Play to our strengths!

[king canary 7,607]

[quote user="Gingerpele"]I think the problem is, we our trying to play to last years strength, which isn''t a problem as such, because when Hoolahan, Holt and Martin are on form, they are an extremely deadly attacking trio, but it does mean that the midfield three, may have to play slightly differently, to how they would in 4-4-2 which is how the would have learn''t to play, how Crofts and Surman have probably been playing prior to joining us...

Surman isn''t going to be as attacking as he can/should be, he is playing in Lappin''s position, and how attacking is Lappin?

Korey Smith, can do a job anywhere, he has so much energy and drive... I do however, think he can attack fairly well, especially when linking up with R. Martin...

Crofts, is similar to Korey really, the and energy and aggression in his performance, is something to be admired, he can suit any job, but a central two of Korey and Crofts, would be amazing, they can both pass, can cover when one of them attacks (the other one sits back), and it would seriously limit the space the other team get in the middle, it would also allow Surman and another winger, to play as actual wingers, which i think would benefit Holt and Martin.....

But at the moment, the diamond still seems to be working ok, although it doesn''t seem to be a flawless as it was last year...[/quote]No no no no no! It was like when we tried Smith and Rusty together, lots of energy and aggression but no real creativity. Smith or Crofts next to Surman could well work.

[Gingerpele 0]

You don''t need the creativity that much really, Crofts can join attacks, have Surman & another winger (would have to be Macnamee) doing the creative stuff, Holt and Martin finishing....

Brazils Central mid, was Gilberto Silva and Melo, not that creative (ok they had Kaka, Elano and Robinho infront of them....)

[Guest]

To be fair, knowing the poster and his dislike of Hoolahan, without even reading the OP I can guess this is a veiled criticism of the player, suggesting he is dropped for some unproven and/or average wide man, which will be somehow better for our strikers.Am I right?

[Largey 0]

Sorry, whats wrong with how things are at the moment?!

[Lambert is King 0]

[quote user="Largey"]

Sorry, whats wrong with how things are at the moment?!

[/quote]

Well said Largey

[Davo 0]

I can''t understand why someone is suggesting dropping the diamond for a 4-4-2 when:

a) We are 7 point from 9

b) Our only loss came on the first day of the season and on Sky. Two situations where we have never played well in the past.

c) Playing a right winger with no real accurate right foot.

d) Playing a left winger with little pace.

We played very well yesterday and was unlucky not to win. Not exactly a bad result so I don''t see any need to change anything right now.

Davo

[king canary 7,607]

[quote user="Gingerpele"]You don''t need the creativity that much really, Crofts can join attacks, have Surman & another winger (would have to be Macnamee) doing the creative stuff, Holt and Martin finishing....

Brazils Central mid, was Gilberto Silva and Melo, not that creative (ok they had Kaka, Elano and Robinho infront of them....)[/quote]Exactly and it was not a 4-4-2. You see you dont need it that much I think it stood out when we tried this formation how much we did need it. We had two players who ran and chased and harried but then once we had the ball there was no real outlet.

[If wed kept Howie.. 208]

I agree with Largey and Davo...

Early days and we are doing ok.

Until the team has fully gelled and the league has settled - no need to get all hot ''n'' bothered - i kinda get the impression that Lambert knows what he is doing, and is learning more about his players all the time.

Ps. Surman a pacy winger??? hahahaha. He is a fantastic player - but inside left seems about right for him.

[ryan1992 0]

[quote user="CDMullins"]

Now this is in no way a negative post, I thought we were superb today, really assured, controlled and dominated the game. I really couldn’t see Forest scoring from open play. Firstly lets clear up the penalty incidents. First one stone wall penalty, Barnett took an age to clear the ball and when he tried to the Forest player was in the way! Second one, blatant dive, Anderson went down far too easy. I guess they even them self out!

Now.....This is not a Wes hate campaign it is more about our other 3 midfielders and the diamond.

The problem I think we have is with Korey and Surman. Korey is not an attacking midfielder and as no idea when in the oppositions final third, however he is very good at breaking up the oppositions play and keeping the ball. Surman cannot defend for toffee and playing him ‘tucked in’ does not suit his game, he is an attacking winger and his priority should be beating the full back and getting a cross in. However his defensive duties are affecting his attacking potential.

Crofts as been excellent, I’m so impressed with him. Him and Korey would be a fantastic centre midfield pairing, breaking down play and bringing the wingers into the game. Both are full of energy and love a tackle. I think a flat four would really play to our strengths. Drop Wes onto the left wing and play Surman on the right, alternatively Mcnamee on the left.

