Lavery and Yates upfront

H

Hankey2009

Well-known member
Expecting plenty of abuse but especially with the way we played yesterday and of what I’ve seen so far I can see how it will work. We pump far too many balls up which they aren’t tall enough to win and the ball comes straight back. Felt we played much more on the deck Fulham than we did last night which would of worked out better…..I’d be tempted to have TJJ/Madine upfront and lavery on a wing or in behind. Feel were trying to shoe horn lavery into the side (which you can’t blame him for as he’s too good to be in the bench)
Onwards and Upwards
 
Lavery and Yates starting as a front 2 isn't great.
First off it just isn't working and secondly if you start them both how do you add any pace up front later in the game from the bench?
Start whichever one is in form with either Madine, John Jules or Anderson alongside or behind them depending on the opposition.
Have the two of them competing for a starting place that's how we will get the best out of them.
 
I don't think having 2 very similar strikers up top works.
We keep finding ourselves in positions where we're forced to lob it long and nobody has the height to get onto them.

I think Madine was the only person that actually got onto one against Huddersfield.
 
I agree that they need better service but Anderson and Bowler are plenty good enough at providing it. As for the two together, I don't think it's a great idea. A nippy short guy alongside a taller striker has a good pedigree and once Madine gets into his stride I would like to see him played alongside both Yates and Lavery as partnerships.
 
Why not try Yates out on the left, he has great dribbling skills, knows how to beat a man, has good awareness of players around him and has shown he can play killer balls through and set goals up. He will obviously chip in with his fair share of goals too.

Madine and lavery as a big, little partnership up top looks interesting.
 
Hankey2009 said:
Just out of interest who would you play instead of TJJ you seem to have this constant snipe that we’re not good enough etc and slate the players however I can’t say I’ve ever seen your master plan? You were anonymous after Fulham yet your back to been in your element after a poor result
Click to expand...
I commented after the Fulham game, were you too lazy to look?
As far as I'm concerned the team lacks physicality, creativity and goals...argue against that if you can? JJ is this season's Woodburn...he's created little and hasn't had a shot at goal this season. He didn't pull up any trees at Doncaster either?
 
Last edited:
The team that started against Fulham is our best starting XI at the moment IMO.

Yates is obviously struggling but like last year just needs that goal to kick him into life . . it will come.

I didn't see much in TJJ at first but like Simms gets better every game and I thought he was one of our better players last night . . he will get better.

Keshi was my MOM on Sat and should keep his place.

The Viking and Big Marv would have been my first choice CBs at the start of the season by Keogh has impressed me in the last couple of games and deserves to keep his place.

The only one I might change is Garbutt who has been under par.
 
In a 4-4-2 you need a Simms or a Madine type player which worked last season alongside Yates or Lavery together they've no phiscality or height for this league as a pair.
 
62years&counting said:
I commented after the Fulham game, were you too lazy to look?
As far as I'm concerned the team lacks physicality, creativity and goals...argue against that if you can? JJ is this season's Woodburn...he's created little and hasn't had a shot at goal this season.
Click to expand...
We beat Fulham with Yates and TJJ starting up top, we also pulled it back from 2-0 down against Bournemouth with them up top too, with TJJ playing the pass into Anderson to win the penalty.

That's an argument of sorts, I can't think of more compelling arguments for other partnerships that aren't based on just trying something different with no guarantee they'll work either.
 
TheRealKingKenny said:
We beat Fulham with Yates and TJJ starting up top, we also pulled it back from 2-0 down against Bournemouth with them up top too, with TJJ playing the pass into Anderson to win the penalty.

That's an argument of sorts, I can't think of more compelling arguments for other partnerships that aren't based on just trying something different with no guarantee they'll work either.
Click to expand...
More quality, organisation and physicality is needed at this level. Unfortunately we're short of these at present. I win, 1 goal and 3 defeats at home suggests we're in a bit of bother.
 
62years&counting said:
More quality, organisation and physicality is needed at this level. Unfortunately we're short of these at present. I win, 1 goal and 3 defeats at home suggests we're in a bit of bother.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, as the thread is about our front two, who would you play up top?
 
FY16JJ said:
'Boro played a 4-2-3-1 yesterday - a lot in midfield there and that, for me, was our weakest area on Tuesday. I'd definitely bring back Stewart and drop TJJ.
Click to expand...
Totally agree we got overrun in midfield on Tuesday , we need to have more bodies in there to make us more compact .
 
Leither said:
The team that started against Fulham is our best starting XI at the moment IMO.

Yates is obviously struggling but like last year just needs that goal to kick him into life . . it will come.

I didn't see much in TJJ at first but like Simms gets better every game and I thought he was one of our better players last night . . he will get better.

Keshi was my MOM on Sat and should keep his place.

The Viking and Big Marv would have been my first choice CBs at the start of the season by Keogh has impressed me in the last couple of games and deserves to keep his place.

