|
Post by davejohnno1 on Feb 24, 2019 17:39:07 GMT
I mean he could never be in a 4 4 2? Yesterday they were 4 3 3. Against Leeds we were 5 3 2 I thought? Exactly, so he doesn't ONLY fit the base of a diamond. And there's no place for him in your suggested 4231. I have to be honest here. To me we played 4-5-1. When Adam went off I have no fucking idea what system we played and I suspect the players didn't either. It started as a 3 at back, minutes later it was bruno at left back and through all that, clucas, diouf Afobe and McLean had zero idea as to where they were supposed to be playing. Any system that involves Allen as the furthest forward midfielder is doomed to failure.
|
|
|
Post by neddy on Feb 24, 2019 17:41:16 GMT
Exactly, so he doesn't ONLY fit the base of a diamond. And there's no place for him in your suggested 4231. I have to be honest here. To me we played 4-5-1. When Adam went off I have no fucking idea what system we played and I suspect the players didn't either. It started as a 3 at back, minutes later it was bruno at left back and through all that, clucas, diouf Afobe and McLean had zero idea as to where they were supposed to be playing. Any system that involves Allen as the furthest forward midfielder is doomed to failure. The problem is really none of our midfielders gel together do they?
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Feb 24, 2019 17:43:03 GMT
I have to be honest here. To me we played 4-5-1. When Adam went off I have no fucking idea what system we played and I suspect the players didn't either. It started as a 3 at back, minutes later it was bruno at left back and through all that, clucas, diouf Afobe and McLean had zero idea as to where they were supposed to be playing. Any system that involves Allen as the furthest forward midfielder is doomed to failure. The problem is really none of our midfielders gel together do they? Probably because they are all crap
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Feb 24, 2019 17:43:19 GMT
Exactly, so he doesn't ONLY fit the base of a diamond. And there's no place for him in your suggested 4231. I have to be honest here. To me we played 4-5-1. When Adam went off I have no fucking idea what system we played and I suspect the players didn't either. It started as a 3 at back, minutes later it was bruno at left back and through all that, clucas, diouf Afobe and McLean had zero idea as to where they were supposed to be playing. Any system that involves Allen as the furthest forward midfielder is doomed to failure. Definitely all fell apart/became a mess. Manager at fault for that?
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Feb 24, 2019 17:44:19 GMT
Exactly, so he doesn't ONLY fit the base of a diamond. And there's no place for him in your suggested 4231. Because I don’t think he is fit enough to get up and down as when shot he becomes a walking yellow or red card. I really like Charlie but he has to be fully fit...just my opinion mate. He doesn't have to be fully fit to be effective, he proved that yesterday and against Leeds. And when he plays in a 433 or a 352 he isn't expected to get "up and down". It's a crying shame that he has fitness issues but it can't be denied that he has been very effective for us in his last two appearances, when we've been extremely thin on the ground of effective appearances. You asked the question, what do we stand to lose by setting up as a 4231? And the effective appearances of Charlie Adam would certainly be one answer.
|
|
|
Post by neddy on Feb 24, 2019 17:47:06 GMT
Because I don’t think he is fit enough to get up and down as when shot he becomes a walking yellow or red card. I really like Charlie but he has to be fully fit...just my opinion mate. He doesn't have to be fully fit to be effective, he proved that yesterday and against Leeds. And when he plays in a 433 or a 352 he isn't expected to get "up and down". It's a crying shame that he has fitness issues but it can't be denied that he has been very effective for us in his last two appearances, when we've been extremely thin on the ground of effective appearances. You asked the question, what do we stand to lose by setting up as a 4231? And the effective appearances of Charlie Adam would certainly be one answer. In your opinion...
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Feb 24, 2019 17:47:19 GMT
Exactly, so he doesn't ONLY fit the base of a diamond. And there's no place for him in your suggested 4231. I have to be honest here. To me we played 4-5-1. When Adam went off I have no fucking idea what system we played and I suspect the players didn't either. It started as a 3 at back, minutes later it was bruno at left back and through all that, clucas, diouf Afobe and McLean had zero idea as to where they were supposed to be playing. Any system that involves Allen as the furthest forward midfielder is doomed to failure. It looked to me like we went 3-5-2 Paul, with McClean playing LWB, Allen, Clucas and Etebo in the middle and Diouf and Afobe up top. That was my first impression Rob but I looked at it and looked at it and I wasn't at all sure what was going on (and I don't think the players knew either) ... For a good length of time, Afobe and Diouf were as far from each other as it was actually possible to get, they were literally on opposite flanks, with NOBODY in the middle. I swear Diouf thought he was supposed to be playing as a right wing back and Edwards as a result, seemed to be equally as confused as what he was supposed to be doing. I've noticed that a lot of people on the board tonight, have suggested that we maintained a flat back four with Bruno simply moving to left back and Clucas moving into midfield. I'm still not entirely sure what happened and I'm not convinced the players did either. It just looked like one confused mess.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Feb 24, 2019 17:48:39 GMT
He doesn't have to be fully fit to be effective, he proved that yesterday and against Leeds. And when he plays in a 433 or a 352 he isn't expected to get "up and down". It's a crying shame that he has fitness issues but it can't be denied that he has been very effective for us in his last two appearances, when we've been extremely thin on the ground of effective appearances. You asked the question, what do we stand to lose by setting up as a 4231? And the effective appearances of Charlie Adam would certainly be one answer. In your opinion... Well obviously in my opinion, that's what people offer on internet forums ...
