|
433
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.7K,
Visits: 0
|
Maclaren has a marginally worse goals per game ratio than Berisha at the ripe old age of 23, and I'm willing to be Maclaren has a better goals/minute ratio given the sub appearances he made at his time at the glory. I fail to see how this is a discussion - no other young Aussie striker is coming close. Juric has never in his life been as prolific.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bundoora B
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 12K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xIncluding penalties: Cahill 11 goals 119 minutes per goal (+1 assist) Fornaroli 17 goals 137 minutes per goal (+1 assist) Castro 12 goals 172 minutes per goal (+6 assists) Without penalties: Cahill 11 goals 119 minutes per goal Fornaroli 9 goals 258 minutes per goal Castro 7 goals 294 minutes per goal The numbers speak for themselves. How does this compare (goals per minute) vs. Maclaren, Taggart and Juric? - anyone have the stats? Actually here they are:
Interesting to see how low Juric is comparable to the A-League players. Shows a strong argument to start Maclaren with Cahill off the bench or even as 2nd striker - perhaps changing Ange's 32221 formation to a 3412 how about without penalties? because we need to look at who can score from open play.
|
|
|
|
|
Terre Astrale
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 168,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xIncluding penalties: Cahill 11 goals 119 minutes per goal (+1 assist) Fornaroli 17 goals 137 minutes per goal (+1 assist) Castro 12 goals 172 minutes per goal (+6 assists) Without penalties: Cahill 11 goals 119 minutes per goal Fornaroli 9 goals 258 minutes per goal Castro 7 goals 294 minutes per goal The numbers speak for themselves. How does this compare (goals per minute) vs. Maclaren, Taggart and Juric? - anyone have the stats? Actually here they are:
Interesting to see how low Juric is comparable to the A-League players. Shows a strong argument to start Maclaren with Cahill off the bench or even as 2nd striker - perhaps changing Ange's 32221 formation to a 3412
|
|
|
|
|
Terre Astrale
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 168,
Visits: 0
|
+xIncluding penalties: Cahill 11 goals 119 minutes per goal (+1 assist) Fornaroli 17 goals 137 minutes per goal (+1 assist) Castro 12 goals 172 minutes per goal (+6 assists) Without penalties: Cahill 11 goals 119 minutes per goal Fornaroli 9 goals 258 minutes per goal Castro 7 goals 294 minutes per goal The numbers speak for themselves. How does this compare (goals per minute) vs. Maclaren, Taggart and Juric? - anyone have the stats?
|
|
|
|
|
johnszasz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 28K,
Visits: 0
|
Since we played 3 at the back I've been amazed at he number of European clubs who've employed the same formation. Dortmund actually used a carbon copy of our Iraq formation. I'm pretty sure we had the same against UAE?
We just need to practice it a bit more and find the right players. I'd like to see a back 3 of Davidson, Sainsbury and Milligan. Wright, Degenek and others are definitely valuable members but lack the pace and pass for the 3. Unfortunately Ange isn't flexible enough to change formations during a match. Did he change formations during tournaments?
|
|
|
|
|
Bundoora B
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 12K,
Visits: 0
|
wow this has been buried by 442 articles that no one is replying to. they should not pop into the forum unless someone has commented on them. it's killing the forum.some stats on cahill i put on the melbourne heart thread. comparing him to our key striker and the comps highest scoring midfielder. i was a bit sceptical on cahill, but he has been much more involved since JVS left. starting games. he is too good to leave on the bench in the AL. Including penalties: Cahill 11 goals 119 minutes per goal (+1 assist) Fornaroli 17 goals 137 minutes per goal (+1 assist) Castro 12 goals 172 minutes per goal (+6 assists) Without penalties: Cahill 11 goals 119 minutes per goal Fornaroli 9 goals 258 minutes per goal Castro 7 goals 294 minutes per goal The numbers speak for themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
Bundoora B
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 12K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xI can remember a number of posters giving Quickflick a hard time, because he advocated three at the back. The argument was that because few agreed with him, he was wrong. The axiom was he had no right to advance that view! Ange agrees with QF! The argument was never against three at the back. The argument centred around his reasoning for it and his lack of understanding about how the former formation transitioned If that was the argument it was, imo, fallaciously predicated. I understand the theory of how the formation transitioned. Where we disagree is on how it transitioned in practice under Ange's system and with the current practitioners. Ange liked to have both fullbacks (who are defensively average) forward simultaneously, the better to stretch opposition defences. He only had one CDM, usually Jedinak, dropping back. This left a big space in central midfield which was unoccupied. The transition, at least in practice of Angeball (as opposed to theory), is that we end up in a situation with two fullbacks out of position and Jedinak unsure whether to let an attack have a lot of space or to go forward to try to shut it down but, thereby, leave two central defenders (who are not fast at all) isolated and defending the width