Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
BlyBlyBabes

Lesson from Stoke for Glenn.

Recommended Posts

The 2nd half against Stoke should have taught you this.

Don''t play Hucks as part of a midfield 3 or 4. He simply doesn''t do ( and can''t do!) defence

If you''re going to play him, do so either as a second striker or on the left of a midfield 5.

I would expect to see him on the bench tomorrow for use as an impact player - with Jamie Cureton restored to start alongside Dublin, and Pattison on the left of a midfield 4.

Don''t get sucked in by the Hucks charisma and hero worship, Glenn. The club comes first.

OTBC

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see there''s 248 people who don''t disagree with my analysis enough to post.

Suggests that I''m on the right - if unpopular - track.

Unfortunately it appears that we''re watching Hucks'' swansong.

Let''s hope he can go out with class and a vintage flourish as only he can.

OTBC

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I pretty much agree with that Bly but we are very limited in attacking options at present and a motivated Huckerby is a big asset in this league. Roeder seems to think so too as his recent comments about making more use of Huckerbys threat indicate. I can''t see him starting on the bench at home as we need to win those games and that means maximising our goalscoring threat. Also Roeders outlook looks much more adventurous than previous managers and I think that means he will decide to play Hucks. 

For me I''ve always prefered Huckerby wide left in a 4-3-3 formation but then you need a very strong midfield trio to provide cover like we had in the promotion year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I still think the best way to use Hucks is play him up front, let him drift wide left and give the midfield license to bomb into the box. Trouble is you need midfielders who are likely to score and we haven`t had that since Francis. Although to be fair i think Russell scored seven for Stoke last season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]I still think the best way to use Hucks is play him up front, let him drift wide left and give the midfield license to bomb into the box. Trouble is you need midfielders who are likely to score and we haven`t had that since Francis. Although to be fair i think Russell scored seven for Stoke last season.[/quote]

This began to happen at times towards the end of last season. Hucks and Martin up front looked good for a while and Hucks pulled the defence all over the place leaving huge gaps for the midfield to run into. Etuhu was begining to get into those spaces and he was a goal scorer in the Francis mould. Russell can do most of the things Dickson could but unfortunately he is not the same presence in the penalty area.

As much as I am tempted to agree that I would like to see Hux start up front tonight I really think Evans has done enough to start. I was so impressed with him when he came on at Blackpool and Stoke. But then again these games are coming thick and fast and we can''t expect DD to keep playing 90 without a rest so maybe Evans and Hux up top tonight?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

I see there''s 248 people who don''t disagree with my analysis enough to post.

Suggests that I''m on the right - if unpopular - track.

Unfortunately it appears that we''re watching Hucks'' swansong.

Let''s hope he can go out with class and a vintage flourish as only he can.

OTBC

[/quote]

.......or it could just be that we are all too bored with your blinkered one man anti-Huckerbyism.

Thing is we create very little in open play without Huckerby. A point you hilariously overlook in your analysis of Stoke is that we led at half-time through a Huckerby goal. So supposing that he hadn''t been on the pitch do you suppose our new super resilient 442 (with your extra defender) could have held out for a 0-0. I don''t, I don''t think you would get any takers on this board to agree with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="BigFish"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

I see there''s 248 people who don''t disagree with my analysis enough to post.

Suggests that I''m on the right - if unpopular - track.

Unfortunately it appears that we''re watching Hucks'' swansong.

Let''s hope he can go out with class and a vintage flourish as only he can.

OTBC

[/quote]

.......or it could just be that we are all too bored with your blinkered one man anti-Huckerbyism.

Thing is we create very little in open play without Huckerby. A point you hilariously overlook in your analysis of Stoke is that we led at half-time through a Huckerby goal. So supposing that he hadn''t been on the pitch do you suppose our new super resilient 442 (with your extra defender) could have held out for a 0-0. I don''t, I don''t think you would get any takers on this board to agree with you.

[/quote]

BigFish.

The one (repeat one) who is blinkered is yourself.

442 is more aggressive than 451

I have nothing against Huckerby - he has his spectacular strengths and likewise his significant weaknesses.

I am merely interested in how he can be best used in the interests of the team.

More and more people are coming around to my point of view - that players like Earnshaw and Huckerby who Don''t Do Defence (DDD) are best use as impact players in this day and age. One simply can''t build teams around their flawed brilliance.

In modern football, teams who don''t defend as a team and attack as a team are not the one''s that succeed.

I don''t expect many people on this board to actively agree with me because of the emotion surrounding Hucks. But on the other hand those who formerly railed against this point of view are now more circumspect about the the matter - and many quietly agree.

One love.

OTBC

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree to a large extent.  For me Hucks is not and has never been great in a midfield 4 - great player that he is, his tracking back/defending leaves a lot to be desired if we are to consider him ''effective'' as a midfielder.  For me, a formation with him in is more like a 4312 at best: this is fine when we are playing at home and/or playing well, but when we are playing poorly or away from home it is too open.

