Cracked Diamond

[Lurd 0]

Having just read back through this thread, the desperation for one person to be correct is alarming. You need to get out more Shyster. Maybe take in a few games?

[Shyster 0]

[quote user="Larry David"]Having just read back through this thread, the desperation for one person to be correct is alarming. You need to get out more Shyster. Maybe take in a few games?[/quote]

I take umbrage at people who''re derisory of my prognoses, therefore, I like to remind them that they were wrong to mock. It takes very little time out of my day to both make these prognoses and bring them back when necessary, hence, plenty of time to follow countless other pursuits such as attending football matches.Now please heed my advice by changing your alter ego, because it really doesn''t suit you.

[Lambert is King 0]

My opinion only so dont shout to loud - get back to the diamond asap or drop Hoolahan it was like playing with 10 men ( or 9 if you count Rose. Had we played this formation against any decent side we would have been destroyed.

[ZLF 274]

last nights performance was worse than anything seen under the diamond.   The diamond is flawed,  but remains the best formation for the squad of players we have in playing as a team and winning games.

The 442 was so bad we ended up with 5 forwards on and playing route one football for 20 mins hoping for a break or a goal from a deadball situation.   Yes the win felt amazing,  but it papered over the worst performance since 1-7 which was also 442.

Flawed diamond,  cracked 442

[king canary 7,604]

It would seem the 4-4-2 does require two fair defensive cms to work as some stated. Those some were of course not Shyster.

[macdougalls perm 0]

[quote user="Shyster"][quote user="Larry David"]Having just read back through this thread, the desperation for one person to be correct is alarming. You need to get out more Shyster.

Maybe take in a few games?
[/quote]


I take umbrage at people who''re derisory of my prognoses, therefore, I like to remind them that they were wrong to mock. It takes very little time out of my day to both make these prognoses and bring them back when necessary, hence, plenty of time to follow countless other pursuits such as attending football matches.

Now please heed my advice by changing your alter ego, because it really doesn''t suit you.
[/quote]

Wrong! His alter ego suits his comments perfectly. In fact I''ve always thought that the character and avatar perfectly suits the tone of his posts. NEXT! [;)]

[morty 0]

Congratulations on the complete success of the move away from the "cracked" diamond Shyster.We played beautiful, free flowing, attacking football last night for a convincing win.[:|]

[Lambert is King 0]

[quote user="morty"]Congratulations on the complete success of the move away from the "cracked" diamond Shyster.We played beautiful, free flowing, attacking football last night for a convincing win.[:|][/quote]

LOL

Strangely enough Morty I think you will agree that the game changed when Hoolahan was given a free role - a gun hoe desperation diamond. 8 or 9 boreing 1 - 0 diamond wins will do me nicely now after the despair of the last 3 years.

[morty 0]

[quote user="Lambert is King"][quote user="morty"]Congratulations on the complete success of the move away from the "cracked" diamond Shyster.We played beautiful, free flowing, attacking football last night for a convincing win.[:|][/quote]

LOL

Strangely enough Morty I think you will agree that the game changed when Hoolahan was given a free role - a gun hoe desperation diamond. 8 or 9 boreing 1 - 0 diamond wins will do me nicely now after the despair of the last 3 years.[/quote]You know, last night I actually didn''t know, at any given time what system we were playing, and it appeared that a fair few of the players didn''t either.

[Ian 1,129]

[quote user="ZippersLeftFoot"]

last nights performance was worse than anything seen under the diamond.   The diamond is flawed,  but remains the best formation for the squad of players we have in playing as a team and winning games.

The 442 was so bad we ended up with 5 forwards on and playing route one football for 20 mins hoping for a break or a goal from a deadball situation.   Yes the win felt amazing,  but it papered over the worst performance since 1-7 which was also 442.

