Need to change things

[Canary02 IV 0]

We don''t need to fear change so much. Fear is a huge weakness for teams like us in this league. We''re not on this run solely because of the formation. We''re on this run because we have good players who have adapted to the managers style of play now.

Hughton is capable of fielding teams that play in different formations and be equally effective. Our players are capable of playing in different formations and being equally effective. In the same way that losing a game now won''t make 4-2-3-1 ineffective for ever, neither will changing the formation mean that we lose everything we''ve built up during the run.

I don''t believe in tinkering or change for change sake, but to my mind (and I don''t think I''m in the minority) Pilks and Snoddy aren''t in form and we have other good players available in the squad ad champing at the bit for a chance to play. They don''t necessarily fit into the current system in the way the other two do, but what''s the alternative? Keep playing out of form players every game until we do lose just because our alternatives are less suited system wise?

We need to be brave. We are better than we give ourselves credit for. We should not fear change but embrace it. The more systems we can adapt to and play with confidence, the more tactical ammunition CH has on every match day.

[Aggy 752]

Canary O2 IV, your question is - what is the alternative, keep playing out of form players every game until we do lose just because our alternatives are less suited system wise?

But, despite playing these out of form players, we''re unbeaten in 7 and have beaten some big big sides along the way. What''s to say that the alternatives will work at all? If we change the system and the alternatives come in and we get stuffed 5-0, then we''ll all be shouting to have the formation back.

If it aint broke, don''t fix it. And whilst personnel changes if someone is out of form is fine, at the moment, I can see no point in changing the formation to try and fit in a couple of players who themselves are not necessarily "in form". Surman, Fox et al have hardly played any footy in the last few months. Big gamble to bring them in and change the system just because Snoddy and Pilks haven''t been on fire.

[Beefy is a legend 224]

There''s nothing wrong with wanting improvement, but the issue is how you achieve that. The OP advocated a return to 4-4-2 but that didn''t work for us in the first half a dozen games, so why when we are getting results every week do we want to go back to a system that was failing us?

I just don''t understand the negativity. We look solid, if admittedly uninspiring away from home, but look organised and dangerous at FCR. We are doing really well, I''m loving it and I don''t see any reason for Hughton to tinker with the system when we are picking up so many results. We''ve only lost 4 league games out of 14 and, guess what, we''ve lost none when playing the current system.I rest my case m''lud

[Canary02 IV 0]

I don''t have a problem with the system itself. It works extremely well away from home and at CR against the big teams who look to dominate us. I do think we will see the downside of it against teams like Sunderland when we''re at home and expected to force the tempo.

My problem is that we now seem to be locked into one system, and one set of players who fit that system and we have to lose before we''re allowed to consider changes. For me, such rigidity breeds fear. We need plan B''s and C''s so we don''t go into our shells when things go wrong and we have to adapt, and we needto keep more of the squad involved.

I think CH will persist with the formation and team as is, and you certainly can''t blame him. I''d just prefer us to be braver and set up to win games, rather than setting up in a wholly predictable manner that doesn''t keep the opposition manager guessing. We need to pick up wins from easier home games to stay up and I''m not sure we''re set up to do that currently.

[Beefy is a legend 224]

I take your point. However, who is to say that we won''t change things slightly when playing the ''must-win'' home games? I suspect we will use more attacking substitutions as our method of going for the win. Don''t forget that the system worked perfectly well against the spoilers from Stoke so I don''t necessarily share your concern.

There is of course more than one way to skin a cat. There always seems to be criticism of certain managers who are ''tinker-men'' where fans generally think consistency is better. Because we are not tinkering, there is always the opportunity to take the exact opposite view and say that we are ''predictable''.

Likewise, under Lambert we took the approach of trying to outscore teams, attracting criticism for the lack of clean sheets. This year we are the polar opposite, attracting criticism for the lack of goals...

[Josh 0]

I think people need to be patient as see this as "work in progress" under Hughton. We are doing remarkably well considering the players we have. Lets be honest, in my opinion anyway, I don''t think we have a Premiership quality winger. Bennett, Pilks and Snoddy are decent but all 3 have their limitations. Pilks has the most potential but if we can plug away till the end of the season and survive then we will have some genuine spending money for better quality wingers next summer now we are debt free. With better delivery from the wings, Holt will get more service and score more goals. We wouldn''t even be having this discussion.

[BigFish 1,986]

The last thing the team needs now is change. Unbeaten in 8 it would be madness and talk of a plan B or C shows a lack of understanding of football. The teams success is based on good players who know what they need to do and what there team mates will be doing. The call for mixing it up is to fall for the myth of Lambert. Hughton obviously doesn''t rate many of the players Lambert brought to the club and is working through the team replacing them and if you look at Villa who can blame him. The risk is injury and fatigue taking its toll before the end of the season and we do look short of cover in the form of players who can step up and play at the required level. We got away with it last year by a good start and the novelty factor it was never going to work this year which is why Hughton has tightened the nuts on this team. One thing is clear whatever the question the answer is not Fox, Surman and Barnett!

[BigFish 1,986]

......or Jackson for that matter

[Yellow Wal 314]

We must remember that this is still work in progress.

Chris Hughton has identified the biggest problems with the team and done something about it.

Our defence is now organised and sound. We must remember that the team last night included Bunn, Whittaker, Bassong. Garrido and Tettey. That''s nearly half a new team of players the manager brought in. I won''t include Snodgrass as I feel that was a half done deal before CH took over.

We have seen the benefit of the manager''s solution to the problems we had. Now I look forward to the manager''s solution to the next part of the plan which will be to improve our attacking options.

And incidentally Jackson is not the answer. For me he is in the same catagory as Chris Martin. Players who have done well for us in the past but not now good enough for the team we have.

[beardface69 0]

I totally agree why change the system when it''s working yes we''re not scoring loads but were still picking up points !! Perhaps some of u guys watch a different game last night i personally thought we played some good stuff and holahan retained possession very well and linked the play up !! I agree the crossing should be beta and maybe Bennett should have a run in the team !! Tettey is getting beta and beta in that position with every game I really can''t see why we should go back to 442 and leave us open !! Do we forget about how we played against a uninspiring Liverpool team

[Canary02 IV 0]

Dear lord, this has turned into a genuine debate with nobody insulting anyone or hijacking the thread for their own personal hobbyhorses... Someone call the forum police, it must be a mistake.

I don''t think any of our squad are bad players and all can still play a role if needed. I think the biggest success of Lambert was keeping a squad of players involved and competing for places, whereas we''re veering into the territory of having players who can play badly and still be picked every week. If I was Elliott Bennett or Surman right now I''d be assuming that I don''t have much of a future here because if he guy in front of me isn''t playing well but still starts ahead of me regardless then the manager really mustn''t rate me.

Some of the most divisive times I''ve seen at CR have been when managers have sacred cows in the team who they pick no matter what. Sutch, Gary Holt, Andy Hughes, Carl Robinson were all guaranteed games no matter how badly they played and the fans turned. I don''t want us to get to that stage. There has to be a meritocracy, and to my mind it would be better to take under performing players out for a game or two and rotate the squad. I''m not talking wholesale changes, but just enough to remind everyone that if you don''t perform you don''t keep the shirt just because we drew the last game instead of losing it, especially if we could have easily won it had we had better performances from one or two players.

CH is undoubtedly working on ways to be more effective in the final third and hopefully he''ll be as successful there as he has in tightening us up.

[BigFish 1,986]

[quote user="Canary02 IV"]Dear lord, this has turned into a genuine debate with nobody insulting anyone or hijacking the thread for their own personal hobbyhorses... Someone call the forum police, it must be a mistake.

I don''t think any of our squad are bad players and all can still play a role if needed. I think the biggest success of Lambert was keeping a squad of players involved and competing for places, whereas we''re veering into the territory of having players who can play badly and still be picked every week. If I was Elliott Bennett or Surman right now I''d be assuming that I don''t have much of a future here because if he guy in front of me isn''t playing well but still starts ahead of me regardless then the manager really mustn''t rate me.

Some of the most divisive times I''ve seen at CR have been when managers have sacred cows in the team who they pick no matter what. Sutch, Gary Holt, Andy Hughes, Carl Robinson were all guaranteed games no matter how badly they played and the fans turned. I don''t want us to get to that stage. There has to be a meritocracy, and to my mind it would be better to take under performing players out for a game or two and rotate the squad. I''m not talking wholesale changes, but just enough to remind everyone that if you don''t perform you don''t keep the shirt just because we drew the last game instead of losing it, especially if we could have easily won it had we had better performances from one or two players.

CH is undoubtedly working on ways to be more effective in the final third and hopefully he''ll be as successful there as he has in tightening us up.[/quote]

The key is that it is working at the moment (13 points from 7 is quite phenomenal) and people but not Hughton miss the contribution of the so called underperformers. Ryan Bennett''s inclusion shows that if you are patient and good enough your chance will inevitably come. Hughton''s first choice 11 is our best 11. Research says that using fewer players and having a settled team leads to greater success....http://www.insideworldfootball.biz/worldfootball/europe/11238-using-fewer-players-guarantees-clubs-better-results-says-research

[marvin the martian 0]

Didn''t Hughton say in an interview a couple of weeks ago that he was fully aware of the issues being discussed on here ? He said something about getting the balance right between defending and getting players forward.