Hucks is a winger.. and blackpool Proved it!

[Syteanric 1]

upfront he was ineffective, hardly seeing the ball, being outmuscled by the center backs and not getting the service he needed...

when we went back to 4-4-2 he was allowed to run riot on the left and it worked!

i have been saying for a long long time that Darren Huckerby isnt a striker... he can score goals, but it isnt his game to play up front. its completely different being ableto get in where it hurts. or put ur head near a defenders boot. and Hucks isnt that sort of player... he is a physical winger.. but not phyiscal for a striker.

 He will score goals from the wing which is an asset.. and can either cross or cut inside which pulls players out of position allowing others to get in good positions.

 Hucks is Left wing! in politics that would be frowned upon.. in football its a good thing.

jas :)

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

His best position is by far playing up front and drifting out left.  However Right Winger Croft was having an absolute mare on the Left Wing (why!?!?!?) so nothing was coming down that flank.  Hence why he kept pulling out wide right where he isnt half as good and Hughes was doping okish in the first half.

He can still be decent at left wing but not as often as when his is up top.

[nutty nigel 7,533]

[quote user="Citizen Journalist Foghorn"]

His best position is by far playing up front and drifting out left.  However Right Winger Croft was having an absolute mare on the Left Wing (why!?!?!?) so nothing was coming down that flank.  Hence why he kept pulling out wide right where he isnt half as good and Hughes was doping okish in the first half.

He can still be decent at left wing but not as often as when his is up top.

[/quote]

I agree with this CJF. Hux is not a left sided midfielder, I used to think he could do the job but now I have seen enough and seen the light!

He is ok as a left winger in a genuine 433, which is what we kind of played when Martin came on,  but in a 442 he has to be up front.

I love the fact he drifts out to the left although this does isolate Chris Brown a little. However when he drags defenders out of position it should leave gaps for others to exploit, specifically Etuhu!

Come on Dickson! Where are you!! Let''s be ''avin'' you!!!  [au]

 

 

[hogesar 9,666]

CJF and NN, i can see what you''re saying, but surely when he moved to left midfield you all saw the massive difference?

He can play upfront, but i feel he is often more effective on the left wing. Open to debate, as im sure it will be for a long, long time.

[Shack Attack 0]

Surely the truth with regards to Hucks best position is that he''s neither an out and out striker or a winger. As you say he''s perhaps not physical enough to play up front, but at the same time playing him on the left wing means he has to have some sort of defensive responsibility. The best position to play him is surely in the hole, just off a target man with licence to drift out to his favoured ''leftish'' position when he wants.

No defensive responsibilities and a licence to roam where he chooses, surely this is the way to get the best out of a flair player such as Hucks.

Oh, and left wing politics are not to be frowned on as far as I''m concerned!!

[nutty nigel 7,533]

[quote user="hogesar"]

CJF and NN, i can see what you''re saying, but surely when he moved to left midfield you all saw the massive difference?

He can play upfront, but i feel he is often more effective on the left wing. Open to debate, as im sure it will be for a long, long time.

[/quote]

I don''t think he played left midfield last night hogesar. We sort of played 433 because we were chasing the game. Huckerby is fine as a left sided attacker in a 433.

I used to think we could play 442 with Hucks wide left but I have seen the light and now agree with posters like ZLF who have said this all the time.

 

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

[quote user="hogesar"]

CJF and NN, i can see what you''re saying, but surely when he moved to left midfield you all saw the massive difference?

He can play upfront, but i feel he is often more effective on the left wing. Open to debate, as im sure it will be for a long, long time.

[/quote]

I think a big problem last night was the lack of play coming down the laft hand sidfe in the first half.  I cannot remember a single significant attack due to teh fact Croft was utterly hopeless and no used to playing from that flank.  I reckon if we had had a decent outlet their rather than pull towards the right - like Huckls did no end of times last night, he would have pulled to the left instead where he is far more effective.

The fact he did a move almost exactly like the goal, but from the right hand side but messed up the cross/shot as it was on his wrong foot I think shows this.

[Hardhouse44 261]

I’d give Huckerby a free role in an attacking sense. Yes Huckerby is a great winger if the fullback can''t match his pace. Yet more so than ever we have seen this season that sometimes the fullback can match him and his effectiveness is the much less. Fullbacks tend these days to be quick. often more so than centerbacks. If Hucks is not getting the joy wide he should go through the middle and try his luck. He is a match winner possibly the only one we have. He should be utilized in the best way he can against the team we play on the day.

By the way the reason we were better when he went wide yesterday is because Grants first half tactics were shot to bits. We played Croft who is a limited winger anyway out of position to accommodated one of the worst players in the league. Result we played effectively with no wingers. With Lappin and Chadwick in the team we would look a different team and I would expect Croft to be dropped and Huckerby to play through the middle much of the time. Where if you remember against Leeds he caused havoc.

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,023]

I kind of agree with Jas and i can see where NN and ZLF (in the past) are coming from, for me Hucks best position is when he is allowed to run at players from a deep position, as a left winger would, now if you want to be pedantic and call it a wide forward in a 4-3-3 formation that is up to you. For the first 61 minutes we played a 4-5-1 (again you can be pedantic and call it 4-3-3) and it did not work, as soon as Hucks went out wide on the left and ran from a deep position we looked a different side.

