Cracked Diamond

[O.T.B.C 0]

The pacey right winger that a lot want is wanted by Southampton, surprise surprise there. Maybe we should go to Barnet, offer them Paul Mcsmall, Adeyemi on loan and few grand for Adomoh.

[The gut 0]

[quote user="Shyster"]


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]

If I remember correctly Shyster you looked down on Beau''s level of management. Your 2 pacey widemen argument was to have a plan B for the crap pitches and Hoolahan getting found out. In order to do this you would have sold Russell and Hoolahan therefore getting rid of plan A (and obviously your detested diamond). Plan B then becomes plan A and then we have no plan B. You also predicted that continueing with plan A would result in us finishing in mid table. Now you may yet be proved right on one or all of those things but until then you don''t seem to be in a good position to be claiming that we should all be bowing down to your wisdom.

I''m only guessing but I get the impression you are no longer in professional management (you have hinted that non league was beneath you). Is it possible you just could not cope with all of your success cos I''m struggling to understand how you have not reached the very top with your insight. Or is it even possible that with your contempt for us mere fans, a seemingly cunning plan for failure, and wanting rid of our best players while displaying a certain arrogance that you are in fact Glen Roeder?

[The gut 0]

[quote user="Shack Attack"]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.
[/quote]

Oh when oh when will this wretched diamond come good?

[Shack Attack 0]

[quote user="The gut"]

[quote user="Shack Attack"]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.[/quote]

Oh when oh when will this wretched diamond come good?

[/quote]Obviously I meant from when Shyster first picked up on its ''flaws''. I worded that pretty poorly to be fair [:$]

[Jerzy Krukowski 5]

[quote user="Larry David"]

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

[/quote]John Sitton?

[Robert N. LiM 4,344]

Thanks for the reply, Shyster. I have a couple of follow up questions. Who are your two central midfielders in that team for Oldham. Smith, I assume - who else, with Russell suspended?

In what sense has Hoolahan been ''found out''? He''s been man-marked in a couple of games, sure, but I don''t think that''s the same thing.

My view is that a) Wes is so good in this league that we should be building a system to accommodate him, rather than responding to the problems he creates by sticking him on the bench; and b) that although they are not similar players, McNamee is not in his league. Therefore, in my world, the diamond, while lacking some sparkle at the moment, is still plan a. 442 is plan b to be created off the bench when plan a isn''t working.

[The gut 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]

Have you not heard of Houston?

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="Shyster"][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.
[/quote]

I think that you and nutty nigel should have a little chat about that.

Dear oh dear whatever next.

OTBC

[Ulf Ottosson 0]

To be fair the decision to go 4-4-2 was a bold one considering we had one training session to work on it after months of the diamond - it should get better.

[Indy_Bones 441]

[quote user="Robert N. LiM"]My view is that a) Wes is so good in this league that we should be building a system to accommodate him[/quote]Interestingly that''s the total opposite of my opinion.I don''t feel ANY team should be built around a single player (or two for that matter), because a lot of the time this leads to major headaches when that player is unavailable and also often promotes over-reliance on that player to perform, and when they have an off game - so does the team.We''ve seen this in recent years with Hucks, fantastic player who could win a match, but our system was setup to give him the freedom he needed, which often lead to us being much weaker in other areas, and left us somewhat impotent when he wasn''t there. Also, how often did we really look to play the ball down the right or even through the middle when he was on the pitch? Far less than we looked for him is the correct answer.Wes is arguably the only real player we have who can shine in the role he''s currently employed in, so what do we do when he''s not there, or not performing, or getting marked out of games? The answer is often not too much because of our reliance on having him, Holt and Martin on the pitch together we have no real flexibility or options. 4-4-2 doesn''t work very well because Wes doesn''t play anywhere near as well when he''s on the left hand side, and although McNamee can play on the right, it''s not his best position. Assuming we did do that however we''re then left with 2 highly attacking players on the sides who simply don''t track back to help defend leaving the defence far more exposed.The ideal way to organise a team is to go with the formation and style of play that the manager wants to use and feels would be effective, and then slot the players in accordingly, looking to use the transfer market when needed to do so. Our problem is that we can''t afford to do this properly and are left with two alternatives - use a compromised system to cater to the current squad, or use the system wanted but compromise on players in certain positions. As Lambert has correctly established, the former is certainly the best option for us based on our current squad, but that doesn''t mean it''s our ideal choice.I think this is highlighted by Lambert''s signing of McNamee who''s a much more orthodox attacking left winger who can fit in better with a few different systems.I''m not saying that we''ve played badly with the diamond (although recent performances have been somewhat poor), nor am I jumping to snap judgements about making wholesale changes, but if our system is showing serious weaknesses, then we either need to look at changing personnel or tactics, and it will be Lambert''s decision on how or even if he does this.

[Katie Borkins 1]

By their words shall ye know them.

[Well I Never 0]

Oh wonderful hindsight...

[Canary23 0]

This is great, you can bring back the stuff you got right and ignore all the rubbish you got wrong!

[Shyster 0]

[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]

Well, well, well -- Lambo did break the mold after all (''though we weren''t the first) - and it is proving successful - (Pilkington & Bennet)A belated thanks to Lambo and/or associates for reading this board and heeding my advice [img]http://services.pinkun.com/FORUMS/PINKUN/CS/emoticons/emotion-21.gif[/img]

[BigFish 1,986]

Shyster, we would all pat you on the back if indeed great success could be attributed to your 442 back to the eighties recipe.In case it has passed you by Lambert is putting out teams in 4231 which is nothing more than a reinforced defensive diamond variation.

I''ll give you that you were right about the pace though!!

[Canary_on_the Trent 0]

I really can''t be bothered to rake over the whole thread but I recall you saying 1 of the midfield 2 should be a box-to-box type player.

In the current system we''ve got 2 ''holding'' players and Hoolahan often dropping in making it a 3. Very different to an out-and-out 4-4-2 with 2 wingers and 2 strikers.

[Lambert is King 0]

[quote user="Shyster"][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]



Well, well, well -- Lambo did break the mold after all (''though we weren''t the first) - and it is proving successful - (Pilkington & Bennet)

A belated thanks to Lambo and/or associates for reading this board and heeding my advice [img]http://services.pinkun.com/FORUMS/PINKUN/CS/emoticons/emotion-21.gif[/img]


[/quote]

I dont quite understand you were calling for the diamond to be scrapped whilst in league 1 and the championship not the premiership ??????? We did not change it ( Thank Lambo ( god ) ) and we acheived two promotions. We then tried your system 442 and we could not win so we changed to the system away from what you were advocating. What bit are you claiming to have got right ??? I would feel embarassed bringing up this thread now

[Shack Attack 0]

Quite a shock to come on here this morning and see this thread. Are you seriously trying claim you were right when we achieved back to back promotions with the ''cracked diamond'' and have played a 4-4-2 with two wingers twice this season without winning? You were right about pace but then I always agreed with you on that point.

[Robert N. LiM 4,344]

I think in the bizarre anti-reality that Shyster calls home, he is always right.

If I had started a thread in which, amongst other things, I had called for Hoolahan to be dropped so we could accommodate MacNamee, I would be trying to bury it. But dear old Shyster thinks he''s vindicated.