The Diamond - It's got problems.

[Canary 0]

The diamond is working, and working well. But we have got no width with it. Lappin and smith (as against swindon) Are not wide players. They''re defensive players. I mean sure we get balls into the box but the diamond is a formation that suits Hoolahan, but not the rest of the midfield.

If we played a 4 4 2 formation then when going forward we would have two wingers and two strikers, but with the diamond, we tend to only have two strikers and Hoolahan.

I like the diamond, but i think we should try it with different players that can defend, but also attack down the flanks.

[DDD In The Fine City 1]

[quote user="Aza K1CK 1T 0FF"]

The diamond is working, and working well. But we have got no width with it. Lappin and smith (as against swindon) Are not wide players. They''re defensive players. I mean sure we get balls into the box but the diamond is a formation that suits Hoolahan, but not the rest of the midfield.

If we played a 4 4 2 formation then when going forward we would have two wingers and two strikers, but with the diamond, we tend to only have two strikers and Hoolahan.

I like the diamond, but i think we should try it with different players that can defend, but also attack down the flanks.

[/quote]

And leave us open to the counter attack? The diamond as you call it is working so why change it?

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

Aza (K1CK 1T 0FF)

The diamond is working, and working well. But we have got no width with it. Lappin and smith (as against swindon) Are not wide players. They''re defensive players. I mean sure we get balls into the box but the diamond is a formation that suits Hoolahan, but not the rest of the midfield.

If we played a 4 4 2 formation then when going forward we would have two wingers and two strikers, but with the diamond, we tend to only have two strikers and Hoolahan.

I like the diamond, but i think we should try it with different players that can defend, but also attack down the flanks.

----------------------------------

Tangy! Replied:

We had Drury and Francomb overlapping on Saturday and thus providing the width.

 

[Canary 0]

Its a good point, but i just think wide players would make Norwich a much better team, take the team when we had Huckerby and Croft. We got Promoted! There is always going to be a draw back with any formations. But i think the positives are better than the negatives.

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

Aza (K1CK 1T 0FF)

Its a good point, but i just think wide players would make Norwich a much better team, take the team when we had Huckerby and Croft. We got Promoted! There is always going to be a draw back with any formations. But i think the positives are better than the negatives.

--------------------

Tangy! Replied:

Croft wasn''t in our squad when we got promoted to The Premiership!

[Joanna Grey 0]

[quote user="Aza "]

The diamond is working, and working well. But we have got no width with it. Lappin and smith (as against swindon) Are not wide players. They''re defensive players. I mean sure we get balls into the box but the diamond is a formation that suits Hoolahan, but not the rest of the midfield.

If we played a 4 4 2 formation then when going forward we would have two wingers and two strikers, but with the diamond, we tend to only have two strikers and Hoolahan.

I like the diamond, but i think we should try it with different players that can defend, but also attack down the flanks.

[/quote]

It would be great if we had four midfielders who were all fast, accurate passing, tough tackling and versatile but we are in League 1 not the Premiership. The system works well, a lot better than 4-4-2.

[Canary_on_the Trent 0]

If you played the diamond with wide players it simply wouldn''t work, as good as Russell has been playing lately i wouldn''t fancy his chances of doing 2/3 players work

[Canary 0]

My bad - so who did we have on the right hand side then?

[Yobocop 1,096]

We didn''t as Lappin covered the left Smith and Russell in the middle and the right back bombing forward (Francomb in the 1st half and Smith in the 2nd)

 

[Mook 0]

[quote user="Aza K1CK 1T 0FF"]

My bad - so who did we have on the right hand side then?

[/quote]We didn''t really have anyone on the right side. We played a 4-3-3 with Huckerby, McKenzie and Svensson up front with a midfield of Holt, Francis and one of Kevin Cooper, Paul McVeigh or Kevin Harper.The diamond, like any formation, has inherent advantages and weaknesses. If we strengthen the flanks we lose our midfield domination, thus losing possession. Chelsea are playing the diamond at the moment aren''t they? It involves the fullbacks really working the flanks alone and the holding midfielder dropping in to make up defensive numbers.It''s not a secure formation (like the 4-5-1 / 4-3-3 that every other team is now playing), but when it works it works well.

[Cowley 0]

didn''t leeds match our diamond formation because it was so effective?

