We haven't got the quality to play different formations - the fallacy!

[Sussexyellow 55]

I have seen this mentioned a number of times but I just don''t buy it.

 

Last year we had plans b,c and d. Used them, sometimes several in a match and rotated personnel. So how has our squad changed this year such that this is no longer an option? Answer - it hasn''t. We have added some quality at the the back, but in front of them the area where it counts when you are trying to change it up (with the addition of Snoddy and Tettey) its largely the same players who were adaptable last year. In fact you could argue that because we don''t have the quality we need to adopt a variety of strategy and tactics to keep the opposition guessing and provide a few additional strings to our bow.

 

Conversely it can be argued that if you are going to rely almost solely on a single system that is when you do need real quality. Basically you are sending a clear statement to the opposition - this is how we play, prepare for it and try to beat us if you can. Its a top side mentality. I would love for us to be able to play making a statement like that but realistically we are not in that place.

 

OK our 4-2-3-1 system did work for a bit, possibly because it was new (we played 4-4-2 in the Liverpool home game, the last home game before Arsenal). But opposing teams now seem to have it sussed.

 

Time to wise up and introduce a bit of variety into our tactics. I am not saying abandon our existing system, just mix it up a bit.

 

OTBC 

[PurpleCanary 6,386]

[quote user="Sussexyellow"]

I have seen this mentioned a number of times but I just don''t buy it.

 

Last year we had plans b,c and d. Used them, sometimes several in a match and rotated personnel. So how has our squad changed this year such that this is no longer an option? Answer - it hasn''t. We have added some quality at the the back, but in front of them the area where it counts when you are trying to change it up (with the addition of Snoddy and Tettey) its largely the same players who were adaptable last year. In fact you could argue that because we don''t have the quality we need to adopt a variety of strategy and tactics to keep the opposition guessing and provide a few additional strings to our bow.

 

Conversely it can be argued that if you are going to rely almost solely on a single system that is when you do need real quality. Basically you are sending a clear statement to the opposition - this is how we play, prepare for it and try to beat us if you can. Its a top side mentality. I would love for us to be able to play making a statement like that but realistically we are not in that place.

 

OK our 4-2-3-1 system did work for a bit, possibly because it was new (we played 4-4-2 in the Liverpool home game, the last home game before Arsenal). But opposing teams now seem to have it sussed.

 

Time to wise up and introduce a bit of variety into our tactics. I am not saying abandon our existing system, just mix it up a bit.

 

OTBC 

[/quote]

What seems to be true is that Hughton, who is the one who matters, doesn''t think we have the quality to play a system with more than one striker. Hence confirmed bids for two of the kind.

[Beauseant 0]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Sussexyellow"]

I have seen this mentioned a number of times but I just don''t buy it.

 

Last year we had plans b,c and d. Used them, sometimes several in a match and rotated personnel. So how has our squad changed this year such that this is no longer an option? Answer - it hasn''t. We have added some quality at the the back, but in front of them the area where it counts when you are trying to change it up (with the addition of Snoddy and Tettey) its largely the same players who were adaptable last year. In fact you could argue that because we don''t have the quality we need to adopt a variety of strategy and tactics to keep the opposition guessing and provide a few additional strings to our bow.

 

Conversely it can be argued that if you are going to rely almost solely on a single system that is when you do need real quality. Basically you are sending a clear statement to the opposition - this is how we play, prepare for it and try to beat us if you can. Its a top side mentality. I would love for us to be able to play making a statement like that but realistically we are not in that place.

 

OK our 4-2-3-1 system did work for a bit, possibly because it was new (we played 4-4-2 in the Liverpool home game, the last home game before Arsenal). But opposing teams now seem to have it sussed.

 

Time to wise up and introduce a bit of variety into our tactics. I am not saying abandon our existing system, just mix it up a bit.

 

OTBC 

[/quote]

What seems to be true is that Hughton, who is the one who matters, doesn''t think we have the quality to play a system with more than one striker. Hence confirmed bids for two of the kind.

[/quote]

 

Exactly. Hughton has historically been a 4-4-2 devotee. Clearly he doesn''t have faith in Morison, Jackson or Kane to play as a second striker and has adapted accordingly. I suspect that if we land one or both of Hooper and Graham we will see a change in tactics.