That is not to ''blame'' Hucks in any way - for me he is a striker playing on the wing, as opposed to someone like Pattison or Croft who are midfielders playing there - you can easily see the difference that although these are ostensibly the same thing, they are being come from at totally different viewpoints: you get more defending/team play from a Croft/Pattison but that doesn''t mean that they are ''better''.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its a view I have long held that Hux is best in the opponents half playing as a striker.   To be fair last night he did make 3/4 tackles that put some of russells half hearted efforts to shame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I think the biggest problem with playing Hux in the team is the attitude of the other players.  Too often the ball is played to him with no thought in the hope he will produce something.  It''s almost like school football when everyone passes to the best player no matter what.  You have seen in the last two games that Pattison has had less of the ball since Hux is in there.  That''s not Hux fault though and too many players past and present have been guilty of "leaving it to Hux" rather than take some attacking responsibility themselves.

Agree I would play him up front though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"][quote user="BigFish"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

I see there''s 248 people who don''t disagree with my analysis enough to post.

Suggests that I''m on the right - if unpopular - track.

Unfortunately it appears that we''re watching Hucks'' swansong.

Let''s hope he can go out with class and a vintage flourish as only he can.

OTBC

[/quote]

.......or it could just be that we are all too bored with your blinkered one man anti-Huckerbyism.

Thing is we create very little in open play without Huckerby. A point you hilariously overlook in your analysis of Stoke is that we led at half-time through a Huckerby goal. So supposing that he hadn''t been on the pitch do you suppose our new super resilient 442 (with your extra defender) could have held out for a 0-0. I don''t, I don''t think you would get any takers on this board to agree with you.

[/quote]

BigFish.

The one (repeat one) who is blinkered is yourself.

442 is more aggressive than 451

I have nothing against Huckerby - he has his spectacular strengths and likewise his significant weaknesses.

I am merely interested in how he can be best used in the interests of the team.

More and more people are coming around to my point of view - that players like Earnshaw and Huckerby who Don''t Do Defence (DDD) are best use as impact players in this day and age. One simply can''t build teams around their flawed brilliance.

In modern football, teams who don''t defend as a team and attack as a team are not the one''s that succeed.

I don''t expect many people on this board to actively agree with me because of the emotion surrounding Hucks. But on the other hand those who formerly railed against this point of view are now more circumspect about the the matter - and many quietly agree.

One love.

OTBC

[/quote]

Firstly, 442 is nor inherently more agressive 451 as it largely depends on the players untilised. An NCFC team that could play the old Holland style total football would be great but there is probably not a single player in the current team with the ability, discipline or footballing intelligence to make this work. That leaves us playing to the squads strengths - one of which is Huckerby''s ability to give us something different. The problem is not that we don''t enough that DDD but we have too many that DDA (don''t do attack).

And for all of those proposing the impact player compromise when do you want the impact - at the start (Stoke) or end (Plymouth)? lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="BigFish"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"][quote user="BigFish"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

I see there''s 248 people who don''t disagree with my analysis enough to post.

Suggests that I''m on the right - if unpopular - track.

Unfortunately it appears that we''re watching Hucks'' swansong.

Let''s hope he can go out with class and a vintage flourish as only he can.

OTBC

[/quote]

.......or it could just be that we are all too bored with your blinkered one man anti-Huckerbyism.

Thing is we create very little in open play without Huckerby. A point you hilariously overlook in your analysis of Stoke is that we led at half-time through a Huckerby goal. So supposing that he hadn''t been on the pitch do you suppose our new super resilient 442 (with your extra defender) could have held out for a 0-0. I don''t, I don''t think you would get any takers on this board to agree with you.

[/quote]

BigFish.

The one (repeat one) who is blinkered is yourself.

442 is more aggressive than 451

I have nothing against Huckerby - he has his spectacular strengths and likewise his significant weaknesses.

I am merely interested in how he can be best used in the interests of the team.

More and more people are coming around to my point of view - that players like Earnshaw and Huckerby who Don''t Do Defence (DDD) are best use as impact players in this day and age. One simply can''t build teams around their flawed brilliance.

In modern football, teams who don''t defend as a team and attack as a team are not the one''s that succeed.

I don''t expect many people on this board to actively agree with me because of the emotion surrounding Hucks. But on the other hand those who formerly railed against this point of view are now more circumspect about the the matter - and many quietly agree.

One love.

OTBC

[/quote]

Firstly, 442 is nor inherently more agressive 451 as it largely depends on the players untilised. An NCFC team that could play the old Holland style total football would be great but there is probably not a single player in the current team with the ability, discipline or footballing intelligence to make this work. That leaves us playing to the squads strengths - one of which is Huckerby''s ability to give us something different. The problem is not that we don''t enough that DDD but we have too many that DDA (don''t do attack).

And for all of those proposing the impact player compromise when do you want the impact - at the start (Stoke) or end (Plymouth)? lol

[/quote]

It is what happened after (Stoke) and before (Plymouth) that is of overarching importance. What happened from start to finish (Coventry) was far more impressive. Biggest LOL.

I am not promoting Dutch style total football for City at all. If you think that this is the case, then I suggest you revisit my earlier posts - or accept that you don''t really know what you''re talking about.

OTBC

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What happened that you are so excited about that happened between full-time at Stoke and kick-off at CR against Plymouth [:)][:D][:O][:P]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="BigFish"]What happened that you are so excited about that happened between full-time at Stoke and kick-off at CR against Plymouth [:)][:D][:O][:P][/quote]

Ho Ho Ho

 

Happy Xmas.

OTBC

 

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...