Cracked Diamond

[city4eva 207]

[quote user="Shyster"][quote user="ZippersLeftFoot"]

I have not seen any evidence of the diamond (or 433) being flawed.

However I do think that we need some options - the cover beyond the starting 11 is not looking good enough from a creative view point,  lose any of the three forwards and we lose our potency and we have seen performances drop when russell and smith aare not present;  I suspect it would be the same with lappin who gives us the perfect balance we need for a 3 man midfield to work.

The biggest gap is right so hopefully we can gain a wide right man (pace optional - we have not had it so far and stormed up the table looking a match for every team in the league) and a target man then we can go 442 if needed 

 

[/quote]


Thank goodness for posters such as ZippersLeftFoot.

I was beginning to feel as though I was stranded on a desert island.
[/quote]

 

that wouldnt be good would it? You wouldnt have any body to disagree with!!!

[Canary_on_the Trent 0]

1 bad performance at Carlisle and the diamond has been sussed out? Maybe the players just had an off day?I don''t see why we should change it at the moment but it''s great having options on the bench like Mcnamee, to change the game if needed.

[Trent Canary 0]

From what I have seen this season, the three main things we need to sort out are firstly a plan B for when all goes wrong. Secondly a formation without Holt (Lets say he gets injured) and finally a formation without Hoolahan (Likewise)The current formation has got us where we are, and we must be one of the top scoring teams in England, and although I see no reason to change it right now we definitely need alternatives. Presumably if Hoolahan gets injured we would play a straight 4-4-2, with McNamee on the left, and ? on the right. If Holt gets injured then frankly I think we are in trouble. Lamberts said all along he wants to bring in more players, and lets not forget this will be his first transfer window with us, I think by the end of January we should have a good idea of where he wants to take us.

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

[quote user="blahblahblah"]Why can''t Holt keep tracking back ?  Surely that is just the way he plays.  If he gets a game off every 10 or 15, as he seems to for 5 yellow cards, barring injuries he should stay fit.That said I am all for having a plan B, and so is Lambert if his signing of McNamee is anything to go by.  Hoolahan should start if he is able to, so I''d stick with the diamond unless we get stuck in games and need a change around 60 minutes.    What worries me is the possible sale of Hoolahan in January.  As you say he is our main creative outlet.Most teams in this league can''t cope with our fitness levels it seems - or is it just me that thinks we win a lot of matches in the last half an hour ?[/quote]

This would surely imply a good pre-season under Team Gunn.

Now come on, we can''t be having that can we...........

You mean they brought in Holt, Hughes and Askou; refused too sell Russell, Hoolihan and Doherty AND got the buggers fitter than the rest...........

Dear oh dear. Whatever next.

OTBC

OTBC

[/quote]Or it could be that the core of our first 11 are used to championship fitness levels, I believe Russell mentioned that the squad are training harder than previously now aswell...

[Gingerpele 0]

There are other options, especially with the new loan singing, Whaley could be recalled, Lappin or Hoolahan can both play on the left, Daley and Dawkins also, will give us width if we need it......

We are wining atm, and playing well, it doesn''t need to be changed or worried about unit ll we lose 2/3 games on the trot (and i''m sure Lambert knows this himself, and probably has a reserve formation...... i very much doubt any wining manager has only one plan.....)

[Shyster 0]

Shack - [quote]Hardly any teams play with two out and out wingers these days with most

preferring one winger with the other wide midfielder ''tucked in''.[/quote]

Precisely, Shack.Do you think if we broke the mold it might just prove successful?I personally think it would.

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote user="Shyster"]Shack - [quote]Hardly any teams play with two out and out wingers these days with most

preferring one winger with the other wide midfielder ''tucked in''.[/quote]

Precisely, Shack.Do you think if we broke the mold it might just prove successful?I personally think it would.[/quote]I think it would leave us without defensive cover - do we have 2 Russells ?

[Beauseant 0]

[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

[quote user="blahblahblah"]Why can''t Holt keep tracking back ?  Surely that is just the way he plays.  If he gets a game off every 10 or 15, as he seems to for 5 yellow cards, barring injuries he should stay fit.

That said I am all for having a plan B, and so is Lambert if his signing of McNamee is anything to go by.  Hoolahan should start if he is able to, so I''d stick with the diamond unless we get stuck in games and need a change around 60 minutes.    What worries me is the possible sale of Hoolahan in January.  As you say he is our main creative outlet.

