ian shimmen<IMG src="http:new.pinkun.comforumsimagesline.gif"><BR>BLINK-182 RULE THE WORLD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!<BR><A class=authorlink href="http:www.blink182.com" target=_blank>blink182.com<A><BR> 0 Posted December 5, 2004 hey, i was just wondering what u lot would think of norwich playin a 4-5-1 formation, it seems to b working quite well for teams like everton and chealse! if we did play this formation my team would be: greenedworthy fleming charloton druryjonson mulryne francis helveg huckerby mckenzie what u all think?????????????????????? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Canarychick 0 Posted December 5, 2004 Well it would solve the problem of what to do with Svensson!!Must be worth a try. Nothing else seems to have worked. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dame to Blame 95 Posted December 5, 2004 My team would be barring injurys. greenedworthy fleming docherty or shackell charltonbently or johnson safri francis helveg huckerby mckenzieDury IMO is just not up to premier standard going forward he is terrible and his passing to hucks is cronic i would put charlton there as he is a natural left back and IMO a better player than dury. Bently and johnson have both been dissapointing but not many option with this formation. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
morty 0 Posted December 5, 2004 You know it just might work, with Francis or Hux running through to be the second striker when we have the ball, very interesting!! Some might say 4-5-1 is a bit negative but with our record of goals from midfield then I think it may work. The only slight fly in the ointment is that I feel a lone striker must be more capable than Leon of holding the ball up while the midfield cavalry charge through!! I feel this formation would be at least worth a shot away from home, ie Chelski! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Northern Canary 0 Posted December 5, 2004 Could work Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
a1canary 0 Posted December 5, 2004 I''ve been banging the 4-5-1 drum since i saw it pre-season against Cambridge. I gave up long ago tho since NW doesn''t seem interested in giving it a go. Ok, Cambridge were very minor opposition but what struck me about it was the adaptability of it. Some might say it''s negative but it''s not at all - in posession, the two wide men, McVeigh and Bentley against Cambridge, move up to join and supply the lone striker and it becomes 4-3-3. When the opposition have the ball, the wide men fall back into midfield and harry to regain possession. And our midfield desperately needs to do that and to retain the ball better which it should do with an extra man in there. It''s a mystery to me why Worthy won''t give it a go given;a) the success that Everton have had with itb) the fact that he HAS tried it and seen it work very wellc) the number of, and different kinds of, midfielders we have who are half decent - Francis, Jonson, Helveg, Bentley, McVeigh, Safri, Brennan, Huckerby Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BedsCanary 0 Posted December 5, 2004 4-5-1 would be perfect for away games.And maybe even 5-4-1 and play with a sweeper at the back (Shackell maybe?) to try and stop all these goals we keep letting in! Let''s remember our goals scored talley isn''t too bad at all for a team that''s just come out of Division One, it''s the goals were letting in thats the problem Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
no1canary 0 Posted December 5, 2004 that is exactly what ive been thinking! it will give us more strength at the back and will get rid of svensson. huckerby wouldn''t have to get back so much as there is 4 other mids so he could basically goes where he likes! mckenzie will work his socks off all day, causing problems. come on nige, u know it makes sense! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marty 0 Posted December 5, 2004 I think it would nice in that Hucks would have a totally free role, roaming wherever he wants. Some people think Huckerby should be a striker but his best work is done running with the ball, so with the 5 man midfield it gives him the ability to pick the ball up deep and run with it without too much risk, afterall if he loses possession we still have a packed midfield. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Being Jan Kristiansen... 0 Posted December 5, 2004 We can try any formation we like and any combination of players we like but I fear its all to late. This stuff should of been sorted out a long time ago. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ricko 0 Posted December 6, 2004 I''ve advocated this formation elsewhere and think it would better suit the need to keep possession of the ball which was woeful on Saturday and to stop us conceding. Against teams who have attacking instincts such as Bolton and away from home this might give us more of a platform. We still seem to have this dreadful tendency to lump the ball up from the back bypassing the midfield and hope that Svensson or McKenzie get on the end of it. While the long ball is OK occasionally to vary the pattern of play and when the opposition are stretched at the back it''s played far too much. If we had a holding midfield player such as Helveg or Safri we might hoof it less and have more options as to who to pass to. It does also depend on players finding space and being prepared to run outside of their predicted channels an area where Huckerby was very disappointing on Saturday. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Brum Uni Canary 0 Posted December 6, 2004 [quote]I''ve been banging the 4-5-1 drum since i saw it pre-season against Cambridge. I gave up long ago tho since NW doesn''t seem interested in giving it a go. Ok, Cambridge were very minor opposition but wh...[/quote]Me too - watching MotD on Saturday night, the winners of the first 3 matches all played a 4-5-1 formation. This is the n''th thread in the last month on the topic of a different formation. The 5 across the middle would allow more variety in the play and give most of the midfielders a chance to work together.We don''t have much money to spend, so why spend it when the strikers'' goal drought could be shored up by removing one and packing the midfield where we might tend to lose the ball more. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stroud canary 0 Posted December 6, 2004 Sounds ok but its going to be a while with are injurys that we could try this. You need to have cover on the bench for the midfield. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
charlies dad 0 Posted December 6, 2004 Frankly, with our weak forward line i prefer 4-6-0. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Alan 0 Posted December 6, 2004 I agree with the sentiment of almost everyone else who has replied. We have to try 4-5-1. Let''s hope that Francis is soon available to be part of that midfield. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ZLF 273 Posted December 6, 2004 4-5-1 has definite merits but playing I fail to see how playing 5 midfielders who cant find a lone striker will get us more goals - I can see less goals scored and conceeded though.The real long terms answer is not in formations but in getting whichever defence we put out to defend as a unit, for them and the midfield to push further up field, at the same time learning how to pass to strikers who provide them with options through intelligent movement - which currently only Hux can provide. That needs our most talented players on the pitch in their best positions with as much a work ethic as we have at the moment. At the moment the only thing the team does well from game to game is committment - and that is the one thing worthy deserves praise for. Now we need that touch of class.OTBC Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Francesco Volpe<P><BR><EM><FONT size=3><STRONG>A<STRONG><FONT>wesome<STRONG><FONT size=3>S<FONT><STRONG>ublime<STRONG><FONT size=3>H<FONT><STRONG>onest pro<EM><EM><FONT size=3><STRONG>T<STRONG><FONT>alented<STRONG><FONT size 0 Posted December 6, 2004 If only worthy was reading this thread. !!!!!!!!IT COULD KNOCK SOME SENSE INTO HIM!!!!!!! Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FilletTheFishWife . 0 Posted December 6, 2004 it worked for Fulham but i think you are resorting to 1 striker because that''s all we''ve got. Leon despite his critics is the best we''ve got up front. I''m not including Hucks because he''s a striker/midfield hybrid (and hence the arguments). The fact that some can''t choose between Jonson and Bentley is because they''re both mediocre.I''d give the following a try (can''t be any worse than Saturday) :- Greenedworthy Fleming Shackell Charlton Huckerby Safri Francis Brennan Jarvis Mckenzie Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Old Boy 0 Posted December 6, 2004 [quote]4-5-1 has definite merits but playing I fail to see how playing 5 midfielders who cant find a lone striker will get us more goals - I can see less goals scored and conceeded though. The real long ter...[/quote]4-5-1 can be an attacking formation - it depends on the players. In theory: Green Edworthy Fleming Charlton/Shackell DruryBentley/Jonson/Hendo Helveg Francis Safri Huckerby MacKenzieis an attacking formation because you have 3 midfielders who can get forward when we have the ball, making 4-2-4. When we don''t have the ball, they drop back and defend and pressurise the opposition''s midfield. In theory. Trouble is, most of the time we don''t have the ball, and when we get it back we lump it forward without giving time for them to get up. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tubbs & Edward 0 Posted December 6, 2004 Shim, You''ve obviously been listening far too closely to me and your Dad on our way to every game this season! The idea will work, and it''s up to Worthy to bite the bullet and at least try to find a solution to our sometimes woeful performances.4-5-1 is the way forward, and with the injuries starting to eat into our limited resources we need something very soon. See you for the Bolton, and listen out for your next thread! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites