Pulis’s going to have to change his tactics.

[stokie25]

I might be being unduly cynical here, but the emerging pattern of our Away play makes me suspicious that it's not entirely down to Pulis. I know we fans play our part, but then so do the travelling support!

My reasoning is based on the gulf of difference between home and away formation, selection and mindset going into the game.

I can't help but wonder if Kemp is more heavily involved in how we set our stall out away from home, hence Pulis' statement that we need to change something. We all know how stubborn he is, and would rarely question his own decisions...so why the back peddling now? (apart from the obvious fact that it isn't working).

Maybe he's let the reins slack away from home for Kempy to be more actively involved and is now regaining full control to address it ???

Just a thought

[serpico]

The crux of the matter is, our home game plan doesn't work away from home because the pitches are too big, simple as that, the more I think about it, the more I am convinced a 5 man midfield with one as a anchor is the answer to at least making us harder to beat on our travels.

Our away game with Chelsea is a great example, their pitch is very similar sized to ours, and we nearly to to them away, what we do to teams at home.

[Paul Spencer]

Feb 3, 2009 16:37:37 GMT A-teen_six_T3 said:

I think now, with having 2 decent wide players, what we should be doing is playing with 2 defencive minded centeral midfielders. 2 out of amdy salif whelan oli delap...get them to pick the ball up and spread it wide. and get the wide players get balls into the box,

You could be right A Teen.

If he is going to play Fuller and Lawrence in the same side away, it's hard to imagine that Pulis will be brave enough to play Whelan in the same midfield.

Pulis has been quoted as saying that he wants to be stronger in the centre of the park away from home.

I just wonder if he is considering playing BOTH Faye's in the centre of the park, with Higgy next to Shawcross and Pugh at left back?

[A-teen_six_T3]

That could be an option paul, But hasn't he tried Abdoulye in the defensive role whilst amdy was injured and he had a couple of 'poor' games, poor by his standards this season

[Paul Spencer]

Feb 3, 2009 17:01:40 GMT A-teen_six_T3 said:

That could be an option paul, But hasn't he tried Abdoulye in the defensive role whilst amdy was injured and he had a couple of 'poor' games, poor by his standards this season

Yeah there was a home game earlier in the season (Chelsea?) when he played in central midfield and it didn't work too well.

I'm not saying that Pulis should play him there, just wondering if he would (considering what he has said about strengthening the middle of the park), if he was indeed going to set up away from home with two wingers.

[tiger8chris]

Pulis has to be more attacking. I think you'll nick a point at sunderland, which is a decent result

[thepremierbanksy]

I can't see Pulis moving Abdy again, he tried it, albeit only once, but as an experiment it failed. The strongest area of our first XI is abdy & ryan at the back, I really cannot see him messing with that. Shawcross says himself in interviews how much he relies on faye (although i think he is underselling himself judging from his recent immense performances), so you wouldn't just be taking a player out of that position, you'd be playing with the partnership. I know you can argue that Higgy & Shawcross might be as strong, and that they have played as a pair before, but i just don't see him tinkering with his strongest positions.

I think if he is going to strength the middle, it will just amount to an extra body in central midfield - for me it just remains a question of who that man is, and who is left as the attacking players. Etherington and beattie seem shoe ins for left wing & lone striker roles respectively. Right wing might be lawrence, might be camara. The 3rd central position is the one that could end up as any number of combinations which is largely dependent on the right winger, ie whether it is lawrence.

[stokie01]

Feb 3, 2009 12:52:56 GMT Spiderman said:

Feb 3, 2009 12:50:03 GMT MrMagic said:

People seem to think we will be more attacking. I suspected we would go 5 in midflield, but given yesterdays signings I could well be way off the mark. You don't sign another striker and then go one up front for half of the remaining games.

Do you?

Well most managers wouldn't but this isn't most managers we're talking about it's Tony Pulis

Yeah, hes one of a kind

[Paul Spencer]

Having an extra man in midfield means that we lose a man up front.

Playing with a five man midfield as suggested means (well for me anyway), that Camara and Lawrence are going to be played out of position. IMHO we don't need to do this.

At the end of the day I'm pretty rigid in my belief that footy is a pretty simple affair and in most instances a traditional 4-4-2 will suffice. That is unless you have players available to you of an exceptional calibre and a manager/coach who can really make those more exotic formations work.

I don't believe we have either.

[RAF]

So, after all your bile and bollox, away from home you have all agreed that he will need to change his tactics!

Well done !

H

[FullerMagic]

To be fair, RAF, he seemed to acknowledge that himself in his interview. Looks like even the man himself is getting tired of banging his head against a brick wall on his travels.

It'll be interesting to see if he grasps the nettle this weekend.

[RAF]

Actually FM I wasn't having a go at Pulis.
I was having a pop at the wankers who have a go at anyone suggesting or even asking if Pulis might change his tactics away, then afterwards agreeing he needs to.
The amount of mentally challenged mongsacks on this board is increasing by the day I shit you not!

H

[ruts66]

"The amount of mentally challenged mongsacks on this board is increasing by the day I shit you not!"

Oh, the joy of the English language, great stuff... ;D