Flawed diamond,  cracked 442

[/quote]Correct. The reason the diamond worked so well for us is because we had the personnel capable of turning it into a free-flowing attacking formation. Both Russell Martin and Drury were capable of getting forward and supporting the midfielders, giving us width, keeping the opposition midfield occupied, and allowing Hoolahan and Martin more time and space on the ball. The other key point is that Lappin and Smith are both capable of dropping back and filling in at left/right back - they''ve both played their before, indeed it could be considered their "second" positions, giving us the solidity at the back if the fullbacks do press forward.I think the reason the diamond has become less effective is due to Rose bring very ineffective as a wing back, a bit of fatigue/knocks/lower energy levels in the squad, and the pressure of being top of the league. From last night it certainly doesn''t look as if a standard 4-4-2 suits us better, as we were very, very weak in midfield. Having said that I don''t think Lambert can make the diamond work without Lappin/Smith/Drury being in the squad.Genuinely, I believe the loss of Drury has affected the diamond a lot more than at first glance.

[Lambert is King 0]

I sit in block B of the Barclay and at one point you could draw a line from goal to goal and the only 2 players to the right as I looked down ie our left were Rose and their full back. As soon as they got the ball they just put it down that channell and there were blue shirts coming from everywhere. It looked like a Sunday league game with nobody knowing where they should be. Still what makes a top manager is 10% luck and Lambert certainly had that last night. I am sure next year Lambert will play 442 but not with the players on offer at present. Holt and Martin were still taking up the positions they did in the diamond out wide and coming in. They looked stonished to see Wes down the side and not cutting through the centre.

[Shyster 0]

[quote user="Beauseant"][quote user="Shyster"][quote]

[quote user="Shyster"][quote]Because even if, as you say, teams start marking Hoolahan with two men that still works to our advantage as far as I can tell - i.e. we have an extra man to create openings.[/quote]

Only if that extra man is a creative player in the first place.At present, with Hoolahan marked out, where''s the creativity coming from?[/quote]

Out of our present squad I''d say that Hughes is capable of using the extra space to create openings. Anyway, I wasn''t arguing with you - was just saying that you could elaborate on why we should break the axiom ''don''t change a winning team'' [:)] 

[/quote]

Precisely, mac, the only player you can come up with is Hughes, and how many times has he figured this season?Now read my initial post again and may be, just may be, you might see why I''m harping on about the need for creative and pacey wide men within a change of formation.I won''t hold my breath though. [:P][/quote]

 

I pretty much agree with you Shyster (and will be rewording your post later in the week[;)]).

To say that the diamond has worked so far, therefore it will continue to work is a pretty facile argument. I believe that it was instituted to solve two specific problems, namely our incessant leakage of goals and Hoolahan''s apparent inability to play in a system that didn''t allow him a completely free role. Just like every system it can be negated, in this case by marking Hoolahan on a man to man basis and flooding the midfield. many teams in thsi League aren''t good enough to do so, but some are.

The key is not which system we play, but being able to switch, on the pitch and during the game, from one to another. That''s easier said than done, because not only does it require well disciplined players, but also having the right personnel on the park to effect the change. That, I believe, is why we''ve never sucessfully switched to 4-4-2 under Lambert, because Hoolahan on the left weakens us considerably and Whaley never hit the mark. With McNamee I believe that we will be able to have this option, but we could do with another winger, preferably Adomah, (as Shyster has been saying all season) to give us the chance to really go at defensive teams with pace on both flanks.

[/quote]

And there in bold is the crux of why the 4-4-2 nearly failed last night - well, that and the awful selection in central-midfield. It''s plain to see that both Beau & I have managed at a decent level, whereas the rest of you are simply fans of the game.

[Lurd 0]

[quote user="Shyster"][quote user="Beauseant"][quote user="Shyster"][quote]

[quote user="Shyster"][quote]Because even if, as you say, teams start marking Hoolahan with two men that still works to our advantage as far as I can tell - i.e. we have an extra man to create openings.[/quote]


Only if that extra man is a creative player in the first place.

