Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Pape Diop

mckenzie and huckerby

Recommended Posts

From watching games over christmas period I thought that Huckerby would have to play upfront with a ''Target man''. After seeing svensson recently and mckenzies encouraging sub performances i think we should start with mckenzie and hucks. At least mckenzie tries to win some headers and puts himself about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Exactly and the point of playing with a target man is for the target man to win the ball and hold it up if he is not doing that what use is his role at least Mckenzie looks keen and hungry and that is essentail at this stage in the game, also with cooperman looking useful maybe we wont need to hoof it up to a big (ineffective target man everytime)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I do agree with you. I''d like to see a McHuck partnership. However, we will HAVE to change our game. At the moment we''re knocking it long for the front man. We would have to get the ball on the floor and knock it about. We could have a very talented front two who tear defences apart, or we could have an isolated front two with little service.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Having witnessed Svensson''s inept efforts at the palace game I think the call for Huck and Leon has more weight behind it now. I genuinely dont remember Svensson winning a ball and passing successfully to a team mate in the entire first half!!

You are right Delia that with the new pairing we will have to adapt our game to suit the pacey/shortened attack. But Leon always looks lively, drags wide and hold the ball up very well, (much like Andy Johnson did so successfully on Saturday). As long as the back four dont punt the ball up in the air, playing to feet/space with lowish passes we could have a very potent attacking pair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are right a McHux partnership would be excellent and, I think, would scare the living daylights out of many premier defences - as I posted about 3 weeks ago.

However DD is right - with the poor quality of ball and our generally direct approach to games the current team has, it would be a wasted partnership and within 2 games, like after the bradford defeat, the fans would all be calling for the return of a target man! McHux are, as many have pointed out previously, too similar in their approach to the game to be successful in our current set up.

Until we get 2 quality midfield passers of the ball we have to stick with a target man - which IMHO is Svensson, this months fall guy. On every conceivable level his contribution to the team out weighs Iwans - and improve the quality of ball to him the better he plays. Crouch remains the best at this role this season but as we are not going to buy him stick with the current best at the club. And Sven and Hux came closest to scoring on Sat so why not start with them???

Stick with a target man - its what the team delivers best (and works well in this league), then strengthen midfield if we get promoted to allow a game more based on passing than directness.

OTBC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mckenzie can actually act very effectively as a target man, he is strong and very good with his head. he can also terorise defences. he deserves to start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have frequently said that Mackenzie is better in the air than he gets credit for - but that doesn''t mean that the is a target man..

Also his style of play is to make the same sort of runs as Hux which given the current midfield problems would mean confusion up front... the outrage after the Bradford game was all how we needed a target man... how fickle we are.

OTBC



Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the reason the target man isn''t working is that huckerby doesn''t play anywhere near them. hes off hugging the line so the flick on from the long ball goes straight back to the other team. mckenzie plays close to the big man-therefore some of the flick ons will work and we''ll get more out of them. play hucks on the left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hucks came inside and deeper against Gillingham and looked good (have a look at the replays and see where his run for Weloveyou''s goal started). We''ve tried McKenzie upfront vs Bradford and we resorted to the long ball all the time (partly as midfield was so crowded with their 5). I can forgive Svensson to some degree for Saturday as the wind wasn''t helping (counter argument that it was the same for the bloke winning the headers against him all the time) and after his performance vs WBA we were all quite happy. I still don''t know what the answer is, risking 4-3-3 (as playing Hucks left midfield would create) will lead to all out attack, but Carrow Rd is where we''re going to win this promotion so we need to stick with what we know. Unfortunately, we don''t really know who to play up front!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am tired of watching us huff and puff kicking hopeful balls up to Hucks or one or other of the so call big men in a big man - small man striking partnership. Norwich are known for their passing game - well not lately we aren''t.

Problem with it is - its so darn predictable. And a lot of teams are getting wise to it.

Whereas, when we do get it down and pass man to man, although sadly only in fits and starts, it certainly creates openings and opportunities. And McHucks will make the most of them - theres no doubt about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Svensson and Huckerby?

McKenzie and Huckerby?

Forgive me if I am being totally naive but...

Why not Svensson, McKenzie AND Huckerby?

We go to a narrow three man midfield, which I think would suit the play anyway as I don''t consider any of the potential candidates for the wide roles to be wingers anyway. The width can come from the full backs and from McKenzie / Huckerby pulling wide according to the pattern of the game.

I really don''t see the point of sticking with so called wide players when none of them can consistantly cross a decent ball anyway! Could that lack of service be why Svensson isn''t firing?

Yes, it could leave us over run in midfield, and it is a risk, but I think it''s worth taking. Surely now is the time to be brave and start scaring the life out of teams with attacking play? It''s us who are top of the league and have been for three months! We should fear nobody. They should fear us.

Nige, much respect for what you''ve done this season. Now, take that final step.