The only one I might change is Garbutt who has been under par.
Click to expand...
Really? Keogh is like a grandad in the school sports dads race. He got done for pace several times on Tuesday. Bench warmer at best…
 
I was concerned about Lavery and Yates playing together because they are very similar, but it's clear they are not making the same runs and I think they will be successful as a pair. However, there would be no point in lumping the ball to them as they will win nothing in the air. IMO, the main problem against Hudders was having TJJ and Bowler pushing forward wide. Keep Gerry and Shayne and replace TJJ with Stewart in the middle. That way, we'll have more possession in midfield and another route to play the two strikers in, as well as having Bowler feeding them from the right wing.
 
Always tangerine said:
Yates is struggling at present. Madine and Lavery could work
Click to expand...
I think you could be right there. Lavery is on the crest of a wave launching himself into championship and international recognition so reluctant to drop him, but he has no partnership at all with Yates who is trying hard but definitely looks like he needs to bag a couple quite quickly now.

But on the other side of the coin Madine knows Jerry’s game and Jerry knows Madines game so we could get more out of that pairing than where there’s a learning curve between Madine and Lavery.

Who knows what Critch will do!
 
Critch, Miller, Garrity & McCall see our players every day in training - we obviously don't; they critically review their performances following games; they know that we need to score more goals & if we don't the consequences are inevitable. Saturday is a winnable game, so the coaches will be working hard to formulate the best striking partnership to face the opposition. They will decide the formation & tactics and that will inform the team selection. They don't have a great deal of choice with regards to our strikers but they will pick the best players for this game. UTMP
 
If I was Critch I would be playing Lavery in a lone striker position and get him playing like Jamie Vardy at Leicester. From there you build the midfield around him (preferably with more than two central midfielders or we will struggle again).
 
tangomonkey said:
If I was Critch I would be playing Lavery in a lone striker position and get him playing like Jamie Vardy at Leicester. From there you build the midfield around him (preferably with more than two central midfielders or we will struggle again).
Click to expand...
Maybe worth a punt, what is for sure is that we are constantly losing the midfield battle, usually because we are overrun in there.
 
As England manager I always felt we needed an extra man in midfield to retain the ball, but that was more as an attacking ploy to help create opportunities. It came from my experience playing international football in a 4-4-2 and spending half my time chasing the ball.

Glenn Hoddle
 
clappers said:
I think you could be right there. Lavery is on the crest of a wave launching himself into championship and international recognition so reluctant to drop him, but he has no partnership at all with Yates who is trying hard but definitely looks like he needs to bag a couple quite quickly now.

But on the other side of the coin Madine knows Jerry’s game and Jerry knows Madines game so we could get more out of that pairing than where there’s a learning curve between Madine and Lavery.

Who knows what Critch will do!
Click to expand...
Agreed Clappers, as long as Madine's fit to last close to 90 minutes.

The added plus is that Gary will also provide us with some more height and strength at the back when we have to defend corners and set-pieces.
 
Danger with playing Madine( I’m a fan of him) is that we bypass midfield and lump it long, this will just concede possession and it will end up coming straight back to us. We need to find a way to have controlled possession of the ball in areas where we can threaten the opponent’s goal. Maybe Madine up top with runners off him, that would mean IMO a more narrow 4-3-3 with the full backs tasked in providing width
 
Lavery and Yates isn't the answer to any of our problems but Lavery OR Yates is a massive plus.
With who we have available in the near future this would be my lineup

Maxwell
Gabriel Ekpiteta Gretarrsson Garbutt
Stewart Dougall
Bowler Anderson Mitchell
Yates

Grimshaw, Sterling, Husband, Wintle, John Jules, Madine, Lavery
 
gjr69 said:
Lavery and Yates isn't the answer to any of our problems but Lavery OR Yates is a massive plus.
With who we have available in the near future this would be my lineup

Maxwell
Gabriel Ekpiteta Gretarrsson Garbutt
Stewart Dougall
Bowler Anderson Mitchell
Yates

Grimshaw, Sterling, Husband, Wintle, John Jules, Madine, Lavery
Click to expand...
That formation is near where my thoughts are currently. Would probably swap Lavery for Yates and for this Saturday Hubby for Garbutt.
Not sure if Gretarsson is ready and not sure who to play in place of him. Could put Hubby there and leave Garbutt in.
 
Front 3 of Yates / Madine / Lavery 😜

But seriously if we are going to persist with 442 then you need a big / little combination, it has to be Yates or Lavery + TTJ / Madine dependant on form. Not bad options for Critch to be fair
 
Realise this thread focuses on front two, but, as has been mentioned previously, think it's more about possession and creativity in the middle, of which there's been little thus far. We've been overrun and have no time on the ball, which leads to a lack of composure.
In three of the four home games, chances have been at a premium
 
Hoping for this combination tomorrow - we need a fit and on form Yates rather than developing an Arsenal player!
 
Really hope Critch gives this a go today whilst giving them both specific roles because Jerry has looked a bit lost in the partnership in the past.
 
Still think this combo could work if we improve the service to them. Threaded passes through the middle. Balls over the top. They’ve both got pace to burn
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top