|
Post by redstriper on Oct 6, 2015 9:00:33 GMT
Having Johnson as the spare man makes massive sense. Particularly as that means the person he would normally paired up against isn't in the vacated wing space if we lose possession.
I supported his signing because it was a very positive move, he adds a lot going forward. I'd rather watch my team trying to create than trying to nullify, give the opposition the problems. We had many years of the former and it was doing my head in by the end.
It's part of the Hughes evolution away from being a defensive minded outfit trying to nick a goal into a team to be feared. It's got my backing 100%.
For example I'm actually looking forward to the Chelsea game for once - I fancy our front four plus GJ against their backline.
I don't give a shit if shaq doesn't track back either, I'd rather have a quick dangerous player stay up the pitch and ensure two defenders have to stay with him - or the opposition take a massive risk and he exploits it. It worked with Moses when he was fit, and it will work with shaq.
|
|
|
Post by cheekymatt71 on Oct 6, 2015 9:10:01 GMT
I just like the fact it is clear to see we have tactics for different situations.
Hughes & Bowen do have a philosophy on trying to score and win games, rather than a philosophy of not losing games.
We have about 5 or 6 strings to our attacking bow. Remember when we just had the Delap long-throw? haha
|
|
|
Post by chiefdelilah on Oct 6, 2015 9:13:34 GMT
Having Johnson as the spare man makes massive sense. Particularly as that means the person he would normally paired up against isn't in the vacated wing space if we lose possession. I supported his signing because it was a very positive move, he adds a lot going forward. I'd rather watch my team trying to create than trying to nullify, give the opposition the problems. We had many years of the former and it was doing my head in by the end. It's part of the Hughes evolution away from being a defensive minded outfit trying to nick a goal into a team to be feared. It's got my backing 100%. For example I'm actually looking forward to the Chelsea game for once - I fancy our front four plus GJ against their backline. I don't give a shit if shaq doesn't track back either, I'd rather have a quick dangerous player stay up the pitch and ensure two defenders have to stay with him - or the opposition take a massive risk and he exploits it. It worked with Moses when he was fit, and it will work with shaq. You do have do to some defending sometimes though.
|
|
|
Post by redstriper on Oct 6, 2015 9:26:11 GMT
Having Johnson as the spare man makes massive sense. Particularly as that means the person he would normally paired up against isn't in the vacated wing space if we lose possession. I supported his signing because it was a very positive move, he adds a lot going forward. I'd rather watch my team trying to create than trying to nullify, give the opposition the problems. We had many years of the former and it was doing my head in by the end. It's part of the Hughes evolution away from being a defensive minded outfit trying to nick a goal into a team to be feared. It's got my backing 100%. For example I'm actually looking forward to the Chelsea game for once - I fancy our front four plus GJ against their backline. I don't give a shit if shaq doesn't track back either, I'd rather have a quick dangerous player stay up the pitch and ensure two defenders have to stay with him - or the opposition take a massive risk and he exploits it. It worked with Moses when he was fit, and it will work with shaq. You do have do to some defending sometimes though. Yes Chief - but we've plenty of professional defenders to do that job. Some forwards aren't very good at it either are they - clumsy penalties are given away as a result. I don't recall George Best tracking back much. If your key players are too far down the pitch to exploit a break it just shows the initiative has been handed to the other team. MLH is trying to build a team to be feared. All power to him. If we won ten games a season 3-2 and lost 4 others 3-2 I'd take that and wouldn't be moaning about how many we conceded, I'd be ecstatic about how many we'd scored.
|
|
|
Post by chiefdelilah on Oct 6, 2015 9:38:28 GMT
You do have do to some defending sometimes though. Yes Chief - but we've plenty of professional defenders to do that job. Some forwards aren't very good at it either are they - clumsy penalties are given away as a result. I don't recall George Best tracking back much. If your key players are too far down the pitch to exploit a break it just shows the initiative has been handed to the other team. MLH is trying to build a team to be feared. All power to him. If we won ten games a season 3-2 and lost 4 others 3-2 I'd take that and wouldn't be moaning about how many we conceded, I'd be ecstatic about how many we'd scored. Johnson is supposed to be a 'professional defender'. Teams to be feared generally do a decent job at the back. The team that concedes the most goals always gets relegated. There's a happy medium between defending well and sticking 10 men behind the ball surely?