of the pitch. If we had the quality of footballers, we might be able to put the theory into practice. But we haven't currently got that. The theory is rosy but the practice leaves some huge chinks in our armour which any half-decent opposition can exploit. A number of other posters who are very logical and reasonable came around to the idea of three at the back before Ange deployed three at the back. Similarly, there were some posters (you are not among them) who disagreed with three at the back for reasons other than those which you gave. They basically opposed it because Ange hadn't done it before. Aside from my personal preferences of formation - which dont typically include 3 at the back - I am one of the folk on here who would have preferred a more cautionary approach to drastic formation changes in the middle of world cup qualifying. Ange not having previous experience with the formation in a competitive match is a very valid reason. Your concerns with the transition of the team under a 442 or 433 were mirrored in the first game under the new formation against iraq. In this match Wright was used wide and pressed well up the sideline as a fullback would: leaving us exposed. The only difference lay with the deployment of 2 defensive midfielders which allowed either jedinak or luongo to sit back and cover as needed. This could have been replicated in the old formation but as you have pointed out, it wasnt and we were often left exposed at the back. In fact at times is was more like luongo and wright playing as fullbacks with a back 2 covered by jedinak. It was a mess. Like a lot of people, I was happily surprised that in the game v UAE the fullbacks were better situated and even attacked from deep, rather than sitting in the front third. The back 3 mostly remained as such. And the 2 defensive midfielders operated largely as defensive midfielders. Imo all the could have been achieved under either of the old systems with better management of the fullbacks and clearer duties issued to the defensive midfielders. An area of necessary improvement that you clearly pointed out numerous times. However, I dont think that the 3241 is necessary for this and I can see Ange losing his lessons from the Iraqi game after the last win. Quality post. I should have a stats thread up in a few days that confirm a lot of your opinions with evidence based research - stats. my personal conundrum with a preference for formations is kind of stuck on my preference for a diamond as we play it (and therefore no wings as i dont think we have the quality of wings to include them in a formation) vs the obvious need for us to play with 2 screening midfielders. sad fact is the only sensible formation for playing with no out and out attacking wings while having 2 screening midfielders might just be using a back 3.... This might be where ange is coming from. or we could use a 4-2-1-2-1 which just happens to be what im using on fifa 17 nowadays... with 2 pacey attacking mids/centre forwards supporting a big gifted target man. fwiw (i know this will cause some cringe) this is the basic fifa formation I just used to get my NT to the final of the confed cup in the first season of career mode.. -----------------------------Langerak Behich-----------Sains-------------Wright-------------Gersbach -----------------jedinak----------------------luongo --------------------------------mooy ---------------maclaren---------------leckie --------------------------------rogic
|
|
|
|
|
Decentric
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 22K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xI can remember a number of posters giving Quickflick a hard time, because he advocated three at the back. The argument was that because few agreed with him, he was wrong. The axiom was he had no right to advance that view! Ange agrees with QF! The argument was never against three at the back. The argument centred around his reasoning for it and his lack of understanding about how the former formation transitioned If that was the argument it was, imo, fallaciously predicated. I understand the theory of how the formation transitioned. Where we disagree is on how it transitioned in practice under Ange's system and with the current practitioners. Ange liked to have both fullbacks (who are defensively average) forward simultaneously, the better to stretch opposition defences. He only had one CDM, usually Jedinak, dropping back. This left a big space in central midfield which was unoccupied. The transition, at least in practice of Angeball (as opposed to theory), is that we end up in a situation with two fullbacks out of position and Jedinak unsure whether to let an attack have a lot of space or to go forward to try to shut it down but, thereby, leave two central defenders (who are not fast at all) isolated and defending the width of the pitch. If we had the quality of footballers, we might be able to put the theory into practice. But we haven't currently got that. The theory is rosy but the practice leaves some huge chinks in our armour which any half-decent opposition can exploit. A number of other posters who are very logical and reasonable came around to the idea of three at the back before Ange deployed three at the back. Similarly, there were some posters (you are not among them) who disagreed with three at the back for reasons other than those which you gave. They basically opposed it because Ange hadn't done it before. Aside from my personal preferences of formation - which dont typically include 3 at the back - I am one of the folk on here who would have preferred a more cautionary approach