|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2019 8:11:33 GMT
Interesting to see if he sticks with this modified version of the diamond against Derby. It did look promising at the end of last season at times too It'd keep another one of the centre-halves happy as well - but would mean we've got three strikers disappointed each time we play it. It restricts our options up front potentially, as I'm not convinced Campbell has the legs for the lone role and I'm not sure Hogan can play it either. It leaves Gregory and Vokes, and neither of those are prolific.
|
|
|
Post by GeneralFaye on Aug 14, 2019 8:14:52 GMT
Unfortunately, mainly due to the managers humongous error of not buying a proper DM, we are at times too wide open to not play 3 at the back. At least with an extra defender we can get away with the midfield being a bunch of awol merchants.
|
|
|
Post by bolly_premprem on Aug 14, 2019 8:17:53 GMT
5-diamond-1 rather than 4-diamond-2 then? People need to be clear that the diamond refers to the midfield only, the fullbacks etc don't come in to it. Last season we played 3 at the back a few times, but I can't remember if the midfield was actually forming a full diamond? If memory serves wasn't it more a straight 2 up top with an upside down triangle midfield? 5-nabla-2? No, it the formation he has been banging on about and played at Luton was not solely referring to the midfield. If we’re only referring to in the midfield now then fine but please don’t talk nonesense saying it was only ever about the midfield. I think it’s best we all (including NJ) move on from THAT diamond and stick to THIS diamond... I always saw the diamond as only the midfield, otherwise it is not a diamond a diamond is /\ \/ so there is no way the defence can be included unless its ..o .o o / o \ o....o \ o / .o o ..o and that would be weird ( sweeper, 2 cd, cdm, 2 wing backs ahead of the cdm, cm, 2 acm, 1 striker) edit, bah the formating wouldnt take spaces, looks crap with .s to make the space
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2019 8:21:58 GMT
No, it the formation he has been banging on about and played at Luton was not solely referring to the midfield. If we’re only referring to in the midfield now then fine but please don’t talk nonesense saying it was only ever about the midfield. I think it’s best we all (including NJ) move on from THAT diamond and stick to THIS diamond... I always saw the diamond as only the midfield, otherwise it is not a diamond a diamond is /\ \/ so there is no way the defence can be included unless its ..o .o o / o \ o....o \ o / .o o ..o and that would be weird ( sweeper, 2 cd, cdm, 2 wing backs ahead of the cdm, cm, 2 acm, 1 striker) edit, bah the formating wouldnt take spaces, looks crap with .s to make the space I am really not sure we’re even having this conversation. It is not the 4-4-2 diamond formation he told the world we were going to play in preseason or played at Luton but I really couldn’t care less if he now wants to only refer to the midfield as the diamond. Long live the 3-5-2 diamond.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2019 8:23:04 GMT
Interesting to see if he sticks with this modified version of the diamond against Derby. It did look promising at the end of last season at times too It'd keep another one of the centre-halves happy as well - but would mean we've got three strikers disappointed each time we play it. It restricts our options up front potentially, as I'm not convinced Campbell has the legs for the lone role and I'm not sure Hogan can play it either. It leaves Gregory and Vokes, and neither of those are prolific. Agree, although if we're solid defensively week in week out we don't need to be prolific to win games I guess. We certainly create plenty yesterday, but like any system you'd want to see it over a number of games against better opposition.....
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Aug 14, 2019 8:28:12 GMT
He did really, didn't he? His baby is the 442 diamond. That's the version of it he's made his name with. All power to him for looking at other options. Well, that one playing with four at the back he obviously binned yesterday - his baby that is I suppose. All credit to him bringing baby number two forward playing with five at the back although the exact same diamond in midfield. Question is, is there a baby number three and which one will he go for come Saturday? The one with three at the back has produced the majority of our best performances under him. That’s the big question I guess - does he go with that as it looks more promising, or is that just a quick fix and he’d rather get his favoured version working?
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Aug 14, 2019 8:29:17 GMT
Interesting to see if he sticks with this modified version of the diamond against Derby. It did look promising at the end of last season at times too It'd keep another one of the centre-halves happy as well - but would mean we've got three strikers disappointed each time we play it. It restricts our options up front potentially, as I'm not convinced Campbell has the legs for the lone role and I'm not sure Hogan can play it either. It leaves Gregory and Vokes, and neither of those are prolific. It doesn’t necessarily matter if the striker himself isn’t prolific to be fair, if his role in the side helps the team score more goals overall.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2019 8:36:35 GMT
He didn't, mate. Personally could not care less though - as long as we're seeing improvement and I believe we are. He did really, didn't he? His baby is the 442 diamond. That's the version of it he's made his name with. All power to him for looking at other options. Yep. For all the stick he's been taking on here, he has to get the credit when he changes things around and it leads to a win. Fair play to him and let's hope he's finally getting somewhere with turning around our fortunes, because no matter what's been said about him (and I've been vocal in my doubts about him), you can't help but get sucked in by his passion and the way he comes across in his press conferences, so hopefully he can finally start showing that he isn't just a good talker.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2019 8:36:42 GMT
Well, that one playing with four at the back he obviously binned yesterday - his baby that is I suppose. All credit to him bringing baby number two forward playing with five at the back although the exact same diamond in midfield. Question is, is there a baby number three and which one will he go for come Saturday? The one with three at the back has produced the majority of our best performances under him. That’s the big question I guess - does he go with that as it looks more promising, or is that just a quick fix and he’d rather get his favoured version working? He was always going to need 4 transfer windows in my opinion, so if the 3 at the back diamond is the temporary fix until we get the players required for the 4 at the back diamond to be in full swing then fine by me as long as we see progression on the pitch.....
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Aug 14, 2019 8:39:00 GMT
It restricts our options up front potentially, as I'm not convinced Campbell has the legs for the lone role and I'm not sure Hogan can play it either. It leaves Gregory and Vokes, and neither of those are prolific. It doesn’t necessarily matter if the striker himself isn’t prolific to be fair, if his role in the side helps the team score more goals overall. It is a system that enable us to get 2 up top as well. We look even more threatening with Hogan and Campbell on the pitch at end. Keeper made 3 super saves (2 from Campbell one from Hogan).
|
|
|
Post by potterspele on Aug 14, 2019 8:55:49 GMT
Why does he have to have "binned" the 442 diamond? Surely it's just horses for courses.
I would stick to last nights version v Derby though. Wouldn't fancy giving up all that space to Lawrence & Josefzoon with their pace.
|
|
|
Post by okeydokeystokie2 on Aug 14, 2019 9:19:21 GMT
It's a rough, uncut diamond, but when he finally polishes it we will have a real gem!
Well done Nathan and the lads. Especially Nathan. It hasn't gone to plan but Christ he's stuck at it and had the courage of his convictions.
I only heard Saturday's game on the radio, but it sounded like we created a lot of chances there as well. The work on the training pitch is clearly coming together.
We're going to have some exciting times ahead. His promise of "fluid football on the front foot" may yet be delivered.
Delighted with his flexibility and the Ryan Woods renaissance. He could have a big part to play for us this season. Everybody in this squad has a chance and I think he will use the squad.
Happy days ahead?!
|
|
|
Post by Gary Hackett on Aug 14, 2019 10:30:44 GMT
Interesting to see if he sticks with this modified version of the diamond against Derby. It did look promising at the end of last season at times too It'd keep another one of the centre-halves happy as well - but would mean we've got three strikers disappointed each time we play it. Surely the main benefit of using the diamond is so you can play 2 up top meaning the striker isn't totally isolated which has been a big problem here over the years.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2019 10:42:47 GMT
The inverted diamonte.
Nathan saw what he had created and it was good
|
|
|
Post by berahinosgoals on Aug 14, 2019 10:55:49 GMT
He didn't 'bin it', he used the other formation we will be using this season. If you bin something you throw it away for good 😏
|
|
|
Post by Billybigbollox on Aug 14, 2019 11:29:07 GMT
You only live twice Colin. Yes Bill, bit of a Bond fanatic. I thought it was a good title but i may have to change it to “are not “ after the formation change. Oh well live and let die. Let's hope we beat the Living Daylights out of Derby on Saturday.
|
|
|
Post by Waggy on Aug 14, 2019 11:40:54 GMT
Yes Bill, bit of a Bond fanatic. I thought it was a good title but i may have to change it to “are not “ after the formation change. Oh well live and let die. Let's hope we beat the Living Daylights out of Derby on Saturday. Trevor says if we beat Derby he will give a Ram (Derby fan ) the Goldfinger at the end of the game. I think i know what he means.
