Dissecting THAT!
- Thread starter Superman wears Grant Holt pyjamas in bed
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
so, do we think hughton will have the guts to make the formational (and the personnel) changes on saturday that a lot of us are craving for?
it's gonna be a tight call
it's gonna be a tight call
depends whether he feels the players who let the side down at the weekend should be given a shot at redemption or not. personally i'd change it but then i'd have changed it for the newcastle match as i felt we needed changes after the west ham game. easy with hindsight of course!
Anyone going to the Fan Forum at Carrow Road this Thursday (CH and DM)? Would seem to be a good topic for the evening and an opportunity to hear what CH thinks of 4-5-1 / 4-2-3-1!
i should be going - work permitting - but i shudder to think what will be said!
i really hope we try a 4-5-1 or 4-2-3-1, but then i'm not the boss. 442 is not working at the moment.
Bottom line, we need to accomodate hoolahan in his natural position behind the striker
I think 4-2-3-1 is our best bet with fox and tettey behind hoolahan. Two wingers (e.bennett deserves a go with snod/pilks) and I'd put holty up front with Wes Off him. Although I actually saw some promise with morison/holt combination. They won a lot between them and there was a little spark.
Jackson works hard, but we need goals up front and i and I think holy is our best. Et. Even if he has been inconsistent. Looked a lot better in parts the other . Not far away from full onholyfield I think.
I think 4-2-3-1 is our best bet with fox and tettey behind hoolahan. Two wingers (e.bennett deserves a go with snod/pilks) and I'd put holty up front with Wes Off him. Although I actually saw some promise with morison/holt combination. They won a lot between them and there was a little spark.
Jackson works hard, but we need goals up front and i and I think holy is our best. Et. Even if he has been inconsistent. Looked a lot better in parts the other . Not far away from full onholyfield I think.
morison did well 2nd half. both he and holt took their chances to score. i still don't think it quite works with both of them together but as an impact thing late in the game i can totally see it reaping rewards.
I see a lot of 4-4-2 not working comments on here at the moment, Spurs away? ran QPR ragged, ran West Ham pretty much the same, what formation did we play against Fulham??? Come on, of course it works, you just need the right players on the pitch!!!!!
4-4-2 does work if the personnel are right, agree with that. it was never going to work with surman and snodgrass playing too centrally, giving no width nor support to their full backs. it also wasn't going to work with howson playing so deep. i think 4-4-2 leaves us too open too often - whilst we are not taking our chances do we really want to enter into a game of 'we'll score more than you'? and i'm sure i'm not alone in wanting to see a more settled starting eleven this season. i said elsewhere that i fully believe hughton has always wanted to play one up front but because of the fulham match and then outplaying qpr and spurs and west ham with 4-4-2, its clouded his judgement on it slightly. he needs to go back to what he wants to do, what he believes in, get his selection confirmed in his head, his best starting eleven, and run with it for a few games in my opinion. our personnel are far more suited to 4-5-1. if we play 4-4-2 then i think we need to take johnson out of it. he's had a good season so far but i don't believe he has the quality required to play in a two man midfield because he isn't disciplined enough to hold his position - he did against spurs but one game isn't enough - it needs to be every week. in a five i think he'd be fine. difficult to say until its properly tried of course! what i do know is that no matter what system we use, i want to see david fox involved from the start
I am backing ILD here but that probably comes as no surprise to anyone that reads my comments on a regular basis. For me, 4-4-2 should be the first option but we MUST have 2 wide players (from Snodgrass, Bennett and Pilkington). I would prefer Bennett & Pilkington but that then leaves a problem as to what to do with Snodgrass who has been one of our better players on a more consistent basis, could we play him up front with Holt do you suppose?
Only reason I suggested Snoddy up front is because he does have an eye for the goal. I know not all players can make the change but it can happen (ala one Chris Sutton)
chris sutton was a striker as a kid though - he was converted to centre back at about 15 but he was predominantly a centre forward. not really the same of course, totally different players! i don't think snodgrass is a striker. he might be able to play off a front man but i'm not sure why we want to start making players adapt to 4-4-2 when they fit perfectly into 4-5-1. it seems as though (and please don't think i'm ageist) that its the older fans who believe in 4-4-2 whilst younger fans prefer 4-5-1. not sure why that is but for me, its the flexibility in the formation which appeals - its solid yet expressive, and offers counter attacking threat as well as possession domination, allows full backs to get forward without threat behind as you have covering players where centre backs can pull wide and a holding player drop back. it just works, very very well when used correctly. it was NOT used correctly at fulham! its this mindset with some fans that 'you must have two up front or its negative'. it simply isn't true (not saying that's what you're saying thai, ILD, but many do)
I am not even 50 yet!I have always liked 4-4-2 but I guess in truth I will like anything that works. The only problem I have with 4-5-1 is the 1. Holt isn't quick enough, Moro is not good enough, Jacko doesn't score enough which kind of relies quite heavily on the player(s) coming forward from midfield to effectively create a temporary 4-4-2 or even 4-3-3 and then hoping to not get hit on the counter and/or overwhelmed in midfield.