to drastic formation changes in the middle of world cup qualifying. Ange not having previous experience with the formation in a competitive match is a very valid reason. Your concerns with the transition of the team under a 442 or 433 were mirrored in the first game under the new formation against iraq. In this match Wright was used wide and pressed well up the sideline as a fullback would: leaving us exposed. The only difference lay with the deployment of 2 defensive midfielders which allowed either jedinak or luongo to sit back and cover as needed. This could have been replicated in the old formation but as you have pointed out, it wasnt and we were often left exposed at the back. In fact at times is was more like luongo and wright playing as fullbacks with a back 2 covered by jedinak. It was a mess. Like a lot of people, I was happily surprised that in the game v UAE the fullbacks were better situated and even attacked from deep, rather than sitting in the front third. The back 3 mostly remained as such. And the 2 defensive midfielders operated largely as defensive midfielders. Imo all the could have been achieved under either of the old systems with better management of the fullbacks and clearer duties issued to the defensive midfielders. An area of necessary improvement that you clearly pointed out numerous times. However, I dont think that the 3241 is necessary for this and I can see Ange losing his lessons from the Iraqi game after the last win. Quality post. I should have a stats thread up in a few days that confirm a lot of your opinions with evidence based research - stats.
|
|
|
|
|
Bundoora B
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 12K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xI can remember a number of posters giving Quickflick a hard time, because he advocated three at the back. The argument was that because few agreed with him, he was wrong. The axiom was he had no right to advance that view! Ange agrees with QF! The argument was never against three at the back. The argument centred around his reasoning for it and his lack of understanding about how the former formation transitioned If that was the argument it was, imo, fallaciously predicated. I understand the theory of how the formation transitioned. Where we disagree is on how it transitioned in practice under Ange's system and with the current practitioners. Ange liked to have both fullbacks (who are defensively average) forward simultaneously, the better to stretch opposition defences. He only had one CDM, usually Jedinak, dropping back. This left a big space in central midfield which was unoccupied. The transition, at least in practice of Angeball (as opposed to theory), is that we end up in a situation with two fullbacks out of position and Jedinak unsure whether to let an attack have a lot of space or to go forward to try to shut it down but, thereby, leave two central defenders (who are not fast at all) isolated and defending the width of the pitch. If we had the quality of footballers, we might be able to put the theory into practice. But we haven't currently got that. The theory is rosy but the practice leaves some huge chinks in our armour which any half-decent opposition can exploit. A number of other posters who are very logical and reasonable came around to the idea of three at the back before Ange deployed three at the back. Similarly, there were some posters (you are not among them) who disagreed with three at the back for reasons other than those which you gave. They basically opposed it because Ange hadn't done it before. Aside from my personal preferences of formation - which dont typically include 3 at the back - I am one of the folk on here who would have preferred a more cautionary approach to drastic formation changes in the middle of world cup qualifying. Despite your fallacious stance on this issue, Ange not having previous experience with the formation in a competitive match is a very valid reason. Your concerns with the transition of the team under a 442 or 433 were mirrored in the first game under the new formation against iraq. In this match Wright was used wide and pressed well up the sideline as a fullback would: leaving us exposed. The only difference lay with the deployment of 2 defensive midfielders which allowed either jedinak or luongo to sit back and cover as needed. This could have been replicated in the old formation but as you have pointed out, it wasnt and we were often left exposed at the back. In fact at times is was more like luongo and wright playing as fullbacks with a back 2 covered by jedinak. It was a mess. Like a lot of people, I was happily surprised that in the game v UAE the fullbacks were better situated and even attacked from deep, rather than sitting in the front third. The back 3 mostly remained as such. And the 2 defensive midfielders operated largely as defensive midfielders. Imo all the could have been achieved under either of the old systems with better management of the fullbacks and clearer duties issued to the defensive midfielders. An area of necessary improvement that you clearly pointed out numerous times. However, I dont think that the 3241 is necessary for this and I can see Ange losing his lessons from the Iraqi game after the last win. tldr: Although I am more than happy to support it and hope that it works out, I still dont think 3 at the back is necessary or an improvement on what we have. The improvements we made in the game v UAE included better positioning and stricter defensive duties for the fullbacks and defensive midfielders. This could have been done without 3 at the back.
