alternative view

[ron obvious 1,711]

Copied & pasted from someone called carrabuh on 606:Much as I enjoyed the game yesterday and it''s final result I think it

showed in an exaggerated sense why we are conceding the goals we are. I

was always under the impression that the formation is supposed to make

you very compact and difficult to play against in the dangerous

positions through the middle. Your not really supposed to press all

areas of the pitch with it. We on the other hand are expanding when we

attack and not reverting back to this compact centre when we lose the

ball. Crofts is running around like a mad man at times just going to the

ball instead of thinking a bit about what he''s doing and the space he''s

leaving behind. Him and Smith were both guilty of it yesterday and

Leicester had so much space as soon as they found the centre isolated.

This charging after the ball keeps the fans onside but he holds a

disciplined position.You cannot press, press, press the whole field with a diamond, the fans love it but it just doesn''t work.This

may seem harsh on Crofts because he does do a good shift and tackles

well, he just needs needs too think a bit more about what he''s doing

before chasing out after the ball. In fact alot of the time his starting

position is nowhere near that base.Finally if I hear another

idiot on the radio or in the crowd moaning about Holt moving out wide I

shall scream. He HAS to it''s how the formation works, Martin does it

also. They cannot just sit in the centre waiting for the ball, defenders

won''t move out of position just because you ask them nicely. There''s

three of them up there, they can''t all be in the middle and you can''t

expect the full back to overtake the midfield on a counter attack and to

get out wide all the time. We have some serious monkeys supporting this

club at times.Given the concensus that Crofts has been a revelation & that Holt plays too wide, I thought this was an interesting take on things. Any comments?

[Beijing Canary 0]

[quote user="ron obvious"]Copied & pasted from someone called carrabuh on 606:

Much as I enjoyed the game yesterday and it''s final result I think it showed in an exaggerated sense why we are conceding the goals we are. I was always under the impression that the formation is supposed to make you very compact and difficult to play against in the dangerous positions through the middle. Your not really supposed to press all areas of the pitch with it. We on the other hand are expanding when we attack and not reverting back to this compact centre when we lose the ball. Crofts is running around like a mad man at times just going to the ball instead of thinking a bit about what he''s doing and the space he''s leaving behind. Him and Smith were both guilty of it yesterday and Leicester had so much space as soon as they found the centre isolated. This charging after the ball keeps the fans onside but he holds a disciplined position.

You cannot press, press, press the whole field with a diamond, the fans love it but it just doesn''t work.

This may seem harsh on Crofts because he does do a good shift and tackles well, he just needs needs too think a bit more about what he''s doing before chasing out after the ball. In fact alot of the time his starting position is nowhere near that base.

Finally if I hear another idiot on the radio or in the crowd moaning about Holt moving out wide I shall scream. He HAS to it''s how the formation works, Martin does it also. They cannot just sit in the centre waiting for the ball, defenders won''t move out of position just because you ask them nicely. There''s three of them up there, they can''t all be in the middle and you can''t expect the full back to overtake the midfield on a counter attack and to get out wide all the time. We have some serious monkeys supporting this club at times.

Given the concensus that Crofts has been a revelation & that Holt plays too wide, I thought this was an interesting take on things. Any comments?


[/quote]

Paul McVeigh was on Radio Norfolk as a pundit for the Hull game. He said Lambert would always scream at Holt from the touchline - telling him to stop dropping out wide. So I guess Lambert is an "idiot" too right?

[Beauseant 0]

 

Interesting. I wrote the following elsewhere on another thread. I actually think that Crofts was forced into doing too much because Korey was starngely muted in the first half, and Lappin went walkabout on a few occasions, but essentially the guy is pretty much right.

 

The diamond is effective when Crofts, Smith and Lappin achieve a high workrate which allows the fullbacks to push on. In the last 15 on Saturday and the first half on Tuesday they didn''t. When that happens the overload in midfield (Leicester played five there) means that if the opposition pass well they can control possession and exploit the space between our players (with Hoolahan doing little defensively in the first half on Tuesday that  meant it was effectively 3 v 5) . The keys on Tuesday after half time were that Wes did more tackling back and that the fullbacks pushed higher, but as Shyster rightly says , that makes us more vulnerable on the break. With the diamond against better sides I can see problems, particularly when you look at the damage that Waghorn inflicted.

