I'd go with -

Esson

Tokely Bulvitis Munro Golabek

Hayes Proctor Cox Djebi-Zadi

Rooney Foran

Subs - Allison, McBain/Shinnie, Odhiambo, Sanchez, Duncan

Edited February 13, 201016 yr by Renegade

I'm with Renegade here, keep everyone on their toes etc.

Because sometimes things run their courses thats why. I don't always buy into this whole "If it ain't broken..." argument anyway. Man U very rarely play the same team twice in a row and I wouldn't describe them as being broken.

So you'd drop Duncan, who's just played a couple of blinders (Motherwell & Raith) to bring Lionel in?

This isn't one of your better wind ups, Ren

Well I'm from the school of 'If it ain't broken...' so same again for me please.

There wasn't much broken about the old 2-3-5 formation, but it's hardly every used now.

Because sometimes things run their courses thats why. I don't always buy into this whole "If it ain't broken..." argument anyway. Man U very rarely play the same team twice in a row and I wouldn't describe them as being broken.

So you'd drop Duncan, who's just played a couple of blinders (Motherwell & Raith) to bring Lionel in?

This isn't one of your better wind ups, Ren?

First point - perhaps

Second point - I don't do wind ups, I post what I would do and if that's "alternative" or against the grain then so be it.

I'd go with the same team only put in Sanchez for Odiambho.

Works for me!!

So you'd drop Duncan, who's just played a couple of blinders (Motherwell & Raith) to bring Lionel in?

I think your missing Renegade's point. Doesn't have to be someone on form, but just a couple of player who never played great, like dropping Sanchez for Odhiambo.

Cox is ok now and available for selection this week.

Going to be a wee headache for Butch, Russell played well last saturday, will he keep his place, i think he should.

Also think sandshoes should start.

I think your missing Renegade's point. Doesn't have to be someone on form, but just a couple of player who never played great, like dropping Sanchez for Odhiambo.

In his team selection he's got Russel on the bench and Lionel playing in midfield....

There wasn't much broken about the old 2-3-5 formation, but it's hardly every used now.

:lol: :)

Without reading up on this I will guarentee you the reason that they no longer play 2-3-5 is because of wingers and attacking full backs....if they only had 2 in defence then there is no one to cover the wide areas and the opposing team would see this and overload it

In his team selection he's got Russel on the bench and Lionel playing in midfield....

Bloody hell I never looked at that. How is that even possible?

Not necessarily so. The main point of the formation was that if you keep attacking, the other side would be shut out and thus couldn't play a counter attack. Also, despite having two centre backs, the two half backs in the middle, along with the central player would come back when the other team attacked essentially creating a defensive back five. It was a formation like this that helped people like Stanley Matthews and Puskas being the greats they are referred to today.

But it's not just that, the idea of football at that time, was to out score your opponent, something I and many others believe football should be about. The stance now is "Don't concede". I've spoken to a few folk about this set up, one who played as a winger for Caley and Thistle and he swears that this system was by far the best, the most entertaining and the most effective.

How effective would the 2-3-5 and other old formation like the W-M and the 4-2-4 today? It's hard to say. I saw a good analogy on this in a discussion on football tactics on P&B. One poster was talking about how new tactics arise in countries that are mainly isolated from the outside world. An example of this is North Korea, who, during the Asian World Cup Qualifiers often set up their team in the 3-3-3-1 formation - something that is indeed very unusual. The analogy the poster used, was that at times highly technologically advanced countries like America and Britain have trouble adapting to fighting against groups like al Qaeda, due to the fact they use far less technology and still use many old fashioned ways of living and fighting. The same could be said for football. If a team were to line up in an old fashioned formation with old fashioned tactics (in this case for arguments sake, the 2-3-5), the opposition may find it difficult to beat that team due to their lack of knowledge on how to beat that system.

So there you are, but that's for another thread.

In his team selection he's got Russel on the bench and Lionel playing in midfield....

Bloody hell I never looked at that. How is that even possible?

With Ren?, anything's possible....

Why does every keep calling me "Rene"? Is it after Rene Higuita?

