Should Jatta & McGoldrick be Starting a Match Together?

[Robbie]

The Stats show that Notts score goals & don't concede when Alassana & David play together.

Should Stuart have them both starting a match together so they can forge a deadly partnership?

[Wheelbarrow repair man]

@Robbie

Yes Absolutely but will that fit into the Notts "Method" of Play? I think it's time there were two Strikers Up Front, the one Glaring problem I see is the fact that I don't think Didzy has a full 90+ minutes in him anymore. He certainly can come off the Bench and make an Impact as a Substitute  as he's proven today. From the after match chat it as shown that Jatta has a Huge Respect for Didzy and if they did start a few games up front together then they could well form a Good Partnership. But from 60 minutes McGoldrick may begin to tire, and if their partnership hasn't Produced the Desired effect, then SM maybe tempted to keep Didzy on the Pitch longer and this may open up a higher chance of him getting injured or suffering Fatigue and not allowing him time to recover, for the next match.

This is where Cedwyn Scott could come in. Play Jatta as the number one Striker with Didzy  in his current attacking midfield role, then on the 60 minute mark, replace McGoldrick with Scott, but play Ced's along side Jatta as a Striker which would force the opposition into changing their game plan to cope with Notts new double Threat. I believe Notts have more than enough cover in midfield to cope with such a Set Up. The thing is would SM be prepared to try out such an experiment to see if it would work?

[Robbie]

I don't see why Notts have to prefer the one striker model. By all means play that model away from home like they did today until Didzy came on.

At home it should be different. Notts need to turn around the recent dip in form at home & I think playing two strikers together will get the opposition thinking.

I think your idea @Wheelbarrow repair man of pairing Didzy with Jatta for 60 minutes then bringing on Scott for the last 30 is doable.

[menzinho]

I get why we play with just the one forward and two behind is because it gives you a “box midfield” which can effectively result in 4 central midfielders (2 CAMs 2CMs) so it’s much easier to control games as you can really outnumber the opposition’s midfield.

That said I think a Didzy and Jatta paring is a good shout, especially against teams that do sit back and defend deep. We wouldn’t need to really take control of a game because the opposition have almost forfeited that battle by letting us have so much of the ball. I think a front two can still be very flexible too because like any forward pairing one can drop in to help with the build-up play.

I’m expecting Wimbledon to play a similar style of sit back and look to counter and given our recent struggles to break these teams down I think it would be a perfect time to play them both.

[liampie]

the issue is how thin it would leave us up top if one or both were to become injured, its a difficult thing with only three strikers on the books. i would not be against seeing cedwyn scott and jevani brown played as a striker more, scott could be a good goalscorer for us if we did play him there and that would open up the possibility of jatta and david mcgoldrick featuring more from the start together.

i think it highlights how we actually still do need a replacement for macaulay langstaff, yes we have people who can score but we need a different option up top.

if we had to depth and quality, i would love to see the pair start more games.

[upthepies]

In certain situations, I believe it would be worth playing them both together from the start. The bench would need to reflect this. Therefore, I think Cedwyn Scott and Jevani Brown would need to be saved in case we needed to make changes up top. There is a lot of potential for Jatta to play off David McGoldrick. McGoldrick does involve himself more, whereas Jatta is quite comfortable to wait for the ball and strike when the chance presents itself. It could be a way to return us back to winning form, but I am cautious about us doing it too often. As we have seen with McGoldrick, we need him for big games, so we need to desist from overplaying or relying on him too much.

[KingMaynard]

Can we? I see why we do around the 70th minute mark. It throws something unexpected against teams who might not be prepared or expect us to go to two up top. I think part of the reason it works so well is because we have not forced it or relied on it. Occasionally, I don't see why not, but until we have another goalscoring striker, I don't think we should beyond the right game.

[Piethagoram]

No, I think Didzy will tire too quickly

[Robbie]

McGoldrick has been playing about 60 minutes until Stuart takes him off in previous games this season.

There's no reason why Jatta  & McGoldrick cannot play together for at least 60 minutes. 

I think it's better to try & build up a lead rather than bring a player on for the last 15 minutes to try & respond to being behind.

Notts have to be active as well as being reactive. I love the fact that Notts have shown Character & determination to retrieve a losing cause.

The point is, at home we need to build up a lead so the opposition have to come out & attack us for them to retrieve the situation.

When they are forced to come forward, it will leave more space for Notts upfront, & this will help players like Scott & Brown when they come on after 60/65 minutes.

That's why I'd play McGoldrick & Jatta together at the start of a match.

[Robbie]

I think they should both start the game against Wimbledon. Jatta leading the line with McGoldrick & Crowley supporting.

I'm sure McGoldrick will be ok for at least 60 minutes, & if he needs to be substituted at that time, Scott could replace him if he is fit, otherwise it will be Brown or Austin.

[Fozzy]

I’m not averse to Didzy starting, but I honestly think he would be better against a tiring defence, not became he will be fitter, but I think he has that guile and quickness of thought to outsmart defenders whose concentration will be starting to waiver.

I really think that this is the one area we really need to strengthen in January, if we persist with two attacking midfielders behind a lone striker. My personal preference would be for a 5212 formation, but we really need another pacey forward for this. Either way, we’ll need to dip into the transfer market to get us into the promotion shake up.