[Webbo118 0]

[quote user="ron obvious"]Copied & pasted from someone called carrabuh on 606:

Much as I enjoyed the game yesterday and it''s final result I think it showed in an exaggerated sense why we are conceding the goals we are. I was always under the impression that the formation is supposed to make you very compact and difficult to play against in the dangerous positions through the middle. Your not really supposed to press all areas of the pitch with it. We on the other hand are expanding when we attack and not reverting back to this compact centre when we lose the ball. Crofts is running around like a mad man at times just going to the ball instead of thinking a bit about what he''s doing and the space he''s leaving behind. Him and Smith were both guilty of it yesterday and Leicester had so much space as soon as they found the centre isolated. This charging after the ball keeps the fans onside but he holds a disciplined position.

You cannot press, press, press the whole field with a diamond, the fans love it but it just doesn''t work.

This may seem harsh on Crofts because he does do a good shift and tackles well, he just needs needs too think a bit more about what he''s doing before chasing out after the ball. In fact alot of the time his starting position is nowhere near that base.

Finally if I hear another idiot on the radio or in the crowd moaning about Holt moving out wide I shall scream. He HAS to it''s how the formation works, Martin does it also. They cannot just sit in the centre waiting for the ball, defenders won''t move out of position just because you ask them nicely. There''s three of them up there, they can''t all be in the middle and you can''t expect the full back to overtake the midfield on a counter attack and to get out wide all the time. We have some serious monkeys supporting this club at times.

Given the concensus that Crofts has been a revelation & that Holt plays too wide, I thought this was an interesting take on things. Any comments?


[/quote]

I think the Manager should be snapping him up as a "special advisor"

[Northern Canary 0]

Its only got us to third in our first run of games in a new division - we should clearly ditch it. Crofts has been player of the season so far for me.

[Bury Yellow 2]

A really interesting take on our game generally.

I totally agree with the Holt and Martin comments. With the formation we play it is essential that they both move wide when play permits. When they don''t, you here the complaints that the defenders have no one to pass to because there is no movement.

The comments on Crofts and the midfield in general may be valid. After all, when the strikers move wide surely the midfield should ''fill the hole''.

Trouble with me is, I get so wrapped up in the game I miss all this tactical stuff!!

[king canary 8,763]

I think the main offender for getting sucked out of position is Smith. he gets too narrow and often leaves R Martin up against two men. I''m not knocking the lad but he is young so a bit of positional naivity is to be expected.

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 2,424]

For me, a lot of those comments are very much correct.

If you want to see how a diamond works at its best, then look at Chelsea or Milan from a few years ago. These teams play/played the perfect version of this formation.

If you consider that Crofts = Essien, Smith = Ballack (last year)/Ramires , Surman/Lappin = Malouda and Hoolahan = Lampard.

Essien certainly doesn''t go tearing around the pitch chasing everything down, but sits carefully in front of the back four and choosing his moment to close down when he has cover, or coming out wide when there is a threat on either flank. I''m not saying Crofts is a bad player for doing this, it is just the difference between a good Championship player and a world class player. I see a lot of similarities between Ramires and Smith, both are high energy, good in a tackle and excellent work rate. Their job is to do the tearing about, they have to cover the centre and the wings so must cover a lot of ground (hence why an aging Ballack was allowed to leave). Malouda, like Lappin/Surman is more naturally a wide player moved towards the centre (although Surman isn''t a winger he naturally drifts wider to take greater advantage of his ability to deliver a killer ball) and like Smith/Ramires has to track back and cover ground. Basically, if the attack comes from the centre, it should be easily dealt with due to the extra numebrs and Crofts holding, if an attack comes from the wings we will be more exposed, but in theory either Smith/Surman should close the player down along with one of the fullbacks, a centre back should shift wider to cover the space and Crofts should move deeper to cover the centre back. Watch Chelsea, you will see this tactic applied countless times every game.

