Andy_W
Well-known member
I think he's (Forss) not been up front because he's had some injury trouble, so putting him as a lone striker might be asking a lot, but it's also as we have had less options on the right.
With Jones being in good form, and out injured, I expect that the right spot would be Jones's and Forss could then go up front, if we had everyone fit (barring Latte Lath), but with Jones out and Forss still on his way back then I can understand why he's being played on the right. We've not had them both fit, since Jones' has been back in form etc. Forss is effectively there as we have no real other good options there, or Carrick doesn't see it that way. He might change his mind now after that goal, but he will know what he can do, he sees that every day in training or when they're analysing players etc.
I think Carrick tries to fit his best players into the team, regardless of position, rather than picking the best person for a position, I would do it this way too, as I think you need to play your best players, and good players can adapt. They can both be the same thing mind, if for example you have a striker who is better as a right side option, than any of the right side options available.
It depends which way you prioritise fitting players into that role too, most would think the Striker would be the first position to pick your best option in, but in systems where certain roles are dual role, then they have to be a priority. All wide positions these days in modern formations tend to be dual role, for teams who are top half and think they can win any game.
The other way to do it would be to put Greenwood on the right, but Carrick may see that as less suitable as he probably sees the striker a as a role where people link in an out, which Greenwood seems a fair option for. Or he just doesn't think Greenwood could play on the right of a three. I can understand that, as Greenwood seems more suitable to being central, and central only. Even when he plays on the left, he cuts into the centre anyway, as it's a more natural position for him, and it's his strong side, being right footed. Putting him on the right, coming in on his left won't be as effective, it's a waste of him being a pretty good striker of the ball. and as a central player he's not going to want to be going round the outside etc.
Some players are crap at getting themselves into the right positions to score, when played as a striker, but as they don't lose the finishing ability, they often need to go into a position where they will get more natural chances. It worked with Chuba, he was played supposedly out of position, but found himself getting a lot of chances with later arrivals into the box. When he was centre forward and man marked by centre backs he didn't do as well, maybe they think the same as for Forss. They thought that with Stuani too when we had him, getting the chances as a later arrival into the box, but although Stuani got goals there, it was clearly a mistake, since what he has proven afterwards as a striker.
With Jones being in good form, and out injured, I expect that the right spot would be Jones's and Forss could then go up front, if we had everyone fit (barring Latte Lath), but with Jones out and Forss still on his way back then I can understand why he's being played on the right. We've not had them both fit, since Jones' has been back in form etc. Forss is effectively there as we have no real other good options there, or Carrick doesn't see it that way. He might change his mind now after that goal, but he will know what he can do, he sees that every day in training or when they're analysing players etc.
I think Carrick tries to fit his best players into the team, regardless of position, rather than picking the best person for a position, I would do it this way too, as I think you need to play your best players, and good players can adapt. They can both be the same thing mind, if for example you have a striker who is better as a right side option, than any of the right side options available.
It depends which way you prioritise fitting players into that role too, most would think the Striker would be the first position to pick your best option in, but in systems where certain roles are dual role, then they have to be a priority. All wide positions these days in modern formations tend to be dual role, for teams who are top half and think they can win any game.
The other way to do it would be to put Greenwood on the right, but Carrick may see that as less suitable as he probably sees the striker a as a role where people link in an out, which Greenwood seems a fair option for. Or he just doesn't think Greenwood could play on the right of a three. I can understand that, as Greenwood seems more suitable to being central, and central only. Even when he plays on the left, he cuts into the centre anyway, as it's a more natural position for him, and it's his strong side, being right footed. Putting him on the right, coming in on his left won't be as effective, it's a waste of him being a pretty good striker of the ball. and as a central player he's not going to want to be going round the outside etc.
Some players are crap at getting themselves into the right positions to score, when played as a striker, but as they don't lose the finishing ability, they often need to go into a position where they will get more natural chances. It worked with Chuba, he was played supposedly out of position, but found himself getting a lot of chances with later arrivals into the box. When he was centre forward and man marked by centre backs he didn't do as well, maybe they think the same as for Forss. They thought that with Stuani too when we had him, getting the chances as a later arrival into the box, but although Stuani got goals there, it was clearly a mistake, since what he has proven afterwards as a striker.