Most teams in this league can''t cope with our fitness levels it seems - or is it just me that thinks we win a lot of matches in the last half an hour ?
[/quote]

This would surely imply a good pre-season under Team Gunn.

Now come on, we can''t be having that can we...........

You mean they brought in Holt, Hughes and Askou; refused too sell Russell, Hoolihan and Doherty AND got the buggers fitter than the rest...........

Dear oh dear. Whatever next.

OTBC

OTBC

[/quote]

 

So do you think we looked superfit in the early part of the season? As fit as we do now?

It''s amazing how much insight you can glean from a news ticker.

Although of course, you''ve seen one game on TV.

Dear oh dear

Incisive debate or nasty minded mischief making?

Your slip''s showing again Bly.............................and the world and his wife are watching.

[Shyster 0]

[quote user="Gingerpele"]There are other options, especially with the new loan singing, Whaley could be recalled, Lappin or Hoolahan can both play on the left, Daley and Dawkins also, will give us width if we need it......

We are wining atm, and playing well, it doesn''t need to be changed or worried about unit ll we lose 2/3 games on the trot (and i''m sure Lambert knows this himself, and probably has a reserve formation...... i very much doubt any wining manager has only one plan.....)[/quote]

What are you talking about? Lose three matches on the bounce, dropping nine points and out of the play-off zone?Yeah, that''ll do nicely. [:P]

Beam Gingerpele up, Scottie.

[Shyster 0]

[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote user="Shyster"]Shack - [quote]Hardly any teams play with two out and out wingers these days with most

preferring one winger with the other wide midfielder ''tucked in''.[/quote]

Precisely, Shack.Do you think if we broke the mold it might just prove successful?I personally think it would.[/quote]I think it would leave us without defensive cover - do we have 2 Russells ?[/quote]

Please elaborate, blah, because I''m not sure what point you''re trying to make here. Bearing in mind that we''re talking about playing a 4-4-2 with flat back four, two out & out wingers and a DM and foraging MC.

[Canary_on_the Trent 0]

[quote user="Shyster"][quote user="blahblahblah"][quote user="Shyster"]Shack - [quote]Hardly any teams play with two out and out wingers these days with most

preferring one winger with the other wide midfielder ''tucked in''.[/quote]

Precisely, Shack.Do you think if we broke the mold it might just prove successful?I personally think it would.[/quote]I think it would leave us without defensive cover - do we have 2 Russells ?[/quote]

Please elaborate, blah, because I''m not sure what point you''re trying to make here. Bearing in mind that we''re talking about playing a 4-4-2 with flat back four, two out & out wingers and a DM and foraging MC.[/quote]If you''re playing with 2 out and out wingers you''re going to need 2 central midfielders who are going to sit otherwise you''re going to be overun

[Shyster 0]

[quote user="Canary_on_the Trent"][quote user="Shyster"][quote user="blahblahblah"][quote user="Shyster"]Shack - [quote]Hardly any teams play with two out and out wingers these days with most

preferring one winger with the other wide midfielder ''tucked in''.[/quote]

Precisely, Shack.Do you think if we broke the mold it might just prove successful?I personally think it would.[/quote]I think it would leave us without defensive cover - do we have 2 Russells ?[/quote]

Please elaborate, blah, because I''m not sure what point you''re trying to make here. Bearing in mind that we''re talking about playing a 4-4-2 with flat back four, two out & out wingers and a DM and foraging MC.[/quote]If you''re playing with 2 out and out wingers you''re going to need 2 central midfielders who are going to sit otherwise you''re going to be overun[/quote]

Wrong - if a DM is a good ''un you only need the one. The other chap in central midfield should be a forager.

[Canary_on_the Trent 0]

[quote user="Shyster"][quote user="Canary_on_the Trent"][quote user="Shyster"][quote user="blahblahblah"][quote user="Shyster"]Shack - [quote]Hardly any teams play with two out and out wingers these days with most

preferring one winger with the other wide midfielder ''tucked in''.[/quote]

Precisely, Shack.Do you think if we broke the mold it might just prove successful?I personally think it would.[/quote]I think it would leave us without defensive cover - do we have 2 Russells ?[/quote]

Please elaborate, blah, because I''m not sure what point you''re trying to make here. Bearing in mind that we''re talking about playing a 4-4-2 with flat back four, two out & out wingers and a DM and foraging MC.[/quote]If you''re playing with 2 out and out wingers you''re going to need 2 central midfielders who are going to sit otherwise you''re going to be overun[/quote]

Wrong - if a DM is a good ''un you only need the one. The other chap in central midfield should be a forager.[/quote]I''d go further than good, he''d have to be exceptional, the game has moved on a lot over the past decade or so in regards to pace and fitness. Also many sides will come up against us with a 5 man midfield, of course you need width to break them down but if you go in with just 1 midfielder prepared to drop back and protect the back 4 you''re going to be in trouble.

[Canary_on_the Trent 0]

Don''t get me wrong shyster i think a system with 2 and out and out wide men CAN work but I just feel you lose something in central midfield because neither can go forward confidently because they know they know they will have to get back very quickly in order to stop any opposition attacks. I just believe the best way to go if we''re to revert to 4-4-2 is with 1 out and out wide man (Mcnamee) and then somebody like Smith or Lappin on the other flank, this then allows (Hughes or Russell) to bomb on into the opposition box and join in attacks.

[Allez17 0]

[quote user="Shyster"][quote user="Canary_on_the Trent"][quote user="Shyster"][quote user="blahblahblah"][quote user="Shyster"]Shack - [quote]Hardly any teams play with two out and out wingers these days with most

preferring one winger with the other wide midfielder ''tucked in''.[/quote]

Precisely, Shack.Do you think if we broke the mold it might just prove successful?I personally think it would.[/quote]I think it would leave us without defensive cover - do we have 2 Russells ?[/quote]

Please elaborate, blah, because I''m not sure what point you''re trying to make here. Bearing in mind that we''re talking about playing a 4-4-2 with flat back four, two out & out wingers and a DM and foraging MC.[/quote]If you''re playing with 2 out and out wingers you''re going to need 2 central midfielders who are going to sit otherwise you''re going to be overun[/quote]

Wrong - if a DM is a good ''un you only need the one. The other chap in central midfield should be a forager.[/quote]Utter tosh, and said with such conviction I can only assume this tactic works wonderfully with FM. You throw both wingers forward then both CM''s will have to sit back or the defence is just exposed. One DM cannot handle a teams midfield and try to break down attacks before they reach the defence. This is why so many teams use one fast winger and one solid, because attacking with 2 strikers, 2 wingers and one ''foraging'' (read, central) midfielder is as gung ho as you can practically get. Aside from criticising others in this thread who don''t agree with you, saying they ''clearly can''t read the game'', it is you that is just full of it. The need for an option aside from the diamond is both obvious and addressed by the signing of AntMac. This idea that we should break the mould, and revert to a simplistic 4-4-2 with fast wingers is typical of the blind English disease that can''t quite comprehend any system that isnt symmetrical, rigid and 4-4-farking-2. This regressive style, lacking any type of innovation, is a fast route to kick and rush, long balls for pacey wingers to run on to or a target man to head down. What wins games is possession, and with 2 pacey wingers, you lose possession and bank on counter attacks and the the hope that your defence doesnt get overrun time and time again. While the diamond does need a backup, this idea that it must come from the tactic you suggested is ignorant at best.Aside from all of that, you didn''t so much extend the diamond metaphor in your first post as beat it like a red headed stepchild. Leave the creative writing to us who get paid for it, eh?I wish there was a facepalm icon on this.

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557]

With more and more teams going for 4-5-1 to revert to an old fashioned 4-4-2 would mean you get demolished in midfield on the break. The reason the 4-5-1 became so popular was it''s strength against the 4-4-2.

Playing 4-3-3 a la Man U last year and Mourniho''s Chelsea (even our promotion year) allows you to have two out and out wingers, but they play further up the pitch. This is offset with 3 central midfielders generally combative ones.

Also how did Carlise change their game to combat out diamond? What did they specifically do against it? If you can read the game please enlighten me, as I just saw a team going direct and winning the second ball more than us. It''s not like we aren''t already a little flexible, Lappin and Smith can act as wingers and do push out to the byline giving us width, also the additional cover provided by Russell in the centre allows the full backs to push forward and know they are covered by at least 1 player.

Finally, teams are already putting two men on Hoolihan which opens out space for Martin and Holt as well letting Smith and Lappin get forward. This is the point of putting Hoolihan in the "hole" to create space for other players.