Edit - For those who don't know, that's this guy -

Edited February 16, 201016 yr by Renegade

Not necessarily so. The main point of the formation was that if you keep attacking, the other side would be shut out and thus couldn't play a counter attack. Also, despite having two centre backs, the two half backs in the middle, along with the central player would come back when the other team attacked essentially creating a defensive back five. It was a formation like this that helped people like Stanley Matthews and Puskas being the greats they are referred to today.

But it's not just that, the idea of football at that time, was to out score your opponent, something I and many others believe football should be about. The stance now is "Don't concede". I've spoken to a few folk about this set up, one who played as a winger for Caley and Thistle and he swears that this system was by far the best, the most entertaining and the most effective.

How effective would the 2-3-5 and other old formation like the W-M and the 4-2-4 today? It's hard to say. I saw a good analogy on this in a discussion on football tactics on P&B. One poster was talking about how new tactics arise in countries that are mainly isolated from the outside world. An example of this is North Korea, who, during the Asian World Cup Qualifiers often set up their team in the 3-3-3-1 formation - something that is indeed very unusual. The analogy the poster used, was that at times highly technologically advanced countries like America and Britain have trouble adapting to fighting against groups like al Qaeda, due to the fact they use far less technology and still use many old fashioned ways of living and fighting. The same could be said for football. If a team were to line up in an old fashioned formation with old fashioned tactics (in this case for arguments sake, the 2-3-5), the opposition may find it difficult to beat that team due to their lack of knowledge on how to beat that system.

So there you are, but that's for another thread.

That post actually made me laugh out loud here!! I'm not sure if that made sense in your own head!

And 'It was a formation like this that helped people like Stanley Matthews and Puskas being the greats they are referred to today' Yeah Lionel Dejebi-Zadi is just not being played in the right system...put him on the left midfield in a ridiculas formation and he will become a world footballing legend.

Why does every keep calling me "Rene"? Is it after Rene Higuita?

Edit - For those who don't know, that's this guy -

Yes, he was inclined towards eccentricity on occasion...

I was thinking more of the French cafe owner from 'Allo, 'Allo.

Not necessarily so. The main point of the formation was that if you keep attacking, the other side would be shut out and thus couldn't play a counter attack. Also, despite having two centre backs, the two half backs in the middle, along with the central player would come back when the other team attacked essentially creating a defensive back five. It was a formation like this that helped people like Stanley Matthews and Puskas being the greats they are referred to today.

But it's not just that, the idea of football at that time, was to out score your opponent, something I and many others believe football should be about. The stance now is "Don't concede". I've spoken to a few folk about this set up, one who played as a winger for Caley and Thistle and he swears that this system was by far the best, the most entertaining and the most effective.

How effective would the 2-3-5 and other old formation like the W-M and the 4-2-4 today? It's hard to say. I saw a good analogy on this in a discussion on football tactics on P&B. One poster was talking about how new tactics arise in countries that are mainly isolated from the outside world. An example of this is North Korea, who, during the Asian World Cup Qualifiers often set up their team in the 3-3-3-1 formation - something that is indeed very unusual. The analogy the poster used, was that at times highly technologically advanced countries like America and Britain have trouble adapting to fighting against groups like al Qaeda, due to the fact they use far less technology and still use many old fashioned ways of living and fighting. The same could be said for football. If a team were to line up in an old fashioned formation with old fashioned tactics (in this case for arguments sake, the 2-3-5), the opposition may find it difficult to beat that team due to their lack of knowledge on how to beat that system.

So there you are, but that's for another thread.

well at least you think it would work and that's the important thing..

I play amateur football against a lot of unorganised teams and when they are down by a couple of goals they probaby revert to a similar 2-3-5 (i.e. all out attack) and it just makes it easier for us to pick them off.... there is a very good reason you don't see managers even considering this type of formation

That post actually made me laugh out loud here!! I'm not sure if that made sense in your own head!

And 'It was a formation like this that helped people like Stanley Matthews and Puskas being the greats they are referred to today' Yeah Lionel Dejebi-Zadi is just not being played in the right system...put him on the left midfield in a ridiculas formation and he will become a world footballing legend.

I never said anything about playing Lionel in that formation, but he could be used more effectively.

And anyway, instead their baseball forum for you somewhere?

well at least you think it would work and that's the important thing..

