Time for 442?

[nutty nigel 7,902]

On Saturday Grant dropped the broadest hint yet that he is considering a 442 with a target man up front alongside Earnshaw. He praised Peter Thorne’s performance against Hull and went on to say why he recalled The Doc at Ipswich so he could have Dublin on the bench to bring on up front during the game. It seems to me Grant is saying he would like to play 442 and his plans seem to revolve around Thorne/Dublin beside Earnshaw.

Grant is unlucky to have lost Croft and then immediately losing Chadwick was a big blow, but I believe with other systems not working, and his desire to play a big striker up front means he will have a go at 442 with the players he has.

If Doherty is fit I expect him to start tonight in defence with Dublin or Thorne starting up front. This would mean if Huckerby plays he would be on the left side of midfield with possibly Eagle on the right. If he sticks with his “not playing Safri because he picks the team” then it’s two from Robinson/Hughes/Etuhu. Grant is unlucky to have lost Croft and then immediately losing Chadwick

I could be very wrong of course, but I don''t see the various 433/451 formations working and would welcome 442 because a big target man gives us more options. I believe Grant has prepared us for the team playing a more direct game when he feels it’s necessary.

Peter Grant hasn’t had the luxury of preseason to experiment with the squad he has taken on. He has had no option but to experiment in matches because the training ground is no substitute for the real thing. It’s time to move on from his fans comments and give him a chance. There''s still a lot to play for this season and I am already looking forward to tonight’s game.

 

[Salopian 1]

He knows, and so do we, that one up front alone is not working. The trouble is that there is no mobile, energetic target man available. Worthington did try to sign one over the summer, from reports, and we shuddered at some names.Neither Dion nor Thorne could play a full 90 minutes, especially on heavy pitches. The best he could offer would be 45 minutes from each.Then it would require ideally two wide players, Huckerby and Eagle, however "stationed", to supply crosses. The consequences of this would be a midfield effectively of Etuhu and Robinson, who have not looked like imposing themselves on any other midfield, and a defence with "strangler" Doherty. It''s not an optimistic prospect, is it?If his logic is anything like mine, I would imagine that he is very exercised. It may be that damage limitation may be his objective until January, but it''s a long time!

[ZLF 334]

The oonly problem with a 4-4-2 is that it leaves the midfield hoplessly weak- having said that it has been poor with 3 in thecentre recently so what have we got to lose?   Having thorne up front MAY mean that theball takes longer to come back to the defence.

[Saint Canary 0]

[quote user="ZippersLeftFoot"]The oonly problem with a 4-4-2 is that it leaves the midfield hoplessly weak- having said that it has been poor with 3 in thecentre recently so what have we got to lose?   Having thorne up front MAY mean that theball takes longer to come back to the defence.[/quote]

Like you Zipper I don''t see how the midfield could get much weaker.  With three in the middle we have been unable to domiate that area of the pitch for any prolonged period of any match.  The problem has been the inability of the players in that area gel and form a unit due to their similarities.  I see Hughes, Safri and Robinson all as the "holding" or "deep" midfielder and that seems to be leading to confusion as to who does what.  For me a move to 4-4-2 would allow Etuhu and one other to create a partnership with clear and defined roles.  Etuhu getting forward, the other staying back.

Thorne or Dublin are not a long term solution but in the short-term the help for Earnie is needed and if they can keep the ball out of our half for longer and link play, all the better. 

I think Grant has made it clear he wants to play 4-4-2 but has kept the formation Worthy employed in the hope that continuity in tactics may give stability and improve results, which to some extent it has.  We clearly though do not have the right front man to carry off this formation and I expect to see 4-4-2 soon and a new striker come in January. 

[drayton green 0]

With Thorne playing in a 4 4 2 up the ball would not take longer to come back because it was in the net. He is absolutely hopeless. By playing one up front the benefit should be having an additional body in midfield. It was bad enough that 3 rd choice player being Robinson which provided no benefit at all except for saving the opposition the trouble of passing to their own players, but now it would appear that he is the 2 nd choice behind the impressive '' I will play better next time '' Etuhu.

What a dilemma. Play Dublin or Thorne up front with Eanshaw or Hughes, Mc Veigh as a third midfielder with Robinson and Etuhu. Are we really expecting to get promoted ? If so we would need at least 9 new players for a strsating 11.

I am now accepting we are crap and formation and tactics are irrelevant. We do not have the players.

 

 

 

[One Flew Over... 33]

At home we should definitely be playing 4-4-2. In theory we should get some more shots in, and perhaps have a few more options through the centre than trying to find the perfect ball to release Earnie. It would also be good practice for having a more attacking formation if we go behind away from home.

Jarvis should be given a run in the team. I was looking at his profile on the NCFC website - he has only had one full start all season in the league, with one goal! Not bad stats. He is also over 6'' - so not lacking in height. I''ve read Jarvis has been given a chance and missed it, but s sustained run of 5-6 games may see a completely different player.

http://www.canaries.premiumtv.co.uk/page/Squad/SquadDetail/0,,10355~23281,00.html

[nutty nigel 7,902]

Did anyone else think we looked better on Saturday when Thorne was introduced or is it just me? We have probably been unlucky with Peter Thorne. I know he has had a lot of criticism on this board because it seems he''s been injured the entitre time he has been here much like MLJ. I doubt however that we purposely sign injured players and I also doubt he is on anywhere near the wage he was reported to be on at Cardiff. He was a good player in his Stoke City days and got a huge reception from their fans when he played there recently. Cardiff paid nearly 2m for him and he had a prolific partnership with Earnie when they played together.

Ryan Jarvis is a different player to Thorne and Dublin, I don''t see him as a target man or holding the ball up and I think thats what we need right now. I know he is over 6'' but being tall doesn''t mean you can hold the ball up. Nobody can hold the ball with their head. It''s body strength that a targetman needs. That annoying little player who used to play up front for Blackburn (can''t remember his name)  is a good example , he''s not too tall but strong as an ox!

 

[ZLF 334]

We did look better  - thorne won some headers and occassionally held the ball up -  had he been on a few minutes earlier could have been MOTM.    I am pretty sure the benefit is about bypassing the midfield - so why not go a full 4-2-4?!?  

[nutty nigel 7,902]

[quote user="ZippersLeftFoot"]We did look better  - thorne won some headers and occassionally held the ball up -  had he been on a few minutes earlier could have been MOTM.    I am pretty sure the benefit is about bypassing the midfield - so why not go a full 4-2-4?!?  [/quote]

If we play it withHuckerby and Eagle it would be nearly a 424. You possibly said that a bit "tongue in cheek" but I wouldn''t mind 424 with Croft, Dublin, Earnshaw and Huckerby!. Let the oppo worry about us for a change!