Forss and Rogers playing in the wrong positions

starplayer said:
When teams sit back like Millwall we need someone on the flanks that can beat a man. Silvera did it in the second half. I think Jones could have done it on the right. As was said above, Forss was even more out of the game when he went central. Not surprising as the 2 brick 5hithouses in Millwalls defence were twice his size. Last season Forss got 10 goals and 5 assists from the right so no reason for Carrick to think he was not worthy of that spot.
Rogers gave a 8/10 performance from me in the context of his inexperience and playing against not one but two big lumps at the back on his own. No wonder he had to try and drop deep. 10/10 for effort. 6/10 effectiveness.
I think most of us thought it was going to be tough v Millwall and most of the teams put up by fans were pretty much what Carrick picked.
Click to expand...
Yay, someone else observed the game with their eyes, instead of just going with their frustrations that we haven’t signed an experienced cf.
 
parmoboy said:
Forss really frustrated me today. Two or three times he shot after cutting inside onto his left foot, and each time I didn't feel he was in a position to score really.

I appreciate that if you don't shoot you don't score but just felt he was wasteful today.

I do also appreciate however that he's a striker being asked to play as a winger, and to be honest I think Carrick has got it wrong playing him on the wing and Rogers up front. I think it would have made more sense to play Forss up front and then one of either Rogers, Jones or Silvera on the right.

Carrick saw something in Chuba that made him think Chuba could play as a 10, and I can't help but feel he's hoped he could achieve the same thing with Rogers, i.e. find a new position for Rogers, but it hasn't worked for me.
Click to expand...
We had 2 strikers on the bench that didn't get on in a game where we had 2 shots on target and lost 1 nil. We were playing a very poor team.
We were worse than them with atleast 3 players out of position all playing badly. I'm not sure what Rogers is meant to be but he's not good enough.
 
Steve Bee said:
We had 2 strikers on the bench that didn't get on in a game where we had 2 shots on target and lost 1 nil. We were playing a very poor team.
We were worse than them with atleast 3 players out of position all playing badly. I'm not sure what Rogers is meant to be but he's not good enough.
Click to expand...
The new boo boy
 
Virtually everyone on this thread were seeing the same thing yesterday. IMO Forss started to take on shots with his weaker foot because the other two upfront weren't doing anything constructive. He was the most capable forward on the pitch. Both were in the wrong position but they weren't the only ones. You could add Crooks and McNair to that.
 
The stats from last season show that Forss is more effective as a wide, rather than central forward and I don't fall out with Carrick playing him in his best position.

He wasn't in the game at all when he was moved to the centre and if he plays I'm sure it's either wide or not at all in Carricks mind.

Rogers is a no.10 for me, he's strong, athletic and can hold the ball up and link up play, but he's not got a great deal of pace and we lacked that yesterday.

We're desperate for a couple of players but maybe this result is a reality check - we were always going to find out very difficult to fully replace the quality in the team that finished last season.
 
We should of played Forss up front with Rogers in the number 10 position as he came deep so many times and when he got the ball Crooks was not in the position that Rogers had vacated which meant we didnt have a striker anywhere near the goal. Why didnt he bring Gilbert on when we were 1-0 down. At this stage of the season if we went 2-0 down but had 3 strikers up front, i.e. Forss, Rogers & Gilbert with Silvera and Jones on the wing we might have had a chance of getting an equaliser.
Also a few times when we put crosses into the box there wasn't a boro player anywhere near it, that's because Rogers and Crooks are not natural strikers and don't have the instinct or they don't gamble like a proper forward would.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top