Too many strikers?

[nickwhibs]

I know this sounds like a stupid question but do people think that having so many striking options is perhaps a bad thing? The reason I ask this is because I feel that our formation isn't as effective with Yogi trying to fit in our strikers - ie playing 3 up front. I think it is good to have striking options but I feel they should be used more effectively with 2 starting and 2 for competition, rather than trying to play them all at once. The 3 up front means we lack width and are more likely to get overrun down the wings. I also feel that the strikers were getting in each other's way, particularly against Brechin when we had 4 up front towards the end of the game. I would personally play a 442 with Riordan and Stokes starting, with Benji and Nish or Byrne on the bench as the competition.

[GlesgaeHibby]

Don't see it as a problem, especially when it's usually two wide men supporting Nish up front. Our full backs also push forward giving help to the midfield, and McBride will sit back and protect the defence well and spray passes for the full backs/wide men etc to get forward.

[nickwhibs]

Don't see it as a problem, especially when it's usually two wide men supporting Nish up front. Our full backs also push forward giving help to the midfield, and McBride will sit back and protect the defence well and spray passes for the full backs/wide men etc to get forward.

I see your point, although it only works when the full backs do actually push forward. It also means that the opposition's wide players have so much time and space on the ball without pressing them up the park. It's just my opinion but I'm not a fan of the 433 unless you have very attacking full backs. I like when we play with propper wingers who take on the opposition full backs and get crosses into the box. Hopefully Zemmama and Galbraith (once he gets more first-team experience) can do this.