[king canary 7,580]

For me the reason we play the diamond is because we dont have players to provide the width. Its not just for Hoolahan.

[Longy 1]

It is the best system for the players we have and has been pretty succesful imo since Lambert introduced it. What more do you want at league 1 level than winning and actually quite decent passing football?

[Yellowbeagle 0]

We didnt play with that much width when we got promoted to the premier league either. I dont know why people worry about it, of course it''s exciting to see out and out wingers running at players and crossing the ball, but there doesnt really seem to be to many of those about and especially going on the cheap. It''d be nice to know we had the option to change tactically but i actually like seeing Holt, Martin and Hoolahan working together. It also means we dont have to worry about Lappins lack of pace and he can still take free kicks and corners which imo are the best deliveries in the club.

[king canary 7,580]

[quote user="Yellowbeagle"]We didnt play with that much width when we got promoted to the premier league either. I dont know why people worry about it, of course it''s exciting to see out and out wingers running at players and crossing the ball, but there doesnt really seem to be to many of those about and especially going on the cheap. It''d be nice to know we had the option to change tactically but i actually like seeing Holt, Martin and Hoolahan working together. It also means we dont have to worry about Lappins lack of pace and he can still take free kicks and corners which imo are the best deliveries in the club.[/quote]If we sign someone with a bit of pace down the wing then I think it gives us that extra dimension if clubs shut down the front trio, even if they come off the bench.

[Yellow Hotrod 0]

I believe Paul Lambert gave an interview last week (I forget where) in which he said the current playing style best suited the players we have at the moment. He''s right of course. It suits Hoolahan down to the ground and allows us to play 2 strikers in front of him. We have the midfielders at the mo who are playing well enough (Russell and Smith) to allow The Hoop and 2 strikers to play with attacking freedom. I think Drury has been getting forward more recently so I imagine PL is relying on him plus whoever happens to be selected for right back to attack and provide width and crosses.Its done us proud so far, but it would be useful to have another formation to use, especially if teams get good at marking out The Hooligan. Lambert has also commented on the lack of pace in the side so I think its a pretty safe bet he''s looking for some such pacey wingers. Happy hunting Lambo

[ca 1]

[quote user="Yellow Hotrod"]. Lambert has also commented on the lack of pace in the side so I think its a pretty safe bet he''s looking for some such pacey wingers. Happy hunting Lambo [/quote]

He may have to wait for the January sales.

 

[Dave Backham 0]

We don''t need a winger with pace if they then can''t provide a decent cross otherwise we''re no better than last year. Croft had pace but no delivery. Getting pace and delivery is going to be beyond our meagre budget I think.

I think it''s more realistic for us to seek improvement in our set pieces as for far too long we''ve lacked any creativity and success from a key component of the game - one where the best teams deliver and that gives the ability to turn a close-fought game into a win, and will allow us to beat teams that park the bus in front of goal for 90 minutes. I''d have us practising those for 2-days a week until we know what to do in a set-play situation. With Lappin, Martin and Hoolahan we''ve got options to pass, cross or shoot so let''s coach our players in how to convert more of those opportunities into goals.

Instead of getting a player - can we get a set-play coach? Or is that what Crook is here for?

Dave.

[Robert N. LiM 4,243]

[quote user="Yellow Hotrod"]I believe Paul Lambert gave an interview last week (I forget where) in which he said the current playing style best suited the players we have at the moment. He''s right of course. It suits Hoolahan down to the ground and allows us to play 2 strikers in front of him. We have the midfielders at the mo who are playing well enough (Russell and Smith) to allow The Hoop and 2 strikers to play with attacking freedom. I think Drury has been getting forward more recently so I imagine PL is relying on him plus whoever happens to be selected for right back to attack and provide width and crosses.

Its done us proud so far, but it would be useful to have another formation to use, especially if teams get good at marking out The Hooligan. Lambert has also commented on the lack of pace in the side so I think its a pretty safe bet he''s looking for some such pacey wingers. Happy hunting Lambo [/quote]

 

Exactly. What Lambert has done is tried the revolutionary football-management tactic of designing a formation to suit the players you have at your disposal. It sounds simple but it was beyond Grant, Roeder and Gunn and that''s why we''re in league one. Now, for the first time in ages, we have 11 round pegs in 11 round holes.