|
|
|
|
|
Decentric
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 22K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xMy concern with Rogic as a center forward is the ruff stuff they get.Juric coped a lot of kicks in the last two games and had a job of holding his position to keep the center backs occupied.Rogic should be allowed to seek space and escape attention even if that means dropping deep or drifting wide. A lone center forward doesn't have that luxury and it can be a pretty thankless and brutal task at times. Would never play Rogic by himself up front. Needs someone pacey like Troisi next to him. troisi pacey? Troisi is one of the fastest over the turf we have. fair enough. i havent seen it. i know he is fit atm, but ive never really thought of him as exceptionally quick. He's not quick in a long sprint like Leckie, but he has an exceptional short burst of acceleration to get to the ball and get around players. Which generally is the most important attribute in football.
|
|
|
|
|
New Signing
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.6K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xI can remember a number of posters giving Quickflick a hard time, because he advocated three at the back. The argument was that because few agreed with him, he was wrong. The axiom was he had no right to advance that view! Ange agrees with QF! The argument was never against three at the back. The argument centred around his reasoning for it and his lack of understanding about how the former formation transitioned If that was the argument it was, imo, fallaciously predicated. I understand the theory of how the formation transitioned. Where we disagree is on how it transitioned in practice under Ange's system and with the current practitioners. Ange liked to have both fullbacks (who are defensively average) forward simultaneously, the better to stretch opposition defences. He only had one CDM, usually Jedinak, dropping back. This left a big space in central midfield which was unoccupied. The transition, at least in practice of Angeball (as opposed to theory), is that we end up in a situation with two fullbacks out of position and Jedinak unsure whether to let an attack have a lot of space or to go forward to try to shut it down but, thereby, leave two central defenders (who are not fast at all) isolated and defending the width of the pitch. If we had the quality of footballers, we might be able to put the theory into practice. But we haven't currently got that. The theory is rosy but the practice leaves some huge chinks in our armour which any half-decent opposition can exploit. A number of other posters who are very logical and reasonable came around to the idea of three at the back before Ange deployed three at the back. Similarly, there were some posters (you are not among them) who disagreed with three at the back for reasons other than those which you gave. They basically opposed it because Ange hadn't done it before. I'm going to need an Executive summary of this post because i've now read it twice and i still dont get what your main points are (a) You were incorrect in saying I did not understood how the old formation transitioned. I do understand how the old formation transitioned. I accept the theory which you described and I think it is strategically sound if the manager has the quality of footballers to implement it. (b) I respectfully disagree with you that, in practice, it transitioned in the manner you described. That's what I dispute. In practice, it leaves us horribly exposed. (c) There were other sensible posters who expressed views similar to mine before Ange opted for three at the back. In response to Decentric's post, I also wrote that were also others who denounced three at the back without adequate reasoning (although you are not among them, you and I simply disagree on how it looks in practice). Gotcha
|
|
|
|
|
quickflick
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xMy concern with Rogic as a center forward is the ruff stuff they get.Juric coped a lot of kicks in the last two games and had a job of holding his position to keep the center backs occupied.Rogic should be allowed to seek space and escape attention even if that means dropping deep or drifting wide. A lone center forward doesn't have that luxury and it can be a pretty thankless and brutal task at times. Would never play Rogic by himself up front. Needs someone pacey like Troisi next to him. troisi pacey? Troisi is one of the fastest over the turf we have. fair enough. i havent seen it. i know he is fit atm, but ive never really thought of him as exceptionally quick. He's not quick in a long sprint like Leckie, but he has an exceptional short burst of acceleration to get to the ball and get around players. Which, if he can be sensible in terms of how he positions himself and if he is technically sharp enough, is an invaluable component of our midfield particularly alongside playmaker types such as Mooy and Rogic
|
|
|
|
|
433
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xMy concern with Rogic as a center forward is the ruff stuff they get.Juric coped a lot of kicks in the last two games and had a job of holding his position to keep the center backs occupied.Rogic should be allowed to seek space and escape attention even if that means dropping deep or drifting wide. A lone center forward doesn't have that luxury and it can be a pretty thankless and brutal task at times. Would never play Rogic by himself up front. Needs someone pacey like Troisi next to him. troisi pacey? Troisi is one of the fastest over the turf we have. fair enough. i havent seen it. i know he is fit atm, but ive never really thought of him as exceptionally quick. He's not quick in a long sprint like Leckie, but he has an exceptional short burst of acceleration to get to the ball and get around players.