At present, with Hoolahan marked out, where''s the creativity coming from?
[/quote]

Out of our present squad I''d say that Hughes is capable of using the extra space to create openings. Anyway, I wasn''t arguing with you - was just saying that you could elaborate on why we should break the axiom ''don''t change a winning team'' [:)] 

[/quote]


Precisely, mac, the only player you can come up with is Hughes, and how many times has he figured this season?

Now read my initial post again and may be, just may be, you might see why I''m harping on about the need for creative and pacey wide men within a change of formation.

I won''t hold my breath though. [:P]
[/quote]

 

I pretty much agree with you Shyster (and will be rewording your post later in the week[;)]).

To say that the diamond has worked so far, therefore it will continue to work is a pretty facile argument. I believe that it was instituted to solve two specific problems, namely our incessant leakage of goals and Hoolahan''s apparent inability to play in a system that didn''t allow him a completely free role. Just like every system it can be negated, in this case by marking Hoolahan on a man to man basis and flooding the midfield. many teams in thsi League aren''t good enough to do so, but some are.

The key is not which system we play, but being able to switch, on the pitch and during the game, from one to another. That''s easier said than done, because not only does it require well disciplined players, but also having the right personnel on the park to effect the change. That, I believe, is why we''ve never sucessfully switched to 4-4-2 under Lambert, because Hoolahan on the left weakens us considerably and Whaley never hit the mark. With McNamee I believe that we will be able to have this option, but we could do with another winger, preferably Adomah, (as Shyster has been saying all season) to give us the chance to really go at defensive teams with pace on both flanks.

[/quote]



And there in bold is the crux of why the 4-4-2 nearly failed last night - well, that and the awful selection in central-midfield.

It''s plain to see that both Beau & I have managed at a decent level, whereas the rest of you are simply fans of the game.
[/quote]

Care to reveal yourself Mr Shyster? It would be wonderful to find out the identity of this obvious scholar of the game..

 

[morty 0]

I reckon Shyster is actually Bryan "blarney" Hamilton.[:P]

[Lambert is King 0]

Shyster are you suggesting Lambert does not know what he is doing?

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote user="Shyster"]It''s plain to see that both Beau & I have managed at a decent level, whereas the rest of you are simply fans of the game.[/quote]It''s also plain to see that while Beau is happy to be one of the crowd, you crave the attention of someone, more, er, special ?   I''m thinking special school here in case you missed the inference [;)]Pete, can we set up a "non-league managers get pompous" forum, so that Shyster can talk to himself please ?

[Shyster 0]

[quote user="Lambert is King"]Shyster are you suggesting Lambert does not know what he is doing?[/quote]

I think Lambert is a good manager - my main criticism was his failure to address the lack of pace on the right during, or even before, January. The absence of a workable Plan B has been obvious all season and I''m hoping this is due to a lack of funds rather than shortsightedness on Lambert''s part.Either way, it could still cost us promotion.

[Shyster 0]

[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote user="Shyster"]It''s plain to see that both Beau & I have managed at a decent level, whereas the rest of you are simply fans of the game.[/quote]It''s also plain to see that while Beau is happy to be one of the crowd, you crave the attention of someone, more, er, special ?   I''m thinking special school here in case you missed the inference [;)]Pete, can we set up a "non-league managers get pompous" forum, so that Shyster can talk to himself please ?[/quote]

Believe me, apart from a select few of like-minded individuals, I already feel as though I''m talking to myself. It is those of a similar turn of mind that I cater for. On a purely selfish front I love to cater for myself by making plebeians time here at least 2% less enjoyable.And I will strive to increase that percentage wherever possible.

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="Shyster"]On a purely selfish front I love to cater for myself by making plebeians time here at least 2% less enjoyable.

[/quote]And how do you expect us "plebeians" on here to know what "plebeians" means?[:^)]

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote user="Shyster"]Believe me, apart from a select few of like-minded individuals, I already feel as though I''m talking to myself. It is those of a similar turn of mind that I cater for. On a purely selfish front I love to cater for myself by making plebeians time here at least 2% less enjoyable.And I will strive to increase that percentage wherever possible.[/quote]Brian Clough had a massive ego.  He also won the European Cup.You have one thing in common with Brian Clough - congrats.