When it comes to strikers, they should play wider that a traditional centre forward dragging the centre backs wider, allowing Hoolahan/Lampard to move into space in the centre. However, if they both go too wide at the same time it is easy to defend against. At Chelsea Anelka will often drift out to one of the wings and Drogba will stay central to score the goals, but this is often switched as well with Drogba wider feeding Anelka/Lampard.

I think the issue with Holt moving wide is that he will go wide right as Martin moves wide left, leaving Hoolahan alone in the centre. However, looking at our goals this season and last, it is common to see Holt out on the right supplying a ball for Hoolahan, Crofts, Smith or Lappin to get on the end of. Just from goal kicks, or balls coming from deeper Holt needs to be in the centre to hold the ball up, or if Hoolhan and Martin are both out wide he needs to bust a gut getting into position in the box (which he usally does).

Thus concludes my long and boring post...

[Beauseant 0]

[quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"]

For me, a lot of those comments are very much correct.

If you want to see how a diamond works at its best, then look at Chelsea or Milan from a few years ago. These teams play/played the perfect version of this formation.

If you consider that Crofts = Essien, Smith = Ballack (last year)/Ramires , Surman/Lappin = Malouda and Hoolahan = Lampard.

Essien certainly doesn''t go tearing around the pitch chasing everything down, but sits carefully in front of the back four and choosing his moment to close down when he has cover, or coming out wide when there is a threat on either flank. I''m not saying Crofts is a bad player for doing this, it is just the difference between a good Championship player and a world class player. I see a lot of similarities between Ramires and Smith, both are high energy, good in a tackle and excellent work rate. Their job is to do the tearing about, they have to cover the centre and the wings so must cover a lot of ground (hence why an aging Ballack was allowed to leave). Malouda, like Lappin/Surman is more naturally a wide player moved towards the centre (although Surman isn''t a winger he naturally drifts wider to take greater advantage of his ability to deliver a killer ball) and like Smith/Ramires has to track back and cover ground. Basically, if the attack comes from the centre, it should be easily dealt with due to the extra numebrs and Crofts holding, if an attack comes from the wings we will be more exposed, but in theory either Smith/Surman should close the player down along with one of the fullbacks, a centre back should shift wider to cover the space and Crofts should move deeper to cover the centre back. Watch Chelsea, you will see this tactic applied countless times every game.

When it comes to strikers, they should play wider that a traditional centre forward dragging the centre backs wider, allowing Hoolahan/Lampard to move into space in the centre. However, if they both go too wide at the same time it is easy to defend against. At Chelsea Anelka will often drift out to one of the wings and Drogba will stay central to score the goals, but this is often switched as well with Drogba wider feeding Anelka/Lampard.

I think the issue with Holt moving wide is that he will go wide right as Martin moves wide left, leaving Hoolahan alone in the centre. However, looking at our goals this season and last, it is common to see Holt out on the right supplying a ball for Hoolahan, Crofts, Smith or Lappin to get on the end of. Just from goal kicks, or balls coming from deeper Holt needs to be in the centre to hold the ball up, or if Hoolhan and Martin are both out wide he needs to bust a gut getting into position in the box (which he usally does).

Thus concludes my long and boring post...

[/quote]

 

Superb post which explains the strengths and weaknesses of the system very well. As I''m tiring of saying, there is nothing inherently wrong with the diamond as a system, anymore than there is with 4-4-2 or 4-1-2-3, it''s all in the execution.

What depresses me are all the "We won League One with it " and "We''re third in the Championship with it" as if it''s the only formation  that works. I accept that it''s the best way to accommodate Hoolahan, but at some point we will need to develop an alternative, because football doesn''t stand still. If it did we''d all be using "wingless wonders".

[Salopian 1]

There are things that Ruddy must work on. He is good at getting down to balls a distance from him, as when he saved the penalty. His problem to me seems that he struggles with shots nearer to him, which many keepers do. He is a big man, and I think struggles to get down close to him.

The solution seems to be to spread himself wide to block the ball, although this may cause rebounds which can go anywhere.

In general the defence seems good until quick men run at them down the wing. In Leicester''s first goal Lappin and Drury made half-hearted attempts. For their final goal Korey was on the wrong(outside) side of the runner, and merely jogged after him. Perhaps he was tired.

