Formation?

[Matt Morriss 69]

Been salivating at the thought of this, thought process is that I don''t think Fox creates enough and is not really providing the back four with any defensive cover so dispense with him, let Crofts sit and the middle 3 could have a field day.

There''s real variety in the attack with the pace of Macca, trickery of Wes and incisive passing of a fit Surman. Away from home perhaps just Holt up front with Smith and Crofts and Russel Martin at RB.

Ruddy/Rudd

K. Smith. Barnett. Ward. Drury

Crofts

McNamee. Hoolahan. Surman

Holt. Martin

[Largey 0]

I we''ve seen enough times that we cannot afford to have too many attack minded players from the get-go. Who out of the 3 attacking midfielders is going to aid Crofts in the midfield battle? Surman, Wes and Maca will be looking to get on the ball and attack, not chase back and tackle. That''s what Fox and Lappin offer you. I don''t buy into Korey replacing R Martin at all, whose to say Korey will even be fit? You don''t play players out of position if your natural first choice is available...and especially a youngster who hasn''t much experience in playing out of position. You are clearly a R Martin bashed so I won''t go into that.

This formation is fine if we are chasing a game, because we have to take risks, but it is for that reason alone we should not start with a 4-1-3-2.

[Gingerpele 0]

You really think Ruddy and Martin will get dropped?

Martin was given captains arm band last week....

And unless we are playing a really defensive team, having Crofts as the only midfielder who wants to defend (well i suppose Surman can to an extent) is going to be suicide...

And has Macnamee had a good 90 mins yet? I was under the impression he has''t played well from the start, he is much better as a sub....

Back to the diamond with Surman back is out best option at the moment....(maybe Lambert wants to sign a winger, to give us the option to play 4-4-2 with more width, yes we have Surman and Macnamee now, and Korey can/does operate as a wide midfielder, but another (almost Macnamee type) winger may be useful...)

[Gingerpele 0]

Also, if your over the age of 13, you really really are embarrassing your self....

[Gingerpele 0]

Don''t say that Largey, you might get called a nasty name :P

[Largey 0]

Don''t care to be fair, if he starts a thread he should expect discussion, agreeing and/or disagreeing.

[Matt Morriss 69]

[quote user="Largey"]Don''t care to be fair, if he starts a thread he should expect discussion, agreeing and/or disagreeing.[/quote]

Christ that''s the point tho I post an opinion on an exciting attacking lineup and I get you two c ockmunchers replying and making out that I''m a complete f cuking moron to suggest such a lineup.

If you don''t agree with formation then fine but don''t make me out to be some sort of moron that''s shouting lambert will drop this player and this will the lineup for the scum.

Why don''t you just say I disagree too attacking and then suggest your formation. Then we can have a f cuking discussion!

Next time ill PM you both to see if my post meets with your approval.

[Gingerpele 0]

Seriously, go back and read my post....What is wrong with it?

I asked you if you thought Lambert would drop Martin or Ruddy, i pointed out the flaw in the formation, asked you if you thought Macnamee has had a good 90 mins, and then suggested my own formation....

You then start the abuse...If you really think your the one being sensible here, then your mentally retarded....You haven''t answered any of the questions put too you, and are just moaning that we disagree with you....When i had my argument about Ruddy and Martin last week, i at least tried to defend my view point and answer questions....

[Gingerpele 0]

''If you don''t agree with formation then fine but don''t make me out to be some sort of moron that''s shouting lambert will drop this player and this will the lineup for the scum. ''

Where is any of that in either of our posts?

[Largey 0]

I disagree too attacking.

Ruddy

R Martin, Barnett, Ward, Drury

Crofts

Fox, Surman

Hoolahan

Holt, C Martin

If that''s not your preferred lineup for the scum game then what is it? I too can produce an exciting attacking lineup, as follows. It''s a personal favourite of mine, the 3-1-4-2:

Ruddy,

R Martin, Barnett, Ward

Crofts

Mcnamee, Hoolahan, Surman, Lappin

Holt, C Martin

Any better?

[Nexus_Canary 1,016]

McNamee is an impact player imho, hes not a good 90 min sloger.

[CanaryJames 0]

What a ridiculous OTT response to two people making perfectly reasonable comments.

Incidentally, I don''t want R.Martin/Ruddy dropped either, and think the midfield you''ve suggested is far too weak. Smith (if fit) in for Fox and Hoolahan for McNamee would be my changes for Sunday.

Also, Drury for Lappin if possible. He''s done well as a stop-gap at LB, but we badly miss Drury.

[Canary_on_the Trent 0]

Going in with just 1 midfielder with any defensive abilities is absolute suicide if you ask me. Having a battler or 2 alongside Crofty in midfield allows him a little freedom in which to get forward from his holding position in the knowledge somebody will cover him.

Ruddy

R.Martin, Barnett, Ward, Lappin

Smith, Crofts, Surman

Hoolahan

Holt, C.Martin

If Drury is fit i''d be very tempted to pick Lappin ahead of Surman because of his work rate and the bite he adds in midfield although I believe once Surman gets up to full speed he''ll be a valuable member of the side.

[Yobocop 1,096]

Disagree with the OP formation as it''s far too attacking (although I can see what he''s trying to get at) and we''d get over-run in midfield, there''s two options for me, go with a flat 4-4-2 or go back to the diamond.

So:

Ruddy

R Martin, Barnett, Ward, Drury

Crofts

K Smith Surman

Hoolahan

Holt Martin

Or if flat 4-4-2

Ruddy

R. Martin, Barnett, Ward, Drury

McNamee, K Smith, Crofts, Surman

Holt Martin

1) R Martin has been outstanding this season

2) Ruddy is not as bad as people make it, he''s made probably 2 mistakes in his Norwich career and has save us more points than we''ve lost

3) Hoolahan only works if we play the diamond formation - or coming on the dying seconds...however McNamee doesn''t work in the diamond from the start and is more of an impact sub

4) Adam Drury - for whatever reason seems to be a key in our defence, we play much better when he is in the team, I know he was captain when we got promoted to the Prem, so I don''t know if this has anything to do with it? So the sooner he comes back fitter the better.

[Gingerpele 0]

If we could pull of an attacking formation like the originally suggested one, it would be great, but the problem is we don''t have good enough players to do that, and also the rest of the teams in the league are too good to try it (mainly because out players aren''t barca standard...)

Think about how Barca play, they have both full backs, pretty much playing as wingers, but both can defend well enough. And when the ball is in defence, they can pass it around extremely well, and counter attacking with pace and accuracy.....

I think Give Peas a Chance has essentially our two best options, either the diamond (i think we should play that on Sunday...) or 4-4-2 with Macnamee...

[Matt Morriss 69]

I just feel that a solid back four with Crofts in front of it should be enough defensively. It''s not like Surman Hoola and Macca will do nothing defensively at all, the formation is designed for a counter attacking tactic.

Either way I''m not suggesting this should be the lineup for Ipswich, in fact I''m not suggesting anything other than it would make for a very attacking lineup.

And to be honest we have played this formation, or close to it whenever were chasing a game, and the thinking behind it is that as we don''t seem to start games well and only seem to start playing when we make subs and revert to this type of formation ( as we did against Leeds and have done many times ) so why don''t we start with it and see if we can play well like we did v Reading.