I agree with you Flyer and I think we should play 4-2-3-1, but people complain for not going for it at home by not fielding 2 strikers, then when he does we slate him. lose-lose situation
People assume a 1 up front is going to be a 451 with a lone forward who is isolated. A 4231 is more attacking that a 442. 4 attacking threats versus 2. It can also turn into a 451 without any change in personnel so its much more flexible. We are stuck with a 442 if we play 2 strikers.
At the moment, we don't really have two strikers...Zamora is doing his best and Cisse is a shadow of his former self.... We must play both Hoillet and Tarbs behind him M'Bia was the only plus from last night. Onuha was lost and shown up as incompetent...many of the mistakes and errors came from him Clint Hill is not got skill of a premiership player, but he plays to the best of his ability plus a bit more every game...and at the moment he is all we have got....and he is not as mistake prone an Onuha WE need to get the injured players back and quickly to give Sparky a chance, but he must give the team a chance by playing players who can win matches (Taarbs and Hoillet) For 45 minutes vs Spurs and about 15 minutes last night...I thought we would win. If only
You are correct but the '3' need to know they are attacking options rather than a tippy tappy midfield triangle. The gap between our midfield and the two strikers was ridiculous last night and will not improve unless the midfield are more mobile.
Guys, Whilst it would be unreasonable to not feel sympathy for Hughes' plight in respect of the squad's injury list, it should not be forgotten that eight out of his starting eleven were his acquisitions. This is not a case of him having to make do with inherited sub-standard material. Let's take a look at the three starters that he did inherit: Hill - last season's player of the year, always gives his best and was one of the stand-out players last night (if that is even possible given) SWP - tries hard but doesn't seem to produce anything. I would've tried Mackie instead who can put it about a bit more (which was needed given that West Ham were very physical) Faurlin - no, not one of his best games, but still one of the first names on the team sheet. Subs-wise he brought on two of his purchases, plus Taarabt. Taarabt was class, never stopped working, scored a brilliant goal, was always looking to bring team-mates in and showed tremendous passion. Christ, Hughes has been here nine months, has been given the funds to acquire how many players in total during that time? Ten? Twelve? More? This is his team he's been playing, not a bunch of deadwood, water-treaders like we've seen before with Hulse, Bothroyd or Vine.
Thats because the midfield was set up to be so defensive. Hughes love 2 banks of 4 hence why non of them attack. A 4231 has the 3 to link the 2 defensive midfielders and Zamora. 2 of those must be Hoilett and Taarabt who can both keep the ball and beat players. It doesnt matter how many injuries he has, theres no excuse for playing SWP and an out of position Park when Hoilett and Taarabt are on the bench. Its got to the point where I wouldnt be unhappy with a season ending injury to SWP because that might be the only thing that keeps us up.
He should have played a holding midfielder if he wanted to play Cisse with Zamora (4-1-3-2). But he didn't and it was tactical suicide.
