I see where your coming from with this but i think the difference is..

Levein never got the results when he did it
Strachan is..

Until that changes i will back Strachan

Has to be said, I don't have a huge problem with one up front as long as it's an attack minded team. A big part of the problem with Levein's team was the negative mind set. Strachan has been much more positive and you can undoubtedly still be positive with one up front.

However, personally, there are games at home I would play two up sometimes. I don't really agree with playing exactly the same system in every single game.

It was a foolish comment by Strachan that was basically saying Rhodes will never be anymore than a sub who we'll bring on if we need a goal which is a good way to rub the player up the wrong way.

Hopefully, with better performances and more positive results over the next year we might see Strachan start with two strikers at Hampden on occassion yet.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

I don't think Strachan's is as defensive minded which was Leveins problem. He basically had two banks of 5.

With Strachan we have 3 fowards at most times. I actually think our best front 3 would be Fletcher, Maloney & Forrest. That would terrorise most teams and having Brown, Bridcutt and Morrisson as a central midfield would be perfect

Our defence is woeful though, that's the problem

nhh

I like Hanley btw, id let him and Martin continue in there its imperative we get Hutton out the team though put Wallace in at left back n Whittaker at right back, Wallace and Anya for me would be class down the left, pace in attack

even have Mulgrew in at centre half beside Hanley

2 sitting deep Brown and Morrison

3 off the frontman Anya Maloney and Snodgrass/Bannan

Steven Fletcher up front

all this hype about Rhodes is OTT, hes a goalscorer n thats it, hes not good enough to lead the line himself and Scotland arent good enough to go with 2 strikers so he wont start, get use to it lads

Whittaker and Hutton are woeful.

I don't like Hanley, he looks so scared of the ball

Bardsley, Martin, Mulgrew, Wallace

I disagree entirely regarding Hanley I think you might be getting him mixed up with Martin

i think Whittaker needs to play in his preferred position

Bardsley wont be getting a game anytime soon

maybe bring Ryan Jack in from the u21s

No I'm not mixed up, he's terrible with the ball at his feet. Another bruiser

All about opinions though....







And yours reeks

we need a bruiser in there though, he'd be good beside Mulgrew in my eyes

Martin-Hanley-Wilson-Mulgrew
S.Brown-McCarthur
Maloney-Morrison-Naismith/Anya
Fletcher

McGregor

Jack Hanley Mulgrew Wallace

Brown Morrison

Snodgrass Maloney Anya

Fletcher

Home form will be the key. As St3vie says, if we are playing a lesser nation at home and struggling, the fans will not tolerate a refusal to move to two strikers. Rightly so IMO

AK, I get that point but is a 4-3-3 not fine when we have the ball? 4-5-1 when not?

United play exactly the same system NNH. I honestly do not believe it becomes a 4-4-3 in reality at all times. The striker can become hugely isolated and this is very frustrating to watch at times. I understand the caution, but the proof will be in the pudding

can anyone name a team that play 2 up front these days?

As long as you have guys prepared to work the channels then I don't think it's leaving anyone isolated.

The midfield 3 is crucial to it though, you need 1 player capable of supporting the striker

It's about being versatile Ghod. Nobody is saying that we should start every game 4-4-2, but t a flat refusal to consider varying the system depending on circumstances is plain stupid IMO. As I said, let's wait and see, as to be viewed as successful, it will need to take us to a major tournament

4-2-3-1 thats what it is just now and thats what it should be for the next campaign

"can anyone name a team that play 2 up front these days?"

Man City

"4-2-3-1 thats what it is just now and thats what it should be for the next campaign"

I am not arguing that point. However, if he refuses to deviate from that if we are struggling, he will leave himself in the firing line.

1 up front with 2 playing off him

toure fernandinho

aguero silva jovetic

dzeko

Jovetic hasnt even played for Man City yet Ghod mate

1 up front is outdated in international football, but so is 2 up front. As others have said, need a front 3 or 4 rather than just the 2 strikers.

As well as he played, I'm still annoyed how quickly Anya is in the squad. 1 good season for Watford and he's already a starter, yet when the likes of Paul Dixon & Mackay-Steven have been brilliant in the SPL... not one cap when playing in Scotland. (Not just United players that are overlooked of course).

Anya has pace though. Not a lot of our players have that sort of pace. Doesnt matter what league he's playing in tbh he's shown he can offer something that no other player can so I say keep playing him!

Why are people so caught up with systems?

There were times last night were we played two up front. It wasn't an obvious big man and poacher or some other outdated cliche but there were times were Naismith and Maloney or Anya and Naismith pushed forward together and became a front two.

The modern international game is not rigid like Scottish football. You don't necessarily set out with two banks of four and two front men.

Generally there is a recognised back line, but watch Spain, France, Italy etc. Their midfielders and forwards interchange all game and are all capable of playing in different positions.

If we want to compete at international level then we have to be able to play an adaptable game where players can move around. An out and out striker just won't fit into that type of game I'm afraid.

Guys like Nasimith and Maloney are more like the modern European footballer. Okay they're maybe not Iniesta or Messi but they are adaptable and can pretty much play anywhere in midfield or up front which lets them float around making the side more creative and unpredictable and hopefully more dangerous.