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="Beauseant"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

[quote user="blahblahblah"]Why can''t Holt keep tracking back ?  Surely that is just the way he plays.  If he gets a game off every 10 or 15, as he seems to for 5 yellow cards, barring injuries he should stay fit.

That said I am all for having a plan B, and so is Lambert if his signing of McNamee is anything to go by.  Hoolahan should start if he is able to, so I''d stick with the diamond unless we get stuck in games and need a change around 60 minutes.    What worries me is the possible sale of Hoolahan in January.  As you say he is our main creative outlet.

Most teams in this league can''t cope with our fitness levels it seems - or is it just me that thinks we win a lot of matches in the last half an hour ?
[/quote]

This would surely imply a good pre-season under Team Gunn.

Now come on, we can''t be having that can we...........

You mean they brought in Holt, Hughes and Askou; refused too sell Russell, Hoolihan and Doherty AND got the buggers fitter than the rest...........

Dear oh dear. Whatever next.

OTBC

[/quote]

So do you think we looked superfit in the early part of the season? As fit as we do now?

It''s amazing how much insight you can glean from a news ticker.

Although of course, you''ve seen one game on TV.

Dear oh dear

Incisive debate or nasty minded mischief making?

Your slip''s showing again Bly.............................and the world and his wife are watching.

[/quote]

Okay since you boast of having been the manager of a professional outfit in the past, Ill give you a chance.

Blah cubed (not me) said that ''Most teams in this league can''t cope with our fitness levels it seems......''

Do you seriously think that City could be fitter than most at this stage without a good pre-season?

Or are you on the bandwagon to try to rubbish Bryan Gunn more than is necessary?

OTBC

OTBC

[Beauseant 0]

[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"][quote user="Beauseant"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

[quote user="blahblahblah"]Why can''t Holt keep tracking back ?  Surely that is just the way he plays.  If he gets a game off every 10 or 15, as he seems to for 5 yellow cards, barring injuries he should stay fit.

That said I am all for having a plan B, and so is Lambert if his signing of McNamee is anything to go by.  Hoolahan should start if he is able to, so I''d stick with the diamond unless we get stuck in games and need a change around 60 minutes.    What worries me is the possible sale of Hoolahan in January.  As you say he is our main creative outlet.

Most teams in this league can''t cope with our fitness levels it seems - or is it just me that thinks we win a lot of matches in the last half an hour ?
[/quote]

This would surely imply a good pre-season under Team Gunn.

Now come on, we can''t be having that can we...........

You mean they brought in Holt, Hughes and Askou; refused too sell Russell, Hoolihan and Doherty AND got the buggers fitter than the rest...........

Dear oh dear. Whatever next.

OTBC

[/quote]

So do you think we looked superfit in the early part of the season? As fit as we do now?

It''s amazing how much insight you can glean from a news ticker.

Although of course, you''ve seen one game on TV.

Dear oh dear

Incisive debate or nasty minded mischief making?

Your slip''s showing again Bly.............................and the world and his wife are watching.

[/quote]

Okay since you boast of having been the manager of a professional outfit in the past, Ill give you a chance.

Blah cubed (not me) said that ''Most teams in this league can''t cope with our fitness levels it seems......''

Do you seriously think that City could be fitter than most at this stage without a good pre-season?

Or are you on the bandwagon to try to rubbish Bryan Gunn more than is necessary?

OTBC

OTBC

[/quote]

Yes, because while pre season is important it''s not impossible to introduce new training and conditioning techniques after the season has started with fairly quick results. We are talking about professionals who train every day, not park players. It''s perfectly feasible to generate both higher stamina levels and improved sprinting ability within a training framework that still alllows plenty of ballwork to sharpen skills. In fact, it''s actually relatively easy to improve stamina WHILE doing ballwork as it''s much easier to encourage players to run hard after a ball than in between cones.

One of the reasons often quoted for the success of the great Liverpool sides of the 80s and 90s is that they played football most of the time in training rather than running incessantly. I don''t recall the likes of Peter Beardsley ever blowing out of their arse with 20 minutes left, do you? The other important factor is that if you make training stimulating and interesting you will get much more out of your players.

Sorry, but Gunn''s regime was a disaster, whatever you think of the manner of his sacking. If you speak to people with access you will find that the prevailing opinion is that pre season was way too lax.