There is a problem down the wings with the diamond, especially if both Lappin and Korey are well forward when their backs do the required run down the wing. Somehow they must learn to cover. There is also the problem that we like Crofts to get forward, and score, but he, too, leaves the defence short of cover.

For away games PL could adopt a more defensive 4-5-1 line up, with Hooly in the centre of midfield, but with the strikers not scoring many at the moment it could mean we have even less edge in the final third!

[Mello Yello 2,573]

My major concern on Saturday, (apart from our inability to finish) was the amount of time, space and freedom to roam, that was allowed to Jimmy Bullard....

Especially for the last 20 minutes or so, when we unfortunately conceded those 2 late goals....

Regarding the Foxes on Tuesday night?....I felt that we were going to snatch a defeat (or a draw) from the jaws of victory....

I felt that some of our showing for the ball and movement off the ball - was quite poor....and restricted our options and outlet when we were in possession....

We can only improve.....

 

 

 

[ron obvious 1,711]

Well it seems to have provoked some thoughtful & well-argued responses (Bethnal Y&G''s was particularly fantastic!), which is one of the main reasons I read this MB.I have no particular axe to grind on the matters raised by the OP, but I find a different view is always useful  - it can either confirm you in your original opinion, or make you modify it (or occasionally change it completely!). Whatever, you hopefully learn something.What it does confirm to me is that there is no perfect way of playing football & no perfect player. And if someone found the perfect system with a team of perfect players - how boring would that be?? It''s the striving that makes it interesting!OTBC!

[Nuff Said 5,973]

As long as we score more than we concede, who cares? [:D]

[Bill 1,788]

"because he does do a good shift"

What is he a far ken removal man ?

[Smudger 0]

I have been saying all season long, that without 3 defensive minded or ball winning midfielders in a diamond system, you will be found wanting quite often as a team defensively at this level.The positive is that although our strikers have not been hitting the back of the net regularly, we are out-scoring most teams!I was very impressed with Steven Smith when he came on Tuesday evening and I am sure that he will be a big plus for Lambert''s midfield/defensive options - once he finds full match fitness.It is the fine balance between creativity in midfield and defensive duties that our midfield (and the rest of our team) must work at if we are going to have the successful season that much of our play warrants.Good to see that some people are finally picking up on this.  I am sure that Lambert was hinting at this also when he made his pre-match comments on Tuesday night... [:D]

[Matt Morriss 69]

I personally think he was talking a load of rubbish, the Holt issue is very much a factor, as evidenced by what McVeigh said about Lambert not liking him drifting out wide. Id rather he stayed central and Martin and Wes drifted. This would allow both along with Smith, Lappin and the Martin''s to supply some crosses whilst we actually have a striker in the box to finish them.Secondly his whole comment about the 3 goals conceded and the expansive play was bull$hit. The only reason we conceded 3 was because Leicester were bottom of the league, just got spanked 6-1 and we simply underestimated them and thought we could turn them over 4-0. Lessons will be learnt from it.

[KenBrown 0]

[quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"]

For me, a lot of those comments are very much correct.

If you want to see how a diamond works at its best, then look at Chelsea or Milan from a few years ago. These teams play/played the perfect version of this formation.

If you consider that Crofts = Essien, Smith = Ballack (last year)/Ramires , Surman/Lappin = Malouda and Hoolahan = Lampard.

Essien certainly doesn''t go tearing around the pitch chasing everything down, but sits carefully in front of the back four and choosing his moment to close down when he has cover, or coming out wide when there is a threat on either flank. I''m not saying Crofts is a bad player for doing this, it is just the difference between a good Championship player and a world class player. I see a lot of similarities between Ramires and Smith, both are high energy, good in a tackle and excellent work rate. Their job is to do the tearing about, they have to cover the centre and the wings so must cover a lot of ground (hence why an aging Ballack was allowed to leave). Malouda, like Lappin/Surman is more naturally a wide player moved towards the centre (although Surman isn''t a winger he naturally drifts wider to take greater advantage of his ability to deliver a killer ball) and like Smith/Ramires has to track back and cover ground. Basically, if the attack comes from the centre, it should be easily dealt with due to the extra numebrs and Crofts holding, if an attack comes from the wings we will be more exposed, but in theory either Smith/Surman should close the player down along with one of the fullbacks, a centre back should shift wider to cover the space and Crofts should move deeper to cover the centre back. Watch Chelsea, you will see this tactic applied countless times every game.