|
|
|
|
|
quickflick
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xI can remember a number of posters giving Quickflick a hard time, because he advocated three at the back. The argument was that because few agreed with him, he was wrong. The axiom was he had no right to advance that view! Ange agrees with QF! The argument was never against three at the back. The argument centred around his reasoning for it and his lack of understanding about how the former formation transitioned If that was the argument it was, imo, fallaciously predicated. I understand the theory of how the formation transitioned. Where we disagree is on how it transitioned in practice under Ange's system and with the current practitioners. Ange liked to have both fullbacks (who are defensively average) forward simultaneously, the better to stretch opposition defences. He only had one CDM, usually Jedinak, dropping back. This left a big space in central midfield which was unoccupied. The transition, at least in practice of Angeball (as opposed to theory), is that we end up in a situation with two fullbacks out of position and Jedinak unsure whether to let an attack have a lot of space or to go forward to try to shut it down but, thereby, leave two central defenders (who are not fast at all) isolated and defending the width of the pitch. If we had the quality of footballers, we might be able to put the theory into practice. But we haven't currently got that. The theory is rosy but the practice leaves some huge chinks in our armour which any half-decent opposition can exploit. A number of other posters who are very logical and reasonable came around to the idea of three at the back before Ange deployed three at the back. Similarly, there were some posters (you are not among them) who disagreed with three at the back for reasons other than those which you gave. They basically opposed it because Ange hadn't done it before. I'm going to need an Executive summary of this post because i've now read it twice and i still dont get what your main points are (a) You were incorrect in saying I did not understood how the old formation transitioned. I do understand how the old formation transitioned. I accept the theory which you described and I think it is strategically sound if the manager has the quality of footballers to implement it. (b) I respectfully disagree with you that, in practice, it transitioned in the manner you described. That's what I dispute. In practice, it leaves us horribly exposed. (c) There were other sensible posters who expressed views similar to mine before Ange opted for three at the back. In response to Decentric's post, I also wrote that were also others who denounced three at the back without adequate reasoning (although you are not among them, you and I simply disagree on how it looks in practice).
|
|
|
|
|
Bundoora B
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 12K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xwould love to see Rogic as a second striker, would cause absolute nightmares for many CB's, Juric holding it up for Rogic... I can see them bring CB's out of position on the regular.. seriously what we have been missing.. real quality upfront. He can't defend or track back well.. so don't make him somehow lol I'm actually thinking that Rogic could be the single, target striker. I think more midfielders are playing better in their positions than Juric, Cahill, et al, are playing as central striker. Would be interesting.. Just don't know if Rogic has the pace? His touch and strength will help. But would love to ange at least try something like this. -----------Juric----Rogic------------- smith---Mooy---Irvine----Leckie ---------------Milligan------------------ --------Sains - Jedi - Wright------ Interesting side, but I'd replace Juric with Troisi or Leckie. Leckie's not enough of a defender to be a wingback - would like to see Grant get a chance if Ange is going to persist with 3 at the back. saw him play basically as a wingback against bayern... seemed to do well to me.. ive seen it as well. holds up as good as just about anyone ive seen in the position.
|
|
|
|
|
Bundoora B
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 12K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xMy concern with Rogic as a center forward is the ruff stuff they get.Juric coped a lot of kicks in the last two games and had a job of holding his position to keep the center backs occupied.Rogic should be allowed to seek space and escape attention even if that means dropping deep or drifting wide. A lone center forward doesn't have that luxury and it can be a pretty thankless and brutal task at times. Would never play Rogic by himself up front. Needs someone pacey like Troisi next to him. troisi pacey? Troisi is one of the fastest over the turf we have. fair enough. i havent seen it. i know he is fit atm, but ive never really thought of him as exceptionally quick.
|
|
|
|
|
jas88
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xwould love to see Rogic as a second striker, would cause absolute nightmares for many CB's, Juric holding it up for Rogic... I can see them bring CB's out of position on the regular.. seriously what we have been missing.. real quality upfront. He can't defend or track back well.. so don't make him somehow lol I'm actually thinking that Rogic could be the single, target striker. I think more midfielders are playing better in their positions than Juric, Cahill, et al, are playing as central striker. Would be interesting.. Just don't know if Rogic has the pace? His touch and strength will help. But would love to ange at least try something like this. -----------Juric----Rogic------------- smith---Mooy---Irvine----Leckie ---------------Milligan------------------ --------Sains - Jedi - Wright------ Interesting side, but I'd replace Juric with Troisi or Leckie. Leckie's not enough of a defender to be a wingback - would like to see Grant get a chance if Ange is going to persist with 3 at the back. saw him play basically as a wingback against bayern... seemed to do well to me..