Holt obviously thrives on crosses into the box. Ive also been impressed with Chrissy Martin, he seems to have developed so much both mentally and physically and he is now a real presence in the box. He was so unlucky hitting the post twice in the space of a couple of minutes today!

Cant wait to see the City goal, had no idea how it went in or who had scored it!

Great day out, the best performance I have seen at this level for quite a while! And whilst id have bit your hand off for a point before the game, after such a great performance it seems like 2 points dropped!

 

[/quote]

No, no, no, no and no! We destroyed most sides last season with the diamond formation, which is why Holt, Chrissy and Wes got so many goals, as it is a very attacking formation, while also covering the defence with the defending Midfielder. This year we have only lost once, then we won 3 on the trot plus dominated the Forest game, and with slightly more luck we would have won comfortably. My other criticism of your post is, you say we should play Wes on the left??!! Can you remember what we played like when he was on the left? It was like having Holt at left back or something! Korey didn''t do too badly last year in his position, did he?

[King Klose 0]

[quote user="Largey"]

Sorry, whats wrong with how things are at the moment?!

[/quote]

Spot on.

I think CD Mullins has illustrated his lack of ''football'' knowledge and his unwarranted dislike of Hoolahan, who has without doubt been one of, if not the best, player of the season for us to date, probably on a par with Crofts and C. Martin.  

[Old Shuck 183]

The diamond formation is very flexible though-maybe thats why Lambert likes it so much?

Obstensibly, its 4-1-2-1-2 (ie) DM covering the back four, two CM''s, both offering support to defence and attack, the AM ''floating around'' just behind the front two.

But it can switch to 4-3-3 quite easily, so, from...

Martin-Barnett-Ward-Drury....Crofts...Smith-Surman...Hoolahan...Martin-Holt, you can switch to Martin-Barnett-Ward-Drury...Surman-Crofts-Smith...Hoolahan-Holt-Martin, which Hoolahan and Martin AML and AMR respectively.

Or, more defensively, 4-5-1, with Holt up top on his own, and a midfield 5 of Surman-Crofts-Hoolahan*-Smith-Martin (*slightly advanced of the other 4, so, offensively ((getting confusing now!)) it can be 4-4-1-1).

You could argue that Lambert is building the team around Wes, as I can''t see him fitting into a 4-4-2 formation, where-as he slots well into any of the above.

But that could all be a load of old bollocks of course, the point is, he''s picking a team and formation that is doing well for us and long may it continue, however he does it!!

[Beauseant 0]

I think the key point is that we are not playing the diamond system of last year. As Old Shuck says, there is great fluidity this year resulting from the improved personnel.

Last year Russell''s limitations (ie his very limited passing ability) resulted in a much more rigid formation. Generally he sat very deep which meant that, when we were defending Smith and Lappin had to move inside, leaving a lot of space out wide. Fortunately we didn''t come across too many quality wingers in League One so the fullbacks generally coped. However, it also meant that we were overly dependent on Wes for creativity, and when he was neutralised we struggled.

The key to this season''s more fluid system is Crofts. He has a fantastic engine and is comfortable on the ball, meaning that he can both break up play and make telling late runs into the opposition''s box, resulting in goals against Watford and Forest. Korey has also developed and is now much better on the ball, whereas Surman has more to his game than Lappin. The balance of two "workers" and two "ballplayers" (although it''s important to stress how much defensive work Wes and Surman did at Forest) allied to their workrates mean that they are able to switch roles quite effectively and so create more problems for opponents. On Saturday we were compact when defending, but when we broke we stretched Forest across the whole width of the field, resulting in a string of dangerous crosses.

[Canary_on_the Trent 0]

[quote user="Beauseant"]

The key to this season''s more fluid system is Crofts. He has a fantastic engine and is comfortable on the ball, meaning that he can both break up play and make telling late runs into the opposition''s box, resulting in goals against Watford and Forest.

[/quote]I agree with your post but the point about Crofts scoring goals from late runs into the box isn''t accurate as he wasn''t played at the base against Watford & his goal at Forest came from a set piece.However there does seem to be a bit more fluidity to the system this season, last season we were very reliant on Hoolahan to create anything but now we seem to have more movement & creativity throughout the midfield.

[Beauseant 0]

[quote user="Canary_on_the Trent"][quote user="Beauseant"]

The key to this season''s more fluid system is Crofts. He has a fantastic engine and is comfortable on the ball, meaning that he can both break up play and make telling late runs into the opposition''s box, resulting in goals against Watford and Forest.

