Dissecting THAT!

[Superman wears Grant Holt pyjamas in bed]

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.

wow. the only person being rude around here is you!

i didn't 'refuse' to read other threads. the reason i didn't read any other threads is so i can write clearly, without having my own judgement clouded by other things i've read from other people - that way i know i've written precisely what i wanted to get across. i even apologised at the start of the thread in case i go over anything already said before!!!

unbelievable!! some people do themselves no favours...

 

[robbieBB]

Re. formations, and in particular 4:2:3:1 (or 4:5:1 if you prefer), I emailed a question to the club for the Fan's Forum asking for CH's views on the pros and cons. I can't go myself, but if anybody does go maybe they can report back. If there are too many Canary Callers there my question will probably not get a look in though.

Last night's match was an interesting illustration of what we are talking about. In the first half QPR were set up 4:4:2 against WHU's 4:5:1. The Hammers completely dominated. In the second half Hughes changed it to match up the midfields and the game completely changed.

My opinion: (1) at this level you need to be able to play different systems equally effectively; (2) not all players have the versatility to fit into every system; (3) which formation you play should be decided in part by (a) how the opposition is set up, and (b) the strengths and weaknesses of the players available to you on a given day.

On Saturday we were set up to play 4:4:2 but the chosen midfield was better suited to 4:5:1. Also, in the event and with hindsight, we'd probably have been best to play 4:2:3:1.

 

[GozoCanary]

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.

I know what you mean. I'm going back to how I used to use this forum, as a 'lurker' who uses it as a way of finding out how people in the UK who actually go to the matches feel about the way we're playing.

 

[ilovedelia]

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

Exactly what I've been saying, we were far too narrow, it was so bloody obvious. I know Pilkington is still not ready, but we need him and Elliot Bennet in those wide areas, not only to counter the opposition raiding down our flanks, but to give poor Holty some service.
Not sure about leaving Johnson out as he's our only lump of steel in the middle, but I think Howson needs to be left out for Fox. He's not in the game, he drifts in and out, and we need everyone at 100%.

 

[Superman wears Grant Holt pyjamas in bed]

i think the reason howson drifts in and out of games is cos he's too deep. stick him in his rightful position further up the field and he'll have an effect on us again. depends what this tettey is like as to johnson starting or not in my opinion.

 

[bedfordcanary]

"i cant even begin to imagine the crap that was put out" were your words which suggests that you did not tead other thread because you knew it would all be rubbish in comparison to your high and mighty opinion.

And now ur trying to say im being the rude one? People come on here to express opinion and debate. You tend to dismiss opinion that does not match your own as stupid.

You say I am being rude but I actually said I agree with most of your points. I just thought it rude that you would dismiss other threads because you might disagree with other opinions (which is how the first thread comes across regardless of your above explanation)

 

[ncfcwonky]

i think the reason howson drifts in and out of games is cos he's too deep. stick him in his rightful position further up the field and he'll have an effect on us again. depends what this tettey is like as to johnson starting or not in my opinion.

Agreed, Howson needs freedom to be at his best. In a flat 4-4-2 the central midfielders have a lot of responsibility defensively and attacking. By having Tettey alongside him would mean that Howson can attack while Tettey can defend but this means neither has proper support. With a midfield of 5 and two holding midfielders the attacking three can attack more effectively while the two holding midfielders can support the defense and each other effectively.

 

[Superman wears Grant Holt pyjamas in bed]

"i cant even begin to imagine the crap that was put out" were your words which suggests that you did not tead other thread because you knew it would all be rubbish in comparison to your high and mighty opinion.

And now ur trying to say im being the rude one? People come on here to express opinion and debate. You tend to dismiss opinion that does not match your own as stupid.

You say I am being rude but I actually said I agree with most of your points. I just thought it rude that you would dismiss other threads because you might disagree with other opinions (which is how the first thread comes across regardless of your above explanation)

flippin heck man. what is your problem?

let me explain so that you understand exactly what i'm saying here:

when in the heat of the moment, ie immediately after a football match when you've been pumped at home, people tend to write with their hearts and not with their heads. i wanted to avoid reading those sort of threads because they would have blurred what i wanted to say if i knew some of the crap that had been posted in the aftermath.

now if you don't like my explanation then fine, use the pink 'un website instead

---

ps. i assume the reason you are on my case is because you wrote an unbelievably negative thread at some point after the match. am i right?

 

[Superman wears Grant Holt pyjamas in bed]

Agreed, Howson needs freedom to be at his best. In a flat 4-4-2 the central midfielders have a lot of responsibility defensively and attacking. By having Tettey alongside him would mean that Howson can attack while Tettey can defend but this means neither has proper support. With a midfield of 5 and two holding midfielders the attacking three can attack more effectively while the two holding midfielders can support the defense and each other effectively.

it seems we all agree that you don't get the best out of howson when in a flat four, regardless of who plays alongside him.