[Gingerpele 0]

[quote user="Shyster"][quote user="Gingerpele"]There are other options, especially with the new loan singing, Whaley could be recalled, Lappin or Hoolahan can both play on the left, Daley and Dawkins also, will give us width if we need it...... We are wining atm, and playing well, it doesn''t need to be changed or worried about unit ll we lose 2/3 games on the trot (and i''m sure Lambert knows this himself, and probably has a reserve formation...... i very much doubt any wining manager has only one plan.....)[/quote]


What are you talking about? Lose three matches on the bounce, dropping nine points and out of the play-off zone?

Yeah, that''ll do nicely. [:P]


Beam Gingerpele up, Scottie.
[/quote]

 

The point is, we are not losing....and after a loss, we have kept the same formation, and won the next game..... its working absolutly fine at the moment.......

[Askouuu 0]

If teams have to change their own style of play to try and stop ours then so be it! It weakens them just as much.

[Shyster 0]

[quote user="Allez17"][quote user="Shyster"][quote user="Canary_on_the Trent"][quote user="Shyster"][quote user="blahblahblah"][quote user="Shyster"]Shack - [quote]Hardly any teams play with two out and out wingers these days with most

preferring one winger with the other wide midfielder ''tucked in''.[/quote]

Precisely, Shack.Do you think if we broke the mold it might just prove successful?I personally think it would.[/quote]I think it would leave us without defensive cover - do we have 2 Russells ?[/quote]

Please elaborate, blah, because I''m not sure what point you''re trying to make here. Bearing in mind that we''re talking about playing a 4-4-2 with flat back four, two out & out wingers and a DM and foraging MC.[/quote]If you''re playing with 2 out and out wingers you''re going to need 2 central midfielders who are going to sit otherwise you''re going to be overun[/quote]

Wrong - if a DM is a good ''un you only need the one. The other chap in central midfield should be a forager.[/quote]Utter tosh, and said with such conviction I can only assume this tactic works wonderfully with FM. You throw both wingers forward then both CM''s will have to sit back or the defence is just exposed. One DM cannot handle a teams midfield and try to break down attacks before they reach the defence. This is why so many teams use one fast winger and one solid, because attacking with 2 strikers, 2 wingers and one ''foraging'' (read, central) midfielder is as gung ho as you can practically get. Aside from criticising others in this thread who don''t agree with you, saying they ''clearly can''t read the game'', it is you that is just full of it. The need for an option aside from the diamond is both obvious and addressed by the signing of AntMac. This idea that we should break the mould, and revert to a simplistic 4-4-2 with fast wingers is typical of the blind English disease that can''t quite comprehend any system that isnt symmetrical, rigid and 4-4-farking-2. This regressive style, lacking any type of innovation, is a fast route to kick and rush, long balls for pacey wingers to run on to or a target man to head down. What wins games is possession, and with 2 pacey wingers, you lose possession and bank on counter attacks and the the hope that your defence doesnt get overrun time and time again. While the diamond does need a backup, this idea that it must come from the tactic you suggested is ignorant at best.Aside from all of that, you didn''t so much extend the diamond metaphor in your first post as beat it like a red headed stepchild. Leave the creative writing to us who get paid for it, eh?I wish there was a facepalm icon on this. [/quote]

Slow down, Shakespeare - Did you simply read parts of my initial post and skip the sensible intentions of its content in favour of a contemptuous attitude to yours truly? I would come to the conclusion that you did, because read the following passage from that said post:''It is my belief that both wings should be utilised with equal & even pace; not necessarily within the same games where the lone, swift winger may suffice, but we need those options and hopefully Hoolahan on the bench for reversion purposes to maintain the promotion charge.''So where does that state that I''m solely reliant on a 4-4-2 throughout the second half of the season or even for 90 minutes? It doesn''t. All I''ve suggested is that a 4-4-2 with pacey flankers, both left & right, should be options to fight the cause.Do you seriously get paid for writing? Your proofreader must be on a fortune.And your knowledge of the game is questionable, but I can''t be bothered to address that right now.

[shortfatb 0]

I think we should play Shyster up front and buy 2 cheap wide men as even sh*t wingers couldn''t miss a head as big as that.

