Vale vs Tranmere

[werstayinup]

Agree with all of that especially the need for a Striker who can finish - JMW needs to be coached on the simple things done properly like passing and crossing - he seems good at the complicated stuff , turning dribblin etc.

 

The problem is that we will get that with players at this level because if they were the complete package then they certainly wouldn't be at Vale.

[Andyregs]

I'd like our shape to look something like this for the first few games...

 

 

------------------------Neal------------------------------

 

Yates---------Duffy------McCombe-------Loft

 

 

---------Shuker-----Murphy----Burge----------

 

 

--------Williams-----Pope-----Vincent---------

 

Maybe putting Duffy at full back and a different centre half in the middle. For me it get round our lack of strikers and allows us to get the most out of the wingers (this would suit dodds best as well as he isn't an out and out striker). Allows us to stretch their midfield and try to control the game, but also allows the wide men to push forward.

[For Us All]

The clocks still broken then.

 

Keith reckons it's just a matter of time.:rolleyes:

[andy jones]

Andy Procter

 

900 sounded about right. The Lorne Street only holds 1500 and it was nowhere near full as far as I could see.

 

It seems a very poor turnout to me but I don't normally go many pre-season matches (although I've been most this time) so I wouldn't know what the norm would be for a last pre-season game against league 1 opposition. Anyone know?

[sandyford_valiant]

Andy Procter

 

900 sounded about right. The Lorne Street only holds 1500 and it was nowhere near full as far as I could see.

 

It seems a very poor turnout to me but I don't normally go many pre-season matches (although I've been most this time) so I wouldn't know what the norm would be for a last pre-season game against league 1 opposition. Anyone know?

 

The Lorne Street stand hold more than 1500.

 

I reckon its more 2300

[andy jones]

Speedy tells me there's room for 1,100 seats on the unfinished side so I'm still sticking with 1,500 but willing to be corrected.

[Jacky Noff]

I'd like our shape to look something like this for the first few games...

 

 

------------------------Neal------------------------------

 

Yates---------Duffy------McCombe-------Loft

 

 

---------Shuker-----Murphy----Burge----------

 

 

--------Williams-----Pope-----Vincent---------

 

Maybe putting Duffy at full back and a different centre half in the middle. For me it get round our lack of strikers and allows us to get the most out of the wingers (this would suit dodds best as well as he isn't an out and out striker). Allows us to stretch their midfield and try to control the game, but also allows the wide men to push forward.

 

And the wingers are who? And playing where in that formation?

 

It suits Dodds best but you don't have Him in there.

 

I'm confused and stand to be lambasted for my lack of footballing nous.

[ashowellPV]

Neal

 

Duffy McCombe Owen Loft

 

Shuker Murphy Burge

 

Myrie-Williams Pope Vincent

 

That'd be my starting 11 for Burnley.

[Andyregs]

And the wingers are who? And playing where in that formation?

 

It suits Dodds best but you don't have Him in there.

 

I'm confused and stand to be lambasted for my lack of footballing nous.

 

4-3-3 with the wingers/wide strikers being Williams and Vincent. Allows a but more fluidity with them drifting out wide, but also cutting in when they can. If the players are intelligent in their play play, it can switch from 5 in midfield to 3 up front. It has a lot more to offer than 4-4-2, which every seems to be stuck on (other than 3 centre halves which would be awful). It would also play to our strengths with having Vincent, Williams, dodds, Taylor who can all suit that formation I didn't put dodds in because I wouldn't put him ahead of Williams and Vincent yet (though I haven't seen a lot of them yet to be fair), but I do feel it would be the best formation to suit him. I also think it would suit Taylor, as the best I've seen him play over the last few years was when playing emergency striker (though he was a bit of a headless chicken and so being a bit wider will be easier for him).

[mitchpvfc]

Neal

 

Duffy McCombe Owen Loft

 

Shuker Murphy Burge

 

Myrie-Williams Pope Vincent

 

That'd be my starting 11 for Burnley.

 

Totally agree. Good solid back four, passer in burge, tackler in murphy and technical in shuker. Good service from JMW and Vincent and Pope will get a few this season. Wiliamson - good impact sub along with Dodds.

[Jacky Noff]

4-3-3 with the wingers/wide strikers being Williams and Vincent. Allows a but more fluidity with them drifting out wide, but also cutting in when they can. If the players are intelligent in their play play, it can switch from 5 in midfield to 3 up front. It has a lot more to offer than 4-4-2, which every seems to be stuck on (other than 3 centre halves which would be awful). It would also play to our strengths with having Vincent, Williams, dodds, Taylor who can all suit that formation I didn't put dodds in because I wouldn't put him ahead of Williams and Vincent yet (though I haven't seen a lot of them yet to be fair), but I do feel it would be the best formation to suit him. I also think it would suit Taylor, as the best I've seen him play over the last few years was when playing emergency striker (though he was a bit of a headless chicken and so being a bit wider will be easier for him).

 

Thanks.

 

I mis-read Williams for Williamson. I told you I was confused.

 

It does make more sense now.

[Spunk Trumpet]

I guessed the crowd at 700 so 900 or so sounds right.

 

To pick up Alan Bakers positives, how do you know we have a good keeper at last?

Not tested at all yesterday apart from comfortable long range efforts and his flapping from a second half corner could have lost us a goal.