we'll get battered playing two in the middle.......

[Stretfordpotterer]

Glad all the tactical genius types who've been banging on about how we'd get battered playing 4-4-2 have been shown the way.

2 in the middle for two tough games, 4 points gathered.

Charlie "you can't play him in a two man midfield, we'll get battered" Adam, scores and gets two assists in the process. Walters actually looks involved in the game playing alongside Crouch rather than stuck out on the right.

[mcf]

I don't remember the wankstains saying that we would get battered playing 442. I do remember them basically saying that it was an old school formation however that only dinosaurs like Pulis used while Hughes was merely following the techniques of the modern world. There were a few wankstains that definitely said that Adam couldn't play in a 442 though and that Walters and Crouch were basically wank no matter what.

I have no idea why Hughes changed after 23 games to this formation and more direct approach (maybe it was 1 point from 7, the players having a word or just a general realisation of what was unfolding under his very eyes) but I'm just pleased that he has.

[Deleted]

I'll hold my hands up. I never thought it'd work with Adam in a midfield two.

I'll happily admit I was wrong. Adam is our best player right now.

[Stretfordpotterer]

Feb 10, 2014 9:11:09 GMT mcf said:

I don't remember the wankstains saying that we would get battered playing 442. I do remember them basically saying that it was an old school formation however that only dinosaurs like Pulis used while Hughes was merely following the techniques of the modern world. There were a few wankstains that definitely said that Adam couldn't play in a 442 though and that Walters and Crouch were basically wank no matter what.

I have no idea why Hughes changed after 23 games to this formation and more direct approach (maybe it was 1 point from 7, the players having a word or just a general realisation of what was unfolding under his very eyes) but I'm just pleased that he has.

to try to paint the last two years under Pulis as us playing 4-4-2 is slightly disingenious. Nobody ever complained about us playing 4-4-2 as far as i can recall, i certainly did complain however about us playing what was effectively a 4-5-1 with only one genuine winger and a (shit) full back on the other side.

Pulis teams were at there best playing a genuine 4-4-2 with two genuine wide men, if he hadn't forgetten that he'd still be in charge now, he did, and he isn't.

There is nothing wrong with 4-4-2 if you have a hardworking front man willing to track back, we do, and we've been wasting him out on the flanks.

[mcf]

He didn't forget - the players he brought in out wide simply weren't good enough.

That is why Walters played out so wide so much under Pulis and why he did under Hughes until Odem has come in.

Ethers struggled to get fit, he fell out with Pennant, Kightly and Shea weren't good enough......

[Gods]

I've always been a straight 4-4-2 man myself.

Footballing equivalent of the missionary position that it is

Nothing kinky for me, not when it comes to football formations anyway

[Stretfordpotterer]

Feb 10, 2014 9:33:01 GMT mcf said:

He didn't forget - the players he brought in out wide simply weren't good enough.

That is why Walters played out so wide so much under Pulis and why he did under Hughes until Odem has come in.

Ethers struggled to get fit, he fell out with Pennant, Kightly and Shea weren't good enough......

tbhthat line of thought reflects even worse on TP, I mean really, how many people do you reckon thought that Kightley or Shea were anywhere near good enough?

it's not like he wasn't given enough money to spend in those windows to remedy the situation.

Either way, the formation we've gone out with the last few games is something akin to what i've wanted for the best part of two years now, pace on the wings, a threat through the middle but finally with a bit of creativity in the middle.

Lets hope it carries on in that vein, Swanse will be a good test if he sticks with it.

[Deleted]

[Olgrligm]

So far as I can see, we're playing 4-4-1-1/4-5-1. When we don't have the ball, Whelan drops deep and Walters drops to defend alongside Adam. When we have the ball, Crouch is still pretty much on his own up top.

It's definitely not anything like 4-4-2.

[foxysgloves]

Feb 10, 2014 10:04:10 GMT Olgrligm said:

So far as I can see, we're playing 4-4-1-1/4-5-1. When we don't have the ball, Whelan drops deep and Walters drops to defend alongside Adam. When we have the ball, Crouch is still pretty much on his own up top.