[/quote]

I agree with your post but the point about Crofts scoring goals from late runs into the box isn''t accurate as he wasn''t played at the base against Watford & his goal at Forest came from a set piece.

However there does seem to be a bit more fluidity to the system this season, last season we were very reliant on Hoolahan to create anything but now we seem to have more movement & creativity throughout the midfield.
[/quote]

 

Sorry, you''re right about the goals[Y], although I think you''d agree that Crofts gets into much more advanced positions that Rusty did last year? I think that we''ll see more from Wes this season simply because he isn''t our sole creative threat, making it harder for teams to double up on him.

[Canary_on_the Trent 0]

Spoken to a few of my Forest supporting mates and what impressed them most about City was the workrate and closing down of our players, no Forest player was ever able to get the ball and get his head up before being harrassed by yellow shirts. That''s got to be because of the change made to the diamond after the Watford defeat, nothing against Fox but he just doesn''t have the engine and aggression of Crofts & Smith.

[Robert N. LiM 4,356]

Any argument that involves Wes playing left wing should be immediately ignored. We have a season''s worth of evidence to prove that it doesn''t work.

I would add that for all Korey''s qualities, and I am a huge admirer of his, that he is still young and inexperienced. He had his worst games for us last season when he played as one of two in the centre of midfield. The right of the diamond role is perfect for him at the moment.

So I would conclude that the diamond is perfect for all four of them at the moment. As has been said by people who have actually watched him play, Surman is not a winger. His speed is all in his head. Crofts seems to have been a revelation at the base of the diamond.

Now, the diamond obviously has its weaknesses, most obviously lack of attacking width. MacNamee provides that option if it is not working and is the perfect substitute. But I would also argue that an attacking full back (preferably a right-footed version of Ryan Bertrand) on loan from a Prem team when the window closes would be a really good addition, enabling us to add some width even when we play the diamond. I''m not a Russell Martin knocker - I think he''s solid enough, but I would assume that not even his mum would suggest he is threatening going forward. Does anyone know if Steve Smith is an attacking player? Is he going to offer more than Drury in that area?

But, regardless of that, I simply can''t fit our current squad into a 4-4-2 that would improve our team. Can anyone?

[Beauseant 0]

[quote user="Robert N. LiM"]

Now, the diamond obviously has its weaknesses, most obviously lack of attacking width. MacNamee provides that option if it is not working and is the perfect substitute. But I would also argue that an attacking full back (preferably a right-footed version of Ryan Bertrand) on loan from a Prem team when the window closes would be a really good addition, enabling us to add some width even when we play the diamond. I''m not a Russell Martin knocker - I think he''s solid enough, but I would assume that not even his mum would suggest he is threatening going forward. Does anyone know if Steve Smith is an attacking player? Is he going to offer more than Drury in that area?

[/quote]

 

In fairness, both Martin and Drury were bombing forward on a regular basis on Saturday. The difference is that Martin tends to make a break and then look to lay it off, whereas Drury likes to drive at the by line himself. I think it''s a shame as Martin can whip some great balls in, but we mustn''t lose sight of the fact that a fullback''s job is primarily defensive and Martin was solid as a rock on Saturday.We also tend to be a liitle more effective with overlaps on the left because Wes, Drury and Surman are all left footers and naturally tend to gravitate towards that side.

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

Yet to see a game so these are general observations. Firstly, even if

the diamond is still the preferred starting formation, it is necessary

to have the players for different formations, including the now

much-maligned 4-4-2. For example, it is true Hoolahan doesn''t fit easily

(if at all) into a 4-4-2, but it''s not as if he''s incapable of playing

badly. Sometimes Lambert will want to substitute or even drop him.

Tactical flexibility is a must.

Secondly, in discussions like this there is never, unless I''ve missed

it, any account taken of the opposition. It''s as if we are always

playing the same team, week in, week out, and our tactics and line-ups

are solely governed by factors within our control.

And that, of course, is nonsense. I doubt any two teams in the division

play exactly the same way with the same strengths and weaknesses. What

works well (the diamond, say) against one team may be a bad tactical

choice against another.

There is a chess[8-|] maxim. Don''t always play the move you like best; play

the move your opponent will like least. And they are not always the same

move. It appplies to football as well.

[Davo 0]

This is an interesting point about R Martin. He can cross the ball but unlike Drury he doesn''t seem to like overlapping the midfielder (I can understand this as when I played I was the same).

