Is starting with two strikers a risk or a necessity?

After scraping a draw away at Forest (not a bad result really) we're still only 12 points off the playoffs. Other results went our way today, so in theory it's still on the cards. But despite DFs tactics coming under increasing scrutiny from our army of armchair managers, it seems to me as though we would have lost that game earlier in the season. With an improved defence, we seem to be a mid-table team through and through, but there's a feeling that with a couple of tweaks here and there we could be a contender.
When we had eleven men on the pitch and were playing with two strikers we were undoubtedly a threat and we did score, so inevitably DFs "containment" policy comes into question. I for one would like to see that approach from the start of games, rather than when there's either 25 minutes left or we are a goal down as has been the case in the last few matches.
So the question is has our defence improved enough for us to be confident in having a go and starting with two mobile strikers? Or is the "containment" plan the best we can hope for? If it is I can't see us bridging the gap to the playoffs. But if we go for it and start conceding loads again we could be heading in the other direction. Dare we risk it?

Within a few more weeks we should hopefully have kamara settles in the starting 11 and he would add a lot of protection for the defence along with Holden.

Plus with Dawson and wheater as a CB partnership we certainly have enough strength as a defensive unit to go with two upfront. But not until those players step up.

We are fast running out of games to make the playoffs, I doubt we will anyway? my heart says go for it, my head says lets consolidate our position in this division, get those short contracts sorted and look forward to the future.

Triumph wrote: my heart says go for it, my head says lets consolidate our position in this division, get those short contracts sorted and look forward to the future.

If the future involves Dougie, no thanks.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

Triumph wrote: my heart says go for it, my head says lets consolidate our position in this division, get those short contracts sorted and look forward to the future.

If the future involves Dougie, no thanks.

I honestly can't see him moving on any time soon, look what it took to get rid of the last two pretenders, Perhaps you where right with Billy Davies all allong Natasha?

Triumph wrote:
I honestly can't see him moving on any time soon, look what it took to get rid of the last two pretenders, Perhaps you where right with Billy Davies all allong Natasha?

I'm always right. But I'm pleased you follow my work. This suggests I know you from somewhere?

Natasha Whittam wrote:

Triumph wrote:
I honestly can't see him moving on any time soon, look what it took to get rid of the last two pretenders, Perhaps you where right with Billy Davies all allong Natasha?

I'm always right. But I'm pleased you follow my work. This suggests I know you from somewhere?

From another forum Natasha where you dont do PMs,

You avoided the question in true journalistic style Natasha. Should we start games with 2 strikers?

If the midfield and defenders do the job correctly then yes we should go with 2 strikers, CD and Sordell would be my pick at the moment.

Sadly we saw under Coyle that going 442 with this crop of players is a death wish with our inability to keep hold of the ball.

There's is no improvement .... if not for Boggers yesterday we would have been down 3-0 by half-time. On another day we will get hammered.
Doogie is another in a long line of managers who cannot comprehend that you defend from the front.
In theory you have forwards who hold the ball up ...midfielders who can put their foot on the ball....this allows the fullbacks to move up and the whole team to move 20 yards up the park. I'm not saying we have the players to do this ....apparently we don't.
By the way is it a coincedence that we played our worst game in a while with Mavies back in the team? And needless to say having SKD up front by himself is like playing with 10 men to begin with.

terenceanne wrote: having SKD up front by himself is like playing with 10 men to begin with.

As Sordell and Ngog both proved when they tried it, any striker left up on their own with no support will be lucky to get a touch never mind a chance.

wanderlust wrote:

terenceanne wrote: having SKD up front by himself is like playing with 10 men to begin with.

As Sordell and Ngog both proved when they tried it, any striker left up on their own with no support will be lucky to get a touch never mind a chance.

Agree and was surprised when Sordell came off against Burnley.

wanderlust wrote:You avoided the question in true journalistic style Natasha. Should we start games with 2 strikers?

