They replaced players like for like though Swords. Michu - Sigurdsson, Allen - De Guzman and Caulker - Chico all quite similar. Also Laudrup has only tweaked a few things to suit his style. Which is the right thing to do, why tear up a plan completely when it was working well on the whole? He's just adding to the foundations RM/PS/BR left there. Hughes had next to no foundation to work from, which means he'll need more time than Laudrup.
Fair points well made Lucas. Although the fact is Hughes has been in the job longer than Laudrup. Since January in fact, so there's no excuses about bedding in time as far as I'm concerned. I hope you're right though!
This. With Mackie as a super-sub. He's a great weapon to call upon. Though it's the '4' part of your formation that I'm worried about!
I maybe being stupid but how exactly is 4 2 3 1 much different to what was played on Saturday? Diakite and park in the 2 Hollett tarrabt and mackie in the 3 I understand that people will talk about park and tarrabt playing deeper etc but he hardly seems like a revolution to fix the problems of a 5 0 defeat.
We played 4-1-4-1 on Saturday. Diakite was the deepest midfielder. Taarabt dropped too deep to collect the ball. At times, all the attack minded midfielders left Diakite exposed - hence Swansea ran straight through us! You right in a way though.....all variations can start from 4-5-1
Makes sense Col. Personally I think it was a bad day at the office and there probably wasn't any formation that would have helped on Saturday. Cissee standing flat footed on the edge of the box with his hands in his pocket gesticulating to everyone every time he didn't get the ball on a plate really makes any tactics a bit defunct. Swansea moved the ball so quickly and well on the counter attack and there seemed to be no urgency to break down these counter attack.
I don't think it started out as a bad day at the office at all. In fact it looks very good . Has anyone mentioned that Swansea were a new team? Because they were and your formation ideals go straight out the window . It wasn't all about how bad we were rather how good the new Swansea were playing Their defence was in general excellent and their new management also so They knew our individual dangers and they dealt with them best They kept it tight for the first 20 and got a slice of luck and scored Still we looked the more dangerous Adel was trying too hard and playing too deep and the gaps were easy It's was a master class by Swansea IMO as they picked off a very open team who were chasing the game Because they wanted to do well I think the attack on our team by our own fans picking out players is very. Fickle. In we go into the MNF match against West ham without a point then of course we can then all agree on change. Swansea City under new management was the classic unknown.. 5 weekes into the season all will be reveled
Diakite was left handling too many people, not having a go at Park it's not his natural position, or style of play. If your playing 1 up front you need the Midfields to support the 1, while Mackie tried to get in the box when it was out on the left nobody else seem to. It was strange nobody supported the front man but nobody supported the defensive midfielder which means in possession we had 4 players hang around in a thin strip across the park. For me as well 4-2-3-1 should be the way to go but you need to support the 1. If your playing Hoilett, Taarabt and Park who is going to get in the box ? Adel nope, Park not sure, Hoilett maybe. Do you fit your players to your system or the system to your players ? I might be having a change of mind and thinking with this group 4-4-2 may be the way to go, if so we'll be seeing one of these three Hoilett, Taarabt and Park on the bench which I doubt is the plan. I think all 5 goals you could attribute to individuals but as a whole they either didn't follow MH plan or it was a bad plan, either way it wasn't working and it wasn't changed not only the palyers have to take a look at themselves after this one.
How can that be right?! We've had all summer to improve a squad that beat a stronger Swansea team 3-0 last year and you think there wasn't any formation that would have helped!! Cisse on his own against a team that pass it around the back like Swansea was the biggest mistake and h’s had all summer to prepare that. Hughes system relied on us being a least level with Swansea. Last year we made Swansea look pretty silly especially after we took the lead as we allowed them to pass it around the back until they got as bored as the fans. They then passed it forward into midfield area and lost the ball. The difference was that this time around we went a goal behind. They passed the ball around the back until one of Park, Hoilett, Adel or Mackie lost their discipline and broke out chased shadows and the ball went forward with us a man down in the middle. Hughes didn’t adjust his tactics after we went behind. From about 20 minutes in he should have switched to a 4-4-2 moving Mackie up. Play a higher line and making Swansea play it forward quicker.
Laugahble excuse. For one they werent really a new team. Michu playing Sigurdsson role and de Guzman a more combatative version of Allen. They played exact same formation as last year. Graham, with Dyer and Routledge either side. Hardly a suprise twist. My attack as anyone sitting near me would have heard from about half an hour in was at Hughes. Cisse was absolutely isolated, Taarabt playing very deep. Why wasn't Hughes on touchline constantly screaming at Adel to play further forward and if he didnt listen then sub him. Answer was that Hughes only had a 'plan A' and when Green gifted them the first goal it soon became inevitable that the game would go the way it did.
I cannot see MH going 442 at Norwich especially after Saturdays 5 goals. I know Cisse needed support on Sat but he won't want to risk another loss. The first game was so important to get points on the board especially at home and that never happened. One of my complaints about Saturday was the one up front and lack of support. He needs to get points on the board now and quickly. We have all see what happens when we lose one game so imagine what it will be like if we lose the first 2-3 games?
They played nothing like Swansea last year if you can't see that then I pity you ... they in fact surrendered ball possession and played a waiting game
If you think that they played so different that Hughes couldnt be expected to have planned a system to deal with them then I pity the fool Iâm not sure why your so keen to make excuses for Hughes. Swansea had 8 players who would have played last year, they played the same formation and played the ball around at the back.
Even if this was a valid point on its won (which I don’t think it is) surely it is cancelled out by the fact that we really did play completely different to last year as well.
Agreed, they play similar to how we played towards the end of last year, making use of the speed they have from Dyer and Routledge to counter attack and Michu was a great example of showing support to the the lone striker.