[Robert N. LiM 4,336]

It''d be nice if we could return to discussing the issue rather than it turning into name calling. Shyster, I am assuming that you haven''t managed in League One or above (perhaps I am wrong and you are Jose Mourinho...) yet you think you are entitled to question Lambert''s decisions - quite rightly. Surely by that logic, those of us who have never managed a team in our lives are surely entitled to question your views? Surely the great thing about message boards is that we can argue about football tactics without taking pot-shots at each other?

As I think I''ve said before, if not on this thread, then somewhere else, the diamond clearly has its problems. And the attraction of two great wingers either side of two all-action ball-winning midfielders in a 4-4-2 is obvious. The problem is, in my view, that we simply don''t have those players. Now we might argue that Lambert picked the wrong 4-4-2 last night, but I still can''t see how you can play it, and keep Martin, Holt and Hoolahan all in the side.

Shyster, please could you answer this:

a) Would you agree that Martin, Holt, and Hoolahan are our three most dangerous attacking players and should all be in our XI?

and

b) If so, How do you accommodate them all in a 4-4-2?

or

c) If not, who in our current squad should replace them to improve our team?

After last night, I am more confused than I was before about our best team. What do you think?

[Shyster 0]

[quote user="Robert N. LiM"]

It''d be nice if we could return to discussing the issue rather than it turning into name calling. Shyster, I am assuming that you haven''t managed in League One or above (perhaps I am wrong and you are Jose Mourinho...) yet you think you are entitled to question Lambert''s decisions - quite rightly. Surely by that logic, those of us who have never managed a team in our lives are surely entitled to question your views? Surely the great thing about message boards is that we can argue about football tactics without taking pot-shots at each other?

As I think I''ve said before, if not on this thread, then somewhere else, the diamond clearly has its problems. And the attraction of two great wingers either side of two all-action ball-winning midfielders in a 4-4-2 is obvious. The problem is, in my view, that we simply don''t have those players. Now we might argue that Lambert picked the wrong 4-4-2 last night, but I still can''t see how you can play it, and keep Martin, Holt and Hoolahan all in the side.

Shyster, please could you answer this:

a) Would you agree that Martin, Holt, and Hoolahan are our three most dangerous attacking players and should all be in our XI?

and

b) If so, How do you accommodate them all in a 4-4-2?

or

c) If not, who in our current squad should replace them to improve our team?

After last night, I am more confused than I was before about our best team. What do you think?

[/quote]

The top scoring trio have been hugely effective for the best part of the season - alas, there is a staleness about the minuet that was previously a lively scherzo - their earlier effervescence has slowly but surely seeped into the cracks of the diamond and the belatedness of the 4-4-2 with its terrible choice for a central-midfield pairing rendered them guileless against the hapless Southend. Hoolahan has been found out and is not suited to playing on the wing, whereas McNamee is fresh and more than capable of ripping 3rd tier standard defenders new arseholes. For the Oldham tie I would stay with the 4-4-2, bench Hoolahan and field Hughes or McVeigh on the right flank.

[morty 0]

[quote user="Shyster"][quote user="Robert N. LiM"]

It''d be nice if we could return to discussing the issue rather than it turning into name calling. Shyster, I am assuming that you haven''t managed in League One or above (perhaps I am wrong and you are Jose Mourinho...) yet you think you are entitled to question Lambert''s decisions - quite rightly. Surely by that logic, those of us who have never managed a team in our lives are surely entitled to question your views? Surely the great thing about message boards is that we can argue about football tactics without taking pot-shots at each other?

As I think I''ve said before, if not on this thread, then somewhere else, the diamond clearly has its problems. And the attraction of two great wingers either side of two all-action ball-winning midfielders in a 4-4-2 is obvious. The problem is, in my view, that we simply don''t have those players. Now we might argue that Lambert picked the wrong 4-4-2 last night, but I still can''t see how you can play it, and keep Martin, Holt and Hoolahan all in the side.