I play amateur football against a lot of unorganised teams and when they are down by a couple of goals they probaby revert to a similar 2-3-5 (i.e. all out attack) and it just makes it easier for us to pick them off.... there is a very good reason you don't see managers even considering this type of formation

I never really said it would work, just acknowledging the fact that it did then. I did hear somewhere of Hughes thinking about using it for Man City at the start of the season, but that might of been a joke.............it probably was.

Edited February 16, 201016 yr by Renegade

Rene - for you to pick jimmy zadi shows you dont go to alot of games.

My selection, id be happy to see Duncan start and Cox to be on the bench. Also, Sanchez has to come in to start and Eric on the bench, to come on as the supersub and run at the defence.

Eric had a couple of good chances to strike on saturday, but then preferred to play a wide ball - this indicates to me a little short on confidence then which worries me, as there isnt time now for him to get a good run to sort it.

Rene - for you to pick jimmy zadi shows you dont go to alot of games.

Actually I go to every home game, but anyway I don't to answer anyone about who I choose.

Edited February 16, 201016 yr by Renegade

Rene - for you to pick jimmy zadi shows you dont go to alot of games.

Actually I go to every home game, but anyway I don't to answer anyone about who I choose.

lol, your the boss eh!

Anyway its always a laugh looking at your team selections, I dont know if you get a 2 year old to randomly draw names out of a hat but its good for a laugh.

And I see the witchhunt against me has well and truly begun...

Oh the joys of the forum eh.

Edited February 16, 201016 yr by Renegade

And I see the witchhunt against me has well and truly begun...

Oh the joys of the forum eh.

It's all meant in good humour (certainly on my part) but even you have to admit some of your selections are leftfield

And I see the witchhunt against me has well and truly begun...

Oh the joys of the forum eh.

Oh don't be so dramatic :D

And I see the witchhunt against me has well and truly begun...

Your opinion is as valid as the next person's, Renegade, so all power to ya

Rene - for you to pick jimmy zadi shows you dont go to alot of games.

Actually I go to every home game, but anyway I don't to answer anyone about who I choose.

Hey, dont be going all defensive on me neeb! Its good you go to the home games, i go to the away and catch as many home games as i can. Makes me no better than you.

Point im making is i notice in some matchday posts, lets take Killie away in the cup last week, where everyone at the game seen Lionel have another absolute howler - and i have never been his worst critic - but you stuck up for him. If you were at the game thats when to make opinions, know what i mean? Thats all i was getting at. Fair play to ya.

It's all meant in good humour (certainly on my part) but even you have to admit some of your selections are leftfield

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. - Mahatma Gandhi

I see what you did there with the "leftfield" comment aye well done, but I've never been one to follow the crowd. If I were boss, I'd try to do something interesting, effective, but at the same time not utterly nuts. For example, 4-4-2 would probably be my formation of choice (or if my FM2010 profile is anything to go by, against a bigger team, the 5-3-2). I wouldn't use things like the 2-3-5, that would just be sucidal.

Say, like my stance on Lionel, to me, moving him out wide makes sense. Proctor's done it, Tokely's done it and Golabek played at left midfield for whole seasons at a time when ICT first entered the SPL. From what I can see, Lionel has more of the qualities for good than any of those aforementioned players.

Rene - for you to pick jimmy zadi shows you dont go to alot of games.

Actually I go to every home game, but anyway I don't to answer anyone about who I choose.

Hey, dont be going all defensive on me neeb! Its good you go to the home games, i go to the away and catch as many home games as i can. Makes me no better than you.

Point im making is i notice in some matchday posts, lets take Killie away in the cup last week, where everyone at the game seen Lionel have another absolute howler - and i have never been his worst critic - but you stuck up for him. If you were at the game thats when to make opinions, know what i mean? Thats all i was getting at. Fair play to ya.

From what I've heard and the highlights I've seen of the Killie game, Lionel did indeed have somewhat of a blooperfest. But my stance on him has always been the same - he should never have been in a left back. It was an opinion formed after I saw him play the Celtic Reserves in last season. As I said above, from what I can see he has the qualities to be a better winger than say Robert Eagle or someone. He has speed, he tries to play a pass, he has some slinky skills - just what makes a decent winger I reckon. This also goes along with my view that Shinnie is the best left back at the club just now - stick him in at the back and move Lionel out of harms way and leave him to what he does best - attacking. It may be "leftfield", it may be against the grain, it may be "alternative" - but that's my view.