History for reg22

I actually think we've been poor in all three games. I don't think we know how to score.

The roster is full of compromises and Rudan has decided the best thing to do is to set up with 5 players providing defensive shape and holding space: Taylor, Durante, Doyle with Rufer and Mandi in front of them. In theory, this 5 should be difficult to bypass, but the back 3 are so deep there are massive spaces behind and either side of the midfield 2 which makes keeping the opposition out very difficult.

Our formation for the first 2 games had the 5 'holders', 4 'runners' and a play maker. Like Balbi mentioned, taking the play maker out left 5 static shape holders and 5 runners. Who was going to pull the strings? None of the 5 'runners' selected possesses the ability to control the play. 

A lot is being asked of the wing backs. In a back 5, you would want your wing backs to be 2 of your best players, but instead we have a developing kid and a partially restored fiat that's just been taken off the blocks. You can use player proximity to protect weak full backs in a back 4, but wing backs in a back 5 have to do it all themselves. Neither of our wing backs have the athleticism to do the job, but I must say I admired Fenton's effort. To compensate, we drop our strikers deep and wide when we don't have the ball. This becomes a free pass for opposition defenders. I could not believe how we allowed Risdon and Elrich in particular to play forward in any manner that they wanted. Ask yourself, why were we the only team who looked like we were playing into the wind?

This isn't angst btw, just my observation and it comes as no surprise to me as this is a new team with a new coach who hasn't been able to sign the players he wants.

The solutions to the problems mentioned above all create other problems. It's a balancing act that Rudan can only really solve with better players

I actually think we've been poor in all three games. I don't think we know how to score.

The roster is full of compromises and Rudan has decided the best thing to do is to set up with 5 players providing defensive shape and holding space: Taylor, Durante, Doyle with Rufer and Mandi in front of them. In theory, this 5 should be difficult to bypass, but the back 3 are so deep there are massive spaces behind and either side of the midfield 2 which makes keeping the opposition out very difficult.

Our formation for the first 2 games had 4 'runners' and a play maker. Like Balbi mentioned, taking the play maker out left 5 static shape holders and 5 runners. Who was going to pull the strings? None of the 5 'runners' selected possesses the ability to control the play. 

A lot is being asked of the wing backs. In a back 5, you would want your wing backs to be 2 of your best players, but instead we have a developing kid and a partially restored fiat that's just been taken off the blocks. You can use player proximity to protect weak full backs in a back 4, but wing backs in a back 5 have to do it all themselves. Neither of our wing backs have the athleticism to do the job, but I must say I admired Fenton's effort. To compensate, we drop our strikers deep and wide when we don't have the ball. This becomes a free pass for opposition defenders. I could not believe how we allowed Risdon and Elrich in particular to play forward in any manner that they wanted. Ask yourself, why were we the only team who looked like we were playing into the wind?

This isn't angst btw, just my observation and it comes as no surprise to me as this is a new team with a new coach who hasn't been able to sign the players he wants.

The solutions to the problems mentioned above all create other problems. It's a balancing act that Rudan can only really solve with better players

I actually think we've been poor in all three games. I don't think we know how to score.

Rudan's team is full of compromises and he has decided the best thing to do is to set up with 5 players providing defensive shape and holding space: Taylor, Durante, Doyle with Rufer and Mandi in front of them. In theory, this 5 should be difficult to bypass, but the back 3 are so deep there are massive spaces behind and either side of the midfield 2 which makes keeping the opposition out very difficult.

Our formation for the first 2 games also had 4 'runners' and a play maker. Like Balbi mentioned, taking the play maker out left 5 static shape holders and 5 runners. Who was going to pull the strings? None of the 5 'runners' selected possesses the ability to control the play. 

A lot is being asked of the wing backs. In a back 5, you would want your wing backs to be 2 of your best players, but instead we have a developing kid and a partially restored fiat that's just been taken off the blocks. You can use player proximity to protect weak full backs in a back 4, but wing backs in a back 5 have to do it all themselves. Neither of our wing backs have the athleticism to do the job, but I must say I admired Fenton's effort. To compensate, we drop our strikers deep and wide when we don't have the ball. This becomes a free pass for opposition defenders. I could not believe how we allowed Risdon and Elrich in particular to play forward in any manner that they wanted. Ask yourself, why were we the only team who looked like we were playing into the wind?

This isn't angst btw, just my observation and it comes as no surprise to me as this is a new team with a new coach who hasn't been able to sign the players he wants.

The solutions to the problems mentioned above all create other problems. It's a balancing act that Rudan can only really solve with better players

I actually think we've been poor in all three games. I don't think we know how to score.

Rudan's team is full of compromises and he has decided the best thing to do is to set up with 5 players providing defensive shape and holding space: Taylor, Durante, Doyle with Rufer and Mandi in front of them. In theory, this 5 should be difficult to bypass, but the back 3 are so deep there are massive spaces behind and either side of the midfield 2 which makes keeping the opposition out very difficult.

Our formation for the first 2 games also had 4 'runners' and a play maker. Like Balbi mentioned, taking the play maker out left 5 static shape holders and 5 runners. Who was going to pull the strings? None of the 5 'runners' selected possesses the ability to control the play. 

A lot is being asked of the wing backs. In a back 5, you would want your wing backs to be 2 of your best players, but instead we have a developing kid and a partially restored fiat that's just been taken off the blocks. You can use player proximity to protect weak full backs in a back 4, but wing backs in a back 5 have to do it all themselves. Neither of out wing backs have the athleticism to do the job, but I must say I admired Fenton's effort. To compensate, we drop our strikers deep and wide when we don't have the ball. This becomes a free pass for opposition defenders. I could not believe how we allowed Risdon and Elrich in particular to play forward in any manner that they wanted. Ask yourself, why were we the only team who looked like we were playing into the wind?

This isn't angst btw, just my observation and it comes as no surprise to me as this is a new team with a new coach who hasn't been able to sign the players he wants.

The solutions to the problems mentioned above all create other problems. It's a balancing act that Rudan can only really solve with better players

I actually think we've been poor in all three games. I don't think we know how to score.

Rudan's team is full of compromises and he has decided the best thing to do is to set up with 5 players providing defensive shape and holding space: Taylor, Durante, Doyle with Rufer and Mandi in front of them. In theory, this 5 should be difficult to bypass, but the back 3 are so deep there are massive spaces behind and either side of the midfield 2 which makes keeping the opposition out very difficult.

Our formation for the first 2 games also had 4 'runners' and a play maker. Like Balbi mentioned, taking the play maker out left 5 static shape holders and 5 runners. Who was going to pull the strings? None of the 5 'runners' selected possesses the ability to control the play. 

A lot is being asked of the wing backs. In a back 5, you would want your wing backs to be 2 of your best players, but instead we have a developing kid and a partially restored fiat that's just been taken off the blocks. Neither of these players have the athleticism to do the job, but I must say I admired Fenton's effort. To compensate, we drop our strikers deep and wide when we don't have the ball. This becomes a free pass for opposition defenders. I could not believe how we allowed Risdon and Elrich in particular to play forward in any manner that they wanted. Ask yourself, why were we the only team who looked like we were playing into the wind?

This isn't angst btw, just my observation and it comes as no surprise to me as this is a new team with a new coach who hasn't been able to sign the players he wants.

The solutions to the problems mentioned above all create other problems. It's a balancing act that Rudan can only really solve with better players