So what are you actually going to do about it Alex Neil?

[Barking Mad Barclay Boy 13]

put morty in charge he corrects everyone else

thinks only his view are correct

and talks a load of rubbish is it AN in disguise ?

[morty 0]

[quote user="Barking Mad Barclay Boy"]put morty in charge he corrects everyone else

thinks only his view are correct

and talks a load of rubbish is it AN in disguise ?[/quote]Excellent contribution to the debate.Really showing your football knowledge there[Y]

[Woodman 92]

[quote user="morty"]The diamond is not 4-4-2.

I dare say Wes could play in a 4-4-2.

Against a pub team.[/quote]

I''m confused, what is a diamond formation then?

[morty 0]

Feel free to have a read here.It shows the two formations as different things, demanding different players, with different qualities.Anyone playing the diamond usually refers to it as "The diamond" so as to differentiate between the two.

[Guest]

Those talking about 4-4-2 (correct: 1-4-4-2), often reducing the system to the “Flat Four”. Whereby 4-4-2 not only means our playing with a double row (two back-fours). We arrive here at a further formation in the 4-4-2 configuration, the game with the “Midfield Diamond”.

Urinates like a race horse now!

[morty 0]

Two different things.End of.

[Baywing 0]

what a load of bo11ox....

we havent got the squad to change the formation ?

Ok I accept injuries and suspensions have taken there toll this last few weeks BUT FFS really ?

what was the excuse last season when we had the likes of Gary O''neill, Vladis and Redmond alongside Brady, Howson, Tettey, Dorrans and Mulumbu ?

And to say perhaps ots the only system we have that suits our squad.....well take a look at the results for the last friggin 6 weeks...it clearly doesnt suit them as it aint working !!

[morty 0]

HOUSE!

[Chemical Bro 0]

What about louis Thompson? looked to me like a decent box to box, all energy midfielder.

I''m sure him and dorrans/mulumbu could work in 4-4-2

I agree howson is the perfect player for it but don''t think he''s the be all and end all.

If we do play 4-2-3-1 again i want Pritchard in the number 10 role. Build around him.

[Hoola Han Solo 448]

Are we on to this again? A diamond has four defenders, four midfielders and two strikers, thereby making it a 4-4-2. Although of course, everybody is wrong about this apart from morty, naturally.

[morty 0]

[quote user="Hoola Han Solo"]Are we on to this again? A diamond has four defenders, four midfielders and two strikers, thereby making it a 4-4-2. Although of course, everybody is wrong about this apart from morty, naturally.[/quote]Can the same players who play in a flat 4-4-2 also play effectively in a diamond?

[morty 0]

[quote user="Hoola Han Solo"]Are we on to this again? A diamond has four defenders, four midfielders and two strikers, thereby making it a 4-4-2. Although of course, everybody is wrong about this apart from morty, naturally.[/quote]And I couldn''t give a shiney $hite if anyone doesn''t agree with me, most here would disagree just because its me.[:D]

[morty 0]

[quote user="Chemical Bro"]What about louis Thompson? looked to me like a decent box to box, all energy midfielder.

I''m sure him and dorrans/mulumbu could work in 4-4-2

I agree howson is the perfect player for it but don''t think he''s the be all and end all.

If we do play 4-2-3-1 again i want Pritchard in the number 10 role. Build around him.[/quote]Agree re Thompson, he''s injured just now though, I believe.

[Hoola Han Solo 448]

We''re both right if you look at it from certain angles. There are many variations of 4-3-3 and 4-5-1 that would require different personel. Anyway I''m now off, I don''t enjoy spending most of my life on a football forum like some.

[morty 0]

[quote user="Hoola Han Solo"]We''re both right if you look at it from certain angles. There are many variations of 4-3-3 and 4-5-1 that would require different personel. Anyway I''m now off, I don''t enjoy spending most of my life on a football forum like some.[/quote][:D]

[king canary 7,678]

If a 4-2-3-1 is known as 4-2-3-1 then technically a diamond would be 4-1-2-1-2. But this is a relatively pointless argument (although for once I agree with Morty, when you say 4-4-2 you don''t think the diamond).

Any combination of a back four with at least one holding midfielder has failed to solidify the defence so I''d love to see Neil go to a back 3. As someone else mentioned the switching of personnel within this formation just feels like deckchair rearranging.

[nutty nigel 7,630]

If we played diamond wes could play at the top. Dorrans at the base? But we need legs for the other 2 spots. Howson when fit on the right. Bradders on the left? Oh no....

Mulumbu on left?

But no place for Tettey, Murphy''s, Pritchard, canos etc?

[lake district canary 4,545]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]I''m serious though Morty. A lot of our attacking players would not be suited to a traditional 442. Don''t know where we''d put Wes. Maybe on the left? Not ideal. Dorrans would be a good shout. 

And I also think you could only play one of Wes, Pritchard. Jacob, Josh, Canos if even that one. Whoever said our squad was not built for that is correct IMO. The plus would maybe be that Naismith could play in a front two.