When it comes to strikers, they should play wider that a traditional centre forward dragging the centre backs wider, allowing Hoolahan/Lampard to move into space in the centre. However, if they both go too wide at the same time it is easy to defend against. At Chelsea Anelka will often drift out to one of the wings and Drogba will stay central to score the goals, but this is often switched as well with Drogba wider feeding Anelka/Lampard.

I think the issue with Holt moving wide is that he will go wide right as Martin moves wide left, leaving Hoolahan alone in the centre. However, looking at our goals this season and last, it is common to see Holt out on the right supplying a ball for Hoolahan, Crofts, Smith or Lappin to get on the end of. Just from goal kicks, or balls coming from deeper Holt needs to be in the centre to hold the ball up, or if Hoolhan and Martin are both out wide he needs to bust a gut getting into position in the box (which he usally does).

Thus concludes my long and boring post...

[/quote]The post describes how Chelski plays well.  Norwich have different players and different abilities so they need to play their own version of the formation....and I think they doThere is a definitely a "comfort" thing going   The players are a little out of their comfort zone with the new sysytem ( which seems as though many clubs have tinkered with how they play)The problem for mf is the discipline of playing the new system not the system itself.  Its not just about Crofts but I do think he is trying to compensate for others shortfall.  Clearly the first goal on Tuesday night was about being caught wide open down the Norwich left flank.  The openness in defence happened several times.It maybe heretic but I thought despite age and lack of mobility Howard showed how a central striker can still operate without having to look for space wide.  He often occupied 2 defenders and created space for others.  Holt is not Drogba Anelka  or anybody else  Play to his strengthsLast point about Lambert shouting at Holt.  Lambert shouts at everybody Lambert plays every pass shot thrown in corner and free kick Lambert picks Holt every game and trains with the guy.  Holt is the captain.  I dont think he is too unhappy with him.Some people would be better to observe whats going on rather than pick holes in incidents    

[Bury Yellow 2]

Sorry H Boots but I totally disagree with your Holt comment. Why not check up how many assists Holty has made either direct or indirect.

All forwards have a tendency to drift wide, particularly if their not just there for scoring goals. Holts vision passing and leadership is massive.

Oh and why do you assume that it''s ok for Martin to drift wide but not Holt? I refer you to my ''assist'' comment above

I can''t believe I''m having to defend him!

[Shack Attack 0]

There are some really good points made in this thread and it''s nice to see. I''m at a little bit of a disadvantage as I haven''t seen a huge amount of games this season but I would make the following observations about our formation in general.1. The comment posted by the OP is absolutely correct in regards to pressing. Teams can press in different ways but no one player can press all over the pitch (unless you''re going to drag them off at half time when they''ve passed out through exhaustion). You can press deep in your opponents half (think Barcelona) with the majority of the pressing being done by attacking players and the defenders holding a high line. Or you can press only when the opposition crosses halfway with a deeper defensive line but giving no space and time in front of that line. There are other variants too when you  press differently for different periods or maybe press a certain flank if you spot a weakness in a team. But you have to have keep your shape and ensure that the right players are pressing in the right areas and you''re not leaving two on one situations. As the OP says fans love that all action style but eventually you''ll get picked off and your defence will get outnumbered.2. I''ve always said that comparisons with other teams who play the same system are perfectly relevant whether it''s Chelsea or Dereham Town. The players are of a different standard but the tactics are often similar and the points made by Bethnal Yellow & Green re. Chelsea are spot on. The player at the base of the diamond should pretty much always be the deepest of the midfield four and ready to either shield the defence if an attack is breaking through the centre and provide cover and assistance for his centre backs when the ball is out wide.3. Holt should be moving wide and dragging defenders about when the ball is in open play to make space for our other attackers. Especially if we''re enjoying decent spells of possession as it varies the angles of our attacks and drags defenders into areas they often don''t want to go into. Holt is not a stereotypical lump of a target man in that he can bring a ball down and beat a man and does have a decent turn of pace. He''s perfectly comfortable in wide areas were there is more space (especially if the opposition has pushed their full backs on to try and exploit the natural lack of width in the diamond).4. Full backs need to be aggressive and get forward at every available opportunity to support our attacks. Otherwise our attacks can become quite one dimensional. For instance in the first half of the first game of the season against Watford our full backs hardly got into the final third at all and this resulted in a decent amount of possession but in unthreatening areas. Second half Russell Martin pushed further on and although he didn''t directly have a hand in any of the goals he caused uncertainty in the Watford defence and spread them out. We still lost the game but the second half was much improved and emphasised the importance of the full backs. The performance of Drury on Tuesday was equally important and between them they need to keep getting forward to both push the opposition wide players back and vary the angles of our attack.5. As Beau points out the pushing on of the full backs could lead to us becoming overstretched against better opposition. One solution could be to add an extra deep lying midfielder and adopt the 4-2-3-1 system which bored the pants off everybody at the World Cup. The full backs can still push on to provide width and Wes can still be the most advanced midfielder with Surman/Lappin and Smith either side but slightly withdrawn. You tend to see teams playing a ball player as their second deep lying midfielder in this type of formation so maybe Hughes could do this job?