|
|
|
Post by Gary Hackett on Feb 24, 2019 18:00:52 GMT
At the moment you've got to play whatever formation your best players are going to respond to.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2019 18:03:09 GMT
Because I don’t think he is fit enough to get up and down as when shot he becomes a walking yellow or red card. I really like Charlie but he has to be fully fit...just my opinion mate. He doesn't have to be fully fit to be effective, he proved that yesterday and against Leeds. And when he plays in a 433 or a 352 he isn't expected to get "up and down". It's a crying shame that he has fitness issues but it can't be denied that he has been very effective for us in his last two appearances, when we've been extremely thin on the ground of effective appearances. You asked the question, what do we stand to lose by setting up as a 4231? And the effective appearances of Charlie Adam would certainly be one answer. I thought he was dross bar the 2 passes to McClean. We completely ceded midfield yesterday and all 3 of them are to blame for that. That said, Etebo did alright.
|
|
|
Post by stokefan1972 on Feb 24, 2019 18:04:39 GMT
Just run might be easier
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Feb 24, 2019 18:19:08 GMT
He doesn't have to be fully fit to be effective, he proved that yesterday and against Leeds. And when he plays in a 433 or a 352 he isn't expected to get "up and down". It's a crying shame that he has fitness issues but it can't be denied that he has been very effective for us in his last two appearances, when we've been extremely thin on the ground of effective appearances. You asked the question, what do we stand to lose by setting up as a 4231? And the effective appearances of Charlie Adam would certainly be one answer. I thought he was dross bar the 2 passes to McClean. We completely ceded midfield yesterday and all 3 of them are to blame for that. That said, Etebo did alright. His long range passing has been very effective for us in his last two games and we would lose that if we set up as a 4231. It was a simple answer to a simple question. Nothing more, nothing less. As for yesterday ... Allen, Ince, Diouf, Afobe all offered absolutely nothing at all, a little bit of supreme magic from Adam, at least meant that we scored. Etebo was my man of the match.
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Feb 24, 2019 18:23:41 GMT
I thought he was dross bar the 2 passes to McClean. We completely ceded midfield yesterday and all 3 of them are to blame for that. That said, Etebo did alright. His long range passing has been very effective for us in his last two games and we would lose that if we set up as a 4231. It was a simple answer to a simple question. Nothing more, nothing less. As for yesterday ... Allen, Ince, Diouf, Afobe all offered absolutely nothing at all, a little bit of supreme magic from Adam, at least meant that we scored. Etebo was my man of the match. I thought Etebo was well below par. Three times he seemed frozen instead of running forward with the ball like he usually does. Guy sitting in front suggested he might be carrying an injury, seemed to play like that.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Feb 24, 2019 18:26:51 GMT
His long range passing has been very effective for us in his last two games and we would lose that if we set up as a 4231. It was a simple answer to a simple question. Nothing more, nothing less. As for yesterday ... Allen, Ince, Diouf, Afobe all offered absolutely nothing at all, a little bit of supreme magic from Adam, at least meant that we scored. Etebo was my man of the match. I thought Etebo was well below par. Three times he seemed frozen instead of running forward with the ball like he usually does. Guy sitting in front suggested he might be carrying an injury, seemed to play like that. First half he made a couple of excellent tackles and his anticipation to make those tackles was top drawer. Second half, all the outfield players were disappointing. Can't think of anybody who was better than Etebo in the first half.
|
|
|
Post by Godo on Feb 24, 2019 19:03:54 GMT
We didn't play with a diamond yesterday. There was no #10 and McClean wasn't playing as a defensive forward. McClean and Ince were wide midfielders at the start, Etebo and Allen narrow central midfielders and Adam a deep lying play maker. I think Jones is trying to adapt and develop a hybrid formation that fits the half decent tryers we have in the squad but with what he has at his disposal that's not easy! Once Vokes went off there was no one else in the squad to hold the ball up.