Apart from the appalling Whaley, we don''t have an out and out winger at the club at the moment, so it makes sense to tuck in your wide midfield players, create a really solid, if narrow, midfield, and give our best player, Hoolahan, the opportunity to do what he does best, roam all over the pitch, pulling defenders out of position and creating space for Martin and Holt. It would be great if we had the option of going straight 442 with one pacy winger and one reliable wide player (which over the years has been the hallmark of most decent Norwich sides - think Gordon/Putney, Fox/Phillips, Eadie/Adams) but at the moment we simply don''t have the players to make that an option.

It makes it more important to get the fullbacks forward to give us that width. It''s not Drury''s natural game but he has been getting forward more in recent games. Given Semmy''s defensive incompetence, goving forward is the only reason for him to be in the team at all. Spillane did it pretty well when he played at right back.

Given the shocking squad he inherited, it is hugely to Lambert''s credit that he''s found a formation that works. And fair play to the players, who''ve made it work, particularly Russell, who''s done an excellent job in the unglamorous and thankless position just in front of the defence. And it''s difficult to find enough praise for Korey Smith, who has done a job wherever he''s been put. No wonder Lambert practically snogged him in public when he was substituted on Saturday. 

[Harleston Canary 0]

I was watching the game Saturday and me and my mate said the same thing.

The problem, as mentioned by others is that it is the best formation for the players we have.

The thing that worries me, as illustrated by the Leeds and Swindon game, is that we dominate possession for long periods with no cutting edge - the benefits of the system become its weakness.

At the risk of being shot down - what has Wes done for us recently? Yes, he gets lots of the ball, yes he ''looks dangerous'', but all our recent goals have come from full-backs breaking forwards or early balls into the box from wide positions.

What really concerns me is that we are left exposed defensively in wide positions - fortunately something Swindon could not exploit.

Maybe it''s the best of a bad job, and maybe it''s good enough to deal with the best that League 1 has to offer..?

[Shyster 0]

[quote]

The diamond is working, and working well. But we have got no width with it. Lappin and smith (as against swindon) Are not wide players. They''re defensive players. I mean sure we get balls into the box but the diamond is a formation that suits Hoolahan, but not the rest of the midfield.

If we played a 4 4 2 formation then when going forward we would have two wingers and two strikers, but with the diamond, we tend to only have two strikers and Hoolahan.

I like the diamond, but i think we should try it with different players that can defend, but also attack down the flanks.

[/quote]

I''ve been repeating the fact that we need pacey wide men who can cross a ball for what seems like an eternity.Because the system we''re currently playing will be found out, especially in the second half of the season.Of course there are those who reckon wingers are yesteryear''s news.Those people are fu*k-witted when it comes to the game of football - He speaks a good game and is at least in my estimation three-quarters intelligent, but Shack Attack springs to mind.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

Who would be up for losing Wesley if it meant bringing in a couple of pacey wide men for the same money?

I am a huge Hoolahan fan but I don''t see this system working so well during the winter months. But as others have said we don''t have the players for 442.

For me Hoolahan could play in a 442 but only as Holts partner. I''d hate to lose Wes because I enjoy watching him play but I do see Shysters point about wingers and it maybe a case of needs must.

 

[Duncan Edwards 0]

Hmmm

I too would like Hoolahan to stay, he is a very good player at this level. I think you may be right Nutty that winter pitches could cause us problems as it would be folly to try and keep the ball on the floor on poorer pitches than the excellent playing surface we provide. Quick, incisive, one touch football is not going to happen. It could still work, maybe, if we went 4-4-1-1, the problem then is that as previously mentioned, where is the pace?

I agree that Lappin, generally, has good delivery but he is slow. McVeigh too, clearly a guy who can play the game  but where he fits in is anyones guess, we could do with an Eadie(how is his knee?)...I don''t know, I really don''t, but I think Hoolahan could be massive for us this season and I''d be very disappointed to see him disappear in January.

