Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
a1canary

Where does Fox fit in the 'polished diamond'?

Recommended Posts

Now that the ''enforcer'' Crofts rather than the cultured passer appears more effective at the base of the diamond, is there a place for David Fox? I see Fox as a Michael Carrick type of player, directing play from the back, and given a bit of time (that he''s unlikely to get in the Champ) he could be very effective. But i can''t see him being used that often. It''s inevitable that once the side settles down, a number of realistic contenders for our midfield are going to find it increasingly difficult to get in the side. At the moment it looks like McNamee (again), Hughes, Lappin and Fox. At least Hughes is a decent alterntive to Korey, likewise McNamee or Lappin on the left. But I can''t even see who Fox might replace in the event of injury. His type of player doesn''t seem to fit. But he seems a quality player. Hmmmm

What do people think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the idea is, and Lambert hinted to this, is that we use Korey for more physical away games and Fox for the home games, but I think Fox would fit in on the right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me , quite simply he doesn''t. Lambert got it wrong if he thought for one moment we could play a diamond without a ball winner at the base of it (as has been discussed on other threads, not even Chelsea would dare attempt that). Thankfully sense has prevailed and this appears to have been rectified quickly.

  The only occasion when I could ever see Fox depolyed there again is if the opposition are defending so deep (perhaps protecting a lead away from home), that we are struggling to break them down and he''s needed to spot a throughball?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It''s a bit of a mystery where all the midfielders fit in, to be honest. If PL keeps to the diamond then there will either have to be a lot of rotation of players, or some of them will find themselves not playing that many games. I still wonder whether, for ''harder'' games, we might not switch formation to the seemingly very fashionable 4231. Not because it''s in vogue, but because it might bring out the best in some of our players and give us more strength in midfield to a) win the ball back b) protect the defence and c) find the right passes to start attacks.For instance (and I''m leaving out the names of the defence as who''s best there is another debate):RuddyRB CB CB LB Fox CroftsMartin Hoolahan SurmanHoltAnd you''ve got Korey, McNamee, Lappin and Jackson as subs covering (or interchangeable with, depending on your preference for any of those players) all of the front four. Advantage with the above is that you keep to that formation when we haven''t got the ball, and then you have the flexibility for different players to move up and support Holt when we''re attacking - it''s relatively simple for Fox and Martin to push up on the right and you''re effectively back with the diamond and two strikers, or the full backs push up and because you''ve got two players at the base of the midfield we aren''t too exposed.There''s no sign of this from PL so far, but it depends on how the season progresses - if the diamond keeps on working for us, no reason to change. But if it doesn''t, this could be a little more heavyweight than reverting to a standard 442.And no, this isn''t new, and others have posted similar things before - but it could be the answer to the OP''s question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When Fox was brought in I saw him as direct competition for Hoolahan at the top of the diamond and I was quite surprised when he played him at the base.

I actually think he played pretty well in both the games we played, but we did miss a more physical presence. Crofts was brilliant against Scunthorpe and for me the role is his to lose.

Korey Smith was also excellent second half against Scunthorpe and he should retain his place. I see Fox as competing for his position but could also provide good cover in the other roles.

It is good that we are finally talking about this level of competition though. The once I can see really missing out is Stephen Hughes, not sure where he fits in really. I would keep him until January as cover and then when Adeyemi completes his loan at Bradford, move Hughes on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I see Hughes as an alternative to Korey. He has a good engine and a good tackle and can get forward to support attacks. I see that as the role of the two at the sides of the diamond.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Great post and replies. Both Fox and Surman could provide back-up for Hoolahan, but there certainly are choices for Lambert to make. Hoolahan, Crofts and Korey seem certs at the moment, and Surman seems to be edging out Lappin, but that great cross for the goal will have helped his cause as well. I also like the idea of the diamond flexing in and out of the 4231 to confuse the opposition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unless you have exceptional talent i don`t think it`s good enough to just be a good ball player with little else to your game any more.  Fox needs to get down the gym, toughen up, and practise hard the ugly side of the game as you cannot play someone at the base who is as easily outmuscled as he was against Watford. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still expect Fox will feature heavily this season in our midfield and I expect we''ll see him at the base of the diamond again.

As Lambert said when we signed him, he''s been brought in to move the ball around the pitch. And there''ll be games when the manager wants him to be the ball player at the base of the diamond.

There sometimes seems to be a bit of a misunderstanding that the player at the base has to be a tough tackling destroyer. Which can sometimes be the case but that role is not limited to just that type of player, quite often the person sitting deepest in midfield is there to break up play where possible but, more essentially, to spread the play as required.

That position is often referred to as the "Makelele role". Makelele is/was a smallish player who excelled at reading the game and then giving the ball nice and easy to his team mates, not a big physical powerhouse who flew into tackles left, right and centre at a million miles an hour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think Fox is more Carrick than Makelele. Makelele was small but was a tough tackler and did what Crofts did v Scunny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think we should drop the diamond and play a winkel-wankel-rotary engine machine formation with Ainsley Harriott on the central wing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I''ll hold me hands up and say that I thought Fox could do a decent job at the base of the diamond by setting up attacks with his passing. Unfortunately teams like Watford didn''t give him any time to get his foot on the ball and he doesn''t appear to have the phyiscality to counteract this. I agree that the more logical role for him now would be as direct competition for the Wes Hoolahan role. In an ideal world Russell and Crofts would have been fighting it out for that defensive midfield role but I dont believe Russell ever warranted a three year deal as a squad player so our hands were tied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the evidence of the 1st 2 games, Fox doesn''t fit!

 

Seems a nice cultured player but isn''t suited for the bottom of the diamond role. He isn''t as good as Hoolahan, not as tenacious as Smith and isn''t a left sided player.

 

If everyone stays fit, its hard to see where he fits although a handy bloke to have in the squad!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...