Tactics

[First Wazzock 902]

In simple terms I think we play 4-4-1-1

Yeasterday on ''Canary call'', ''Haloooo Neeil, described it as 4-1-3-1-1

This is surely far far too negative, with just one man as an out and out striker. What good is pumping high ball after high ball into the box, when we have one man upfront, he is 4 feet 2 tall, and more often than not he was playing so deep to get a touch of the ball and to help our overrun midfield.

If I look at how Neil Adams described the formation, it puts Clingan just in front of the back four (so out of the main midfield area) we then have three midfielders, two of whom are wingers (therefore not in the main midfield area). With Hoolihan playing behind Lita that leaves ONE player in the main area of midfield. OK so Clingan can come forward which leaves the frail defence exposed, or Hoolihan can come back which isolates Lita even further.

Sorry Glenn but your tactics are rubbish, with one (or should that be a half) up front we aint gonna score, especially with the service he is getting. The midfield is overrun at times, and the defending is woeful.

You came up against a team who WANTED to win yesterday, whereas we couldn''t be bothered. NO fight NO passion NO pride.

I see Glenn said in an article something like ''there are brighter times ahead''. Well I''ve got news for you, if yesterday was an indication of what we can expect for the rest of the season, we are going down.

[Ivana_rubyatitz 6]

Surely when playing a managerless team, rooted in the bottom 3 all season and with a defence that leaks like a rusty bucket it is tactically daft to go with a lone striker at home.  FFS it is not hard to work that one out.  Roeder''s tactics manual appears to be written on the back of a postage stamp.

[ZLF 271]

[quote user="1st Wazzock"]

You came up against a team who WANTED to win yesterday, whereas we couldn''t be bothered. NO fight NO passion NO pride.

[/quote]

It as not the tactics yesterday that lost the game for us;  it was the uncommitted players.   No formation, whether 4-4-2 or not, works when the players cant be bothered.   

[Dions Lightsaber 0]

But why didnt they want to play? Why so uncommitted? I dont defend their actions or lack of them but we need to understand the context.

If a team in any walk of life is underperforming there are reasons for that and understanding them leads to a solution.  It is a manager''s job to do something about it and Roeder appears incapable of doing that.

This is his team that he built to remedy the ''Costa Colney'' culture that prevailed under Grant yet still we say ''Its the players, they dont have passion''...

Apply the rules of your own workplace to the situation, if external factors p1ss a group of employees off then they wont work effectively - footballers are the same.

[ZLF 271]

totally with you Dions lightsaber;  its the managers job to get the players motivated and understanding the way he wants football playing and he is failing miserably on both counts  - and that means that whatever formation is sent out will fail. 

[First Wazzock 902]

I agree with you both Dion and Zipper, which begs the question, has Glenn lost the changing room ?

[Lincs CR 0]

I think as soon as we got Sibi on we took control of the play, it was just far too much committing players forward that resulting in Earnshaws killer strike. Sibi was winning flick ons, Lita was winning in the air and Hoolahan took defenders out of the game... why on earth we don''t play it more often I have no idea.