Definitely. I'd like to see any two from Ngog, Sordell and Cavies paired together - and then given four or five games to prove (or not) themselves.

If Dougie really has given up on this season he should be giving the players of the future a proper run, and not keep putting SKD back in.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

wanderlust wrote:You avoided the question in true journalistic style Natasha. Should we start games with 2 strikers?

Definitely. I'd like to see any two from Ngog, Sordell and Cavies paired together - and then given four or five games to prove (or not) themselves.

If Dougie really has given up on this season he should be giving the players of the future a proper run, and not keep putting SKD back in.

That is a clear answer.
So if it happens and we start leaking goals again, the monumentally ironic twist of fate will allow DF to blame you for our descent into oblivion.

wanderlust wrote:
So if it happens and we start leaking goals again, the monumentally ironic twist of fate will allow DF to blame you for our descent into oblivion.

It won't happen though. How many managers change from being cautious to attacking?

It's not as if he needs to reinvent himself though. He already plays an attacking system - it's just that he tends to save it for the back end of games. In recent matches when he's gone for it, we've done pretty well, scoring goals and not conceding so it's not a huge step to try attacking first.
He knows what can be done, has tested it out with some success and has more players to choose from than at any time in his tenure so I think it comes down to having the confidence to give it a shot from the start. If we had more of a margin between us and the relegation zone I think he'd be more inclined to experiment at this stage of the season but I still think it has to be at the back of his mind somewhere, even though we're only 4 points off the drop zone. Wouldn't surprise me if he went for it, but I can understand if he doesn't do it just yet.

We need to start with 2 strikers either N'Gog or C Davies with Sordell. We are forever passing the ball around between midfield and defense as we have not options up top. And whats the point in playing K Davies when all Dougie wants to do is play possession football and not get crosses in, He plays Chungy on the right which we know he will cut the ball back inside and look for the easy pass which will result with the ball going all the way back to Knight who just boots the ball and goes to their keeper or a goal kick. Surley Dougie see this.

LeedsWanderer wrote:We are forever passing the ball around between midfield and defense as we have not options up top.

And the dilemma is that if we sacrifice a midfielder in order to play 2 strikers we could equally be spending the whole game watching the midfield being overrun and our defence under constant pressure. Could go either way, so tomorrow's team sheet is a must read. Personally I'd be surprised if he changed too much (apart from a new LB) as I reckon that if DF is ever going to play 2 strikers he'd trial it at a home game - and probably not Hull as they're kicking ass at the minute.
A result at Derby may give him the confidence to be more experimental - eventually.

wanderlust wrote:

LeedsWanderer wrote:We are forever passing the ball around between midfield and defense as we have not options up top.

And the dilemma is that if we sacrifice a midfielder in order to play 2 strikers we could equally be spending the whole game watching the midfield being overrun and our defence under constant pressure. Could go either way, so tomorrow's team sheet is a must read. Personally I'd be surprised if he changed too much (apart from a new LB) as I reckon that if DF is ever going to play 2 strikers he'd trial it at a home game - and probably not Hull as they're kicking ass at the minute.
A result at Derby may give him the confidence to be more experimental - eventually.

Im not a fan of 4-5-1, In the premiership then yes as the quality of players are better but in the Championship we have a squad which as been playing premiership football for a number of years so we should be dictating what formation others play not the other way around, We should be capable of playing 4-4-2 and running games but yet its the other way around, 4-5-1 says to me that Dougie as no confidence in the team to go out and do this and im guessing the players have picked up on this, Dougie says he as not thought about relegation so have some balls and go 4-4-2 and go for it. playing the ball between midfield and defense is not going to get us anywhere near the playoffs.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

wanderlust wrote:
So if it happens and we start leaking goals again, the monumentally ironic twist of fate will allow DF to blame you for our descent into oblivion.

It won't happen though. How many managers change from being cautious to attacking?

Dougie Freedman for one. 2 strikers from the off tonight so let's pray it works.