Is this the same Coventry team that did a job on us?

There's a lot of supposition going on here.

Coventry were worthy winners in the second leg at Boro. They scored, hit the bar and should have scored a couple more.

Luton outmuscled Boro at Luton, I doubt Boro would have overcome them in the playoffs.

Boro's loss of form and injuries came at the wrong time. It would be good to think the missing players would have made a difference, but every time Boro came up against a strong physical team they were wanting. Stoke, Huddersfield, Luton, Coventry.

A Plan B is needed.
 
The reality is that we fell of a cliff at the end of the season, following a fantastic spell of form we won twice in ten games.

We went from speculating about pipping Sheff Utd to automatic promotion to failing to reach the playoff final.

It really was a major departure.
 
Jonny Ingbar said:
I think these games are decided on such fine margins that tactics, game plans etc, rely on a little bit of luck.

As it was a single goal over two games decided it, in a game that saw us fail to win at home for only the second time (under Carrick, Burnley being the other) and fail to score at home for the first time.

I think Coventry has one shot on target in the second game.
Click to expand...
They had 1 shot on target over the two games.
 
If everton can survive. I reckon luton can. Both similar styles. That ground will give them a big advantage.
 
BoroMart said:
What Luton have that we don’t is height, strength, power. If a team sits deep against them, they can lob the ball into the box and cause all kinds of problems. Against a footballing side it’s probably a little easier to sit deep and close the gaps. It takes huge discipline to do that for 90 or 180 mins but they managed it.

This is why didn’t want to play cov for n the play offs. They had spent most of the season defending well and hitting on the break. If we’d played Sunderland we would have put footballer them, millwall wouldn’t have been able to defend that well for 90, they don’t have the midfield legs to close gaps, and Luton we’d have passed through and into the space behind their adventurous wingbacks. Cov were the worst side for us.

Hopefully our recruitment will include a 6 foot 2 bull of a CF allowing us to do things differently if we need to
Click to expand...
We had a bull in Uche on peanuts compared to others and could of been a useful asset in some games!
 
No Howson for us and Hamer in the form of his life was the difference. I suspect they might have beaten Luton too if Hamer didn’t get injured.

I don’t agree with the narrative that it was a Coventry smash and grab. They contained us very well and had more chances.

Reminded me a bit of us under Karanka. Suffocating teams to death.
 
Soutra said:
every time Boro came up against a strong physical team they were wanting. Stoke, Huddersfield, Luton, Coventry.

A Plan B is needed.
Click to expand...
We didn’t lose to Stoke and the boy a horrendous ref error stopped us winning away. We beat Luton at home. We also beat millwall home and Sheff United away who are both physical sides.

However, we do need to add more physicality to our sides and yes a plan b that is physical not just tall like crooks is important.
 
BoroMart said:
Uche was awful though, really low quality technically. He’s a league two quality player.
Click to expand...
He may well be in your opinion, I, However, believe he would of proved useful in rolling 1/2 defenders, we have seen what Boro fans call a useless lump upfront cause us all sorts of problems each year and they continue to do so, all the other defences in this division are the same too!

I do agree that that type of player would be good as a plan B, I also would of thought Muniz could provide similar butCarrick doesnt see this type of player as a need and prefers to use someone like crooks who is also technically good in tbat position, as I said in anotger thread for me I see carrick now building a squad that can execute plan A better and we will be fine!
 
I'd be happy to see Archer return and us sign a 6 ft 2 brick sh*thouse CM.

And if we can't get Giles, add height and more physicality to the RB and LB positions. Not going full Pulis with CBs pushed wide.......
 
BoroMad87 said:
He may well be in your opinion, I, However, believe he would of proved useful in rolling 1/2 defenders, we have seen what Boro fans call a useless lump upfront cause us all sorts of problems each year and they continue to do so, all the other defences in this division are the same too!

I do agree that that type of player would be good as a plan B, I also would of thought Muniz could provide similar butCarrick doesnt see this type of player as a need and prefers to use someone like crooks who is also technically good in tbat position, as I said in anotger thread for me I see carrick now building a squad that can execute plan A better and we will be fine!
Click to expand...
Agree with this.

There's literally zero chance of seeing an 'Uche' type player in a Carrick team.

We had the traditional no.9 in Muniz and its obvious now that Carrick wants a fast, mobile centre forward, rather than one the holds the ball up and plays with his back to goal.

Despite being below par in the playoffs I'd love to see Archer here again, but it won't be cheap and would most likely be as a loan to buy.
 
Soutra said:
Luton outmuscled Boro at Luton, I doubt Boro would have overcome them in the playoffs.
Click to expand...

And lots of rewriting of history as well.

We were not out muscled at all we lost due to a shocking dive that even Luton admit was a dive.


Soutra are you even a boro fan??
 
BoroMad87 said:
He may well be in your opinion, I, However, believe he would of proved useful in rolling 1/2 defenders, we have seen what Boro fans call a useless lump upfront cause us all sorts of problems each year and they continue to do so, all the other defences in this division are the same too!

I do agree that that type of player would be good as a plan B, I also would of thought Muniz could provide similar butCarrick doesnt see this type of player as a need and prefers to use someone like crooks who is also technically good in tbat position, as I said in anotger thread for me I see carrick now building a squad that can execute plan A better and we will be fine!
Click to expand...
Uches way of playing was using his bulk to roll players, that requires a high defensive line to work against and space to run into. It wouldn’t help us against a team defending deep which is where we struggled. He didn’t have the heading technique to score from high crosses or the touch to bring it down and turn in the box.

The guys got 11 goals in 80 games since leaving Scottish footy. He’s bobbins
 
Jonny Ingbar said:
Agree with this.

There's literally zero chance of seeing an 'Uche' type player in a Carrick team.

We had the traditional no.9 in Muniz and its obvious now that Carrick wants a fast, mobile centre forward, rather than one the holds the ball up and plays with his back to goal.

Despite being below par in the playoffs I'd love to see Archer here again, but it won't be cheap and would most likely be as a loan to buy.
Click to expand...
What I would say is that his go to backup for archer was Crooks, I think there is space for a CF who utilises height and strength but ideally allied to technique. It wouldn’t be an Uche who is just a body builder pretending to be a baller.
 
BoroMart said:
What I would say is that his go to backup for archer was Crooks, I think there is space for a CF who utilises height and strength but ideally allied to technique. It wouldn’t be an Uche who is just a body builder pretending to be a baller.
Click to expand...
A Haaland - lite 😁😁
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top