Round pegs in square holes

Phil_bfc deux

Phil_bfc deux

Well-known member
Something the last bloke got accused for

And yesterday big Mick appeared to have CJ playing as some sort of left wing back and Bowler as a central midfield player

Given the size of the squad now I don't think we need to play people out of position

Granted it was only a cup game so its hard to be critical as generally we played well, but it will be interesting to see how Mick does with our wide players given how he favours 3 central defenders

Interesting times

Utp
 
I think he knew he had a bit of artistic licence yesterday with it not being a league game, and we played very well in parts, especially towards the end when he seemed to be experimenting the most.

I‘ll reserve judgment for Saturday and onwards.

A reasonably positive start to his tenure I thought.
 
It's a strange one when a coach arrives with pre conceived ideas and tactics that he will impose on the players.
The obvious thing to me would be to look at what you've got and come up with a game plan that suits the existing players.
 
CJ was a wing back at his last club so maybe not so crazy?

However the CJ we all know, I agree he couldn’t fight his way out a duvet so can’t see how he can be anything more than a winger? When Gabriel is fit he might switch Lyons over?

Give Dom Thompson a go there maybe if you’re sticking with 5 at the back. Garbutt was always the player everyone said would suit the LWB role too
 
It was a mixture. Really poor large spell in the middle but improved when we decided to attack. By then it was too late.

People seem to think just because it was a Premier League, it automatically qualifies as a good performance. It was far from it. At least we ended on a positive though and Mick would have learned quite a lot.

If Mick wants to play 5 at the back, then he needs to show faith with Thompson or buy a wing back. It also doesn’t suit our wide players like Bowler. McCarthy said he will pick a formation according to the strengths of the players. Didn’t feel like that yesterday but it was his first game so understandable.
 
I don't think our squad favours a 5 at the back formation at all but it'll probably be the thing that keeps us up this season.
 
He appears not to fancy Thompson in that position. Lyons can play there but then there is no one to play RWB.
No Husband or Garbutt now so maybe he will need to bring one in, or continue to try to convert CJ into a LWB?
The 25 man squad size does put real pressure on you if you want to be able to cover more than one formation.
I can foresee a situation soon where we have fit players hanging around (probably defensive midfielders🙄) that we cannot play because they are not in the 25 while square pegs are in round holes out on the pitch. I think we will have to get used to it!
 
The saying is “square pegs in round holes” 😉

When MM was initially being floated around as the potential new manager, I think that this was probably the biggest ‘concern’ for most of us… i.e. we’d recruited for one system / style and then seemed to be turning but on its head, again.

My personal feelings are that MM will need to be pragmatic about the style of play in order to get the very best out of this group of players.

Of course, he’s got vast experience and I’m prepared to put faith in the fella between now and the end of the season, to do what is required to get us over the line.

That may well mean that we will see players who might otherwise be regulars, sitting on the bench.
 
Last edited:
As said on another thread, for whatever reason we have a squad that looks good on paper but all things being equal you have to replace at least one of the flair players to get the right mix.

I can't see how the starting XI yesterday can work as you're using players in their wrong position and getting nothing back in return.
 
glasshalffull said:
He appears not to fancy Thompson in that position. Lyons can play there but then there is no one to play RWB.
No Husband or Garbutt now so maybe he will need to bring one in, or continue to try to convert CJ into a LWB?
The 25 man squad size does put real pressure on you if you want to be able to cover more than one formation.
I can foresee a situation soon where we have fit players hanging around (probably defensive midfielders🙄) that we cannot play because they are not in the 25 while square pegs are in round holes out on the pitch. I think we will have to get used to it!
Click to expand...
That's when you have to use youth (U21) as your back up Carey isn't counted in the 25 because of this.
 