It's definitely not anything like 4-4-2.

It's 4 4 2 Jim but not as we know it.......

[greyman]

Feb 10, 2014 9:11:09 GMT mcf said:

I don't remember the wankstains saying that we would get battered playing 442. I do remember them basically saying that it was an old school formation however that only dinosaurs like Pulis used while Hughes was merely following the techniques of the modern world. There were a few wankstains that definitely said that Adam couldn't play in a 442 though and that Walters and Crouch were basically wank no matter what.

I have no idea why Hughes changed after 23 games to this formation and more direct approach (maybe it was 1 point from 7, the players having a word or just a general realisation of what was unfolding under his very eyes) but I'm just pleased that he has.

Hopefully you can carry on in this vein for another four or five years. Wake me up when you're done Merk.

[Jamo on the wing]

I didn't think we'd be able to achieve results with the "old" Charlie playing in a two but the new much fitter version is proving more than capable.

[mcf]

Feb 10, 2014 10:08:00 GMT greyman said:

Feb 10, 2014 9:11:09 GMT mcf said:

I don't remember the wankstains saying that we would get battered playing 442. I do remember them basically saying that it was an old school formation however that only dinosaurs like Pulis used while Hughes was merely following the techniques of the modern world. There were a few wankstains that definitely said that Adam couldn't play in a 442 though and that Walters and Crouch were basically wank no matter what.

I have no idea why Hughes changed after 23 games to this formation and more direct approach (maybe it was 1 point from 7, the players having a word or just a general realisation of what was unfolding under his very eyes) but I'm just pleased that he has.

Hopefully you can carry on in this vein for another four or five years. Wake me up when you're done Merk.

I will do my best

[agingerstokie]

If he's really only lost 2kg it must be determination and confidence he was lacking not weight issues

[Stafford-Stokie]

Feb 10, 2014 9:41:34 GMT Stretfordpotterer said:

Feb 10, 2014 9:33:01 GMT mcf said:

He didn't forget - the players he brought in out wide simply weren't good enough.

That is why Walters played out so wide so much under Pulis and why he did under Hughes until Odem has come in.

Ethers struggled to get fit, he fell out with Pennant, Kightly and Shea weren't good enough......

tbhthat line of thought reflects even worse on TP, I mean really, how many people do you reckon thought that Kightley or Shea were anywhere near good enough?

it's not like he wasn't given enough money to spend in those windows to remedy the situation.

Either way, the formation we've gone out with the last few games is something akin to what i've wanted for the best part of two years now, pace on the wings, a threat through the middle but finally with a bit of creativity in the middle.

Lets hope it carries on in that vein, Swanse will be a good test if he sticks with it.

Hands up here. I thought Kightley was going to do very well for us. I though he was the better option of him and Jarvis especially cost wise. He just didn't seem to get going. Maybe he could fit in better in a hughes team? I honestly believe he has it in his locker.

[RAF]

Feb 10, 2014 9:11:09 GMT mcf said:

I don't remember the wankstains saying that we would get battered playing 442. I do remember them basically saying that it was an old school formation however that only dinosaurs like Pulis used while Hughes was merely following the techniques of the modern world. There were a few wankstains that definitely said that Adam couldn't play in a 442 though and that Walters and Crouch were basically wank no matter what.

I have no idea why Hughes changed after 23 games to this formation and more direct approach (maybe it was 1 point from 7, the players having a word or just a general realisation of what was unfolding under his very eyes) but I'm just pleased that he has.

Pulis never played 442 you fucking ringpiece!

H

[Stretfordpotterer]

Feb 10, 2014 10:04:10 GMT Olgrligm said:

So far as I can see, we're playing 4-4-1-1/4-5-1. When we don't have the ball, Whelan drops deep and Walters drops to defend alongside Adam. When we have the ball, Crouch is still pretty much on his own up top.

It's definitely not anything like 4-4-2.

It's certainly a lot more like 4-4-2 than what we've been playing previously. And the initial set up against the shit was a definite 4-4-2, Walters was alongside Crouch for a large proportion of
the game.