Shyster, please could you answer this:

a) Would you agree that Martin, Holt, and Hoolahan are our three most dangerous attacking players and should all be in our XI?

and

b) If so, How do you accommodate them all in a 4-4-2?

or

c) If not, who in our current squad should replace them to improve our team?

After last night, I am more confused than I was before about our best team. What do you think?

[/quote]

The top scoring trio have been hugely effective for the best part of the season - alas, there is a staleness about the minuet that was previously a lively scherzo - their earlier effervescence has slowly but surely seeped into the cracks of the diamond and the belatedness of the 4-4-2 with its terrible choice for a central-midfield pairing rendered them guileless against the hapless Southend. Hoolahan has been found out and is not suited to playing on the wing, whereas McNamee is fresh and more than capable of ripping 3rd tier standard defenders new arseholes. For the Oldham tie I would stay with the 4-4-2, bench Hoolahan and field Hughes or McVeigh on the right flank.[/quote]I would probably take McVeigh over Hughes, he was bobbins last night.

[Shyster 0]

[quote user="morty"][quote user="Shyster"][quote user="Robert N. LiM"]

It''d be nice if we could return to discussing the issue rather than it turning into name calling. Shyster, I am assuming that you haven''t managed in League One or above (perhaps I am wrong and you are Jose Mourinho...) yet you think you are entitled to question Lambert''s decisions - quite rightly. Surely by that logic, those of us who have never managed a team in our lives are surely entitled to question your views? Surely the great thing about message boards is that we can argue about football tactics without taking pot-shots at each other?

As I think I''ve said before, if not on this thread, then somewhere else, the diamond clearly has its problems. And the attraction of two great wingers either side of two all-action ball-winning midfielders in a 4-4-2 is obvious. The problem is, in my view, that we simply don''t have those players. Now we might argue that Lambert picked the wrong 4-4-2 last night, but I still can''t see how you can play it, and keep Martin, Holt and Hoolahan all in the side.

Shyster, please could you answer this:

a) Would you agree that Martin, Holt, and Hoolahan are our three most dangerous attacking players and should all be in our XI?

and

b) If so, How do you accommodate them all in a 4-4-2?

or

c) If not, who in our current squad should replace them to improve our team?

After last night, I am more confused than I was before about our best team. What do you think?

[/quote]

The top scoring trio have been hugely effective for the best part of the season - alas, there is a staleness about the minuet that was previously a lively scherzo - their earlier effervescence has slowly but surely seeped into the cracks of the diamond and the belatedness of the 4-4-2 with its terrible choice for a central-midfield pairing rendered them guileless against the hapless Southend. Hoolahan has been found out and is not suited to playing on the wing, whereas McNamee is fresh and more than capable of ripping 3rd tier standard defenders new arseholes. For the Oldham tie I would stay with the 4-4-2, bench Hoolahan and field Hughes or McVeigh on the right flank.[/quote]I would probably take McVeigh over Hughes, he was bobbins last night.[/quote]

Hughes was poor in central-midfield, but I''m certain he could do a job on the flank.As for McVeigh, I trust Lambert''s judgement of players enough to realise the former is making the bench because he''s putting the necessary in training. He''s not at all quick and does rather resemble a maris-piper potato these days, but Lambert must favour him over both Daley & Dawkins at present.Damn the fact we didn''t secure the services of a pacy right wide man in January. [:@]

[morty 0]

[quote user="Shyster"][quote user="morty"][quote user="Shyster"][quote user="Robert N. LiM"]

It''d be nice if we could return to discussing the issue rather than it turning into name calling. Shyster, I am assuming that you haven''t managed in League One or above (perhaps I am wrong and you are Jose Mourinho...) yet you think you are entitled to question Lambert''s decisions - quite rightly. Surely by that logic, those of us who have never managed a team in our lives are surely entitled to question your views? Surely the great thing about message boards is that we can argue about football tactics without taking pot-shots at each other?