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Aug 14, 2019 13:27:39 GMT
Jones says in his interview on the OS that it was a 3 diamond 1 instead of a 4 diamond 2. The quartet of Woods, Cousins, Clucas and Duffy were most definitely playing in a diamond formation. I suppose you would call it a 3-1-4-1-1....... That formation doesn't make any sense at all with last night's lineup and the players you've named as the four in the diamond. Who the hell are the 1s?? And anyway how can you have a diamond midfield *and* a DM *and* a #10? If Nath wants to pass it off as a diamond then the only way it could possibly make sense is if it was 5-4-1. People are really twisting themselves into knots with this fkin diamond (including our own manager by the sounds of things). A diamond refers to FOUR midfield players. That's it. One is defensive, one is attacking and the other two are more or less conventional CMs. You can't have a "modified diamond" with an extra DM or wingers or whatever, as soon as you modify it it's not a diamond any more it's a different bloody formation.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Aug 14, 2019 13:36:50 GMT
Interesting to see if he sticks with this modified version of the diamond against Derby. It did look promising at the end of last season at times too It'd keep another one of the centre-halves happy as well - but would mean we've got three strikers disappointed each time we play it. Surely the main benefit of using the diamond is so you can play 2 up top meaning the striker isn't totally isolated which has been a big problem here over the years. That's true of a 4D2 but it makes you vulnerable down the wings and the base of the diamond has to sit deeper to protect the centre backs. With the 5D1 we played last night you're playing with a lone striker but the diamond can push further upfield to compensate as the base of the diamond has 3 behind him. It also provides more cover for the wingbacks when they bomb forward. You're right in that the striker is more isolated but if the diamond pushes up and the wingbacks do their job it's still pretty attacking. It feels less fragile to me.
|
|
|
Post by trickydicky73 on Aug 14, 2019 13:40:21 GMT
The quartet of Woods, Cousins, Clucas and Duffy were most definitely playing in a diamond formation. I suppose you would call it a 3-1-4-1-1....... That formation doesn't make any sense at all with last night's lineup and the players you've named as the four in the diamond. Who the hell are the 1s?? And anyway how can you have a diamond midfield *and* a DM *and* a #10? If Nath wants to pass it off as a diamond then the only way it could possibly make sense is if it was 5-4-1. People are really twisting themselves into knots with this fkin diamond (including our own manager by the sounds of things). A diamond refers to FOUR midfield players. That's it. One is defensive, one is attacking and the other two are more or less conventional CMs. You can't have a "modified diamond" with an extra DM or wingers or whatever, as soon as you modify it it's not a diamond any more it's a different bloody formation. It's a 3-5-2. He's in denial! 😁
|
|
|
Post by trickydicky73 on Aug 14, 2019 13:41:55 GMT
Surely the main benefit of using the diamond is so you can play 2 up top meaning the striker isn't totally isolated which has been a big problem here over the years. That's true of a 4D2 but it makes you vulnerable down the wings and the base of the diamond has to sit deeper to protect the centre backs. With the 5D1 we played last night you're playing with a lone striker but the diamond can push further upfield to compensate as the base of the diamond has 3 behind him. It also provides more cover for the wingbacks when they bomb forward. You're right in that the striker is more isolated but if the diamond pushes up and the wingbacks do their job it's still pretty attacking. It feels less fragile to me. Me, too, and you have put your finger on why, whereas I have never been able to.
