Two Wingers, No Width

[Hoolahans Ped 0]

Well, we played with Pilkington and Bennett on the field today who are both supposed to be attacking/winger style players and yet we struggled to get wide today. Everything was very narrow and the rare occasion when we did get wide was from our full backs, Drury and Martin. Im not slating the players themselves, in fact im not particularly moaning at anyone in particular, I just find it extraordinary how we had 2 wingers on the field of play and yet could not muster some width. After all, our strengths are our crossing and heading, thats where we get a lot of our goals, so why oh why didnt we play to our strengths today!? Really disappointed with today, had we had a different approach to the game things might have been different. Would have loved a visit to Wembly. 

[Boyo 0]

We didn''t have any width because we played the diamond and why we played the diamond with two wingers I do not know.  If we were to play the diamond today then we should have played it with Surman and one of the wingers or Surman and Crofts or Crofts and Johnson. 

 

We are yet to play an old fashioned 4-4-2 style with Pilkington and Bennett on the wings and I definitely think we should try that formation out.  Thats not to say I don''t like the diamond but playing the diamond with wingers doesn''t work.

[kick it off 1,952]

agree with Boyo re: the diamond, but also factor in the fact Norfolk Cafu couldnt go forward as Dyer was lightning quick and Drury tried to support but he is not natural going forward like Tierney or Naughton

[I am a Banana 0]

The players didn''t seem to know the formation that they were playing. I thought it was a flat 4-4-2 with both winger but with fox and hoolahan it seemed more like we would be playing a 4-4-2 diamond.

We had to play either P&B or F&H and not both pairs.

With P&B we had width but no steel to stop their midfield from passing the ball as they wanted so should have gone with Fox and either Crofts or Johnson.

With F&H we should have played surman who isn''t as much a winger and crofts on the sides of the diamond as that would have worked.

 

Lightweight midfield was never going to work.

[shefcanary 2,437]

In hindsight and after calming down a bit I think this was Lambert treating the match as an experiment - seeing how much he could get out of Pilks and Benno in a tight diamond was one test - rather than going all out for a win. 

[I am a Banana 0]

[quote user="shefcanary"]

In hindsight and after calming down a bit I think this was Lambert treating the match as an experiment - seeing how much he could get out of Pilks and Benno in a tight diamond was one test - rather than going all out for a win. 

[/quote]

Rather he didn''t experiment when I spend £25 to watch a game of football we should look to winning!

[Jacko 0]

There was a massive difference between playing Hoolahan and Surman. Surman was playing as a central midfielder and Norwich were playing an orthodox 4-4-2 as a result with 2 genuine wingers. Today you were asking 2 wingers to do the work of 2 central midfielders effectively.

While the tactics and team selection were poor today that wasn''t the main reason we came unstuck. Formations are pretty irrelevant if you fail to do the basics properly, like we did today.

[Fiery Zac 1,066]

[quote user="I am a Banana"][quote user="shefcanary"]

In hindsight and after calming down a bit I think this was Lambert treating the match as an experiment - seeing how much he could get out of Pilks and Benno in a tight diamond was one test - rather than going all out for a win. 

[/quote]

Rather he didn''t experiment when I spend £25 to watch a game of football we should look to winning!

[/quote]

Agreed shefcanary, was an experiment worth making as would love to see a team that has pilks, Bennett, wes and two strikers in it however doesn''t seem so possible now!