[Barclay hero 0]

Hoolahan has struggled in the last couple of games - knocked off the ball easily or giving it away cheaply.  That said, he is still capable of some magic (his goal v Brighton, in between a couple of defenders, pop it home)

Both for and against arguments are valid - yes teams are starting to suss us and its useful to have a plan B - but the diamond has been pretty succesful so far.  Dont take too much notice of the Carlisle result - they are more than capable of getting good results (they had a better result than us at Elland Road) and are on a good run of form since we beat them.  There will be other defeats between now and the end of the season - but the more options we have the more we are likely to win

The encouraging thing is that Norwich are a strong side now - something we havent been for a lot of years - and its that strength along with some class that will see us through this season

[macdougalls perm 0]

[quote user="shortfatb"]I think we should play Shyster up front and buy 2 cheap wide men as even sh*t wingers couldn''t miss a head as big as that.
[/quote]

[:D][:D][:D]

[B-ru 0]

We do already have the capacity to change our formation with our starting eleven. Martin can play wing, as he did for Luton last season and Lappin push forward on the left into a wing role. Hoolahan sat behind Holt, and 2 of Korey, Hughes and Russell sitting in a more defensive role.

The only thing about this is that we dont have pace. McNamee on the bench can provide this though.

442 is a little harder to work, as I think you would have to push hoolahoop forward into a striking role, with Martin going to the right side of midfield. This is of course unless you want to take off hooli for McNamee and keep Martin up front...

There are plenty of options there and the front three are constantly switching positions and roles to try and stifle defences early on. However, if the team is struggling, we have a sub like McNamee we can use as well as Cody, Adeyemi etc.

[BigFish 1,986]

This is a bit of a sterile debate. The game has moved on and really 442 has gone the way 235 - it is really only the dinosaurs amongst fans who are still in thrall to the two "pacy wingers". If you get any of the FA''s coaching briefs this is generally accepted.The argument is that now the vast majority of goals come through central positions, very little is created out wide. A bit of this is caused by the lighter ball and a bit of this is the ability of smaller nimbler to pass through and murder the old fashioned CB. This has led to teams playing with one and sometimes two holding players in front of the CBs to neutralise this i.e variants on 4141 & 4231.Playing against this teams playing the old fashioned way found thenselves outnumbered in central midfield and that theit wingers were never seeing the ball or if they did those they were looking to find with a cross were outnumbered. The option is then to play narrow and go 433.The obvious drawback with all this is that the majority of your players end up behind the ball and you struggle to get forward. The answer is to use 1 if you are defensive minded or 2 if you are going for the win in an attacking role and voila you have the diamond.

[In Dubious Battle 0]

[quote user="Shyster"][quote user="Barclayman"]Chelsea have used the diamond for years now and there still on top. Opposition teams can figure out how to play against a diamond sure, but it doesnt matter what formation you play, speak to a player or manager and theyll tell you that. The best team will win whether there playing with or against a diamond. If the commitment and quality is there the best team will win, no matter who plays 442, a diamond or whatever.The fact we lost to Carlisle was nothing to do with them figuring out how to stifle our diamond formation, it was to do with Nelson being pathetic in defence and an overall off day from the rest of the team.As evidenced last night by beating Southend 3-0. Dont forget Carlisle are a team in form, if we''d have played 442 we''d have still lost becuase the attitude and commitment wasnt there on the night.[/quote]

I''ve seldom read so much squit on this message board.Comparing our team to that of Chelsea is tantamount to sticking a red hot poker up ones own anus and saying our players had an off day at Carlisle suggests to me that you failed to watch the match.Yes, Nelson was awful, but other players failed that day because the manager of Carlisle had our diamond sussed, and that was instilled into his team which is why our formation was stifled.You probably did view the match, but obviously you can''t read the game very well.[/quote]Do you think the Carlisle players and management had never come across the diamond formation before they played us? Its not some secret trick Paul Lambert invented to win matches. If we switch to a standard 4-4-2 teams will be well aware of how to play against such a formation as well. I do agree that we need a plan B, but only to be enacted once plan A stops working. On Tuesday nights evidence plan A is fine for now.

[Taxing 0]

[quote user="Beauseant"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"][quote user="Beauseant"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

[quote user="blahblahblah"]Why can''t Holt keep tracking back ?  Surely that is just the way he plays.  If he gets a game off every 10 or 15, as he seems to for 5 yellow cards, barring injuries he should stay fit.

That said I am all for having a plan B, and so is Lambert if his signing of McNamee is anything to go by.  Hoolahan should start if he is able to, so I''d stick with the diamond unless we get stuck in games and need a change around 60 minutes.    What worries me is the possible sale of Hoolahan in January.  As you say he is our main creative outlet.