As I think I''ve said before, if not on this thread, then somewhere else, the diamond clearly has its problems. And the attraction of two great wingers either side of two all-action ball-winning midfielders in a 4-4-2 is obvious. The problem is, in my view, that we simply don''t have those players. Now we might argue that Lambert picked the wrong 4-4-2 last night, but I still can''t see how you can play it, and keep Martin, Holt and Hoolahan all in the side.

Shyster, please could you answer this:

a) Would you agree that Martin, Holt, and Hoolahan are our three most dangerous attacking players and should all be in our XI?

and

b) If so, How do you accommodate them all in a 4-4-2?

or

c) If not, who in our current squad should replace them to improve our team?

After last night, I am more confused than I was before about our best team. What do you think?

[/quote]

The top scoring trio have been hugely effective for the best part of the season - alas, there is a staleness about the minuet that was previously a lively scherzo - their earlier effervescence has slowly but surely seeped into the cracks of the diamond and the belatedness of the 4-4-2 with its terrible choice for a central-midfield pairing rendered them guileless against the hapless Southend. Hoolahan has been found out and is not suited to playing on the wing, whereas McNamee is fresh and more than capable of ripping 3rd tier standard defenders new arseholes. For the Oldham tie I would stay with the 4-4-2, bench Hoolahan and field Hughes or McVeigh on the right flank.[/quote]I would probably take McVeigh over Hughes, he was bobbins last night.[/quote]

Hughes was poor in central-midfield, but I''m certain he could do a job on the flank.As for McVeigh, I trust Lambert''s judgement of players enough to realise the former is making the bench because he''s putting the necessary in training. He''s not at all quick and does rather resemble a maris-piper potato these days, but Lambert must favour him over both Daley & Dawkins at present.Damn the fact we didn''t secure the services of a pacy right wide man in January. [:@][/quote]You have never mentioned this pacey right wide man before, you should have spoken up sooner.[;)]But seriously, I hope Lambert can look at the "formations" he used last night and make some sense of who played well where, because I really can''t, and I don''t think most of the players could either.

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

----

As someone who hardly gets to see games I reckon I’m comfortably makes me the least-qualified person to have an opinion.

So, revelling in my ignorance, some things seem obvious. Lambert plainly wanted the OPTION of 4-4-2. Otherwise why buy a player (McNamee) who only really makes sense in that system and doesn’t fit into the diamond (or the wing-back system, for that matter)?

If he wanted that option he must have realised it would pose exactly the selection dilemma that Robert Lim highlights – how do you fit Holt, Martin and Hoolahan into a 4-4-2 with an out and out winger in McNamee?

The answer is that you can’t, unless you start bashing square pegs into round holes, playing Martin as a workhorse right-sided midfielder and Hoolahan alongside Holt. Then you can have a genuine pair of central midfielders (as opposed to last night’s barking mad selection) and McNamee on the left. But the compromises needed to make that work look counter-productive.

Which brings me on to my next point. You cannot judge 4-4-2 (which as a system that has generally stood the test of time) by last night and that misbegotten midfield quarter of lightweights. Even Brazil (as with Dunga) know you need a ball-winning water-carrier.

We DO have the players (Hughes, Russell, Tudur-Jones, Gill, Smith, Spillane, Lappin etc) for a balanced midfield that would allow us to play McNamee. But it would almost certainly mean the bench for Hoolahan or Martin, either from the start or during a game.

Tough decisions, but never forget this chess maxim - don''t always play the move you like best, play the move your opponent will like least. Sometimes that is going to be 4-4-2.

---

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

..."quartet of lightweights"...

[Shyster 0]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]----

As someone who hardly gets to see games I reckon I’m comfortably makes me the least-qualified person to have an opinion.

So, revelling in my ignorance, some things seem obvious. Lambert plainly wanted the OPTION of 4-4-2. Otherwise why buy a player (McNamee) who only really makes sense in that system and doesn’t fit into the diamond (or the wing-back system, for that matter)?