[/quote]

I agree.  Formations are fluid, but the problem from where I see it is that there is not enough

defensive cover from midfield because the two wide players are too far

forwards or out of position, leaving too much to do by the two defensive

midfielders.  This was exactly the problem Adams had and he addressed

it by strengthening the defensive midfield using Howson on the right and

Johnson on the left. Dorrans on the left

is an option, especially

if Tettey, Mulumbu and Thompson all look a good fit in the centre of

midfield and we only need two players there.   The other option would be

to use Dorrans on the right of midfield with Brady on the left.  Before

you all start shouting he''s not a right winger - neither is Howson, yet

he was used effectively there under Adams and AN last time round.  To

me Murphy isn''t strong enough defensively (as neither was Redmond) so

you have to use him sparingly on the wing.  Four defensively capable

midfielders is what we seem to need - and I''ve been saying this since

before the Newcastle match.  I would really like to see an

intention by the manager that he is addressing this issue by solidifying

midfield.  Four out of  Tettey/Mulumbu/Thompson/Dorrans/Brady across

midfield with two creative players/strikers ahead of them - Wes/Jerome -

Pritchard/Jerome - Jerome/Oliveira or even Pritchard and Murphy as a

striker......whatever, because as Nutty says, you can''t play many of them at once in a more solid outfit.  Yes it would maybe stifle some of our

attack....but we only had one shot on target against Derby, so it

couldn''t be much less than that.  Will AN do this?  I don''t think so - I think he believes our players are good enough to attack our way to victories, but there is the catch 22 situation again - as it was against Newcastle last season.....tighten up and become more defensive and lose that attacking thrust, or attack and risk carry on losing......

[morty 0]

You have such a knack of writing a lot of words, but not actually saying anything[:D]

[morty 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]If we played diamond wes could play at the top. Dorrans at the base? But we need legs for the other 2 spots. Howson when fit on the right. Bradders on the left? Oh no....

Mulumbu on left?

But no place for Tettey, Murphy''s, Pritchard, canos etc?[/quote]Exactly, our whole squad has been set up to play 4-5-1, or a derivative of.

[nutty nigel 7,630]

Forgot Brady!!!!

He''d be on the left of the diamond. Til January?

[king canary 7,678]

This is a problem of our own making though. We''ve got three players whose natural position is off the main striker, when we try and shoehorn them all in we end up narrow and congested. We''ve got three very similar strikers who are all big and strong but not particularly pacey or tricky so can''t real mix things up there. To provide the width we need attacking fullbacks but this leaves us exposed without a very disciplined defensive midfielder.

So we''re left with a bit of a mess as we''re either playing players out of position, or leaving expensive signings on the bench. The only formation I can see that could address this issue on the 3-4-3 still e that Chelsea play (although I think I say this every week) but Neil seems wedded to some form of 4-5-1.

[Guest]

[quote user="morty"]Two different things.End of.[/quote]

Suit yourself. Losing that argument are we? Sorry I forgot, you can''t put up a reasoned argument. Just slag off LDC instead.

[morty 0]

[quote user="keelansgrandad"][quote user="morty"]Two different things.End of.[/quote]

Suit yourself. Losing that argument are we? Sorry I forgot, you can''t put up a reasoned argument. Just slag off LDC instead.[/quote]Just as well you didn''t get in a pi$$ing contest about it mate.[:)]

[The Bristol Nest 517]

This had potential to be an interesting thread . Instead it''s just another forum for addictive egos to further their post counts with little to add to the debate. Ldc and Morty. Just private message your nonsense. Keelan is right when he states that you attempt to dictate the terms of every debate on here. As we don''t have a block option please be a bit more considerate towards those who want to express a view without a predictable response from you. I know you believe yourselves to be the concience of the board but actually you are dull. I don''t want a pint with you and yes I am from Norfolk and no I don''t live in Norwich anymore and yes I go to games. Please just consider others.

[morty 0]

[quote user="bristolcanary"]This had potential to be an interesting thread . Instead it''s just another forum for addictive egos to further their post counts with little to add to the debate. Ldc and Morty. Just private message your nonsense. Keelan is right when he states that you attempt to dictate the terms of every debate on here. As we don''t have a block option please be a bit more considerate towards those who want to express a view without a predictable response from you. I know you believe yourselves to be the concience of the board but actually you are dull. I don''t want a pint with you and yes I am from Norfolk and no I don''t live in Norwich anymore and yes I go to games. Please just consider others.[/quote]And what did you contribute with that, exactly?

[The Bristol Nest 517]

A viewpoint on the way you make all threads about you. I ignore most of it but you are quite the narcissist at the moment. I read more than I post and many of your contributions sour the debate. In real life do you listen or just talk?

[morty 0]

[quote user="bristolcanary"]A viewpoint on the way you make all threads about you. I ignore most of it but you are quite the narcissist at the moment. I read more than I post and many of your contributions sour the debate. In real life do you listen or just talk?[/quote]So you''d rather talk about me, than Norwich City.Interesting....

[The Bristol Nest 517]

No. I only post about my club apart from to ask you to wind your over extended neck in.

[Guest]

[quote user="morty"][quote user="bristolcanary"]This had potential to be an interesting thread . Instead it''s just another forum for addictive egos to further their post counts with little to add to the debate. Ldc and Morty. Just private message your nonsense. Keelan is right when he states that you attempt to dictate the terms of every debate on here. As we don''t have a block option please be a bit more considerate towards those who want to express a view without a predictable response from you. I know you believe yourselves to be the concience of the board but actually you are dull. I don''t want a pint with you and yes I am from Norfolk and no I don''t live in Norwich anymore and yes I go to games. Please just consider others.[/quote]And what did you contribute with that, exactly?

[/quote]

Something coherent and worth reading unlike your reply.