[Evil Monkey 52]

The very same debate was started earlier on another thread, and I posted on it... so I think a copy and paste is in order..."

It''s a conundrum, for sure... I''ve always thought of Hucks as a "wing

foward" in that he''s not an out-and-out striker, thanks to his tendency

to drift to the wings to pick up the ball and run, but he''s also not a

classic left midfielder because his attacking thread is too potent to

waste on tracking back.  Although Hucks was devastating for most of our

promotion season, it was when he was put onto the left of an attacking

three, with Svensson and McKenzie, that things really began to take

shape... even though we weren''t as defensively solid as with a 4-4-2,

we had enough fire power to win games anyway... remember Burnley away?

3-2 down at the break, but was never in any doubt we would win! The

same thing started to work early season with Hucks, Earnie and Croft,

but things just went sour... would be interesting to see what this

would be like with Martin through the middle..."

[ZLF 274]

As you have all mentioned my view is that Hux remains the best attacker we have and he is best playing in the final third of the pitch,  not starting outside his own penalty box.   

The shape that suits us best is 4-4-2 - none of the others have worked for us consistently enough.  The players know the system so taking that as your base point hux is either left midfield or one of the 2.   As a midfielder he exposes our defence, which leaves him as a striker, and playing in the right area of the pitch mentioned in the first paragraph.

Yesterdays performance seems like a mixed bag.   He scored twice, now 6 in 6 games showing he can finish.    However we only looked more creative once we were able to get the ball to hux,  up front he is very reliant on a good pass which seemed in short supply from a midfield 4 that has been the crux of our problems this season, safri not on top form,  people not sure whether etuhu was there or not, croft on the wrong flank and the erratic passing of hughes;   The move to left midfield  to me seems less about hux being there than allowing a better shape to midfield when croft went right and getting the ball to hux feet.  

Hopefully the inclusion of lappin and fozzy and the return of croft to his rightful flank will mean we can get the ball to hux up front when played as part of a two and the points needed to avoid relegation

While it worked in this game, the reverse was equally true against Leeds - we only fired once hux went up front.

Foir me the key is the quality of passing from midfield,  stick him up front with good passing and he will thrive,  with no/the wrong type of service he disappears,  while in midfeild he at least sees the ball but has too far to get to goal to really have an impact against teams in our league.

Or perhaps Hux only works when we get him to change position midgame?   

[nutty nigel 7,533]

[quote user="ZippersLeftFoot"]

Or perhaps Hux only works when we get him to change position midgame?   

[/quote]

Hux is our most dangerous player Zipper and probably your "tongue in cheek" remark is also not far from the truth. One of Worthy''s faults was that he didn''t have many plan B''s. He appeared single minded about a lot of things with changing tactics during matches being a good example. When it''s not working Grant is not afraid to make changes to players or systems during games and changing the role of our most dangerous player must surely upset the oppositions plans somewhat.

 

[Chris Meadows 0]

against Leeds he started left wing and did nothing, went up front and won us the game

aagainst Blackpool he started up front and did nothing, went to the left and won us the game

[mbncfc 1]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

Hux is our most dangerous player Zipper and probably your "tongue in cheek" remark is also not far from the truth. One of Worthy''s faults was that he didn''t have many plan B''s. He appeared single minded about a lot of things with changing tactics during matches being a good example. When it''s not working Grant is not afraid to make changes to players or systems during games and changing the role of our most dangerous player must surely upset the oppositions plans somewhat.

 

[/quote]

NN, I think this is an excellent point.

It has been said quite a few times that PG''s initial tactics were wrong so he had to change them, and from that point on we have improved - latterly picking up points/wins.

We have had managers in the past which have selected the wrong team, or the wrong tactics. However, we do now have someone in charge who is not afraid to try and influence a game from the bench, which is exactly what he should be trying to do. And as the squad adapts to PG and the requested fluency and adaptability, it will certainly be an advantage in most games.

Of course you can be critical of him getting it wrong, but at the same time he deserves credit for seeing that it is wrong and making changes to correct it. I think it helps that although he has strong opinions, he lacks a complete subborness. He also seems to appreciate having big characters around him too, just from looking at who he has brought in both player and coaching-wise...

Agreed, Mr Worthington was not a tactically proactive person - even with substitutions. Now, while many point out initial selections were wrong, you have to credit the fact that on several occassions he have been changes that have worked.

[a1canary 0]

[quote user="ZippersLeftFoot"]

Or perhaps Hux only works when we get him to change position midgame?   

[/quote]This was the point i was making, i think, in an earlier post: http://new.pinkun.com/cs/forums/876493/ShowPost.aspxMoving him around gives the opposition something different to think about. Grant has done it before swapping wingers over and when Chadwick is fit and Lappin plays i think he''ll do it more. Nothing wrong with trying a few left footed crosses from the right and vice versa, or with moving huckerby whether it be from left to the front or vice versa. This is all that last night proved - not that hucks must play left. We can cite just as many examples where he changed the game from the front.