Then after Williams came on I'm not entirely sure what formation we were playing but I know WHY he did what he did because outside of the starting 11 there isn't anyone who he could rely on. He needed Clucas legs in midfield to nullify Villa as quite rightly Jones identified that with the 2 stoogies up front in Diouf and Afobe the ball would keep coming straight back.
Outside yesterdays' starting 11 Woods is the problematic one for me. He had an excellent reputation but I'm not sure what type of midfielder he is?? He's not a tough screening defensive midfielder, he doesn't have the range of passing to be a deep lying playmaker, he hasn't the motor to play an Etebo or Allen role and he certainly doesn't look like a #10!!!
I agree we were shapeless and aimless second half but at least most of the players worked hard and looked more resolute. We would have lost yesterdays game 2 months ago and since the arrival of Batth we no longer have the soft underbelly defence that we've had for 2 seasons!
Sytsem/schmistem - to start with we need 11 players who are good enough and back ups who can come on and do the same jobs without having to completely change the formation. Despite all of the money spent we are still 4 or 5 players short and until the manager has the opportunity to address that then people are being very unrealistic in expecting a major improvement.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2019 19:26:17 GMT
I thought he was dross bar the 2 passes to McClean. We completely ceded midfield yesterday and all 3 of them are to blame for that. That said, Etebo did alright. His long range passing has been very effective for us in his last two games and we would lose that if we set up as a 4231. It was a simple answer to a simple question. Nothing more, nothing less. As for yesterday ... Allen, Ince, Diouf, Afobe all offered absolutely nothing at all, a little bit of supreme magic from Adam, at least meant that we scored. Etebo was my man of the match. Agreed re: the amount of poor performances. I'd probably go for the 4231 though, replace Adam's occasional pass with a proper number 10 and creative support for Ince. Butland Edwards Batth Bruno Clucas Etebo Woods Ince Bojan McClean Vokes Is probably our most balanced side, although it still has issues.
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Feb 24, 2019 19:27:50 GMT
I thought Etebo was well below par. Three times he seemed frozen instead of running forward with the ball like he usually does. Guy sitting in front suggested he might be carrying an injury, seemed to play like that. First half he made a couple of excellent tackles and his anticipation to make those tackles was top drawer. Second half, all the outfield players were disappointing. Can't think of anybody who was better than Etebo in the first half. Adam.
|
|
|
Post by henry on Feb 24, 2019 19:42:28 GMT
I thought Etebo was well below par. Three times he seemed frozen instead of running forward with the ball like he usually does. Guy sitting in front suggested he might be carrying an injury, seemed to play like that. First half he made a couple of excellent tackles and his anticipation to make those tackles was top drawer. Second half, all the outfield players were disappointing. Can't think of anybody who was better than Etebo in the first half. For 30 minutes Adam was.
|
|
|
Post by FullerMagic on Mar 18, 2019 20:34:23 GMT
Nathan Jones has warned full backs like Tom Edwards they must be the club’s “most potent athletes” next season.
He says the diamond system he wants to implement long term will place the greatest physical demands on his right and left full backs.
“We have position specific criteria. For example, full backs will be our most potent athletes.
“So any full back we look for in the summer has to be a very potent athlete and the ones we have in the club will have to get to that level, otherwise they will not be able to play.
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on Mar 18, 2019 20:39:33 GMT
Nathan Jones has warned full backs like Tom Edwards they must be the club’s “most potent athletes” next season.
He says the diamond system he wants to implement long term will place the greatest physical demands on his right and left full backs.
“We have position specific criteria. For example, full backs will be our most potent athletes.
“So any full back we look for in the summer has to be a very potent athlete and the ones we have in the club will have to get to that level, otherwise they will not be able to play. Tymon on the left, that's BMI, Clucas and Pieters ruled out for starters.
|
|
|
Post by pmjh on Mar 18, 2019 21:08:23 GMT
I think we'll probably need 2 right backs and 2 left backs because it will be hard for them to bomb up and down for a 46 game season.
|
|
|
Post by wearepremierleague on Mar 19, 2019 11:15:10 GMT
Nathan Jones has warned full backs like Tom Edwards they must be the club’s “most potent athletes” next season.
He says the diamond system he wants to implement long term will place the greatest physical demands on his right and left full backs.
“We have position specific criteria. For example, full backs will be our most potent athletes.