I suppose a lot of it is down to the personnel, if you put a midfielder in the 1 at the top of midfield you'll find that 90% of the time it becoems 4-5-1 whereas with Walters it is much more like 4-4-2 or 4-4-1-1.

However you want to dress it up when we are on the ball we are getting 4 attacking players into the game instead of 2 or 3 at most.

[mcf]

4411 then...basically the same as now you moron.

[ohbottom]

Feb 10, 2014 10:16:28 GMT agingerstokie said:

If he's really only lost 2kg it must be determination and confidence he was lacking not weight issues

Weight doesn't equate to fitness. I'm about the same weight now as I was 25 years ago. Then I used to go to the pool in my lunch break and swim 2 miles. These days I go up the stairs to bed and I'm out of breath

[RAF]

Feb 10, 2014 10:21:18 GMT mcf said:

4411 then...basically the same as now you moron.

Thankyou for acknowledging you were talking through your more than ample arse again!

H

[Stretfordpotterer]

Feb 10, 2014 10:16:39 GMT Stafford-Stokie said:

Feb 10, 2014 9:41:34 GMT Stretfordpotterer said:

tbhthat line of thought reflects even worse on TP, I mean really, how many people do you reckon thought that Kightley or Shea were anywhere near good enough?

it's not like he wasn't given enough money to spend in those windows to remedy the situation.

Either way, the formation we've gone out with the last few games is something akin to what i've wanted for the best part of two years now, pace on the wings, a threat through the middle but finally with a bit of creativity in the middle.

Lets hope it carries on in that vein, Swanse will be a good test if he sticks with it.

Hands up here. I thought Kightley was going to do very well for us. I though he was the better option of him and Jarvis especially cost wise. He just didn't seem to get going. Maybe he could fit in better in a hughes team? I honestly believe he has it in his locker.

I was always in the opposite camp to be fair, he had a cracker against us for Wolves one game but every other time i'd seen him i'd been largely underwhelmed.

In fairness to Pulis, i wasn't overly enamoured with much of what might have been on the market at the time as far as wide men were concerned, Jarvis included, and certainly not for the proce quoted at the time.

I just felt it was one of those times where his reliance on signing prem experience worked against us, it was maybe time to risk a foreign signing and if that had gone wrong i think most people would have said, well at least we took a punt. Not a Brek Shea style punt mind, someone with top flight European experience, just felt like he wasn't really looking hard enough even when what was required couldn't be filled from his preferred source of relegated prem clubs. Even someone like the Phillips from Blackpool i felt at the time would have been a more positive signing.

Find it hard to believe he had much to do with the Brek Shea signing TBH so i won't hold that one against him.

[mcf]

No dickhead....I just didn't want to be pedantic with OP.

I'm a man of the people like that.

[gothicstokelover]

One thing I loved when Charlie Adam got subed on sat, he was asking all of the staff why was he taken off, he wanted stay on the pitch and play...gotta love when a player shows that kinda of commitment.

[davejohnno1]

Not playing Adam in a midfield 2 was something I never criticised Pulis for.

I didn't think Adam was disciplined enough, fit enough or mobile enough for that role.

Pulis clearly felt the same but based on 3 games (Wigan away on his debut + the last 2 games) Pulis was wrong and so was I.

You would expect me to be wrong but having spent 4m and 45k per week on him, you wouldn't expect Pulis to get it wrong.

For me, its just another stick to beat the useless, negative bastard with.

Thank fuck he's gone is all I can say! :-)

[Stretfordpotterer]

Feb 10, 2014 10:36:16 GMT davejohnno1 said:

Not playing Adam in a midfield 2 was something I never criticised Pulis for.

I didn't think Adam was disciplined enough, fit enough or mobile enough for that role.

Pulis clearly felt the same but based on 3 games (Wigan away on his debut + the last 2 games) Pulis was wrong and so was I.

You would expect me to be wrong but having spent 4m and 45k per week on him, you wouldn't expect Pulis to get it wrong.