[king canary 8,763]

[quote user="Shack Attack"]5. As Beau points out the pushing on of the full backs could lead to us becoming overstretched against better opposition. One solution could be to add an extra deep lying midfielder and adopt the 4-2-3-1 system which bored the pants off everybody at the World Cup. The full backs can still push on to provide width and Wes can still be the most advanced midfielder with Surman/Lappin and Smith either side but slightly withdrawn. You tend to see teams playing a ball player as their second deep lying midfielder in this type of formation so maybe Hughes could do this job?[/quote]Everything else you said I agree with but to play in this way with the personel you suggest would be madness. To make a comparison like the Chelsea one, that formation would be apeing how Liverpool played when they came 2nd. For them Kuyt played wide right to give a hardworking but generally attacking option and one of Riera/Babel/someone else out wide left. Alonso was the passer, Masch the destroyer. By playing Lappin and Smith it seems to me to be a more 4-4-1-1 formation, a fairly solid but not very dangerous midfield 4 with Wes doing all the inventing. Korey is fine in his current diamond position but is no right winger, same with Lappin. For the 4-2-3-1 MacNamee would surely have to play one flank and maybe have Martin on the other but I am unsure. The emphasis on that formation is not attacking full backs- Liverpool did fine with Arbeloa and Insua. Infact adding Johnson to that formation arguably helped to destabalise the team. It was also reliant on having a brilliant understanding between Gerrard and Torres- when either of these two faultered the whole team did.

[Yobocop 1,444]

Have to agree with Smudger....thought S Smith looked very tidy when he came on v. Leicester.

Hopefully will go from strength to strength, stay fit and be a good player for us.

[Paul Lamberts Disciple 0]

[quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"]

For me, a lot of those comments are very much correct.

If you want to see how a diamond works at its best, then look at Chelsea or Milan from a few years ago. These teams play/played the perfect version of this formation.

If you consider that Crofts = Essien, Smith = Ballack (last year)/Ramires , Surman/Lappin = Malouda and Hoolahan = Lampard.

Essien certainly doesn''t go tearing around the pitch chasing everything down, but sits carefully in front of the back four and choosing his moment to close down when he has cover, or coming out wide when there is a threat on either flank. I''m not saying Crofts is a bad player for doing this, it is just the difference between a good Championship player and a world class player. I see a lot of similarities between Ramires and Smith, both are high energy, good in a tackle and excellent work rate. Their job is to do the tearing about, they have to cover the centre and the wings so must cover a lot of ground (hence why an aging Ballack was allowed to leave). Malouda, like Lappin/Surman is more naturally a wide player moved towards the centre (although Surman isn''t a winger he naturally drifts wider to take greater advantage of his ability to deliver a killer ball) and like Smith/Ramires has to track back and cover ground. Basically, if the attack comes from the centre, it should be easily dealt with due to the extra numebrs and Crofts holding, if an attack comes from the wings we will be more exposed, but in theory either Smith/Surman should close the player down along with one of the fullbacks, a centre back should shift wider to cover the space and Crofts should move deeper to cover the centre back. Watch Chelsea, you will see this tactic applied countless times every game.