|
|
|
Post by cheekymatt71 on Oct 6, 2015 10:12:19 GMT
Im not going to argue we are great defensively but the facts are
We conceded 10 goals in 8 games so far. That translates to 47.5 conceded over the whole season which is still a better defensive record than Pulis managed in 4 of his 5 Premier League seasons at Stoke.
|
|
|
Post by chiefdelilah on Oct 6, 2015 10:19:03 GMT
Im not going to argue we are great defensively but the facts are We conceded 10 goals in 8 games so far. That translates to 47.5 conceded over the whole season which is still a better defensive record than Pulis managed in 4 of his 5 Premier League seasons at Stoke. That's great Matt but it doesn't work like that does it?
|
|
|
Post by cheekymatt71 on Oct 6, 2015 10:30:36 GMT
Im not going to argue we are great defensively but the facts are We conceded 10 goals in 8 games so far. That translates to 47.5 conceded over the whole season which is still a better defensive record than Pulis managed in 4 of his 5 Premier League seasons at Stoke. That's great Matt but it doesn't work like that does it? But it does suggest the problem is more about scoring rather than defending: We have the 8th best defensive record in the league (seems hard to believe but true) We have the 14th best scoring record in the league Eat those stats Rob
|
|
|
Post by chiefdelilah on Oct 6, 2015 10:33:24 GMT
Which suggests the whole 'fearsome' thing isn't quite there yet.
I've got every confidence the forward play will click.
I don't have anything like that confidence in the defence.
|
|
|
Post by redstriper on Oct 6, 2015 10:37:12 GMT
Yes Chief - but we've plenty of professional defenders to do that job. Some forwards aren't very good at it either are they - clumsy penalties are given away as a result. I don't recall George Best tracking back much. If your key players are too far down the pitch to exploit a break it just shows the initiative has been handed to the other team. MLH is trying to build a team to be feared. All power to him. If we won ten games a season 3-2 and lost 4 others 3-2 I'd take that and wouldn't be moaning about how many we conceded, I'd be ecstatic about how many we'd scored. Johnson is supposed to be a 'professional defender'. Teams to be feared generally do a decent job at the back. The team that concedes the most goals always gets relegated. There's a happy medium between defending well and sticking 10 men behind the ball surely? I'm clearly not advocating all out attack. Just being positive and agreeing with MLH that if you want GJ in your team you set up to allow him to venture forward to get the best from him, and that taking that more adventurous route should be applauded. I think he has his tactics spot on with GJ against lesser teams who offer little threat down his wing. And GJ needs to be very fit for this - so its maybe a two year plan given his age, but it can be very effective.
|
|
|
Post by prem4stoke on Oct 6, 2015 13:14:43 GMT
Definitely didn't work for Villa. Was just about to say the same. Don't know what villa has got to do with it really?
|
|
|
Post by clarkeda on Oct 6, 2015 14:52:55 GMT
Was just about to say the same. Don't know what villa has got to do with it really? They played a back 3 and we caused them no end of problems because of it
|
|
|
Post by prem4stoke on Oct 6, 2015 17:51:32 GMT
Don't know what villa has got to do with it really? They played a back 3 and we caused them no end of problems because of it when we attacked we had three at the back like I said if you can do both surely that's better?
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Oct 6, 2015 18:00:45 GMT
3 at the back is just dreadful.
|
|
|
Post by prem4stoke on Oct 6, 2015 18:59:01 GMT
Don't know what villa has got to do with it really? They played a back 3 and we caused them no end of problems because of it the best bit is we only scored when they reverted to four at the back!
|
|
|
Post by cheeesfreeex on Oct 6, 2015 20:39:51 GMT
I started thinking about the old 3 at the back as soon as I saw Bardsley have a few games for us. It's already been discussed about how that leaves us vulnerable. was neither one thing or the other, hovers around the half way line, not enough decent passes and left in a running chase to defend more often than not. It drags Glenn into defence to compensate and generally leaves us pulled all over when caught on the hop. I was thinking if you're going to play it by default, properly set up to cope. 3 big fellas to patrol the back.
I thought Muniesa is/was the perfect candidate for a flying left back, and then we bought Johnson.
... for part of a game or if there was an inkling that the opposition were going to go gung ho 4-4-2, I wouldn't be against:
-----------------Butland--------------- --------Cameron Shawcross Pieters------ ---Johnson----Whelan--Adam ----Muniesa------- --------------------Bojan--------------- ---------------Shaqiri Arnautovic------------
or for that matter any two of Shaqiri Diouf Walters Joselu Arnie Odemwingie Crouch or Afellay.