I like him as a player but I can see Robert''s point. Maybe a more attacking right back would be a nice option to have but at what cost? Russell see''s his main job as that of a defender and rarely get caught being too high up the pitch, would a more attacking right back leave us more exposed?

From the little I know of Steven Smith (I''ve only seen a few games on TV and spoken to a Rangers supporting friend) he''s an attacking left-back and sounds like he''s a similar player to Drury, hard to tell until we see him though.

Davo

[Beauseant 0]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]Yet to see a game so these are general observations. Firstly, even if the diamond is still the preferred starting formation, it is necessary to have the players for different formations, including the now much-maligned 4-4-2. For example, it is true Hoolahan doesn''t fit easily (if at all) into a 4-4-2, but it''s not as if he''s incapable of playing badly. Sometimes Lambert will want to substitute or even drop him. Tactical flexibility is a must.

Secondly, in discussions like this there is never, unless I''ve missed it, any account taken of the opposition. It''s as if we are always playing the same team, week in, week out, and our tactics and line-ups are solely governed by factors within our control.

And that, of course, is nonsense. I doubt any two teams in the division play exactly the same way with the same strengths and weaknesses. What works well (the diamond, say) against one team may be a bad tactical choice against another.

There is a chess[8-|] maxim. Don''t always play the move you like best; play the move your opponent will like least. And they are not always the same move. It appplies to football as well.


[/quote]

 

I think this links back to a point I made earlier. Discussion on here tends to treat the diamond as being a rigid set up. While that was true to a large extent last season, the advent of another quality creative player in Surman and the replacement of the one dimensional Russell by Crofts, who has much more to his game, has allowed us to be much more flexible. On Saturday Holt and Martin harried their back four while Crofts, Smith , Hoolahan and Surman crowded central midfield, forcing Forest to go wide. Once they did, a midfield player would immediately peel off to double up with the fullback on that side to stop easy crosses coming in. Equally, when we broke we quickly stretched play across the whole width of the pitch, causing Forest all sorts of problems.

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

[quote user="Beauseant"]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]Yet to see a game so these are general observations. Firstly, even if the diamond is still the preferred starting formation, it is necessary to have the players for different formations, including the now much-maligned 4-4-2. For example, it is true Hoolahan doesn''t fit easily (if at all) into a 4-4-2, but it''s not as if he''s incapable of playing badly. Sometimes Lambert will want to substitute or even drop him. Tactical flexibility is a must.Secondly, in discussions like this there is never, unless I''ve missed it, any account taken of the opposition. It''s as if we are always playing the same team, week in, week out, and our tactics and line-ups are solely governed by factors within our control.And that, of course, is nonsense. I doubt any two teams in the division play exactly the same way with the same strengths and weaknesses. What works well (the diamond, say) against one team may be a bad tactical choice against another.There is a chess[8-|] maxim. Don''t always play the move you like best; play the move your opponent will like least. And they are not always the same move. It appplies to football as well.

[/quote]

 

I think this links back to a point I made earlier. Discussion on here tends to treat the diamond as being a rigid set up. While that was true to a large extent last season, the advent of another quality creative player in Surman and the replacement of the one dimensional Russell by Crofts, who has much more to his game, has allowed us to be much more flexible. On Saturday Holt and Martin harried their back four while Crofts, Smith , Hoolahan and Surman crowded central midfield, forcing Forest to go wide. Once they did, a midfield player would immediately peel off to double up with the fullback on that side to stop easy crosses coming in. Equally, when we broke we quickly stretched play across the whole width of the pitch, causing Forest all sorts of problems.

[/quote]Beau, I had noted your original post and been heartened by it. One point I made in the summer was that Lambert needed to do with his midfield what Worthington did with his - make it less one-dimensional. We got promotion with Holt and Francis, who were both one-dimensional, one-footed players. For the step up in class to the Premier league Worthington signed Safri. A much more complete player, able to tackle AND pass the ball. And with a footballing brain.It looks from what you''re saying that Lambert, albeit working with a different tactical system,  has rather done the same for the step up to the Championship. He realised Smith AND Russell as a combination would be too plain and so has replaced one of the one-dimensional players with a more complete player in Crofts. It also sounds as if Crofts would fit perfectly into a 4-4-2 if we ever want to play that system, whether because it suits us or really, really, really upsets the opposition''s plans.

[Davo 0]

Agreed Beau, the 4-4-2 is a much more rigid formation than the diamond.

Having two banks of four can be defensively solid at times but we just don''t have the players for it.

However the diamond allows us to be much more fluid. On Saturday Hoolahan was excellent by his standards in defending. Surman worked hard in the wide areas as did Korey. Our diamond and the work rate our players showed more than out matched their 4-4-2.