“So any full back we look for in the summer has to be a very potent athlete and the ones we have in the club will have to get to that level, otherwise they will not be able to play. Tymon on the left, that's BMI, Clucas and Pieters ruled out for starters. The only problem is Tymon is absolutely wank
|
|
|
Post by trickydicky73 on Mar 19, 2019 11:18:12 GMT
I don't like the diamond. It's a flawed system.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2019 11:22:09 GMT
I don't like the diamond. It's a flawed system. All systems are flawed if you don't have the right personnel in the right positions.....
|
|
|
Post by wakefieldstokie on Mar 19, 2019 11:28:42 GMT
''Diamonds are forever'' or a girls best friend or the best formation for SCFC?
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on Mar 19, 2019 11:34:03 GMT
Tymon on the left, that's BMI, Clucas and Pieters ruled out for starters. The only problem is Tymon is absolutely wank I was taking the piss I agree he is gash, one for the future
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Mar 19, 2019 11:48:18 GMT
I don't like the diamond. It's a flawed system. All systems are flawed if you don't have the right personnel in the right positions..... and implement them properly. I also think you should take some account of the opponents strengths and weaknesses in choosing tactics, but not so much as to weaken your own strengths. There are pros and cons in any system, e.g. using wingers reduces the number of players available for elsewhere in the side, but maximises use of the available area and stretches the opposition more. Some people believe in controlling the MF whilst others just by-pass the MF going route 1. Some managers believe, if you hold the ball the other side can't score, whilst others believe in get the ball into the opponent's half where they can't score. You need to play to the strengths of your players. It's stupid playing a high line if you have slow defenders, the opposition will simply play the ball behind your defence for forwards to run onto. Pulis has a good crude system with tall players and play the ball in the air and use long throws. It worked well till the payers got too old and we lost Etherington who could make excellent centres. I believe the manager should have his favoured system and build a squad to suit it, but he should also be prepared to change according to circumstance. Two things are certain in football, you will never be successful with a weak defence, and you will never win anything if you can't score regularly. www.soccer-training-guide.com/soccer-formations.html#.XJDTReQ3ahc
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on Mar 19, 2019 11:52:12 GMT
What concerns me is that it is an outdated system that is rarely used in the top two leagues, the lower divisions tend to adopt it there is a reason for that, hopefully NJ can find a way to use it but I have my doubts, we would need another 8 players to even attempt it who are fit enough and prepared to buy into it 100%
|
|
|
Post by trickydicky73 on Mar 19, 2019 11:54:10 GMT
All systems are flawed if you don't have the right personnel in the right positions..... and implement them properly. I also think you should take some account of the opponents strengths and weaknesses in choosing tactics, but not so much as to weaken your own strengths. There are pros and cons in any system, e.g. using wingers reduces the number of players available for elsewhere in the side, but maximises use of the available area and stretches the opposition more. Some people believe in controlling the MF whilst others just by-pass the MF going route 1. Some managers believe, if you hold the ball the other side can't score, whilst others believe in get the ball into the opponent's half where they can't score. You need to play to the strengths of your players. It's stupid playing a high line if you have slow defenders, the opposition will simply play the ball behind your defence for forwards to run onto. Pulis has a good crude system with tall players and play the ball in the air and use long throws. It worked well till the payers got too old and we lost Etherington who could make excellent centres. I believe the manager should have his favoured system and build a squad to suit it, but he should also be prepared to change according to circumstance. Two things are certain in football, you will never be successful with a weak defence, and you will never win anything if you can't score regularly. www.soccer-training-guide.com/soccer-formations.html#.XJDTReQ3ahcIf only Hughes had read your third paragraph.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2019 11:54:38 GMT
All systems are flawed if you don't have the right personnel in the right positions..... and implement them properly. I also think you should take some account of the opponents strengths and weaknesses in choosing tactics, but not so much as to weaken your own strengths. There are pros and cons in any system, e.g. using wingers reduces the number of players available for elsewhere in the side, but maximises use of the available area and stretches the opposition more. Some people believe in controlling the MF whilst others just by-pass the MF going route 1. Some managers believe, if you hold the ball the other side can't score, whilst others believe in get the ball into the opponent's half where they can't score. You need to play to the strengths of your players. It's stupid playing a high line if you have slow defenders, the opposition will simply play the ball behind your defence for forwards to run onto. Pulis has a good crude system with tall players and play the ball in the air and use long throws. It worked well till the payers got too old and we lost Etherington who could make excellent centres. I believe the manager should have his favoured system and build a squad to suit it, but he should also be prepared to change according to circumstance. Two things are certain in football, you will never be successful with a weak defence, and you will never win anything if you can't score regularly. www.soccer-training-guide.com/soccer-formations.html#.XJDTReQ3ahcTo go with talent in the modern game you have to have a team with a blend of pace and physicality. To go to the next level beyond that you need players who have "football intelligence" so not only can they perform well in a preferred system but can switch at any time to another system make things more difficult for the opposition. Easier said than done mind!
|
|