Most teams in this league can''t cope with our fitness levels it seems - or is it just me that thinks we win a lot of matches in the last half an hour ?
[/quote]

This would surely imply a good pre-season under Team Gunn.

Now come on, we can''t be having that can we...........

You mean they brought in Holt, Hughes and Askou; refused too sell Russell, Hoolihan and Doherty AND got the buggers fitter than the rest...........

Dear oh dear. Whatever next.

OTBC

[/quote]

So do you think we looked superfit in the early part of the season? As fit as we do now?

It''s amazing how much insight you can glean from a news ticker.

Although of course, you''ve seen one game on TV.

Dear oh dear

Incisive debate or nasty minded mischief making?

Your slip''s showing again Bly.............................and the world and his wife are watching.

[/quote]

Okay since you boast of having been the manager of a professional outfit in the past, Ill give you a chance.

Blah cubed (not me) said that ''Most teams in this league can''t cope with our fitness levels it seems......''

Do you seriously think that City could be fitter than most at this stage without a good pre-season?

Or are you on the bandwagon to try to rubbish Bryan Gunn more than is necessary?

OTBC

OTBC

[/quote]

Yes, because while pre season is important it''s not impossible to introduce new training and conditioning techniques after the season has started with fairly quick results. We are talking about professionals who train every day, not park players. It''s perfectly feasible to generate both higher stamina levels and improved sprinting ability within a training framework that still alllows plenty of ballwork to sharpen skills. In fact, it''s actually relatively easy to improve stamina WHILE doing ballwork as it''s much easier to encourage players to run hard after a ball than in between cones.

One of the reasons often quoted for the success of the great Liverpool sides of the 80s and 90s is that they played football most of the time in training rather than running incessantly. I don''t recall the likes of Peter Beardsley ever blowing out of their arse with 20 minutes left, do you? The other important factor is that if you make training stimulating and interesting you will get much more out of your players.

Sorry, but Gunn''s regime was a disaster, whatever you think of the manner of his sacking. If you speak to people with access you will find that the prevailing opinion is that pre season was way too lax.

[/quote]

 

Ha ha, I see The Pontiff is in good form today, otherwise know as "he who knows everything" ! Don''t challenge The Pontiff for he has access to people with access. With a puff of the chest : "the prevailing opinion is that pre season was way too lax" doncha know.

[Taxing 0]

[quote user="Beauseant"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"][quote user="Beauseant"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

[quote user="blahblahblah"]Why can''t Holt keep tracking back ?  Surely that is just the way he plays.  If he gets a game off every 10 or 15, as he seems to for 5 yellow cards, barring injuries he should stay fit.

That said I am all for having a plan B, and so is Lambert if his signing of McNamee is anything to go by.  Hoolahan should start if he is able to, so I''d stick with the diamond unless we get stuck in games and need a change around 60 minutes.    What worries me is the possible sale of Hoolahan in January.  As you say he is our main creative outlet.

Most teams in this league can''t cope with our fitness levels it seems - or is it just me that thinks we win a lot of matches in the last half an hour ?
[/quote]

This would surely imply a good pre-season under Team Gunn.

Now come on, we can''t be having that can we...........

You mean they brought in Holt, Hughes and Askou; refused too sell Russell, Hoolihan and Doherty AND got the buggers fitter than the rest...........

Dear oh dear. Whatever next.

OTBC

[/quote]

So do you think we looked superfit in the early part of the season? As fit as we do now?

It''s amazing how much insight you can glean from a news ticker.

Although of course, you''ve seen one game on TV.

Dear oh dear

Incisive debate or nasty minded mischief making?

Your slip''s showing again Bly.............................and the world and his wife are watching.

[/quote]

Okay since you boast of having been the manager of a professional outfit in the past, Ill give you a chance.

Blah cubed (not me) said that ''Most teams in this league can''t cope with our fitness levels it seems......''

Do you seriously think that City could be fitter than most at this stage without a good pre-season?

Or are you on the bandwagon to try to rubbish Bryan Gunn more than is necessary?

OTBC

OTBC

[/quote]

Yes, because while pre season is important it''s not impossible to introduce new training and conditioning techniques after the season has started with fairly quick results. We are talking about professionals who train every day, not park players. It''s perfectly feasible to generate both higher stamina levels and improved sprinting ability within a training framework that still alllows plenty of ballwork to sharpen skills. In fact, it''s actually relatively easy to improve stamina WHILE doing ballwork as it''s much easier to encourage players to run hard after a ball than in between cones.