Think Mick can have a bit of leeway with his 1st selection, he’ll have learned a lot from yesterday and I’m pretty confident this manager won’t still be trying to bash those badly misshapen pegs in the same place after 29 games👍🏻
 
Phil_bfc deux said:
Something the last bloke got accused for

And yesterday big Mick appeared to have CJ playing as some sort of left wing back and Bowler as a central midfield player

Given the size of the squad now I don't think we need to play people out of position

Granted it was only a cup game so its hard to be critical as generally we played well, but it will be interesting to see how Mick does with our wide players given how he favours 3 central defenders

Interesting times

Utp
Click to expand...
He played played all the right players just not necessarily in the right order! (stolen).
 
He wanted some speed in the wing back positions to get back and defend and who could take us up the field quickly on the break, he was looking at things, it is his first game after all and I think he will have taken plenty of advice, over the next few games i expect the defence to get well drilled and one or two formation to be installed. His first game I wouldn't make to much of it, other than I thought we looked far more organised and less exposed than the much of this season when teams strolled through us at will.
 
The formation was a bit of an odd one. I think we have the players to play the 4231. The problem we had under apples wasn't the formation it was lack of fit players in key positions. Ie holding midfield (we recruited Trybull) left wing (Rogers who looks really good) and RW (Bowler who we know is good) also RB(Lyons looks excellent). Plus the 2 new cbs we have brought in. Looks a great team to me.

Maxi
Lyons
Goode
Nelson
Dom
Trybull
Patino
Bowler
Poveda
Rogers
Yates.

Reckon he will stick to 5 at the back though
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
A square peg in a round hole fits but has gaps around it too... There's just a bigger percentage of gap
Click to expand...
It all depends on the size of the pegs, either way. Both can fit or not fit.

For a square it's generally assumed it won't fit because of the corners.

It's quite fitting that it's often corners that let us down.
 
poolseasider said:
That's when you have to use youth (U21) as your back up Carey isn't counted in the 25 because of this.
Click to expand...

Yes agreed and Carey helps as might Apter. We could do with one or two more. I guess they should start to come through but probably not this season.
Coping with the physicality of this division is the problem for players of this age group though.
 
JJpool said:
They will if small enough.

That's the point.

Anything is possible if you just believe.
Click to expand...
On the (perhaps misplaced) assumption that the pegs are the same size and the round peg in leaves gaps it must therefore follow the square peg in will overlap (not fit).

Assuming the round peg is 100mm, then the max size of square peg that will fit is 70mm sq(obvs).
 
fcblackpool said:
On the (perhaps misplaced) assumption that the pegs are the same size and the round peg in leaves gaps it must therefore follow the square peg in will overlap (not fit).

Assuming the round peg is 100mm, then the max size of square peg that will fit is 70mm sq(obvs).
Click to expand...
That square peg would be 100mm though… You’re just measuring it wrong… You need to use the TV screen method 😉
 
fcblackpool said:
On the (perhaps misplaced) assumption that the pegs are the same size and the round peg in leaves gaps it must therefore follow the square peg in will overlap (not fit).

Assuming the round peg is 100mm, then the max size of square peg that will fit is 70mm sq(obvs).
Click to expand...
I've already made that point, the assumption of the phrase, hence...

Screenshot_20230129_123206_Chrome.jpg

Using that same block and only taking the corners off to make a circle just as wide and it fits. 😀
 
fcblackpool said:
No longer square, so at the time of insertion it isn't a square. You may as well say a Californian Redwood can fit in a 100mm hole.
Click to expand...
But that's the point, square pegs of that size don't fit, unless forced in which case they do but not as intended.

Stop being a square.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
The saying is “square pegs in round holes” 😉

When MM was initially being floated around as the potential new manager, I think that this was probably the biggest ‘concern’ for most of us… i.e. we’d recruited for one system / style and then seemed to be turning but on its head, again.

My personal feelings are that MM will need to be pragmatic about the style of play in order to get the very best out of this group of players.

Of course, he’s got vast experience and I’m prepared to put faith in the fella between now and the end of the season, to do what is required to get us over the line.

That may well mean that we will see players who might otherwise be regulars, sitting on the bench.
Click to expand...
I know perfectly well what the saying is 😉
 
Some schools on the Fylde obviously didn't cover geometry in great detail as part of the maths ciriculum....😆

If both scenarios are taken with a touch fit at the four points of contact then the square peg in the round hole results in the greater (combined) area of waste, as a percentage.

