Jump to content

Right wing back candidates


Recommended Posts

It seems we’re going with a back three. I’ve no problem with that if we have the right players. Our three centre halves are no longer getting carved open with a simple ball as they were when this was brought in by McLeish. To make chances at the other end we really need to get the wing back position sorted. I’d imagine Robertson is nailed on for the left with Tierney taking over when required. 

On the right O’Donnell is in possession and I’d probably start him in Serbia even though I don’t think he’s the answer. 

Other candidates:

Fraser

Forrest

Palmer

McCrorie

Burke

Armstrong

Greg Docherty

Nathan Patterson

Out of those, Nathan Patterson is probably the only one with the defensive and attacking qualities but he is as yet unproven. I think Burke, Armstrong and Docherty all have attributes that would be useful going forward and the latter defensively, too. Fraser and Forrest a ‘no’ from me. Second striker would be better for them where they can can use their pace over short distances. Palmer is ok, McCrorie might be reasonable but is better suited to a central position. Have I missed anyone? Thoughts? 

 

Edited by er yir macaroon
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, er yir macaroon said:

It seems we’re going with a back three. I’ve no problem with that if we have the right players. Our three centre halves are no longer getting carved open with a simple ball as they were when this was brought in by McLeish. To make chances at the other end we really need to get the wing back position sorted. I’d imagine Robertson is nailed on for the left with Tierney taking over when required. 

On the right O’Donnell is in possession and I’d probably start him in Serbia even though I don’t think he’s the answer. 

Other candidates:

Fraser

Forrest

Palmer

McCrorie

Burke

Armstrong

Greg Docherty

Nathan Patterson

Out of those, Nathan Patterson is probably the only one with the defensive and attacking qualities but he is as yet unproven. I think Burke, Armstrong and Docherty all have attributes that would be useful going forward and the latter defensively, too. Fraser and Forrest a ‘no’ from me. Second striker would be better for them where they can can use their pace over short distances. Palmer is ok, McCrorie might be reasonable but is better suited to a central position. Have I missed anyone? Thoughts? 

 

Good list. Patterson will be the future but he must get a run of games - not easy when you've Tavernier to negotiate. Also maybe Hickey. Wouldn't want a Fraser or a Forrest though; for me wing-back is a job for a natural full-back. McCrorie could be the answer but realistically it's between Palmer and SOD.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Third Lanark said:

Good list. Patterson will be the future but he must get a run of games - not easy when you've Tavernier to negotiate. Also maybe Hickey. Wouldn't want a Fraser or a Forrest though; for me wing-back is a job for a natural full-back. McCrorie could be the answer but realistically it's between Palmer and SOD.

I forgot about Hickey. Is he quick enough? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, er yir macaroon said:

It seems we’re going with a back three. I’ve no problem with that if we have the right players. Our three centre halves are no longer getting carved open with a simple ball as they were when this was brought in by McLeish. To make chances at the other end we really need to get the wing back position sorted. I’d imagine Robertson is nailed on for the left with Tierney taking over when required. 

On the right O’Donnell is in possession and I’d probably start him in Serbia even though I don’t think he’s the answer. 

Other candidates:

Fraser

Forrest

Palmer

McCrorie

Burke

Armstrong

Greg Docherty

Nathan Patterson

Out of those, Nathan Patterson is probably the only one with the defensive and attacking qualities but he is as yet unproven. I think Burke, Armstrong and Docherty all have attributes that would be useful going forward and the latter defensively, too. Fraser and Forrest a ‘no’ from me. Second striker would be better for them where they can can use their pace over short distances. Palmer is ok, McCrorie might be reasonable but is better suited to a central position. Have I missed anyone? Thoughts? 

 

Well you can rule out Fraser, Forrest, Burke and Armstrong - that will never be their position. They could all be key players for us in the future in an attacking sense - that is not right-wing back. Of those on your list, at the moment, it is between O'Donnell and Palmer. The likes of McCrorie and Patterson are ones to look at in the future.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Between Palmer, SOD and Mccrorie at the minute although Nathan Paterson and Ashby from the 21s look good prospects.

SOD as hard as he tries will not be good enough when we play better sides.

Mccrorie could do a decent job I think but is far better in the middle of the park.

Palmer is steady and a decent player without being outstanding.