|
|
|
|
|
jas88
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+xDon't know why Ange keeps picking Brad Smith. Sure he's fast. However he's a 22 year old (turning 23 in a few days) who's only featured in around 25 professional club games in his entire career. Half of them is him coming off the bench. This guy has 16 caps for the Socceroos. The next David Carney? lol more international caps then games almost
|
|
|
|
|
New Signing
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.6K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xI can remember a number of posters giving Quickflick a hard time, because he advocated three at the back. The argument was that because few agreed with him, he was wrong. The axiom was he had no right to advance that view! Ange agrees with QF! The argument was never against three at the back. The argument centred around his reasoning for it and his lack of understanding about how the former formation transitioned If that was the argument it was, imo, fallaciously predicated. I understand the theory of how the formation transitioned. Where we disagree is on how it transitioned in practice under Ange's system and with the current practitioners. Ange liked to have both fullbacks (who are defensively average) forward simultaneously, the better to stretch opposition defences. He only had one CDM, usually Jedinak, dropping back. This left a big space in central midfield which was unoccupied. The transition, at least in practice of Angeball (as opposed to theory), is that we end up in a situation with two fullbacks out of position and Jedinak unsure whether to let an attack have a lot of space or to go forward to try to shut it down but, thereby, leave two central defenders (who are not fast at all) isolated and defending the width of the pitch. If we had the quality of footballers, we might be able to put the theory into practice. But we haven't currently got that. The theory is rosy but the practice leaves some huge chinks in our armour which any half-decent opposition can exploit. A number of other posters who are very logical and reasonable came around to the idea of three at the back before Ange deployed three at the back. Similarly, there were some posters (you are not among them) who disagreed with three at the back for reasons other than those which you gave. They basically opposed it because Ange hadn't done it before. I'm going to need an Executive summary of this post because i've now read it twice and i still dont get what your main points are
|
|
|
|
|
dr. bellows
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xwould love to see Rogic as a second striker, would cause absolute nightmares for many CB's, Juric holding it up for Rogic... I can see them bring CB's out of position on the regular.. seriously what we have been missing.. real quality upfront. He can't defend or track back well.. so don't make him somehow lol I'm actually thinking that Rogic could be the single, target striker. I think more midfielders are playing better in their positions than Juric, Cahill, et al, are playing as central striker. An interesting idea. Rogic seems to have a number of the characteristics Viduka had when he was playing.
|
|
|
|
|
Decentric
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 22K,
Visits: 0
|
+xMy concern with Rogic as a center forward is the ruff stuff they get.Juric coped a lot of kicks in the last two games and had a job of holding his position to keep the center backs occupied.Rogic should be allowed to seek space and escape attention even if that means dropping deep or drifting wide. A lone center forward doesn't have that luxury and it can be a pretty thankless and brutal task at times. True. Juric copped lot of it against UAE. Then again Taggart and MacLaren must cop it in the HAL too.
|
|
|
|
|
Decentric
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 22K,
Visits: 0
|
|
|
|
|
|
Decentric
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 22K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xMy concern with Rogic as a center forward is the ruff stuff they get.Juric coped a lot of kicks in the last two games and had a job of holding his position to keep the center backs occupied.Rogic should be allowed to seek space and escape attention even if that means dropping deep or drifting wide. A lone center forward doesn't have that luxury and it can be a pretty thankless and brutal task at times. Would never play Rogic by himself up front. Needs someone pacey like Troisi next to him. troisi pacey? Troisi is one of the fastest over the turf we have.
|
|
|
|
|
Bundoora B
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 12K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xMy concern with Rogic as a center forward is the ruff stuff they get.Juric coped a lot of kicks in the last two games and had a job of holding his position to keep the center backs occupied.Rogic should be allowed to seek space and escape attention even if that means dropping deep or drifting wide. A lone center forward doesn't have that luxury and it can be a pretty thankless and brutal task at times. Would never play Rogic by himself up front. Needs someone pacey like Troisi next to him. troisi pacey?