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Aug 14, 2019 13:43:22 GMT
5-diamond-1 rather than 4-diamond-2 then? People need to be clear that the diamond refers to the midfield only, the fullbacks etc don't come in to it. Last season we played 3 at the back a few times, but I can't remember if the midfield was actually forming a full diamond? If memory serves wasn't it more a straight 2 up top with an upside down triangle midfield? 5-nabla-2? No, it the formation he has been banging on about and played at Luton was not solely referring to the midfield. If we’re only referring to in the midfield now then fine but please don’t talk nonesense saying it was only ever about the midfield. I think it’s best we all (including NJ) move on from THAT diamond and stick to THIS diamond... He said the diamond, not the formation. Any diamond, be it Nath's, yours, mine, Carlo Ancelotti's or Jimmy Hill's, categorically refers only to the midfield.
|
|
|
Post by harlequin on Aug 14, 2019 13:47:05 GMT
The quartet of Woods, Cousins, Clucas and Duffy were most definitely playing in a diamond formation. I suppose you would call it a 3-1-4-1-1....... That formation doesn't make any sense at all with last night's lineup and the players you've named as the four in the diamond. Who the hell are the 1s?? And anyway how can you have a diamond midfield *and* a DM *and* a #10? If Nath wants to pass it off as a diamond then the only way it could possibly make sense is if it was 5-4-1. People are really twisting themselves into knots with this fkin diamond (including our own manager by the sounds of things). A diamond refers to FOUR midfield players. That's it. One is defensive, one is attacking and the other two are more or less conventional CMs. You can't have a "modified diamond" with an extra DM or wingers or whatever, as soon as you modify it it's not a diamond any more it's a different bloody formation. I think two of the four are pushed up wing backs mate. Just written a different way and a bit tongue in cheek. People still write the same formation 4-5-1 as 4-1-2-2-1.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2019 13:49:33 GMT
The quartet of Woods, Cousins, Clucas and Duffy were most definitely playing in a diamond formation. I suppose you would call it a 3-1-4-1-1....... That formation doesn't make any sense at all with last night's lineup and the players you've named as the four in the diamond. Who the hell are the 1s?? And anyway how can you have a diamond midfield *and* a DM *and* a #10? If Nath wants to pass it off as a diamond then the only way it could possibly make sense is if it was 5-4-1. People are really twisting themselves into knots with this fkin diamond (including our own manager by the sounds of things). A diamond refers to FOUR midfield players. That's it. One is defensive, one is attacking and the other two are more or less conventional CMs. You can't have a "modified diamond" with an extra DM or wingers or whatever, as soon as you modify it it's not a diamond any more it's a different bloody formation. The 1's are Woods and Duffy. The two central midfielders were Cousins and Clucas. They played very much in a diamond, I saw it with my own eyes. Why can't you have a "modified diamond", they're just words? I'm not arsed what it's called as long as we keep winning.....
|
|
|
Post by nott1 on Aug 14, 2019 13:52:20 GMT
The quartet of Woods, Cousins, Clucas and Duffy were most definitely playing in a diamond formation. I suppose you would call it a 3-1-4-1-1....... That formation doesn't make any sense at all with last night's lineup and the players you've named as the four in the diamond. Who the hell are the 1s?? And anyway how can you have a diamond midfield *and* a DM *and* a #10? If Nath wants to pass it off as a diamond then the only way it could possibly make sense is if it was 5-4-1. People are really twisting themselves into knots with this fkin diamond (including our own manager by the sounds of things). A diamond refers to FOUR midfield players. That's it. One is defensive, one is attacking and the other two are more or less conventional CMs. You can't have a "modified diamond" with an extra DM or wingers or whatever, as soon as you modify it it's not a diamond any more it's a different bloody formation. People may be confusing triangles with diamonds!
|
|
|
Post by jezzascfc on Aug 14, 2019 13:52:31 GMT
I think the three at the back has legs if we slightly modify it and make it 3421 and not the 3511 of last night.
At least two of the CBs must be comfortable on the ball, to bring it out, to pass and not hoof - right now Collins, CCV and Lindsay look like they could fit the bill, so could play either side of a genuine stopper and experienced leader at the back (Batth, or Ryan when fit again). It gives the wing backs security behind them to push forward and be more in line with midfield, providing genuine width further up the pitch, ideal for Edwards, and negating some of the defensive shortcomings the likes of McClean/Clucas possess.