[lucky green trainers 0]

from where i was sitting in the jarrold stand we played 4-4-2 all night.  first off hucks was playing alongside brown, croft left wing and hughes right wing.  dicko and safs midfield.   second half, grant took off colin, moved hughes to right back, croft to right wing, hucks to left wing, with martin and brown up from as the strikers, safs and dicko in the middle.  4-4-2!  ok hucks doesn''t always get back every time to defend, but he does so enough to be described as left wing/midefield to me, rather than an out and out striker.

agree that hucks looked ineffectual up front with brown for me, but in second half we showed some spirit - hucks in his usual left wing posi was sensational, and martins introduction was a relevation!otbc

[USAcanary 0]

I like the fact that we can move him around.

With the current squad I would prefer Lappin on left of midfield.

Hucks can drift left but we need the midfield busting a gut to get on the end of some of his crosses.

I am sure teams have now seen the leeds and blackpool games where Hucks could have had at least 6 goals just by cutting inside.

They will be showing him the outside a little more so its up to our players to get in the box.

Given the current squad I would prefer the following line up vs Chelsea

                        Marshall

  Colin        Dublin      Shacks     Dury

Croft        Safri       Fozzy       Lappin

            Martin           Hucks

Subs........Gall, Doc, Hughes, Etuhu and  Brown.

 

 

[Saint Canary 0]

I like Zipper have long been of the opinion that Hux should be played up front.  Effective on the left he may be but the simplest way I can look at this is that in a pros vs cons for each position he offers too many cons out left.  He is not the best of finishers, he knows this but other than that I can think of no good reason why he should not play up front.  Yes he will be involved in the game less but at least when he is involved he will more likely be in the final third.

Being in midfield with defensive duties he causes us as many problems as does our opponents. 
No one can fail to see the decline in Drury''s performances since Hux has been in front of him.
He is our most dangerous player, I don''t want doing donkey work, I want him ruuning at the opposition.
Playing left often see''s him doubled marked.

At the end of the day he is not comfortable with defensive duties, never has been, never will be and this unbalances the the team.  Play people to their strengths and Huckerby''s strength is attacking,
 

[Stevie Wonder 0]

Without Earnshaw available Hux quite simply has to play up front as he is the only striker we have with pace.

He will always cause problems when playing wide left and he will probably play there more often than not when Lappin isn''t available. Neither Croft nor Hughes are natural left wingers and having gone a goal down last night it was obvious that sooner or later Hux would be pushed out wide. Lets be honest the Blackpool right back was no great shakes and a player of Hux quality was always likely to get the better of him.

There are 2 main reasons not to play Hux wide left. Firstly, as many have already pointed out it requires to much of him defensively and the poor left back is invariable completely exposed for most of the game and secondly it is much easier for teams to double up on him when he stuck to the touchline. It is almost impossible to double up on a central striker which gives Hux much more time and space to do all kinds of damage.

His best 2 perfrmances this year have been Wolves and Leeds in the last 2 games when he played up front.

The real debate will start if/when Earnie is fit and available again. Who do you play then?

[BedsCanary 0]

For what it''s worth I think we should be playing a 4-4-1 system, with Hucks given a free ticket to go where the hell he wants.

[Chris Meadows 0]

[quote user="Saint Canary"]

I like Zipper have long been of the opinion that Hux should be played up front.  Effective on the left he may be but the simplest way I can look at this is that in a pros vs cons for each position he offers too many cons out left.  He is not the best of finishers, he knows this but other than that I can think of no good reason why he should not play up front.  Yes he will be involved in the game less but at least when he is involved he will more likely be in the final third.

Being in midfield with defensive duties he causes us as many problems as does our opponents. 
No one can fail to see the decline in Drury''s performances since Hux has been in front of him.
He is our most dangerous player, I don''t want doing donkey work, I want him ruuning at the opposition.
Playing left often see''s him doubled marked.

At the end of the day he is not comfortable with defensive duties, never has been, never will be and this unbalances the the team.  Play people to their strengths and Huckerby''s strength is attacking,
 

[/quote]

good post, yes he was awesome when he went on to the wing but i think this was mainly due to the side being more confident with Hughes out of midfield and crofty on the right

[Kolin Kob 0]

[quote user="USAcanary"]

I like the fact that we can move him around.

With the current squad I would prefer Lappin on left of midfield.

Hucks can drift left but we need the midfield busting a gut to get on the end of some of his crosses.

I am sure teams have now seen the leeds and blackpool games where Hucks could have had at least 6 goals just by cutting inside.

They will be showing him the outside a little more so its up to our players to get in the box.

Given the current squad I would prefer the following line up vs Chelsea

                        Marshall

  Colin        Dublin      Shacks     Dury

Croft        Safri       Fozzy       Lappin

            Martin           Hucks

Subs........Gall, Doc, Hughes, Etuhu and  Brown.

 

 

[/quote]

swap martin for brown and i think thats what you''ll get!

[Blainsey 2]

disagree,

he was effective on the wing against a league 1 side!!   Well done, thats super!!