For me, its just another stick to beat the useless, negative bastard with.

Thank fuck he's gone is all I can say! :-)

Like any decision regarding your midfield it's a balancing act.

Pulis would always, without fail, come down on the side of caution first, was adam disciplined enough to play in the cage for 90 minutes? no, was Pulis willing to sacrifice the cage? no.

My argument would be, if your team defends with discipline, as a unit, for 90 minutes, do you need two men completely dedicated to shielding your back 4 for 90 minutes? and i would say no, you don't.

Adam will always give away the odd silly free kick or lose his man, or go forward and get caught out if play breaks down in a bad area, but to me his creativity and his goalcoring potential outweighs those negatives.

One thing he really gives us from deep, is what i want from Nzonzi that he rarely displays, the willingness and ability to play a positive ball early. The first thing Adam does is look for a positive pass before he goes square or back. Obviously sometimes that will get him into trouble but what it does is force the opposition back 5 or 6 yards, allowing us space in midfield. Same applies to pace on the wings.

[RAF]

Feb 10, 2014 10:28:29 GMT mcf said:

No dickhead....I just didn't want to be pedantic with OP.

I'm a man of the people like that.

Fucking hell, there is a first for everything you lobotomised blubber mountain!

H

[Paul Spencer]

Feb 10, 2014 10:04:10 GMT Olgrligm said:

So far as I can see, we're playing 4-4-1-1/4-5-1. When we don't have the ball, Whelan drops deep and Walters drops to defend alongside Adam. When we have the ball, Crouch is still pretty much on his own up top.

It's definitely not anything like 4-4-2.

This is definitely right and I think the OP is way off.

We're most definitely playing 4-4-1-1 and 4-5-1 which is nothing like a 4-4-2.

Walters and Whelan are doing a lot of the water carrying for Adam which allows him to do his magic, Adam certainly isn't operating as one of the central '2' like say in the way Citeh set up, which is a 4-4-2 - and I think Crouch has (still) been terribly isolated in both games.

[boskampsflaps]

Feb 10, 2014 10:04:10 GMT Olgrligm said:

So far as I can see, we're playing 4-4-1-1/4-5-1. When we don't have the ball, Whelan drops deep and Walters drops to defend alongside Adam. When we have the ball, Crouch is still pretty much on his own up top.

It's definitely not anything like 4-4-2.

Spot on, if it was a straight 4-4-2 we would be getting battered in midfield.

[Stretfordpotterer]

Feb 10, 2014 14:43:44 GMT Paul Spencer said:

Feb 10, 2014 10:04:10 GMT Olgrligm said:

So far as I can see, we're playing 4-4-1-1/4-5-1. When we don't have the ball, Whelan drops deep and Walters drops to defend alongside Adam. When we have the ball, Crouch is still pretty much on his own up top.

It's definitely not anything like 4-4-2.

This is definitely right and I think the OP is way off.

We're most definitely playing 4-4-1-1 and 4-5-1 which is nothing like a 4-4-2.

Walters and Whelan are doing a lot of the water carrying for Adam which allows him to do his magic, Adam certainly isn't operating as one of the central '2' like say in the way Citeh set up, which is a 4-4-2 - and I think Crouch has (still) been terribly isolated in both games.

Against United particularly Walters was pretty much side by side with Crouch whenever we were in possession.

Off the ball he comes a bit deeper but certainly not to the extent that adam and ireland have done.

agree that crouch was still isolated 2nd half against saints, but didn't feel that was the case so much against United.

[stokiet90]

Feb 10, 2014 9:03:42 GMT Stretfordpotterer said:

Glad all the tactical genius types who've been banging on about how we'd get battered playing 4-4-2 have been shown the way.

2 in the middle for two tough games, 4 points gathered.

Charlie "you can't play him in a two man midfield, we'll get battered" Adam, scores and gets two assists in the process. Walters actually looks involved in the game playing alongside Crouch rather than stuck out on the right.

its not to bad having walters just floating around crouch he's not a bad player in my eyes but when he's out wide he just looks awful! The system is working though it seems.