When it comes to strikers, they should play wider that a traditional centre forward dragging the centre backs wider, allowing Hoolahan/Lampard to move into space in the centre. However, if they both go too wide at the same time it is easy to defend against. At Chelsea Anelka will often drift out to one of the wings and Drogba will stay central to score the goals, but this is often switched as well with Drogba wider feeding Anelka/Lampard.

I think the issue with Holt moving wide is that he will go wide right as Martin moves wide left, leaving Hoolahan alone in the centre. However, looking at our goals this season and last, it is common to see Holt out on the right supplying a ball for Hoolahan, Crofts, Smith or Lappin to get on the end of. Just from goal kicks, or balls coming from deeper Holt needs to be in the centre to hold the ball up, or if Hoolhan and Martin are both out wide he needs to bust a gut getting into position in the box (which he usally does).

Thus concludes my long and boring post...

[/quote]It was anything but mate. Best post I''ve seen for a while.

[Matt Morriss 69]

[quote user="Bury Yellow"]Sorry H Boots but I totally disagree with your Holt comment. Why not check up how many assists Holty has made either direct or indirect.

All forwards have a tendency to drift wide, particularly if their not just there for scoring goals. Holts vision passing and leadership is massive.

Oh and why do you assume that it''s ok for Martin to drift wide but not Holt? I refer you to my ''assist'' comment above

I can''t believe I''m having to defend him![/quote]Football is all about opinions Bury, your entitled to yours just the same as im entitled to mine. I happen to have an objective view on Holts movement, and whilst I agree his movement out wide serves the team and the formation I just feel that he would be more effective for the team if he were to stay central and let Martin, Wes and Lappin etc work the wings. Nobody can deny that time aftere time we deliver crosses into the box from Lappin and Russel Martin, and there is nobody there to get on the end of them. If Holt were in the centre for every cross delivered then he''d score a lot more and this would help the team more than his work down the flanks. Theres no point in drifiting out wide to help the team build an attack, only for that attack to be a cross into the box where Holt should be, and there''s no one there for the header.Our whole attack plan seems to get the ball wide and deliver crosses, yet we have nobody in the box and when was the last time we scored a headed goal from a cross?

[Mr.Carrow 394]

To me the strikers pulling out wide is all about cleverly maximising space and possession.  Both Martin and Holt are strong, reasonably quick and with a good first touch- their chances of winning the ball, bringing it down and then building an attack are far higher out wide where there is more space and they are up against smaller defenders, than if they stay in the middle where it becomes a traditional 50-50 battle with a huge lump of a central defender.  Obviously once they have the ball out wide the options to build an attack are virtually limitless. 

I suppose one criticism which is probably fair is that we`ve tended to cross too early in an attack before enough players have managed to get forward, but even then, how many of those crosses have been headed out for a City corner, throw-in or to one of our players, thereby keeping possession and building pressure (something which was a rare commodity in our fall from grace)?  Even in the games we`ve lost (barring Watford perhaps) most observers have said we could easily have got something from the games.

The system is working an absolute treat, the players clearly understand and like it and we are playing proper possession/pressure football.  Enjoy!

[Mr.Carrow 394]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

To me the strikers pulling out wide is all about cleverly maximising space and possession.  Both Martin and Holt are strong, reasonably quick and with a good first touch- their chances of winning the ball, bringing it down and then building an attack are far higher out wide where there is more space and they are up against smaller defenders, than if they stay in the middle where it becomes a traditional 50-50 battle with a huge lump of a central defender.  Obviously once they have the ball out wide the options to build an attack are virtually limitless. 

I suppose one criticism which is probably fair is that we`ve tended to cross too early in an attack before enough players have managed to get forward, but even then, how many of those crosses have been headed out for a City corner, throw-in or to one of our players, thereby keeping possession and building pressure (something which was a rare commodity in our fall from grace)?  Even in the games we`ve lost (barring Watford perhaps) most observers have said we could easily have got something from the games.

The system is working an absolute treat, the players clearly understand and like it and we are playing proper possession/pressure football.  Enjoy!

[/quote]

[:D]