I think we'd make a decent go of it. Villa weren't good enough at finishing to make it look like it worked, Hull never really pulled it off, Liverpool looked ok at times. Not an everyweek thing, we more or less do it any way. Why not embrace it now and again? That back line would be mobile enough to piss it.
|
|
|
Post by potterblade on Oct 6, 2015 21:24:44 GMT
I started thinking about the old 3 at the back as soon as I saw Bardsley have a few games for us. It's already been discussed about how that leaves us vulnerable. was neither one thing or the other, hovers around the half way line, not enough decent passes and left in a running chase to defend more often than not. It drags Glenn into defence to compensate and generally leaves us pulled all over when caught on the hop. I was thinking if you're going to play it by default, properly set up to cope. 3 big fellas to patrol the back. I thought Muniesa is/was the perfect candidate for a flying left back, and then we bought Johnson. ... for part of a game or if there was an inkling that the opposition were going to go gung ho 4-4-2, I wouldn't be against: -----------------Butland--------------- --------Cameron Shawcross Pieters------ ---Johnson----Whelan--Adam ----Muniesa------- --------------------Bojan--------------- ---------------Shaqiri Arnautovic------------ or for that matter any two of Shaqiri Diouf Walters Joselu Arnie Odemwingie Crouch or Afellay. I think we'd make a decent go of it. Villa weren't good enough at finishing to make it look like it worked, Hull never really pulled it off, Liverpool looked ok at times. Not an everyweek thing, we more or less do it any way. Why not embrace it now and again? That back line would be mobile enough to piss it. Didn't wigan get relegated playing something like this formation? In possession I can imagine it would be sexy as hell but the problems would surely start every time you lose the ball. Who plays where in the what now??
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Oct 6, 2015 21:34:27 GMT
There isn't a team in the top flight that has pulled it off, I don't see why that side above would, especially when it means when you record signing can't be played in his own position and your best attacking player so far this can't be played in his position either.
And with that team the only striker (or someone who has at least played more than the odd game there) we have is playing #10.
|
|
|
Post by cheeesfreeex on Oct 6, 2015 21:50:54 GMT
There isn't a team in the top flight that has pulled it off, I don't see why that side above would, especially when it means when you record signing can't be played in his own position and your best attacking player so far this can't be played in his position either. And with that team the only striker (or someone who has at least played more than the odd game there) we have is playing #10. Don't quite understand those points Bayern. A roving pair of Shaq and Arnie up top with balls hit into them from all over, they don't even have to be great passes them pair would snaffle them. That team would be defensively sweet too. No gaps in modfield with Muniesa etc chipping in if necessary. Wigan suffered because they did it too often.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Oct 6, 2015 21:51:55 GMT
There isn't a team in the top flight that has pulled it off, I don't see why that side above would, especially when it means when you record signing can't be played in his own position and your best attacking player so far this can't be played in his position either. And with that team the only striker (or someone who has at least played more than the odd game there) we have is playing #10. Don't quite understand those points Bayern. A roving pair of Shaq and Arnie up top with balls hit into them from all over, they don't even have to be great passes them pair would snaffle them. That team would be defensively sweet too. No gaps in modfield with Muniesa etc chipping in if necessary. Wigan suffered because they did it too often. You want to play two wingers up front.
|
|
|
Post by cheeesfreeex on Oct 6, 2015 21:58:55 GMT
Don't quite understand those points Bayern. A roving pair of Shaq and Arnie up top with balls hit into them from all over, they don't even have to be great passes them pair would snaffle them. That team would be defensively sweet too. No gaps in modfield with Muniesa etc chipping in if necessary. Wigan suffered because they did it too often. You want to play two wingers up front. They're both more than just wingers though and freed from some defensive duties who knows? Arnie's two goals on saturday weren't really wingers stuff.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Oct 6, 2015 22:01:17 GMT
You want to play two wingers up front. They're both more than just wingers though and freed from some defensive duties who knows? Arnie's two goals on saturday weren't really wingers stuff. Arnie's finishing is generally though pretty bastard awful. They're wingers, play them on the wing. Call me old fashioned....
