 2008 Report Posted May 7, 2008 We'll have to agree to disagree. As I said earlier we played a back 3 last Saturday and it worked very well, there's no reason why it couldn't work or that we shouldn't at least try it for a while. Imo the communication and understanding with your team mates is a lot better when playing in a back 3. You're a lot tighter and more compact. Sorry really have to disagree with here Zander Touzani are not capable of playing as a 3 at the back reguarly. They both are too slow to play as a 3, Touzani looked ok on sat because he playing against lumbering centre forward in De Vries we will see how good he is against pacey players on sat. Quote
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.