|
|
|
|
|
Bundoora B
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 12K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xOne stat I just read is that Jamey MacLaren's strike rate per game in the HAL is better than Berisha's and similar to Fornaroli's. Maclaren - 1.26 games for every goal scored in the HAL at Roar. Fornaroli - 1.25 games for every goal scored. Berisha - 1.51 games for every goal scored. I wonder if Ange is aware of this? it would be more accurate to look at minutes per goal. also removing penalties would be an even better picture. Yes. It would be even more accurate to see how they are deployed in their club system vs how Ange wants to play them in his rather than looking at the stats in isolation. This is yet another example of statistics not offering the full story. Something 'milieu' experts will never appreciate. McLaren, as great as he is for the Roar, is not the type of striker Ange is looking for. Ange has a style/vision in mind and you're pushing it up hill with a pointy stick if you don't fit into his "vision". who is his type. a hard working target man like berisha. problem is the NT needs to use the talent we have. i would take taggart and maclaren over juric.
|
|
|
|
|
Mr Cleansheets
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 944,
Visits: 0
|
+xMy concern with Rogic as a center forward is the ruff stuff they get.Juric coped a lot of kicks in the last two games and had a job of holding his position to keep the center backs occupied.Rogic should be allowed to seek space and escape attention even if that means dropping deep or drifting wide. A lone center forward doesn't have that luxury and it can be a pretty thankless and brutal task at times. Would never play Rogic by himself up front. Needs someone pacey like Troisi next to him.
|
|
|
|
|
McFlynn
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6,
Visits: 0
|
My concern with Rogic as a center forward is the ruff stuff they get.
Juric coped a lot of kicks in the last two games and had a job of holding his position to keep the center backs occupied.
Rogic should be allowed to seek space and escape attention even if that means dropping deep or drifting wide.
A lone center forward doesn't have that luxury and it can be a pretty thankless and brutal task at times.
|
|
|
|
|
Mr Cleansheets
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 944,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xwould love to see Rogic as a second striker, would cause absolute nightmares for many CB's, Juric holding it up for Rogic... I can see them bring CB's out of position on the regular.. seriously what we have been missing.. real quality upfront. He can't defend or track back well.. so don't make him somehow lol I'm actually thinking that Rogic could be the single, target striker. I think more midfielders are playing better in their positions than Juric, Cahill, et al, are playing as central striker. Would be interesting.. Just don't know if Rogic has the pace? His touch and strength will help. But would love to ange at least try something like this. -----------Juric----Rogic------------- smith---Mooy---Irvine----Leckie ---------------Milligan------------------ --------Sains - Jedi - Wright------ Interesting side, but I'd replace Juric with Troisi or Leckie. Leckie's not enough of a defender to be a wingback - would like to see Grant get a chance if Ange is going to persist with 3 at the back. And yes, would like to see Gersbach get a go also.
|
|
|
|
|
Mr Cleansheets
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 944,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xwould love to see Rogic as a second striker, would cause absolute nightmares for many CB's, Juric holding it up for Rogic... I can see them bring CB's out of position on the regular.. seriously what we have been missing.. real quality upfront. He can't defend or track back well.. so don't make him somehow lol I'm actually thinking that Rogic could be the single, target striker. I think more midfielders are playing better in their positions than Juric, Cahill, et al, are playing as central striker. Would be interesting.. Just don't know if Rogic has the pace? His touch and strength will help. But would love to ange at least try something like this. -----------Juric----Rogic------------- smith---Mooy---Irvine----Leckie ---------------Milligan------------------ --------Sains - Jedi - Wright------ Interesting side, but I'd replace Juric with Troisi or Leckie. Leckie's not enough of a defender to be a wingback - would like to see Grant get a chance if Ange is going to persist with 3 at the back.
|
|
|
|
|
The Fans
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.6K,
Visits: 0
|
+xDon't know why Ange keeps picking Brad Smith. Sure he's fast. However he's a 22 year old (turning 23 in a few days) who's only featured in around 25 professional club games in his entire career. Half of them is him coming off the bench. This guy has 16 caps for the Socceroos. Ange has made huge blunders with player selection of late. Smith is one such blunder. Smith isn't good enough either defensively or on the ball. We have come a long way from where just being fit and fast was enough. Goodwin and Gersbach are both high quality left fullbacks that would turn a massive weakness for us (left back) into a strength.
|
|
|
|