1 minute ago, boro_fan_in_brum said:

Rob Edwards or whoever can do what the hell they want with the team as long as its an improvement.  

If we switch to WB then so be it, just please make us competitive.

You'd hope we'd be a bit more flexible and not stuck to the same rigid system with the same way of playing regardless of the opposition. That was ultimately Carrick's downfall.

He's played wingbacks at all 3 league clubs he's managed, so I'd say it's likely he'll try to do the same here.

3 minutes ago, Snowblind said:

Or we expect Edwards to switch to 4-2-3-1 and hope it works under him...

Is that not the same as shoe horning a player into a system? Shoe horning a manager into a system he doesn’t really play? 
 

As for Azaz and Whittaker I think Plymouth played at times a 343, or maybe they played it quite regular I’m not sure but I remember reading about it at the time of signing the players. The consensus was Azaz and Morgan played their best football in a front 3.

12 minutes ago, Tarmo Kink Army said:

But you don’t need it, you do what we did with carrick in the first season, left back attacking wing back for example goes forward, the right back drops into a back 3 then the rw holds width on the right so although it may look like a back 3 you attack more down the left with a person on the right as an outlet 

See this is what I don’t really like about switching to wing backs, to say you “don’t really need” a wing back in a wing back formation is the classic reaction. You can’t play a system with wing backs and then dismiss them as not being that important, they are as pivotal as the #10 was in Carricks system, even watford fans said Edwards was let down abit by them not signing a rwb which seemingly left his system less effective. 
 

You’ll either end up with a full back there who isn’t that great going forward, or a winger who struggles tracking back and defending. 

I would feel all of this will be discussed in interviews etc... I like the wing back formation personally and we already have players in the squad that could adapt to that formation so I wouldn't feel it would be a major shift. Whittaker could easily play one of the top two, Azaz as an 8, McGree can play central... let's face it, none of them are out and out wingers anyway and they were all coming inside anyways. I feel that Morris as a 6 just sitting would suit his game much better and then having two 'runners' infront of him would be ideal for us. One technically gifted and the other a strong, aggressive type player.

 

5 minutes ago, LinoJo3 said:

Is that not the same as shoe horning a player into a system? Shoe horning a manager into a system he doesn’t really play? 
 

As for Azaz and Whittaker I think Plymouth played at times a 343, or maybe they played it quite regular I’m not sure but I remember reading about it at the time of signing the players. The consensus was Azaz and Morgan played their best football in a front 3.

See this is what I don’t really like about switching to wing backs, to say you “don’t really need” a wing back in a wing back formation is the classic reaction. You can’t play a system with wing backs and then dismiss them as not being that important, they are as pivotal as the #10 was in Carricks system, even watford fans said Edwards was let down abit by them not signing a rwb which seemingly left his system less effective. 
 

You’ll either end up with a full back there who isn’t that great going forward, or a winger who struggles tracking back and defending. 

Giles played as a wing back as Carricks first system we didn’t have one on the right as smith dropped back into a 3 and Forss held the width on the right but high up 

@LinoJo3 From memory, I think Azaz played his best football as more of an advanced 8 in a 4-3-3 at Plymouth? 

Whittaker, yes, in that system would've played his best football as a RF.

4-3-3 would suit us well. But Edwards isn't a 4-3-3 manager. I don't mind Edwards as a coach, I just think if we hire him then it comes back to my fears at the start of this process - that we're at least partly giving up on the blueprint because we've either hired a manager who doesn't suit the system it's based on, or we're just hoping he can adapt to it. If it's the latter, I think there's more adaptable candidates. 

Granted, I don't know what's happened in the interviews - none of us do. But that was my fear when we sacked Carrick and hiring Edwards would do nothing to assuage those fears.

Edwards is a good coach. Don't get me wrong. I'm just worried about what the remit is if he's appointed against the Scott blueprint. 

Edited June 16, 2025Jun 16 by Snowblind

13 minutes ago, uncle_rico said:

You'd hope we'd be a bit more flexible and not stuck to the same rigid system with the same way of playing regardless of the opposition. That was ultimately Carrick's downfall.

Exactly,

I'm trying to be Mr Positive, the biggest issue was Carricks lack of experience in my opinion, he had no plan B, Edwards has experience and I honestly think he will be good for the club, if players have to slot into different places then so be it.  

6 minutes ago, uncle_rico said:

 

That’s us not paying for Rohl then 🤣 I don’t even think we were ever seriously in for him. Edwards always the number 1 choice 

Cooper - didn’t want to leave his uefa job

Rohl - couldn’t pay the compensation 

Edwards - welcome to Boro 

 

13 minutes ago, TeaCider24 said:

He's played wingbacks at all 3 league clubs he's managed, so I'd say it's likely he'll try to do the same here.

He seems quite a tactically flexible guy so I wouldn't say I'd be shocked to see him change from that to match our squad. But it's certainly a formation he's used a lot and might be hoping to use again.

8 minutes ago, Tarmo Kink Army said:

Giles played as a wing back as Carricks first system we didn’t have one on the right as smith dropped back into a 3 and Forss held the width on the right but high up 

Carrick didn’t play a wing back system though, we could play that lopsided way because we had width from the RF. if you try that in a wing back system with Whittaker on the right of a 3 see how much width we end up with down that right…

17 minutes ago, uncle_rico said:

You'd hope we'd be a bit more flexible and not stuck to the same rigid system with the same way of playing regardless of the opposition. That was ultimately Carrick's downfall.

Aye, true to be fair - but WBs or FBs is a pretty fundamental change. It's not like changing wide players who cut inside and asking them to go to the byline instead. 

It's an entire system and shape change. Unless you have someone like Bukayo Saka who can do all the roles, which you'll not find at Championships level (excluding Nsue... 😂) then it's a massive ask. 

2 minutes ago, ManBearPig said:

That’s us not paying for Rohl then 🤣 I don’t even think we were ever seriously in for him. Edwards always the number 1 choice 

Cooper - didn’t want to leave his uefa job

Rohl - couldn’t pay the compensation 

Edwards - welcome to Boro 

 

Or it could be that we're not having to pay it due to the contract situation. 

10 minutes ago, uncle_rico said:

 

After his YouTube stream to this they deserved to lose the emu war

2 minutes ago, ManBearPig said:

That’s us not paying for Rohl then 🤣 I don’t even think we were ever seriously in for him. Edwards always the number 1 choice 

Cooper - didn’t want to leave his uefa job

Rohl - couldn’t pay the compensation 

Edwards - welcome to Boro 

 

Does anyone really believe he was actually ITK anyway? Think it was more for clicks.