|
|
|
Post by cheeesfreeex on Oct 6, 2015 22:17:56 GMT
They're both more than just wingers though and freed from some defensive duties who knows? Arnie's two goals on saturday weren't really wingers stuff. Arnie's finishing is generally though pretty bastard awful. They're wingers, play them on the wing. Call me old fashioned.... Old fashioned. These formation things aren't table football are they? Hail the new flexibility.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Oct 6, 2015 22:19:39 GMT
Arnie's finishing is generally though pretty bastard awful. They're wingers, play them on the wing. Call me old fashioned.... Old fashioned. These formation things aren't table football are they? Hail the new flexibility. Flexibility is fine when players are playing primarily from their position and interchanging. Starting with two wingers as striker isn't flexibility, it's stupidity.
|
|
|
Post by cheeesfreeex on Oct 6, 2015 22:35:12 GMT
Old fashioned. These formation things aren't table football are they? Hail the new flexibility. Flexibility is fine when players are playing primarily from their position and interchanging. Starting with two wingers as striker isn't flexibility, it's stupidity. It'd end up a bit circular for me to say that they're far more than just wingers wouldn't it. I'm proposing three interchanging false number 9's or 10's.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Oct 6, 2015 22:38:07 GMT
Flexibility is fine when players are playing primarily from their position and interchanging. Starting with two wingers as striker isn't flexibility, it's stupidity. It'd end up a bit circular for me to say that they're far more than just wingers wouldn't it. I'm proposing three interchanging false number 9's or 10's. Arnie is definitely just a winger for me. Shaqiri is more rounded but isn't a striker. I know, it's very out there but also very shit looking.
|
|
|
Post by cheeesfreeex on Oct 6, 2015 23:51:43 GMT
It'd end up a bit circular for me to say that they're far more than just wingers wouldn't it. I'm proposing three interchanging false number 9's or 10's. Arnie is definitely just a winger for me. Shaqiri is more rounded but isn't a striker. I know, it's very out there but also very shit looking. Under Under Over
|
|
|
Post by kustokie on Oct 7, 2015 0:41:47 GMT
They played a back 3 and we caused them no end of problems because of it the best bit is we only scored when they reverted to four at the back! Truth is, once we had scored one the floodgates would have opened. Don't care much for Sherwood but at least he recognized it wasn't working and switched to a back four. Sparky's been reluctant to change mid-stream this season. Arsenal away being the prime example.
|
|
|
Post by cheeesfreeex on Oct 7, 2015 1:27:37 GMT
the best bit is we only scored when they reverted to four at the back! Truth is, once we had scored one the floodgates would have opened. Don't care much for Sherwood but at least he recognized it wasn't working and switched to a back four. Sparky's been reluctant to change mid-stream this season. Arsenal away being the prime example. That's nonsense for a start, Hughes regularly rolls the tactical dice second half, and against certain opposition has employed narrow diamonds with Ireland and Adam on the wings, the 4-4-1-1, the 4-1-4-1, the 911 and allsorts. And in this early season testing of the squad we've seen in the region of 20 different players. I'm reluctant to read too much into crap attempts at a 3-5-2. We'd have a far more effective back three than Villa {see Free Willy and Hutton references}, and most others who've tried it recently. It's harsh to write off an idea because Sherwood and Villa didn't manage to pull it off. It's all hypothetical 'Manager for the Day' stuff {obviously.} I think the 3-5-2 with Muniesa as left wing back, but primary tasked mithering Willian, with Arnie marshalling the deeper left and linking with Pieters when required would muller the pedestrian Chelsea and ensure progression in the CCup. ----Cameron Wollscheid Pieters------- -Johnson--- Whelan Adam--- Muniesa--- ----------------Bojan---------------- ----------Shaqiri Arnautovic*-------- *rush goalie. We'd do 'em easy at the Brit.
|
|
|
Post by cheekymatt71 on Oct 7, 2015 7:05:35 GMT
The biggest problem these days playing 3-5-2 is you end up having too many centre-halves.
Other teams only play 1 striker so only 2 centre-halves are needed (one to man-mark and one to cover the runs).
That is precisely the reason Villa were so wank on Saturday - because they had an extra CH just standing around with no-one to mark. Then Arnie & Diouf got in down the flanks because there was no full-backs there.
3-5-2 works well against a 4-4-2 set-up but it cant handle 4-3-3 or 4-2-3-1 at all.
|
|