 

[bedfordcanary]

As a matter of fact I did (that sort of performance deserves such damnation), however this is not what bothers me. I am not troubled by you not reading my own opinions, just that appeared yours was the only valid one. However, I accept your reasoning and agree with your points. apologies for any miscoception

 

[Superman wears Grant Holt pyjamas in bed]

As a matter of fact I did (that sort of performance deserves such damnation), however this is not what bothers me. I am not troubled by you not reading my own opinions, just that appeared yours was the only valid one. However, I accept your reasoning and agree with your points. apologies for any miscoception

thank god for that! you're a good poster mate - don't want to fall out with anyone on here, not even carrabuh, so good you can see where i was coming from. as you see, i wrote a bit of an essay, as is my way, but i have to get out what i'm thinking clearly or otherwise i don't see the point in contributing

 

[robbieBB]

IMHO it would make a huge difference to this forum if all of us could just take on board the following:

(1) A post can be absolute crap, but that in itself says nothing of any significance about the poster.

(2) Consequently, saying that a post is crap is not a personal attack on the poster.

(3) "Crap" applied to a post is simply a vernacular way of saying "wildly wrong" or "fundamentally (apologies for the pun) misguided".

(4) The way to respond to a "crap" post is to produce reasons for thinking it is wildly wrong or fundamentally misguided, not to resort to personal remarks about the poster.

PS I try not to produce crap posts, but I am happy to admit that I don't always succeed. I do though make sure I don't indulge in name calling -- except when engaged in banter with Dave.

 

[tipsycanary]

IMHO it would make a huge difference to this forum if all of us could just take on board the following:

(1) A post can be absolute crap, but that in itself says nothing of any significance about the poster.

(2) Consequently, saying that a post is crap is not a personal attack on the poster.

(3) "Crap" applied to a post is simply a vernacular way of saying "wildly wrong" or "fundamentally (apologies for the pun) misguided".

(4) The way to respond to a "crap" post is to produce reasons for thinking it is wildly wrong or fundamentally misguided, not to resort to personal remarks about the poster.

PS I try not to produce crap posts, but I am happy to admit that I don't always succeed. I do though make sure I don't indulge in name calling -- except when engaged in banter with Dave.

This post is crap

 

[robbieBB]

This post is crap

You **** $@#&er, get off the bottle!

 

[Superman wears Grant Holt pyjamas in bed]

You **** $@#&er, get off the bottle!

talk about walking into something!

you set yourself up good and proper robbie!

 

[redruthyella]

IMHO it would make a huge difference to this forum if all of us could just take on board the following:

(1) A post can be absolute crap, but that in itself says nothing of any significance about the poster.

(2) Consequently, saying that a post is crap is not a personal attack on the poster.

(3) "Crap" applied to a post is simply a vernacular way of saying "wildly wrong" or "fundamentally (apologies for the pun) misguided".

(4) The way to respond to a "crap" post is to produce reasons for thinking it is wildly wrong or fundamentally misguided, not to resort to personal remarks about the poster.

PS I try not to produce crap posts, but I am happy to admit that I don't always succeed. I do though make sure I don't indulge in name calling -- except when engaged in banter with Dave.

But we could do without it at all. To be honest, at one time I was as rude as anyone when it suited me or the mood I was in. But then I thought how stupid. I don't even know these guys, even Mikey and Carrabuh. So I have now decided to be as polite as I can while at the same time believing that there are others out there who share my views so not taking a step back when disagreeing.

 

[robbieBB]

talk about walking into something!

you set yourself up good and proper robbie!

Give me a banjo and I'll hit my own barn door every time!

 

[robbieBB]

But we could do without it at all. To be honest, at one time I was as rude as anyone when it suited me or the mood I was in. But then I thought how stupid. I don't even know these guys, even Mikey and Carrabuh. So I have now decided to be as polite as I can while at the same time believing that there are others out there who share my views so not taking a step back when disagreeing.

"He that repenteth shall be rewarded with the key to the cupboard" (when I've sussed out where dave keeps the *****y thing!)

 

[redruthyella]

"He that repenteth shall be rewarded with the key to the cupboard" (when I've sussed out where dave keeps the *****y thing!)

If you remember the start of Raiders of the Lost Ark, then you'll know how Dave keeps his key safe!

 

[canary-dave]

If you remember the start of Raiders of the Lost Ark, then you'll know how Dave keeps his key safe!

.