The concern is that the lone forward can get isolated. For this not to happen, I would play two attacking midfielders from Powell/Ince/Duffy/Verlinden behind the striker, who himself must be mobile and hard working - for me, Gregory is the man for that role right now. This does leave three strikers out, but means we have options on the bench to switch formation easily to 442 or 352 if we need an extra striker during the game, even bringing on two new strikers if the lone forward has run himself into the ground.
I like the look of:
Butland
Collins Batth Lindsay
Edwards Woods Etebo Clucas
Ince Powell
Gregory
Subs from: Federici, Davies, Smith, Ward, Carter Vickers, McClean, Allen, Cousins, Verlinden, Duffy, Campbell, Vokes, Hogan
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2019 13:54:29 GMT
No, it the formation he has been banging on about and played at Luton was not solely referring to the midfield. If we’re only referring to in the midfield now then fine but please don’t talk nonesense saying it was only ever about the midfield. I think it’s best we all (including NJ) move on from THAT diamond and stick to THIS diamond... He said the diamond, not the formation. Any diamond, be it Nath's, yours, mine, Carlo Ancelotti's or Jimmy Hill's, categorically refers only to the midfield. Jesus wept. It isn't what he meant or had been planning to play or told everyone he was going to play all of preseason. I don't give a shit what it is but this thread is ludicrous.
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Aug 14, 2019 14:15:30 GMT
He said the diamond, not the formation. Any diamond, be it Nath's, yours, mine, Carlo Ancelotti's or Jimmy Hill's, categorically refers only to the midfield. Jesus wept. It isn't what he meant or had been planning to play or told everyone he was going to play all of preseason. I don't give a shit what it is but this thread is ludicrous. What isn't what who meant? I don't know what you're on about really, I'm just saying "diamond" = midfield. I really don't know how it could mean anything else...
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2019 14:22:46 GMT
Jesus wept. It isn't what he meant or had been planning to play or told everyone he was going to play all of preseason. I don't give a shit what it is but this thread is ludicrous. What isn't what who meant? I don't know what you're on about really, I'm just saying "diamond" = midfield. I really don't know how it could mean anything else... Jones meant. We played a different formation last night and anyone saying we didn't is being mental. When Jones has gone about his diamond he's meant a 4-4-2 diamond. Last night when asked about changing his formation and dropping the diamond, he said they just played a 3-5-2 diamond. I really don't care what he wants to call it but he did change the formation which was the point. And no-one can possibly think when he was banging on about HIS "diamond" formation he was only ever referring to midfield. I don't know why people are even arguing about it. What he did last night better suits our players - it worked. The "new" diamond, the "modified" diamond...whatever you want to call it.
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Aug 14, 2019 14:32:59 GMT
That formation doesn't make any sense at all with last night's lineup and the players you've named as the four in the diamond. Who the hell are the 1s?? And anyway how can you have a diamond midfield *and* a DM *and* a #10? If Nath wants to pass it off as a diamond then the only way it could possibly make sense is if it was 5-4-1. People are really twisting themselves into knots with this fkin diamond (including our own manager by the sounds of things). A diamond refers to FOUR midfield players. That's it. One is defensive, one is attacking and the other two are more or less conventional CMs. You can't have a "modified diamond" with an extra DM or wingers or whatever, as soon as you modify it it's not a diamond any more it's a different bloody formation. The 1's are Woods and Duffy. The two central midfielders were Cousins and Clucas. They played very much in a diamond, I saw it with my own eyes. Why can't you have a "modified diamond", they're just words? I'm not arsed what it's called as long as we keep winning..... Well they are just words, yes, but they have to have some actual meaning don't they? If you've got wingers and two CMs, that's not a diamond, it's a flat midfield four. Of course you can still draw a diamond shape somewhere on the pitch but that is in no way what a "diamond midfield" is. The very definition of the idea is that width is *sacrificed* in favour of a compact and dynamic central midfield four. You can't just chuck in a couple of extra wingers and still claim it as a diamond, it's just.. not what it is. Incidentally I couldn't really give a monkeys what he calls it either, but if we're going to analyse our tactics at all then it does matter what we call it, especially if people start saying things like "oh well the diamond worked at Wigan" when we actually used a totally different formation.
|
|