I'd be going with Palmer in the short term and hope another option appears further down road.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Key to the role is having the understanding and experience of playing the role which is subtly different from your run of the mill right-back. O'Donnell plays it at Motherwell and perhaps suggests why he and Gallagher done well playing together. Not sure that Ashby plays in such a formation or McCrorie or even Palmer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Caledonian Craig said:

Well you can rule out Fraser, Forrest, Burke and Armstrong - that will never be their position. They could all be key players for us in the future in an attacking sense - that is not right-wing back. Of those on your list, at the moment, it is between O'Donnell and Palmer. The likes of McCrorie and Patterson are ones to look at in the future.

It’s not necessarily about their best position it’s if they can do it better than the alternatives we have. I agree Forrest and Fraser wouldn’t be up to it even though they’ve both played that role in the past. Armstrong I think could do it and it’s probably his best chance of a game. He’s physical enough, definitely quick enough and is comfortable on the ball. Burke is something of a wild card. He’s an unknown quantity defensively but has the athletic ability to get up and down the park like few other players in world football could. The coaches are forever saying his stats are off the chart (whatever that means) and maybe him getting up the park, putting crosses in and then getting back quickly is a possibility. Like Armstrong it might be his best chance of a game as Christie, Griffiths Fraser and Forrest will all be competing for the second striker role. 

Edited by er yir macaroon
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, er yir macaroon said:

It’s not necessarily about their best position it’s if they can do it better than the alternatives we have. I agree Forrest and Fraser wouldn’t be up to it even though they’ve both played that role in the past. Armstrong I think could it and it’s probably his best chance of a game. He’s physical enough, definitely quick enough and is comfortable on the ball. Burke is something of a wild card. He’s an unkwon quantity defensively but has the athletic ability to get up and down the park like few other players in world football could. The coaches are forever saying his stats are off the chart (whatever that means) and maybe him getting up the park, putting crosses in and then getting back quickly is a possibility. Like Armstrong it might be his best chance of a game as Christie, Griffiths Fraser and Forrest will all be competing for the second striker role. 

Hmmm no I think we want the best options that actually play or have played in that position. Failing that maybe a smart right-back who can be converted and that rules out Armstrong and Burke I feel. At present stick with O'Donnell and Palmer whilst taking a close look at likes of McCrorie and maybe in the future Ashby and Patterson.

Fraser and Forrest should never be played there. Just now our attack needs as much pep as it can get and Fraser and Forrest are key to that and that means playing them in their strongest positions in as advanced a position as possible.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Caledonian Craig said:

Hmmm no I think we want the best options that actually play or have played in that position. Failing that maybe a smart right-back who can be converted and that rules out Armstrong and Burke I feel. At present stick with O'Donnell and Palmer whilst taking a close look at likes of McCrorie and maybe in the future Ashby and Patterson.

Fraser and Forrest should never be played there. Just now our attack needs as much pep as it can get and Fraser and Forrest are key to that and that means playing them in their strongest positions in as advanced a position as possible.

Do you think Armstrong is not “smart”? Hangover from England game? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, er yir macaroon said:

Do you think Armstrong is not “smart”? Hangover from England game? 

No I'd say its like Fraser and Forrest. Trying to force him into a problem slot for the sake of it and you blunt his strengths as a result and have him in an unfamiliar role as a result. Not what we need or can afford. We saw the result of that with Forrest in that position last month.

Edited by Caledonian Craig
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Caledonian Craig said:

No I'd say its like Fraser and Forrest. Trying to force him into a problem slot for the sake of it and you blunt his strengths as a result and have him in an unfamiliar role as a result. Not what we need or can afford. We saw the result of that with Forrest in that position last month.

What strengths are blunted? He already plays right midfield for Southampton. I think your comment about pepping up the attack is valid but a key component of that is having a player at wing back that can pose a forward threat. I’m well aware O’Donnell set up the goal last night and I’d play him in Serbia but long term we need legs for that position and he doesn’t have them. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, er yir macaroon said:

What strengths are blunted? He already plays right midfield for Southampton. I think your comment about pepping up the attack is valid but a key component of that is having a player at wing back that can pose a forward threat. I’m well aware O’Donnell set up the goal last night and I’d play him in Serbia but long term we need legs for that position and he doesn’t have them. 