You know you want to!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the reason we''re not going to a 4,3,3 MasterNagus is that the tried and trusted 4,4,2 has got us to where we are now, the top of the league. Why change it? I think if we moved to a 3 man midfield we would find we had very little or no width and so get even less service up to the front 3. We would rely on hoofs from the back, bypassing midfield and aiming for Sven. This would be a disaster because, as I pointed out in another post, Hendo is winning more in the air than Sven!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DD i''ve gotta agree with Masternagus....our wing play has,nt exactly been electric,or the passing for that matter,i say try Mc and huck up front playing off the big manSven....give it a go and see what happens.Holt could sit in midfield and play Brennan(if he''s in Nigel''s good books?!) and Francis,all can defend and i''m sure if they tried really hard pass a ball to another team mate,keep the ball on the floor......just a suggestion!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No no no no no! Playing three up is a recipe for disaster - we have recently played nearly 90 minutes with this formation with the spectacular return of 1 goal at Cardiff - at least 4-4-2 has got us to the top of the table.

Despite our excellent goals against column this is largely down to the defensive midfield tactics we use. Hoicking the ball up field will mean that in 75% of the time our opponents will pick up the loose ball because the midfield sits too deep - why conceed possession again and put ourselves under pressure? This is what happened last season when iwan was our target man.

If we are going for that approach we may as well go 6-0-4 and take out midfield altogether and have a defence across our 18 yard box and our strikers across the pitch 50 yards upfield.

DD is entirely right on this - stick to our successful formula and mix in a bit more attacking variety from our midfield team which looks far more balanced with the arrival of Cooper on the right wing.
OTBC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not play Hux and McKenzie up front and force the rest of the team to try and keep the ball on the ground. The downside to having a target man in there at the moment is that the rest of the team believe that a swift punt up the park is the proverbial answer. That doesn''t work against teams that are going to have big central defenders and somebody man-marking Huckerby.

Give the opposition something else to think about. Stop with the long ball and go for the ball into feet or beyond the fullbacks.

I think, like several of those here, that McKenzie is due a start. With Roberts and Svensson off as options it might make the rest apply a different approach. Plus both Hux and McKenzie have bags of pace. Combine that with McVeigh and Cooper coming from midfield and you might have a speedy attack that brings some threat.

Need the three points against Stoke. That 8 point gap to third doesn''t seem like much anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks Morph - thats exactly what DD and I are saying - Leon & Hux would be superb, but ONLY if we start passing the ball

And 8 points is plenty as long as we win 5 of our remaining games - I have no doubt of that - and a draw against Sunderland will be like a win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the 4-3-3 idea

Try it first half against Stoke. They''ll come to squeeze the game and get a point which will be good for them looking at our home record.

Hucks on the left centre , Matt in the middle and Leon on the right centre. Behind them we have Holt in the middle, Mullers or Notman right midfield and Brennan on the left. Usual back 4

As someone said our wing play has often been non existent and unthreatening this year (we haven''t replaced Steeno properly) and Rivers seems out of it. So scrap the idea of wasting two men out wide.

Full backs can push up a bit in case they play 5 in midfield with a lone striker. We need goals against Stoke to get confidence back in a big way. I just don''t think they will have the sort of threat up front that West Ham, WBS, Ipswich etc have.

The best form of defence is sometimes attack, as the cliche goes.



Its worth a risk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I''m 100% behind MasterNagus''s and Tumbleweed''s theory re: the 4-3-3 formation, especially at home, scare the bu**ers witless I say!. OK, if it does''nt work, revert back to the normal formation after say 60 minutes.

I can guarantee you now that if City do go behind against Stoke, you''ll see that formation anyway at some point, even 4 up front!. We''re the home team for Gawds sake. Blast the oppo in the first half, for a change, and I''m sure this brave tactic would pay great dividends.

Trouble is I feel it won''t happen though, dear old NW far too cautious for this bold move, far better to try and catch the horse after its bolted from the stable, eh Nigel!.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agree too - see ''Enough debate'' post. What does puzzle me though is, given Worthy''s usual cautious approach, what on earth came over him at Rotherham? We were away, at a ground that is notoriously difficult to get a result at, and he plays Robbo, Hucks and Leon. What was the formation that day, was it 4-3-3?
Thing is, 4-4 that day, which was very nearly a 4-3 loss, probably gave him such a fright he won''t ever start that team again!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I seem to remember that two of the Rotherham goals were shockers so if we can score a few, our defence at home should be able to keep them down to at most one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Personally I think sticking rigidly to a 4-4-2 formation throughout a game is a mistake ! , firstly its a formation known to the opposition , and therefore they can plan tactics accordingly ......... their defenders will stay close to Hucks and the other " target" man .......its all so predictable !! , this constant lobbing of the ball to a " target" man in the hope he will get to it before a defender is , frankly , time and effort wasting ......... they will all be waiting it !!! so ....

Start with a 4-4-2 , then , in say 10 minutes , change to a 4-3-3 , .and if by doing so it looks to be causing some doubt to creep into their defence , then , on the nod from Worthy , go for a 2-4-4 !! ......................... no defence enjoys 4 or more attackers milling around their penalty area, and its in just such a situation that Hucks is at his most dangerous ! , because his " shadow" will will lose his focus ........ predictability makes hard work of getting a goal , unpredictability creates many chances , and is good to watch .I commend it .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry to sound big headed but I said ages ago that we should play Hucks and Leon upfront! They are the two best strickers at the club at the moment and as having a ''big man'' upfront doesn''t seem to be working at the moment, why not give it a go?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...