If he wanted that option he must have realised it would pose exactly the selection dilemma that Robert Lim highlights – how do you fit Holt, Martin and Hoolahan into a 4-4-2 with an out and out winger in McNamee?

The answer is that you can’t, unless you start bashing square pegs into round holes, playing Martin as a workhorse right-sided midfielder and Hoolahan alongside Holt. Then you can have a genuine pair of central midfielders (as opposed to last night’s barking mad selection) and McNamee on the left. But the compromises needed to make that work look counter-productive.

Which brings me on to my next point. You cannot judge 4-4-2 (which as a system that has generally stood the test of time) by last night and that misbegotten midfield quarter of lightweights. Even Brazil (as with Dunga) know you need a ball-winning water-carrier.

We DO have the players (Hughes, Russell, Tudur-Jones, Gill, Smith, Spillane, Lappin etc) for a balanced midfield that would allow us to play McNamee. But it would almost certainly mean the bench for Hoolahan or Martin, either from the start or during a game.

Tough decisions, but never forget this chess maxim - don''t always play the move you like best, play the move your opponent will like least. Sometimes that is going to be 4-4-2.

---[/quote]

PurpleCanary - in a post further up the thread I mentioned the fact that I like to cater for like-minded people.With that outstanding post above I''d like to take this opportunity to say thank you for returning the deed. [img]http://www.pinkun.com/cs_pinkun/cs/emoticons/emotion-21.gif[/img]As for being less qualified to have a worthwhile opinion because one hasn''t spectated any given match - that is rubbish - there is far too much emphasis put on that trite old assumption.One only has to listen to Canary Call for the evidence.

[Herman 9,756]

[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote user="Shyster"]

Believe me, apart from a select few of like-minded individuals, I already feel as though I''m talking to myself. It is those of a similar turn of mind that I cater for.

On a purely selfish front I love to cater for myself by making plebeians time here at least 2% less enjoyable.

And I will strive to increase that percentage wherever possible.
[/quote]

Brian Clough had a massive ego.  He also won the European Cup.

You have one thing in common with Brian Clough - congrats.
[/quote]

Brian Clough could also be a complete tw@! That''s two.............[:P]

[Shack Attack 0]

Just a couple of quick points from me before I settle down to watch Inter v Chelsea. Please bear in mind that I wasn''t at the game last night so I''m relying on the opinions of the posters I trust on here.1. Our main problem for too long has been the lack of pace in the side. I think most people have been in agreement with that all along whether they are advocates of the diamond or the more orthodox 4-4-2. Shyster has long since argued that we need to play with two pacy wingers and whilst I have always disagreed with this and thought the diamond would come good eventually his argument is certainly carrying more weight at the moment. I''ve always believed that what the diamond really needed was a more dynamic players on the left to replace Lappin and two strong running full-backs. Drury and Spillane have done decent jobs in spells but injury has robbed us of their presence for too long now. I honestly believe that if they had been fit then we wouldn''t be having this discussion but, much like Shyster''s assumption that everything would be OK if we''d purchased a sppedy right winger, that can''t be proved.2. Purple Canary makes a very good point about the purchase of McNamee showing that Lambert wanted another option aside from the diamond. But the fact the a) he''s hardly played him and b) he didn''t go looking a similar player to play on the right is rather puzzling. The players he has been left with make it rather difficult to play an orthodox 4-4-2 unless we play Hoolahan wide left as we did last night and invite all of the problems that this causes. The only other way is to play that sort of lopsided 4-4-2 which Roeder was so fond of, with McNamee on the left and Hughes lining up on the right hand side but never really playing as an out and out winger. I''m not a big fan of that system to be honest and tend to be of the opinion that if you haven''t got two wingers there''s little point in playing a 4-4-2. Unless of course on the side where you''ve got your wide man tucked in you''ve also got a strong running full back who can bomb on and provide the width on that side.