One of the reasons often quoted for the success of the great Liverpool sides of the 80s and 90s is that they played football most of the time in training rather than running incessantly. I don''t recall the likes of Peter Beardsley ever blowing out of their arse with 20 minutes left, do you? The other important factor is that if you make training stimulating and interesting you will get much more out of your players.

Sorry, but Gunn''s regime was a disaster, whatever you think of the manner of his sacking. If you speak to people with access you will find that the prevailing opinion is that pre season was way too lax.

[/quote]

And another big puff of the chest and a hurrumph and then the proclamation "Sorry, but Gunn''s regime was a disaster".  So there you go, The Pontiff has pontificated that Gunn''s regime was a disaster so all is well with the world

NB Disaster :  "an occurrence which causes great destruction, distress or ruin"  Oh, well, what''s a bit of hyperbole when one is pontificating ? The fact that the ruin and destruction was caused by Roeder, Delia et al over a period of several years is just a minor detail in The Pontiff''s world.

 

[Beauseant 0]

[quote user="Captain Pugwash"][quote user="Beauseant"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"][quote user="Beauseant"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

[quote user="blahblahblah"]Why can''t Holt keep tracking back ?  Surely that is just the way he plays.  If he gets a game off every 10 or 15, as he seems to for 5 yellow cards, barring injuries he should stay fit.

That said I am all for having a plan B, and so is Lambert if his signing of McNamee is anything to go by.  Hoolahan should start if he is able to, so I''d stick with the diamond unless we get stuck in games and need a change around 60 minutes.    What worries me is the possible sale of Hoolahan in January.  As you say he is our main creative outlet.

Most teams in this league can''t cope with our fitness levels it seems - or is it just me that thinks we win a lot of matches in the last half an hour ?
[/quote]

This would surely imply a good pre-season under Team Gunn.

Now come on, we can''t be having that can we...........

You mean they brought in Holt, Hughes and Askou; refused too sell Russell, Hoolihan and Doherty AND got the buggers fitter than the rest...........

Dear oh dear. Whatever next.

OTBC

[/quote]

So do you think we looked superfit in the early part of the season? As fit as we do now?

It''s amazing how much insight you can glean from a news ticker.

Although of course, you''ve seen one game on TV.

Dear oh dear

Incisive debate or nasty minded mischief making?

Your slip''s showing again Bly.............................and the world and his wife are watching.

[/quote]

Okay since you boast of having been the manager of a professional outfit in the past, Ill give you a chance.

Blah cubed (not me) said that ''Most teams in this league can''t cope with our fitness levels it seems......''

Do you seriously think that City could be fitter than most at this stage without a good pre-season?

Or are you on the bandwagon to try to rubbish Bryan Gunn more than is necessary?

OTBC

OTBC

[/quote]

Yes, because while pre season is important it''s not impossible to introduce new training and conditioning techniques after the season has started with fairly quick results. We are talking about professionals who train every day, not park players. It''s perfectly feasible to generate both higher stamina levels and improved sprinting ability within a training framework that still alllows plenty of ballwork to sharpen skills. In fact, it''s actually relatively easy to improve stamina WHILE doing ballwork as it''s much easier to encourage players to run hard after a ball than in between cones.

One of the reasons often quoted for the success of the great Liverpool sides of the 80s and 90s is that they played football most of the time in training rather than running incessantly. I don''t recall the likes of Peter Beardsley ever blowing out of their arse with 20 minutes left, do you? The other important factor is that if you make training stimulating and interesting you will get much more out of your players.

Sorry, but Gunn''s regime was a disaster, whatever you think of the manner of his sacking. If you speak to people with access you will find that the prevailing opinion is that pre season was way too lax.

[/quote]

And another big puff of the chest and a hurrumph and then the proclamation "Sorry, but Gunn''s regime was a disaster".  So there you go, The Pontiff has pontificated that Gunn''s regime was a disaster so all is well with the world

NB Disaster :  "an occurrence which causes great destruction, distress or ruin"  Oh, well, what''s a bit of hyperbole when one is pontificating ? The fact that the ruin and destruction was caused by Roeder, Delia et al over a period of several years is just a minor detail in The Pontiff''s world.

 

[/quote]

 

The Pontiff?

Sorry I don''t have the same views as you, but, hey, that''s what forums are all about. Have a nice day now you''ve got it all out of your system.