the fact you mention you don't think two of our three available strikers aren't good enough yet you want two up front kind of says it all! holt doesn't need to be quick in a 4-5-1. what he needs is support from wide and behind. that would mean playing two out and out wide men - not surman. playing either hoolahan or butterfield or howson behind holt. 4-5-1 is effectively 4-3-3, its just its 4-5-1 when defending. this is the point most people seem to miss. as i say, people don't like it cos they see the '1' up front and think 'thats negative' and its simply not true. indeed, you get more bodies forward playing 4-5-1 than you do playing 4-4-2, as you conceivably have as many as 7 in attacking positions. both full backs, normally one, could be two centre mids, two wingers and a striker in forward postions. the wingers can alternate with their striker - holt is good in wide positions so this also helps (even though some fans STILL moan when he goes out wide 
). it just works better. all the free flowing teams play that way because its easier to keep the ball. there's better balance throughout the side and it means playing players in their correct positions. more rigid teams play 4-4-2. even ferguson, one of the mainstay managers of 4-4-2 has switched system in recent years. thats not to say we shouldn't use it sometimes as there is a time and a place for it but we need a settled team now and that means a settled formation so that the players know exactly what they are doing.
). it just works better. all the free flowing teams play that way because its easier to keep the ball. there's better balance throughout the side and it means playing players in their correct positions. more rigid teams play 4-4-2. even ferguson, one of the mainstay managers of 4-4-2 has switched system in recent years. thats not to say we shouldn't use it sometimes as there is a time and a place for it but we need a settled team now and that means a settled formation so that the players know exactly what they are doing.
1 on their own is not up to the role but two together works better (Holt & Jacko or Holt & Moro). As I said though, if something else is tried out and is seen to be working I will be happy enough.
I fully understand the flexibility of the 4-5-1 and accept it can work very well if played right but it does need the right players and those players need to be well disciplined to get back when needed (as per my overwhelmed in midfield statement earlier). We have already seen countless times that if our midfield are caught out, our back line takes the hit too. If that can be addressed then yes it can work but we are yet to see it work well on a consistent basis because the manager(s) keep trying "other" things, so to that end I cannot be convinced that it IS THE THING to do but accept IT IS THE THING to try out for a run of games.
I fully understand the flexibility of the 4-5-1 and accept it can work very well if played right but it does need the right players and those players need to be well disciplined to get back when needed (as per my overwhelmed in midfield statement earlier). We have already seen countless times that if our midfield are caught out, our back line takes the hit too. If that can be addressed then yes it can work but we are yet to see it work well on a consistent basis because the manager(s) keep trying "other" things, so to that end I cannot be convinced that it IS THE THING to do but accept IT IS THE THING to try out for a run of games.
even more reason to play one or even two holding players. it lets the creative players (wide men, attacking mid(s) and striker) to do what they are best at. they don't need to be as disciplined going backwards as they do in a 4-4-2. i don't know about tettey but the other midfielders we have are not disciplined enough positionally to play in a flat 4-4-2. even fox struggles and he's pretty good positionally.
Fox is very good at what he does. In an analogy, he's our Scholes. Unfortunately he tackles like a cross between Robocop and Bambi. Whenever he plays he is going to need either protection or a gofor. I like Johnson but he probably only completes 50% of his passes. We do need Howson playing further up the pitch as he did with our 2nd goal Saturday. And we need width on both sides of the pitch. But we are only allowed 11 at a time. Thank goodness they have a good chap like CH to make them choices.
I'm all for picking the system that suits our squad or what needs to be done to win matches. I wasn't a fan of the tinkering that spoilt Lamberts later matches in the Prem. Whatever it takes for us to start winning matches is what is important.
I'm all for picking the system that suits our squad or what needs to be done to win matches. I wasn't a fan of the tinkering that spoilt Lamberts later matches in the Prem. Whatever it takes for us to start winning matches is what is important.
Think that the fact you have refused to read other threads and then write so much is very pompus and rude. Who are you to say that all other opinions are "crap" but youre gona give us yours as if its gospel. As it happens I think you make some good points but also think you need to learn that others have.opinions and you may learn from other peoples point of view.