As already highlighted by Bifster. 😉
 
Satriale's Pork Store said:
Some schools on the Fylde obviously didn't cover geometry in great detail as part of the maths ciriculum....😆

If both scenarios are taken with a touch fit at the four points of contact then the square peg in the round hole results in the greater (combined) area of waste, as a percentage.

As already highlighted by Bifster. 😉
Click to expand...
Spot on SPS...

appx 21.46% waste for a round peg in a square hole

vs

appx 36.34% waste for a square peg in a round hole


Of course the most important factor here was the Appleton Peg in a Blackpool FC Hole, which was a 100% waste 👍
 
Last edited:
I just don't think we have all the right pksyers to suddenly change to 3 at the back and 5 across the middle using wing backs of which we only have 1 who is fit and fulfill that role. We are deep into a relegation fight so not a time to start trying new formations with players who are not suited to that formation. I would like us to set up with a back 4 with two DM's in front of them then a 3 player AM's who get forward to supply and assist Jerry up top. Last 25mins yesterday was not far off this so come on let's play to our strengths.
COYP
 
A_Tense_Grin said:
It was a mixture. Really poor large spell in the middle but improved when we decided to attack. By then it was too late.

People seem to think just because it was a Premier League, it automatically qualifies as a good performance. It was far from it. At least we ended on a positive though and Mick would have learned quite a lot.

If Mick wants to play 5 at the back, then he needs to show faith with Thompson or buy a wing back. It also doesn’t suit our wide players like Bowler. McCarthy said he will pick a formation according to the strengths of the players. Didn’t feel like that yesterday but it was his first game so understandable.
Click to expand...
I think you are talking nonsense . A good performance is a good performance and you have to take in the opposition into account . If we played exactly the same game against a non league side ,it would have been a poor performance . Not only that it was away from home and we actually had more shots on target then them.

In respect to the players and having 5 at the back .I don't think he knows what to do till he accessed his players . How you expect him to do that in 90 minutes ,I have no idea ,but overall most fans were happy with that performance . Are you sure you weren't watching the nobbers v spurs?
 
WIZARD OF TANGERINE said:
I think you are talking nonsense . A good performance is a good performance and you have to take in the opposition into account . If we played exactly the same game against a non league side ,it would have been a poor performance . Not only that it was away from home and we actually had more shots on target then them.

In respect to the players and having 5 at the back .I don't think he knows what to do till he accessed his players . How you expect him to do that in 90 minutes ,I have no idea ,but overall most fans were happy with that performance . Are you sure you weren't watching the nobbers v spurs?
Click to expand...
Southampton B team weren’t any great shakes and I would have expected to at least have a go before we were 2-0 down.

We couldn’t pass the ball in the middle part of the game and looked devoid of any ideas resulting in clearances directly to the opposition.

Just thought it was a disjointed, negative performance which I am entitled to have an opinion on.
 
A_Tense_Grin said:
Southampton B team weren’t any great shakes and I would have expected to at least have a go before we were 2-0 down.

We couldn’t pass the ball in the middle part of the game and looked devoid of any ideas resulting in clearances directly to the opposition.

Just thought it was a disjointed, negative performance which I am entitled to have an opinion on.
Click to expand...
You are and its lucky you are in the minority. We were only 1 down to a team that cost a lot more then ours when Povada had a defence splitting ball that even I could have scored . Also when we did get our goal we were in the ascendency for the rest of the match . A good way of judging a performance is how the fans react . Losing 2-1 and going off to an ovation gives you a clue what the majority think.
 
Insider said:
Back to football and with regards to title of this thread does anyone else find this story a bit concerning?

Click to expand...
Not really…

If we’re going to drag ourselves out of the mess that Applegoon has got us into, then we can’t afford to carry any passengers.

It’s a simple enough message and hopefully it will ensure we get the most out of JB.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top