Yes long-term we need solutions but do not think Armstrong is the answer. He's never played the role before and it does include a defensive mindset too. That is not Armstrong for me as he has always been a midfielder. It needs to be either a right-sided defender or right-back who has an inclination to support attacks but knows when to sit back and defend.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Caledonian Craig said:

 

Fraser and Forrest should never be played there. Just now our attack needs as much pep as it can get and Fraser and Forrest are key to that and that means playing them in their strongest positions in as advanced a position as possible.

Not sure how to get either of them in their strongest positions if we play a back three.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ceudmilefailte said:

Not sure how to get either of them in their strongest positions if we play a back three.

Their strengths are supporting the attack from a midfield position and assisting goals or scoring them. That won't be their role as a wing-back as they'd need to be defending a lot of the time - hardly their strengths at all. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, ceudmilefailte said:

Not sure how to get either of them in their strongest positions if we play a back three.

There will be a lot of previous starters sitting in the bench with a back three. If, say, it’s Dykes and Griffiths up front, then Fraser, Forrest, Christie, Burke (and Armstrong) are probably all subs. 

The above might not be the case if McGinn plays further back but this board were having kittens when he played there previously.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, er yir macaroon said:

There will be a lot of previous starters sitting in the bench with a back three. If, say, it’s Dykes and Griffiths up front, then Fraser, Forrest, Christie, Burke (and Armstrong) are probably all subs. 

The above might not be the case if McGinn plays further back but this board were having kittens when he played there previously.

If we can't fit them into the side then the bench it is but at least then it gives us strong options there if things aren't going well or need freshening up. At present we seem to be moulding the team into a system and players beginning to bed into that system. Key is playing players most comfortably with the three at the back formation and left/right wing-backs. Robertson is nailed on for the left and at present on the right its O'Donnell but we need to find a more dynamic option there. O'Donnell is like a cheap band-aid for a cut as in okay for a short time but needs changing in time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cooper is a very good left centre back. We don’t need Tierney to play there if he’s fit.

Tierney at right wing back is a better player than the ones you’ve mentioned.

England and Belgium both played right footers at LWB yesterday. Their full backs/wing backs are at a similar level to ours. We could do the same with our left footers. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Caledonian Craig said:

If we can't fit them into the side then the bench it is but at least then it gives us strong options there if things aren't going well or need freshening up. At present we seem to be moulding the team into a system and players beginning to bed into that system. Key is playing players most comfortably with the three at the back formation and left/right wing-backs. Robertson is nailed on for the left and at present on the right its O'Donnell but we need to find a more dynamic option there. O'Donnell is like a cheap band-aid for a cut as in okay for a short time but needs changing in time.

Agreed. That’s what I said right at the beginning 😉

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Super_Scotlandfan said:

Cooper is a very good left centre back. We don’t need Tierney to play there if he’s fit.

Tierney at right wing back is a better player than the ones you’ve mentioned.

England and Belgium both played right footers at LWB yesterday. Their full backs/wing backs are at a similar level to ours. We could do the same with our left footers. 

I suppose it’s an option having him on the right but I don’t fancy it too much. If we have two strikers then a wing back needs to be able to get a good early cross in. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Super_Scotlandfan said:

Cooper is a very good left centre back. We don’t need Tierney to play there if he’s fit.

Tierney at right wing back is a better player than the ones you’ve mentioned.

England and Belgium both played right footers at LWB yesterday. Their full backs/wing backs are at a similar level to ours. We could do the same with our left footers. 

Spot on. I was thinking the same.

Defence lining up something like this:-

-------------------------------------------------------------------Marshall--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

--------------------------------------McTominay----------------------Gallagher---------------------------------------Cooper----------------------------------

--Tierney------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Robertson----------------------

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Caledonian Craig said:

Spot on. I was thinking the same.

Defence lining up something like this:-

-------------------------------------------------------------------Marshall--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

--------------------------------------McTominay----------------------Gallagher---------------------------------------Cooper----------------------------------

--Tierney------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Robertson----------------------

Yeah that’s my ideal back 5 after watching these 2 recent games. Didn’t realise how solid we’d be with that back 3. 
 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, er yir macaroon said:

I suppose it’s an option having him on the right but I don’t fancy it too much. If we have two strikers then a wing back needs to be able to get a good early cross in. 

True but it’s not as if Tierney can’t cross with his right. He’d have the option of a quick ball in with his right or a more measured cross with his left. 
 

He’s also much more likely to be in a position to cross than someone like SOD. He’s good at little one-twos with guys like Fraser and has a burst of pace to create a yard of space. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...


×
×
  • Create New...