bale rm & lennon lm?

[luptic]

bale and lennon were both good once they came on, but why were they played on the wrong sides? Bale on the two occasions that he got to line to cross coudlnt really cross it because it was on his weaker foot. I thought harry should of switched it.

 

[Dan Ashcroft]

To force them to cut inside because we had no centre forward.

 

[luptic]

i know harry has done this a few times this season, and i know it paid off once, but both in my opinion are better effective on their right sides. Unless they have been working on it in training.

 

[Kendall]

They goth have goals in them if they can cut in.

I'm happy because it helps them to develop their games. Like Fergie did with Giggs and Ronaldo over the years.

 

[Dan Ashcroft]

Generally you'd always want them on their preferred sides. However when we don't have a goal threat, or even players in the box for them to cross to, forcing them to head towards goal is an attempted solution for that problem.

 

[chrissivad]

i know harry has done this a few times this season, and i know it paid off once, but both in my opinion are better effective on their right sides. Unless they have been working on it in training.

when Lennon plays on the right and Bale on the left they might be more effective, but thats when we have at least 2 strikers/ Striker and VDV for them to find.

If they got past the last man on the out side and crossed it today they would have been crossing just to Defoe.

As Dan Ashcroft has said, playing them on the 'wrong side' makes them cut in and then they can either shoot as they are on their stronger foot or to link up better with Defoe.

 

[StartingPrice]

They goth have goals in them if they can cut in.

I'm happy because it helps them to develop their games. Like Fergie did with Giggs and Ronaldo over the years.

I would agree with you...but we didn't win, so I don't:grin:

 

[nedley]

Would'nt have hurt to change back during the game. If anything it should have given wolves something else to think about.

 

[SpurSince57]

Would'nt have hurt to change back during the game. If anything it should have given wolves something else to think about.

It wouldn't, and it would.

Unfortunately, Danny Blanchflower's belief that the captain should take tactical command on the pitch appears to have gone out of the window. Then, footballers with Danny's vision, intelligence and tactical nous are rare beasts indeed.

 

[Mr Pink]

Yes it was to cut in but had Crouch been brought on alongside Defoe we would of had someone to hold the ball up and had a target to aim for from crosses if we had one of Bale or Lennon playing in their natural position.

Palacios, Crouch and one of Bale or Lennon in their natural positions would of given us more control of the game in the latter stages I reckon.

 

[C0YS]

Pav and Defoe, ae not great in the are, but them on reverse sides and shooting is easier, might also be to unstablise FB.

 

[nedley]

As well as Bale played today, I thought 'the beast' Elokobi defended quite well against him and throughout the game. Although im all for swapping positions I did feel the attributes of Lennon were better suited to taking on Elokobi.

 

[EmperorKabir]

i reckon it was just to mess up wolves.

wolves may have had their tactics ready to take on bale and/or azza on their correct sides, but to see them switch could have screwed them up.

 

[Kendall]

I would agree with you...but we didn't win, so I don't:grin:

There'll be days like this my mama said (mama said!)

 

[agrdavidsfan]

Barca have been doing it for years

 

[InOffMeLeftShin]

1. We're not Barca :lol:
2. It worked reasonably well and arguably Bale should have scored, Modric/Defoe should have scored and Lennon had chances to let rip when he cut inside too.
3. We probably should have switched it at some point but the balance going forward was OK, just the balance defensively was awful.

 

[BorisTM]

bale and lennon were both good once they came on, but why were they played on the wrong sides? Bale on the two occasions that he got to line to cross coudlnt really cross it because it was on his weaker foot. I thought harry should of switched it.

I dont mind them switching back and forth - it gives our attack a bit of variety but yesterday after we scored the third we needed to play a bit safe and that experiment brought us the opposite as it opened us even more they dont defend so well when they play on the opposite wing.

As far as the cutting it in goes, Bale kept cutting it OUT and the only chance he had to score a goal he couldnt do it as it was on his weak foot, while Lennon did few cut ins that didnt result in anything good. Arry should have played them at their positions, it would have made it easier to defend as well.

 

[Such Small Portions]

I know there are arguments for it, but they never ever look as effective on the 'wrong' sides.

I think there's a belief that it's a stroke of nose-tapping genius to switch them. And that calling for them to be played on the 'right' sides is somehow a bit simplistic. Well maybe it is, but I still think we should have gone with it yesterday. I reckon 15 mins of them letting rip on their natural flanks would have seen Wolves off.

 

[Black]

As soon as they scored he should have switched them back

 

[nicdic]

They were on the wrong sides to encourage them to cut in and shoot rather than get wide and cross. Defoe would have been the only man in there, maybe Modric, and neither of them are going to win headers.