Humpty 3,857 9.5k Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 I don't think that includes Greenwood upfront or on the right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JCWamma 420 239 Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 I get why people put Forss up front, but it's way more likely to be Greenwood up front and Forss off the right than the other way round. Forss is scoring goals off the right, Carrick's not going to move him away from there while Jones is injured. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Humpty 3,857 9.5k Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 Most likely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Borodane 6,816 26.5k Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 Shame Latth and Jones are still injured. I'd take out Greenwood and Barlaser but considering the former two are injured then Greenwood probably keeps his place in the lack of options. Also see no point in taking out Engel as he had a good game vs. Sunderland. Could easy have had an assist and made some good passes in behind their defence. -----------Glover----------- Ayling---Fry---RvB---Engel ------Hackney-O´Brien----- Greenwood-Azaz-McGree -----------Forss------------- Would be really great to be close to the playoff when Dieng, Jones and Latth gets back and O'Brien is back in full match sharpness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aphex_Boro 1,554 6.4k Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 1 hour ago, Humpty said: I don't think that includes Greenwood upfront or on the right. Not sure it includes Greenwood at all but without Jones he has to be involved somewhere 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redcar Rioja 6,779 6.6k Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 9 minutes ago, Aphex_Boro said: Not sure it includes Greenwood at all but without Jones he has to be involved somewhere With no Jones, Coburn or Lath and Rogers gone he plays unless he is injured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeaCider24 13,968 18.6k Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 (edited) Forss fit, phew! McGree, Forss and Dieng start and I'll be very pleased. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MRe 356 756 Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Changing Times 13,018 20.1k Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 6 hours ago, JCWamma said: I get why people put Forss up front, but it's way more likely to be Greenwood up front and Forss off the right than the other way round. Forss is scoring goals off the right, Carrick's not going to move him away from there while Jones is injured. If we've got a squad full of attacking midfielders but only one striker fit who he plays on the right, then we're doing something wrong. Whether that's in terms of squad building, team selection or whatever else, we're getting it wrong. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JCWamma 420 239 Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 4 minutes ago, Changing Times said: If we've got a squad full of attacking midfielders but only one striker fit who he plays on the right, then we're doing something wrong. Whether that's in terms of squad building, team selection or whatever else, we're getting it wrong. It's been the way of football for ages though. When Roberto Firmino was injured, were Liverpool fans clamouring for Salah to play up top instead since he was their best goalscorer? Or were they happy playing someone who was conventionally an attacking midfielder in an advanced role to keep Salah in the position where he was most lethal? I know it's not directly analogous since Forss was solely a striker before he came to Boro, but the point of "play the players where you find them most effective" still stands. If Carrick thinks the way the team sets up results in more goals with an attacking midfielder up front and a striker on the right wing, that's the way he's going to set them up, regardless of how many people post desired teamsheets of them being the other way round. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Changing Times 13,018 20.1k Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 (edited) 14 minutes ago, JCWamma said: It's been the way of football for ages though. When Roberto Firmino was injured, were Liverpool fans clamouring for Salah to play up top instead since he was their best goalscorer? Or were they happy playing someone who was conventionally an attacking midfielder in an advanced role to keep Salah in the position where he was most lethal? I know it's not directly analogous since Forss was solely a striker before he came to Boro, but the point of "play the players where you find them most effective" still stands. If Carrick thinks the way the team sets up results in more goals with an attacking midfielder up front and a striker on the right wing, that's the way he's going to set them up, regardless of how many people post desired teamsheets of them being the other way round. Firmino wasn't playing up top though. He played deeper than that so an attacking midfielder coming in for him wasn't much of a difference. This is completely different as we don't have one of our two main strikers available so we're playing anyone and everyone there instead despite the fact that we have a player available who is an actual striker. I wouldn't mind but it's not like we are playing really well so what exactly would the danger be? We might not win (again)? We were lucky against Sunderland as they created the two best chances of the game and buggered them up. Meanwhile our goal came from a fluffed freekick routine, and a brilliant finish from the lad we can't possibly play up front because of what exactly? Forss didn't score that goal from the right, he scored it as a striker would inside the penalty area, he did nothing at all from the right did he? I mean seriously, did he have loads of other chances from there? Was he creating havoc? The answer is no. Playing him out there when you have other goal scoring threats is fair enough, it just adds to your goal scoring potential. Playing him there with Akpom and Archer last season effectively meant we were playing with three natural goal scorers in the side. Playing him out there now is daft because he is far and away the best available striker to us, and he isn't far and away the best right sided player to us. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neverbefore 12,329 26.6k Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 5 minutes ago, Changing Times said: Firmino wasn't playing up top though. He played deeper than that so an attacking midfielder coming in for him wasn't much of a difference. This is completely different as we don't have one of our two main strikers available so we're playing anyone and everyone there instead despite the fact that we have a player available who is an actual striker. I wouldn't mind but it's not like we are playing really well so what exactly would the danger be? We might not win (again)? We were lucky against Sunderland as they created the two best chances of the game and buggered them up. Meanwhile our goal came from a fluffed freekick routine, and a brilliant finish from the lad we can't possibly play up front because of what exactly? Forss didn't score that goal from the right, he scored it as a striker would inside the penalty area, he did nothing at all from the right did he? I mean seriously, did he have loads of other chances from there? Was he creating havoc? The answer is no. Playing him out there when you have other goal scoring threats is fair enough, it just adds to your goal scoring potential. Playing him there with Akpom and Archer last season effectively meant we were playing with three natural goal scorers in the side. Playing him out there now is daft because he is far and away the best available striker to us, and he isn't far and away the best right sided player to us. What if Carrick thinks the next best right sided midfielder is a worse right sided midfielder than Greenwood, for example, is a striker? He has to go with what he thinks is most effective as a unit. You might disagree but there isn't any evidence to suggest either way so it's a matter of opinion. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce 1,956 1.7k Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 24 minutes ago, Neverbefore said: What if Carrick thinks the next best right sided midfielder is a worse right sided midfielder than Greenwood, for example, is a striker? He has to go with what he thinks is most effective as a unit. You might disagree but there isn't any evidence to suggest either way so it's a matter of opinion. Carrick clearly believed that, out of the players we had available for Sunderland Greenwood Hackney - Azaz - Forss was going to be more effective than Forss Hackney - Azaz - Greenwood Assuming McGree is back and starting then he is likely to believe that his best available front four is Greenwood McGree - Azaz - Forss Greenwood has played once or twice on the right and been a non-entity when he did. McGree was also poor last season when he got moved to the right to accommodate Ramsey. Silvera has one trick which is to cut in from the left and shoot, making putting him on the right a poor option. Greenwood started well with us. For a while he seemed to be a really clinical finisher then, for some reason, seemed to lose confidence and now looks to be second-guessing himself. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Changing Times 13,018 20.1k Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 1 hour ago, Neverbefore said: What if Carrick thinks the next best right sided midfielder is a worse right sided midfielder than Greenwood, for example, is a striker? He has to go with what he thinks is most effective as a unit. You might disagree but there isn't any evidence to suggest either way so it's a matter of opinion. Carrick can believe that in which case we've screwed up putting the squad together so we've got it wrong from that point of view. I did say that above, either in terms of squad building or team selection we're getting it wrong. We shouldn't have signed multiple players who are unable to sufficiently challenge for a place in circumstances like this otherwise what's the point of bringing them in? They can't all play on the left hand side. And it's not like the people playing up front have looked that good doing it. Greenwood got praise on the weekend essentially for making a couple of runs and working really hard. That doesn't make him a good striker. I could understand the argument more if Forss was a fantastic right sided player but he really isn't. He's a goal scorer, and his use to us has been as a goal scorer, nothing else, even when he plays on the right hand side. We don't have another one in the squad who is available so why wouldn't we play the one we do have up front, and then play one of the many attacking midfielders we have as attacking midfielders? At worst we lose and don't play well, which is hardly a disaster as we've been doing that for half the season anyway. At best you find out that Forss can play as a striker in your system, and you find out that someone else, Silvera perhaps or Greenwood, is up to the job as well. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erimus74 3,595 3.7k Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 Some of my match tickets, programmes & match reports v Bristol City 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts