Lots of blame on C.H, but what would YOU do? I know what I would do...

[FLEMO 0]

I have read lots of comments on C.H''s performance as manager during these opening 6 games, and can not argue with any of the negative comments, but have not seen many people openly say what THEY would be doing instead, so I thought I would share my 2 cents about transfers and starting XI.

Signing of a striker:

Remembering this is our transitional year, clearing debts and putting the club into a solid and, honestly, fantastic financial position - why should of the board signed a new striker for big money in the window? See it from THEIR point, we still have the same strikers that saw us finish 12th last year... we have not lost any players, and have developed our creative options in midfield... why spend money? Personally, I think we should have developed our striker force, but from a business point of view (and that''s what''s most important this year) we still had the strikers that secured us a solid league positioning last year.

STARTING XI, AND FORMATIONS.

Personally, I think C.H is making one fundamental error in regards to his team selection, and that he is trying to force his system onto a squad of players which just isn''t suited to these formations and styles. We have the players that suit 4-2-3-1 and the Diamond, FACT.

I honestly can not see, for the life of me, why a 4-2-3-1 of..

GK: Ruddy

RB: Martin/Whittaker

CB: Bennett/Turner/Bassong

LB: Marc/Garrido

DM: Johnson/Tetty/Howson/Lappin/Surman/

LW: Pilks/Snod/Surman/Butterfield

RW: Bennett/Snodgrass/Butterfield

CAM: Howson/Hoolahan/Butterfield/C.Martin

STK: Holt/Morro/Jacko/C.Martin

To me, it''s glaringly obviously that our players scream the options of filling the holes between def/mid and mid/fwd... and therefor the Diamond or the new, Chelseaesq, 4-2-3-1... and it pains me to not see it played.

What''s your views? Remember these are my opinions, and I am entitled to them, I am really keen to know what you think!

[Vazzza 62]

[quote user="FLEMO "]Signing of a striker: Remembering this is our transitional year, clearing debts and putting the club into a solid and, honestly, fantastic financial position - why should of the board signed a new striker for big money in the window? See it from THEIR point, we still have the same strikers that saw us finish 12th last year... we have not lost any players, and have developed our creative options in midfield... why spend money? Personally, I think we should have developed our striker force, but from a business point of view (and that''s what''s most important this year) we still had the strikers that secured us a solid league positioning last year. ![/quote]

I understand that is the way the board have looked at it. I just feel taking the angle of getting a big money signing, such as Berbatov, and breaking our wage structure on 1 player would have paid dividends. I think looking at the extra money next year, would have been wise to buy someone of Berbatov''s quality.

There would have been the obvious isseus with this. But with a relegation release clause we could have easily got around the problem of having a big money player on the books IF we do go down. The next big issue is upsetting the balance of the team, but after a season of Berbatov scoring goals and us staying in the league, we could have started to introduce new contracts for others, keeping them happy with the extra millions Sky/BT are paying next year.

I use Berbatov as an example here without having a clue if he''d have even been willing to pull on the yellow and green, but gives you an idea of the type of player i mean. I wouldn''t have been happy with doing the above with CMS or Rhodes as they aren''t proven, and therefore not worth the risk.

[N city till I die 0]

Not 4-2-3-1 or the flat four midfield every week. Play diamond with fox in the team.

[Thumbelina 0]

[quote user="FLEMO "]I have read lots of comments on C.H''s performance as manager during these opening 6 games, and can not argue with any of the negative comments, but have not seen many people openly say what THEY would be doing instead, so I thought I would share my 2 cents about transfers and starting XI. [/quote]

Surely you realise by now that the majority of people would rather fan the flames on contradicting others opinions than giving one of their own?  Also it is not a FACT that the diamond or 4-2-3-1 are our best systems, there are other formations that haven''t been tried with some of the new players we signed this summer.  Until we see all of the players given games in all of the various systems how can any formation be described as "our best system FACT"?

For what it''s worth I think that a 3-5-2 offers us potentially the best balance between defence and attack if we get the correct players in to that formation and give them a few games to adapt to that system.  Of course all of this work should be done pre season and over the first few games of the season.

For me Tettey and Butterfield are potentially far better players than what we are currently playing in centre midfield. Play them two (possibly substituting Fox for Butterfield) with Wes or Butterfield behind the front two, with Garrido on one flank and Elliott Bennett on the other (Pilkington to come on for either of those if chasing the game) and you have a good balance in that midield which will offer enough support to our misfiring strikers without being totally over-ran and placing too much pressure on our shaky defence.

Russell Martin could be used on the right instead of Elliott Bennett in a more conservative and narrower version of this system when we are likely to be placed under more pressure by opposing teams.

 

 

[FLEMO 0]

When I said, said that it is a fact that formations such as the diamond midfield, and a 4-2-3-1 are our best systems, I was wrong. What I was intending to say was that, it is a fact, that our best systems utilize the spaces between the traditional areas of the pitch. Using the likes of Howson (when forward, rather than deep), Hoolahan, Fox and soon, Butterfield and Tetty.

When C.H first joined the club, my first concern was that he comes from a very old-school football school, not understanding the importance of these areas of the pitch and exploiting them with the likes of the players we have at the club, and the proof, that I would say I have of this, is that he only experimented with these during the cup fixtures, as he, C.H, himself is not comfortable in the management of these systems, as his comment re. Hoolahan after the West Ham game would lead me to believe.

I just feel that C.H will drive himself to the sack, or us to relegation if he does not realise that he has to play to our player''s strengths, Asap.

[FLEMO 0]

And I also agree, that yes. 3-5-2 would be another suitable option, again using the 5 in the midfield to exploit that key space, and using wide players such as Bennett and Garrido...

I find it remarkable we are 6 league games in and we have not seen a change... modern managers, modern football dictates that change needs to happen regularly, just look at the success modern managers are having!

[Thumbelina 0]

[quote user="FLEMO "]When I said, said that it is a fact that formations such as the diamond midfield, and a 4-2-3-1 are our best systems, I was wrong. What I was intending to say was that, it is a fact, that our best systems utilize the spaces between the traditional areas of the pitch. Using the likes of Howson (when forward, rather than deep), Hoolahan, Fox and soon, Butterfield and Tetty. When C.H first joined the club, my first concern was that he comes from a very old-school football school, not understanding the importance of these areas of the pitch and exploiting them with the likes of the players we have at the club, and the proof, that I would say I have of this, is that he only experimented with these during the cup fixtures, as he, C.H, himself is not comfortable in the management of these systems, as his comment re. Hoolahan after the West Ham game would lead me to believe. I just feel that C.H will drive himself to the sack, or us to relegation if he does not realise that he has to play to our player''s strengths, Asap.[/quote]

Can''t disagree with any of that. A much better post.  We need to get our players who are more comfortable on the ball in to the team. 

Tettey looks a must for me as he offers strength, ability and pace in front of our defenders. It has just as much to do with the players that have been used and certain players being over-hyped as it does the formations that have been used for me. 

[FLEMO 0]

What people are forgetting is that, as a squad of players, we have actually improved... IMO, it''s down to tactics and management to get from games, what we did last year.

People suggest last year the league was very poor, but 3 very poor teams went down last year, and were replaced by teams, which in my opinion, are significantly worse. Get our coaching, tactical setup and confidence in management back and I will have no worries regarding the rest of the season. Until these issues are addressed though I can only predict doom!

[City 2nd 191]

It is not the first time we failed to sign a much needed striker at the start of the season and before the window closed - we left it too late in signing Ashton and we all know what happened there!

It was more than apparent we needed a striker - and Holt had asked for a transfer as he wasn''t getting an extension to his contract and nor did the board pre Lambert leaving want to give him one, it was down to Hughton that Holt stayed. We had an excellent midfield last season, more than capable, so was it really necessary to bring in so many midfielders at the expense of some quality up front.

I don''t think the board are to blame - they signed players the manager and his assistants identified and wanted including an absolutely awful centre back who has now gifted the opposition 5 goals - Hughton has made some incredulous decisions, and they will prove his downfall very early in this season I feel. I would suggest that after the Stoke match things may be a lot clearer for city fans.