4-5-1 (4-3-3)

[Block E Buh 0]

Is it just me or is the 1 up front still not really working?Id like to see someone hold the ball up for Eanie and get the best out of him.Or Eagle played well on Tuesday,why not try him on the left and Hucks up front going for pace.Be nice to be a constant threat up front and take the pressure off our midfield.Robinson doesnt seem strong enough either,Ethuhu finally looks good though,maybe him and Safri?Hopefully someone in the Conference will want Hughes?Be great to be rid of  that idiot!

[Huddy 0]

It has worked at times, but certainly for tuesday night i believe 4-4-2 would have benefited us. I believe that if we had started with Dublin and Earnshaw up front, with croft and eagle on the wings we would have probably have won the game. Against that opposition, if Dublin was a winning things around the box, Earnshaw could have played off him and would have been in the game alot more against a big, physical vale defence.  Unfortunately Jarvis nor Thorne have the pace to play off Dublin for the 4-4-2 to work once earnshaw ahd gone off on tuesday night.

Having said all that, if we had Darren Huckerby playing i believe that we would have definately won the game. As much as Eagle got stuck in, and put in some decent crosses he didnt hav ethe pac eto thoroughly test the vale defence. However, Huckerby i''m sure would have caused havoc and from somewhere would have created us a goal.

Its a case of picking the right formation for the right game.

[Rudolph Hucker 0]

Apparently, Grant''s preferred formation is 4-4-2.

[mbncfc 1]

Grant changed it to 4-4-2 quite early into the Port Vale match.

I think he''s kept it as he can''t change everything staright away.

I think we''ll be playing 4-4-2 on Saturday, and probably from then on in, with changes as and when a game needs them. He can back this up with Tuesday and us performing better in ''his'' formation.

He''s already shown that he will put Plan B into action pretty early on if Plan A isn''t working.

All my own guess work though. I dont know the guy [:O]

[nutty nigel 7,509]

[quote user="Matt Gunns"]Hopefully someone in the Conference will want Hughes?Be great to be rid of  that idiot![/quote]

Are you that guy from NCISA on yet another username?????

 

[Block E Buh 0]

No, Ive been going to Carrow Road for 17 years,season ticket holder but nothing to do with ncisa im afraid.

[Mook 0]

This guy reckons Hughes is crap and Dublin can''t score - obviously didn''t go to the QPR game where MOTM Hughes set-up a Dion Dublin goal.

Shame.

[Block E Buh 0]

I went to QPR  last season,that was enough! Does it really matter anyway?Or do I need permission to voice MY opinion? 

[Mook 0]

By the way, Matt, I''ve seen you respond to my jibe under a different thread and you''re right - it is a marathon not a sprint.

However, it''s supposed to be a clean slate too, and we should give Hughes the benefit of the doubt. Doc came good, Etuhu came good, Colin is showing his ability now so perhaps with some games and some confidence, we''ll see the best of Hughes too.

Even if it''s just a backup player, we will need him this season.

[Gary 0]

I think we have a problem in that 433 allows the best out of Hucks as he doesn''t need to defend as much as he does in 442 but Earnshaw would be suited to 442.  I think we have a problem is finding a system to optimise our best two players

[Block E Buh 0]

Good point, ok , clean slate it is, I shall give Hughes more time. I always support any player in yellow during the 90, only after the match I cast my doubts on some things. But you are right mook, clean slate.

[Ulf Ottosson 0]

I agree with what Gary says totally 4-4-2 suits Earnie, 4-3-3 is best for Hucks. For me for us to move forward Grant will have

to choose who he wants to build his team around and then get rid of other! However this is easier to write down than do in real

life