[PurpleCanary 6,386]

[quote user="Beauseant"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Sussexyellow"]

I have seen this mentioned a number of times but I just don''t buy it.

 

Last year we had plans b,c and d. Used them, sometimes several in a match and rotated personnel. So how has our squad changed this year such that this is no longer an option? Answer - it hasn''t. We have added some quality at the the back, but in front of them the area where it counts when you are trying to change it up (with the addition of Snoddy and Tettey) its largely the same players who were adaptable last year. In fact you could argue that because we don''t have the quality we need to adopt a variety of strategy and tactics to keep the opposition guessing and provide a few additional strings to our bow.

 

Conversely it can be argued that if you are going to rely almost solely on a single system that is when you do need real quality. Basically you are sending a clear statement to the opposition - this is how we play, prepare for it and try to beat us if you can. Its a top side mentality. I would love for us to be able to play making a statement like that but realistically we are not in that place.

 

OK our 4-2-3-1 system did work for a bit, possibly because it was new (we played 4-4-2 in the Liverpool home game, the last home game before Arsenal). But opposing teams now seem to have it sussed.

 

Time to wise up and introduce a bit of variety into our tactics. I am not saying abandon our existing system, just mix it up a bit.

 

OTBC 

[/quote]

What seems to be true is that Hughton, who is the one who matters, doesn''t think we have the quality to play a system with more than one striker. Hence confirmed bids for two of the kind.

[/quote]

 

Exactly. Hughton has historically been a 4-4-2 devotee. Clearly he doesn''t have faith in Morison, Jackson or Kane to play as a second striker and has adapted accordingly. I suspect that if we land one or both of Hooper and Graham we will see a change in tactics.

[/quote]

 

Steady on, Beau. We''ll be agreeing about goalkeepers next...[;)]

Seriously, I have been baffled by the frequent "Why do we want to buy a striker when we only play one up front?" argument. It makes no sense on various levels. Firstly it assumes Holt will stay fit and unbanned and available through the season. It also assumes he is playing well enough to keep his place. I don''t see enough games (two so far) to have an opinion on that but I get the sense he may not be up to last season''s level of performance. Even if he is it assumes he can last 95 minutes or so of every game to the end of the season.

The argument also flies in the face of the "Why doesn''t Hughton makes substitutions?" complaint. Because he has no-one to bring up front as well as or instead of. Additionally, the argument fails to take into account the possibility of relegation, or - conversely - the need to build for the future.

[Koreanary 0]

Totally agree Sussexyellow, I''ve been following this forum for over 12 years and finally decided to put something on the screen. I spend most of my time overseas these days so I am in Korea for a couple of years. When I am home I get to the games, I have had season tickets in three of the stands but ended up in the lower barclay.

 Anyway I could not put into words my frustration as I convinced people over here to tune into the game and we Norwich would give Liverpool a hard game. Well I got lots of comments from people in Korea including  "Your team dont want to try win today Mr "  

 There are hundreds here who ask which team scarf is that above the desk, well they all saw on Saturday

It would have dream time to see  two or three subs brought on at halftime. All of players did not seem to realise, The eyes of the world were watching them. I dont buy into the CH constantly biggin up all the top sides. We did not make it difficult for them.

Why couldn''t he put E.Bennet at rightback moved R. Martin in the centre,took the two inept defenders off, brought on Jackson and Pilks, Then swapped Howsen for Hoolahan and just got at them or is that to simple or difficult to go three at the back. never mind.

I do now believe however that this result has deeply troubled the management and board. So we should get a response

Over the years I can say some of you posters have made me really laugh out loud and the subtle humour has been top draw. So Thanks to you all.

[Jim Smith 2,610]

Its not just a question of whether he has faith in another striker to play alongside Holt. The 4-2-3-1 is also the only formation that can accommodate Wes which has until very recently been essential as he has been playing so well. It also stops us from being swamped in midfield so says as much about his confidence that any 2 we can currently put out in midfield can be sufficiently competitive.

[Sussexyellow 55]

Agree that bringing in a quality striker would give the opportunity to mix it up. And if we spend a significant amount of money it may even oblige Hughton to do so.

 

However if we are unable to do a deal or do a deal at the right price - financial stability must remain sacrosanct - then do we carry on with the same strategy. I feel we need to mix it up come what may.

 

Despite what Highton says about having competition in the squad in all positions I think what is now apparent is that Hughton is struggling to believe this himself. He has those that he wants to start and knows his best formation for them and the rest he is basically reluctant to play. Hardly surprising that when he needs to play the squad players they are less than match sharp.

[Rudolph Hucker 0]

Good post, Koreanary, and welcome.

 

As an exile feel free to keep posting, it''s therapy.

 

Any truth in the rumour that Kim Jong Un (the Young''un) is considering buying Delia out? McNally would have to go for being too liberal and failure on the pitch wouldn''t be tolerated although we''d need to buy more than QPR to keep putting 11 out there.

[ZLF 335]

Not sure what the obsession with playing two up front is?   18 of the 20 prem teams prefer a variation on 4-5-1 - including all all the top half sides.      The only two that have a preference for two at the top are newcastle and reading.

 

Its not about teh formation - but how theplayers perform - it always has been - so I agree we have the quality to perform well irrespective of formation - but 442 is all but an unsuccessful anachronism in footballing terms and we need to accept that having two strikers start up front will be the exception rather than the rule.

 

Getting our ball players playing balls and supporting holt is what we need - or even holt playing off a striker in the wes role. 

[Stig 0]

And Liverpool, Man United, Manchester City, Arsenal on occasion... Chelsea do the 1 up top and look how that is working for them, Torres couldn''t hit a lorry side ways on.

[unique 466]

Playing one up top when you can play a midfield containing Mata, Hazard, Lampard/Oscar, Ramires, and Luiz is slightly easier than anything Hughton can muster.....

[Stig 0]

You make a fair point, but we do also have a mobile and fairly attacking midfield (relatively speaking) that can score goals. I just think Torres'' problems mirror Holt''s problems, the service to him being lack lustre and the midfield end up actually scoring the goals instead.

[PurpleCanary 6,386]

[quote user="ZippersLeftFoot"]

Not sure what the obsession with playing two up front is?   18 of the 20 prem teams prefer a variation on 4-5-1 - including all all the top half sides.      The only two that have a preference for two at the top are newcastle and reading.

 

Its not about teh formation - but how theplayers perform - it always has been - so I agree we have the quality to perform well irrespective of formation - but 442 is all but an unsuccessful anachronism in footballing terms and we need to accept that having two strikers start up front will be the exception rather than the rule.

 

Getting our ball players playing balls and supporting holt is what we need - or even holt playing off a striker in the wes role. 

[/quote]

 

I can''t speak for anyone else but 4-4-2 is not an obsession with me. I generally like the lone striker system. But the point is at the moment we have, to quote the blessed Mrs Thatcher, no alternative, and Hughton obviously wants an alternative.

[Sussexyellow 55]

Can not see that anybody here has obsessively argued for 4-4-2 Purple. But beyond that why do you argue that there is no alternative. We have a stronger group than last season, which was able to play more than one system.

Earlier you argued that Hughton does not think that we have the quality to play any other way. I can buy that, albeit not agreeing with it. But I can not agree there is no alternative full stop.

If you carry on doing the same things do not be surprised if you get the same results.

[Highland Canary 78]

And we''re bottom of the Sky Sports form league. It''s slipping away. Can anyone seeing us getting a point out of Spurs or QPR at the moment? I fear the manager doesn''t have the players and/or belief to change things. And why would Hooper and or Graham wish to join us and risk Championship football? Worrying, worrying times.

[PurpleCanary 6,386]

[quote user="Sussexyellow"]Can not see that anybody here has obsessively argued for 4-4-2 Purple. But beyond that why do you argue that there is no alternative. We have a stronger group than last season, which was able to play more than one system. Earlier you argued that Hughton does not think that we have the quality to play any other way. I can buy that, albeit not agreeing with it. But I can not agree there is no alternative full stop. If you carry on doing the same things do not be surprised if you get the same results.[/quote]

 

Sussex, I wasn''t saying posters were obsessed with 4-4-2. Zipper was suggesting that. And I wasn''t saying there were no alternative formations we could play to 4-4-1-1 or however you want to notate our current system. Only that Hughton believed there were no viable (because of the lack of striking quality) alternatives that included playing with two strikers. It doesn''t matter whether Hughton is right about that, although I think he is. This seems to be what he thinks, so whatever we did last season is irrelevant.