I think we have the balance of the team right at the moment. Adding Surman makes us a more potent threat and he works well as a more creative player compared to the work rate of Korey and Crofts. It also mean that if a team doubles up on Hoolahan they will have to also nullify Surman or leave him free.

One of the big advantages of the diamond is it''s a formation teams have to adapt to playing against. They have to think about whether to counter Wes or leave him. They know that if they leave him then he could destroy them. That automatically puts us in the driving seat. Our formation means they have to counter us and not the other way round. It also adds the fluidity that we can counter them. I predict we''ll do well against teams that play 4-4-2 but will perhaps struggle a bit more against those that play a 4-5-1 or it''s variations. The 4-5-1 will perhaps allow a team to nullify both Surman and Hoolahan, keep possession and pose an offensive threat.

All in all I think we are playing to our strengths and things are looking good.

Davo

[Beauseant 0]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Beauseant"]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]Yet to see a game so these are general observations. Firstly, even if the diamond is still the preferred starting formation, it is necessary to have the players for different formations, including the now much-maligned 4-4-2. For example, it is true Hoolahan doesn''t fit easily (if at all) into a 4-4-2, but it''s not as if he''s incapable of playing badly. Sometimes Lambert will want to substitute or even drop him. Tactical flexibility is a must.

Secondly, in discussions like this there is never, unless I''ve missed it, any account taken of the opposition. It''s as if we are always playing the same team, week in, week out, and our tactics and line-ups are solely governed by factors within our control.

And that, of course, is nonsense. I doubt any two teams in the division play exactly the same way with the same strengths and weaknesses. What works well (the diamond, say) against one team may be a bad tactical choice against another.

There is a chess[8-|] maxim. Don''t always play the move you like best; play the move your opponent will like least. And they are not always the same move. It appplies to football as well.


[/quote]

 

I think this links back to a point I made earlier. Discussion on here tends to treat the diamond as being a rigid set up. While that was true to a large extent last season, the advent of another quality creative player in Surman and the replacement of the one dimensional Russell by Crofts, who has much more to his game, has allowed us to be much more flexible. On Saturday Holt and Martin harried their back four while Crofts, Smith , Hoolahan and Surman crowded central midfield, forcing Forest to go wide. Once they did, a midfield player would immediately peel off to double up with the fullback on that side to stop easy crosses coming in. Equally, when we broke we quickly stretched play across the whole width of the pitch, causing Forest all sorts of problems.

[/quote]

Beau, I had noted your original post and been heartened by it. One point I made in the summer was that Lambert needed to do with his midfield what Worthington did with his - make it less one-dimensional. We got promotion with Holt and Francis, who were both one-dimensional, one-footed players. For the step up in class to the Premier league Worthington signed Safri. A much more complete player, able to tackle AND pass the ball. And with a footballing brain.

It looks from what you''re saying that Lambert, albeit working with a different tactical system,  has rather done the same for the step up to the Championship. He realised Smith AND Russell as a combination would be too plain and so has replaced one of the one-dimensional players with a more complete player in Crofts. It also sounds as if Crofts would fit perfectly into a 4-4-2 if we ever want to play that system, whether because it suits us or really, really, really upsets the opposition''s plans.

[/quote]

 

Yes, that''s pretty much how I see it. I really do believe that Crofts may prove to be the most important of all the summer signings and could certainly play in a 4-4-2, where his eye for goal would also get more of a free rein.

[Davo 0]

Purple Canary said: It also sounds as if Crofts would fit perfectly into a 4-4-2 if we ever want to play that system, whether because it suits us or really, really, really upsets the opposition''s plans.

Crofts could fit into a 4-4-2 but the problem we have is who could play wide right?

Davo

[Boyo 0]

I think it''s fair to say that the standard 4-4-2 formation won''t be used much this season.  When the diamond isn''t working I think we will switch to formations like 4-4-1-1;

Martin            Ward         Barnett         Drury

Smith               Crofts       Surman        Martin/McNamee

                              Hoolahan

                                 Holt

4-2-3-1;

Martin            Ward         Barnett      Drury

                       Smith        Crofts

Martin/McNamee      Hoolahan         Surman

                                 Holt

I also think it is important that we are not scared to drop players like Hoolahan or Crofts/K.Smith and without them I see no reason why not a 4-4-2 can''t be used;

Martin         Ward         Barnett      Drury

McNamee  Crofts/K.Smith   Fox    Surman

                     Holt         Martin