I happened to look last Saturday and Surman was on the bench for Bournemouth. May be coming back from an injury or something, but I was surprised all the same. I like Fox as a player, but his tackling let's him down. You could say the same for Hucks, but in his case the pace and threat he had kept the opposing FBs from coming forward.
Becchio is nowhere near good enough. Poor touch and terrible movement. Theres no way Fox and Surman should have been shown the door. They both held the two elements we are in very short supply of. Patience and an ability to thread a through ball to a winger or striker. We have plenty of water carriers in Fer, Tettey, Johnson, Snodgrass, Howson and even Redmond runs up and down like an idiot most of the time. Fox and Surman are not the best, but the team now has so few options available, and all of the new attacking methods he's tried to install have failed emphatically despite the large sums of money. Pathetic philosophy.
Early days, Carrabuh, city are still the only team to beat Southampton and the away win against Stoke show what can be done. I sometimes wonder why you support City at all. I know you don't see tackling as part of the 'beautiful game', but the PL doesn't subscribe to the Spanish etiquette of polite passing. Fox can pass well, but he would have been bypassed by the teams City have been playing. Like you, I do like Surman's ability to thread passes, but he lacks the ability to tackle back when the ball is lost, something that is not true of the 'water carriers' you name. There is a balance to be struck, but you seem to be able to only see one side of that balance.
EXACTLY!!!! balance We have none, its ALL power and/or pace. You don't need players that specialise in winning the ball back everywhere, but you do need players that can retain possession everywhere. Why would Surman need to continually win the ball back, you have Fer, Johnson, Tettey or Snodgrass. As long as he's not lazing about (which he didn't do) I don't see the issue with that element of his game (or anyone else purchased for a similar role) being missing. Far better to keep hold of the ball and actually create GOOD chances than run around chasing to get the ball back. As for beating Southampton at home and a useless Stoke side away well done us. Fantastic.
As fence-sitter-in-chief (until last Saturday) I find it hard to disagree with any of his. After the three meteoric years that preceded last season, we could have got Pep Guardiola, Gus Hidinnk, or Jesus effing Christ to manage the club and all would have fallen short of the fans perceived expectations. Sadly - and largely due to financial constraints, supporting NCFC is like a roller coaster ride. It can be thrilling in the extreme, but then it stops and we all have to get off. And queue again, waiting for our turn to come around again. But hey, look on the bright side - if Doomcaster was still involved, we'd never have made it into the queue in the first place.
you may think its a travesty that neither player is deemed good enough or have been replaced by a more physical player but i shall reiterate my earlier point. surman cannot get in a half decent, footballing bournemouth team and fox is playing ok for barnsley. neither of these players are capable of making us better anymore.
No, neither of these players are capable of making us better under the present manager. They have been replaced with different players, playing a different way, with an end result of rubbish chances being created. We don't have their options anymore.
was fox creative? he kept the ball pretty well but he's a bit like joe allen for example. surman is more creative but he wasn't exactly tearing up trees under lambert while given more license. hughton played him before he got injured but he didn't impress. as you know i like both players but like becchio, i cannot understand the clamour for them to come into the side - it might make us a little easier on the eye but it won't make us a better team
Fox wasn't exactly creative for us, but he did have a good eye for a pass, which was weighted nicely and positioned so the next player could easily take a good touch and be creative because of the time that Fox has given him. That's what Fox does - he makes other player's lives easier. That said, I don't think Fox can cut it in the Prem. As for Surman, I actually think there were one or two occasions under Lambert where he was unplayable his form was so good. The trouble is, this was almost exclusively in the diamond formation where he excelled and that formation is just too dodgy for us. There was something about it that just suited Surman. I seem to remember his form being pretty good under Hughton and, aside from a shocker against Fulham (didn't they all...) he was looking very decent, just his injury was appallingly timed.
Fox was the patient element Surman was the creative I'll agree neither are World beaters but I'll reiterate the point we have lost their option to play to focus centrally. Hughton Shipped them out and replaced those elements with differing (and to me far basic) ones based on physicality. He didn't go out and get better versions. These new players are better, they can run around more and tackle unlike there predecessors. Look whats happened to the creative side, its ****ed, disjointed, easy to read and relies solely on the wings.
With Olsson now offering pace on the left, I'd have liked to have seen Surman tried as the left sided midfielder. In our current 4-3-3, I think Surman on the left would have offered a bit more creativity and made us less predictable.
You keep saying that CH's tactics rely 'solely on the wings', Carrabuh, but if that's true, why does he 'invert' the wide players? It's because, as with Hucks, it creates problems with the FB's who don't know which way they might go. Unfortunately, Tettey's injury cut short the more creative midfield that was developing, with Fer and Howson able to get forward to thread passes through. Tettey's passing completion rate has been over 90%, whereas Johnson is 77%. This means Fer has to play deeper to support Johnson rather than supporting Howson further forward. Injuries do take a toll sometimes. It'll be interesting to see what happens with West Ham.
I actually like Olsson and I agree entirely. Do you really need Olsson AND Redmond, no, Olsson and Surman would give you two different ways to attack and I'd say a better chemistry to feed off each other.
The trouble is the defenders know EXACTLY where he's going to go, because he always cuts in. Inverted wingers also mean they receive the ball a lot earlier. Its why the wingers are not getting into great positions when they receive the ball.
I personally like inverted wingers but the trouble is neither Snodgrass, Redmond and to a lesser degree Pilkington can play insightful passes.
It's a shame Pilks isn't right-sided, as he'd likely be the one to miss out. Against poorer opposition though you could have Olsson overlapping Surman and Whittaker overlapping Snodgrass, which would offer width and creativity. I don't think with Tettey, Fer, and to a lesser extent Howson capable of tackling back, we'd really need Surman to do that role too.
I think the issue is not necessarily having Surman, its not having players of that ilk available. We have Hoolahan who is being forced out with bad support and thats it. Howson is very much a straight lines forward runner that needs space, like Fer and Tettey. Its OK having one or two, but not everyone.
That is about the best post I have seen from you on this issue. I don't have a huge problem with CH playing the way he does but I agree he has reduced his options by not having that style of player. He has sort of tried to use Howson to play the creative role, and he does to an extent but I agree lots of it is straight lines and overly predictable at times.
True, I was simply trying to use the players we've got available. I agree other options would have been nice. Much as Howson has been better of late, I still think we need a real quality CAM if we want to improve the creativity side of things. I keep coming back to him, but I really feel Toivonen would have been that player. He's got the creativity to link up the wingers and striker, but also the strength and tackling that Hughton wants from seemingly every player. and his aerial threat would have helped from crosses, and holding the ball up when under pressure at the back would have helped too. To me, he's the sort of compromise between physical characteristics and footballing talent that we need.
