A 4-4-2 diamond is still a 4-4-2, I just think it's wiser to use a system that suits the players in it, rather than try and force players to fit a formation. We tried to do the latter earlier in the season and most of last season and it didn't work. The reason our 4-4-2 has worked so well is because of the industry we have in the centre of midfield. If Huddlestone is going to play but won't bring that busy energy, then the obvious solution is to put our team into a formation that suits every member, not just a select few. I don't know if Bruce will risk chucking Hayden in. He could always play Diame alongside Livermore and put Abel and Akpom up front together.
" I just think it's wiser to use a system that suits the players in it, rather than try and force players to fit a formation." Do you mean players or player?
It doesn't really matter how much you mess around with formations, diamonds or anything else, our recent form and performances, curiously up until yesterday, have proven that we are more effective with two central midfielders that have the legs to cover for each other. In our current available squad those two players are clearly Jake and Hayden. In your suggestion, if I'm understanding it correctly, Jake would need to defend for the equivalent of two central midfielders but he'd have the 'luxury' of Huddlestone helping him out with his attacking duties. That, for me, has the stench of someone attempting to shoehorn Huddlestone into the side.
I think you are way too harsh to be honest. I don't think young lads should be written off before they have even played a dozen games for us and he's done well every club he's been at. Last season he was dropped in at the deep end, I think all our lads struggled at times even the so called class acts with proven experience. Even then he wasn't given a chance to cement a position in the team.
As opposed to what? That's exactly what happens when Meyler plays. Meyler hasn't got much in the way of techincal ability, so it falls on Jake to be the one who commits further forward. I'm not fussed who plays as long as it works. I can see the merits of having Huddlestone both out and in, but he isn't the same player as Meyler so why play him in a position and a role that mean he has to do what Meyler does?
I'm not sure Jake 'commits' further forward when Meyler plays. It's interesting for me to see how younger lads like you and RosiesGrandma view the game and players though.
Well I consider Jake one of those midfielders who goes up and down and sort of links the play up, whereas Meyler is more in there to disrupt the opposition, hassle and win the ball. Meyler is incredibly sloppy in his passing, but he's very good as a DM and winning the ball back. Jake has more finesse and power in his game and has more of an influence linking up from side to side or between the defence and attack.
You would think too that they would work on Meylers passing on training. I suppose most players have a weakness of sorts though. We will miss Meyler the next few weeks.
What does that have to do with it? There are various points in games when players have an opportunity to get forward, it doesn't mean they stay forward all game.
You're right, we will miss him. He probably does work on it in training, but I think he knows he isn't that kind of midfielder.
you said this... You're talking complete nonsense. Jake and Meyler are both equally involved in attack and defence as each other, which is why they compliment each other perfectly, and Huddlestone never will.
Who's writing him off? I just said I wouldn't play him Friday and feel more assured with our other CB's.
You said " I just think it's wiser to use a system that suits the players in it" ; The current system suits the players (plural) so why change it? To change the system to suit one player is the same as saying: " I just think it's wiser to use a system that suits Huddlestone, rather than try and force Huddlestone to fit a formation."