[Shack Attack 0]

[quote user="Shyster"]Of course there are those who reckon wingers are yesteryear''s news. Those people are fu*k-witted when it comes to the game of football - He speaks a good game and is at least in my estimation three-quarters intelligent, but Shack Attack springs to mind.[/quote]Three-quarters intelligent hey, I''ll take that as a compliment old pal [;)]My statement that out and out wingers are largely redundant in the modern game may be a bit of a generalisation but there is definitely a trend that proves my point. If you look at the top level of football more and more teams are playing with only one recognised striker with the most popular formations in the last couple of years being either 4-5-1/4-3-3 or 4-2-3-1. Now neither of those formations have out and out wingers and instead rely on the width being provided by what you might describe as ''wide attackers'' in the 4-5-1/4-3-3 or by the full-backs in a 4-2-3-1. Occasionally the latter formation will have one winger (think Walcott or Lennon in Capello''s England team) but nore often than not none of the attacking players have a brief which states they have to remain in a wide area.If you look at The Premiership these days you will see very few out and out wingers. At a push teams will play with one (such as Lennon or SWP) but even then they don''t seem to be of the old ''chalk your boots'' variety, often coming inside and linking up with the striker rather than staying wide and getting in crosses.Now you may look at my points above and say ''Hang on a minute Shack you f*ck-witted, know nothing ringpiece we''re not playing in The Premiership. How many teams play with wingers in League One?'' To which my response would be.......erm probably all of them except us but I''m not really sure to be honest [:$]. But maybe we''re ahead of the curve on this. The system that Lambert is employing at present is enabling us to enjoy large periods of possession against even the better sides in this division and if we can take advantage of that then we''ll beat most teams. The games against Bristol Rovers and Leeds illustrated this fairly well as we kept the ball very well for large periods of both games. The difference of course was that against Rovers we turned that possession into goals but against Leeds we missed two of our big chances in the first half (through Russell and Hoolahan) and ultimately payed the price. Now some people will have you believe that the Leeds game was evidence that the increased possession that this system allows us counts for nothing but this is rubbish. All it really shows is that if you don''t take your chances against the top teams when you get them you''ll be made to pay later on.The other point that both yourself and Nutty have made is that we will be found out in the Winter months trying to play football as the pitches will be so bad. But I''m unconvinced that the pitches will be quite so bad as you''re making out. We may get turned over a couple of times on an absolute swamp but changing our tactics to avoid that strikes me as throwing the baby out with the bath water.

[Yelloow Since 72 54]

Well said ShackAttack. People tend to remember the best moments of the 4-4-2, but too often the wingers fling crosses in on to the head of opposition defenders and concede possession. Too often the 4-4-2 meant the opposition carving through the City defence to score too easy goals.

The Leeds match was a disaster at the end, but the way City dominated the match was hugely encouraging. The fact that Leeds got lucky doesn''t take away from that. I am concerned about the lack of goals lately, but it doesn''t seem to be a tactical problem. City had 11 shots on the Swindon goal, but only one of those was on target. Changing the tactics wouldn''t change that. I would like to see Lambert making changes earlier in the second half if that happens again. Bring on pace when defenders are tiring. Otherwise, things are going very well, IMO.

[ron obvious 1,501]

Excellent post, Shack Attack

[supercol 0]

At the risk of being shot down - what has Wes done for us recently?

Err.. scored the winner at Carlisle ?

[Mr_Chimp 0]

''Its working, and working well, but I''m going to complain regardless.''Jesus.

[Lambo 0]

To the fella that asked what Hoolahan has done recently...

Ask Charlton, Leyton Orient, Bristol Rovers, Carlisle and to a lesser extent Gillingham fans what Wes has done.

I go on our opponents messageboards before we play them as I find it interesting to see how they view us and which of our players they fear, every single one has said Hoolahan.

That little bag of Irish magic is vital to us getting out of this league IMO and I can''t think of a player i''d rather see in our side who would give us a similar creative threat.

Blackpool and Simon Grayson didn''t find him a hindrance during the winter months at this level, why should we??

[Shyster 0]

[quote user="ron obvious"]Excellent post, Shack Attack

[/quote]

Yes, well reasoned and credible opinions as ever from Shack there, but I think you''ll find that Nigel and I are pretty much on the money in regards as to what may happen in the second half of the season if pace is not injected into the squad come January and thereafter. Nigel raises the question as to the possibility of having to garner finances for the funding of decent wide men via the sale of Hoolahan: Obviously I''d prefer we kept the latter to revert formations and change games, but if keeping him means going into the second half of the season with the same, current shape with few alternatives, then no, he should go to the highest bidder.