Mister Chops 7 Posted February 3, 2013 As far as I can see, we do now have available a "plan A" and "plan B".Plan "A" is the established 4-4-1-1 (or 4-5-1 if you prefer) where we sacrifice an amount of attacking intent for control of the midfield: Bunn (Ruddy)Martin Bassong Turner Garrido(Whittaker) Tettey JohnsonSnodgrass Hoolahan Bennett (Pilkington) HoltDoesn''t "Plan B" then become: Bunn (Ruddy)Martin Bassong Turner Garrido(Whittaker)Snodgrass [Tettey OR Johnson] Hoolahan Bennett (Pilkington) Becchio HoltTwo up front and one defensive midfielder in a flatter central two with Holt dropping between the front line and midfield and Becchio staying up to provide an outlet (as yesterday in the last 5 minutes, but without sacrificing Hoolahan). It does show we can now change up if chasing a game, accepting the risk that we might concede another.The question I have is whether Hughton would start out with the intent of going one or two goals up before shutting up shop (effectively reversing B and A), or whether we aim to not lose first and win second.Anyway, back to FM 2013 I go. There''s a youth player from Shaktar Donestk who would make RVP look like RVW. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
priceyrice 123 Posted February 3, 2013 I doubt we will ever see your Plan B option, Hoots would never go so attacking and I would hope not. Wes can only be on the pitch, IMO, instead of a striker, not a midfielder, it''s half the problem of playing Wes.I like the 4 5 1, and we have often dominated the first half of games with this tactic, but when we are under pressure (such as QPR and Spurs) I think we need to take Wes off, as he becomes extremely ineffective, and play with two strikers, that way we have a better chance of holding the ball up when hit long out of defence. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AJ 1,218 Posted February 3, 2013 I agree Pricey,the only way we''d use Plan B(ecchio) would be to drop Hoolahoop with a midfield four of Snoddy Tettey Johnson PilksBecchio HoltI doubt he''ll ever play 4-4-2 like that though, sadly Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ron obvious 1,473 Posted February 4, 2013 I like Mr C''s plan B.Snodgrass & EB are both capable of defending, so we shouldn''t lose out too much there. Wes should hopefully be able to link up between Tettey (who I''d play ahead of Johnson, for his mobility & all round energy), the above two + the strikers in a roving position where he doesn''t have to try & get on the end of Holt or Snodgrass'' crosses.I''m not recommending it all the time of course, but it would certainly give us a more attacking option. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lets be aving you! 0 Posted February 4, 2013 I think there''s a high chance we''ll see Mr C''s Plan B before too long. For all this season we''ve not had a second striker who offers as much as Becchio appears to do (hard working AND goal scoring combined). I actually think our lack of decent back-up strikers for Holt is the main reason that Hughton has played 4-5-1 nearly all season, and not that Hughton is really negative. I could certainly see us dropping one of Johnson or Tettey to make way for Becchio, especially against the lesser lights at home. Maybe we''ll see it at some stage this Saturday against Fulham. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KeelansGlove 0 Posted February 4, 2013 I too would like to see this attacking formation but doubt we ever will.I think the only Likely plan Bs are as follows.Becchio in for Hoolahan in the standard formation.KK out wide as a very attacking Winger.Personally for me against teams we should be able to put pressure on at home I would go for the diamond replacing Johnson or Tettey with Becchio but cant see it happening.We are still creating very good chances unfortunately Wes and Snoddy do not seem to be able to take them. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
a1canary 0 Posted February 4, 2013 [quote user="Lets be aving you"] I think there''s a high chance we''ll see Mr C''s Plan B before too long.For all this season we''ve not had a second striker who offers as much as Becchio appears to do (hard working AND goal scoring combined).I actually think our lack of decent back-up strikers for Holt is the main reason that Hughton has played 4-5-1 nearly all season, and not that Hughton is really negative.I could certainly see us dropping one of Johnson or Tettey to make way for Becchio, especially against the lesser lights at home.Maybe we''ll see it at some stage this Saturday against Fulham.[/quote]I think the lack of anyone other than Holt to play the lone role effectively is a big part of it but on the other hand, the one time we started with 4 across the middle and two up we tore Swansea a new one on their own patch, and i''ve been a bit disappointed that we haven''t tried than since. Seems that only happened because of an injury to Tettey which saw us go with Johnson and Howson in the middle. I really like that because those two know each other very well and made a good centre pairing that day. As mentioned above, it''d be nice to see us start like that, really positive, get ahead, then switch to plan A if necessary.We''ll find out soon enough what CH has in mind. Everyone would be pretty irritated to find Becchio is just going to play the role of Morison before him and only ever get a few minutes at the end of a game - not least Becchio himself! As we showed at Swansea, we can still be competitive with a flat four in midfield. Would need Whittaker and Garrido to be on top of their games as indeed they were at the Liberty. Garrido starting to show signs of fatigue. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Yellow Wal 314 Posted February 4, 2013 I think we have to realise that we are, in fact, usually playing Plan B.After the first couple of games I think Chris Hughton realised he did not have the personnel to play 442, as he did at Fulham.As such he played 451, or 4411 to consolidate and to make the most of what he had.As we did not have two players to play up front who were good enough and who he would have been happy with we only played with one up top.We have also seen very few match changing substitutions. Why make changes to weaken the team in an attempt to get something out of a match?In the course of one season we have moved from a majority of the team being Lambert signings to the majority being Hughton signings. In fact, how many of Lambert''s players would be playing in our strongest team? This shows the problems Hughton has had to overcome since he has been here as the majority of Lambert''s signings do not appear to be up to it.Hughton has given us a sound defence and made us difficult to beat. He has now acquired two more striking options which should now allow him more match options and substitution options, time will tell. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
It's Character Forming 1,156 Posted February 4, 2013 Don''t know if I was missing something on Saturday but when Becchio came on for Hoolahan, it looked to me like Becchio was playing up front next to Holt in a straight 4-4-2. OK it was just short of 10 minutes he got, coming on at 86 minutes with 5 minutes stoppage time (played in full by the ref) but that''s how it looked to me, no sign that Becchio was dropping deeper at all. And for that period I thought we were the better side, much livelier, and looked more likely to score than QPR at the death as they were reduced to lumping the ball forward and hoping for a lucky knock-down. I just wish Hughton had made the change 10 minutes earlier as we were under heavy pressure at about 75 minutes and Wes was looking burnt out at that point so we weren''t retaining the ball. Not sure what impact this will have on our starting lineup, nor on how we should change things when we go behind. The problem is that Wes doesn''t give much defensively so if you have Wes + 2 strikers we''re light in midfield, but if you give up Wes we lose our most creative player and neither BJ nor Tettey are comfortable going forward to seek out an attacking pass. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Yellow Wal 314 Posted February 4, 2013 It may be that Howson can at last show us what he can do by replacing either BJ or Tettey as I agree with you that I do not think either of those would be comfortable pushing further forward.The important thing is that we now have more options. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ZLF 261 Posted February 4, 2013 Swansea away we started 4231 as normal and tore them apart in the first half? Howsons only winning start. Howson and Johnson for the first 7 games playing 442 was an unmitigated disaster... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
a1canary 0 Posted February 4, 2013 I guess we''ll never know where Lambert''s team of last year would figure in the current table. But it would never have worked for Hoots to just try and copy Lambert. He is his own man with his own view of the game and it''s entirely right that he moulded the team his way. And he has shown that his preferred strategy for the current crop of players is good enough for this league. His problem is that it''s too dependent on some key players. Holt and Bassong. And Snodgrass come to that. When those players haven''t been available, we''ve suffered badly. Lambert seemed to have a gift for replacing players with other squad members without affecting the team, even when those squad members had to play out of position. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
a1canary 0 Posted February 4, 2013 [quote user="ZippersLeftFoot"]Swansea away we started 4231 as normal and tore them apart in the first half? Howsons only winning start. Howson and Johnson for the first 7 games playing 442 was an unmitigated disaster...[/quote]Not true Zipper. We started that Swansea game with a flat four, with Hools playing off Holt. The games at the start of the season can not be used a useful measure as we didn''t have the same personnel and formation from one game to the next. We seemed to keep switching between 4 and 5 in midfield and while the early games CH did favour Howson it would be a nonsense to blame the results on him or put particular blame at his door over anyone else. We started with 5 in midfield against Fulham. The first game that featured Johnson and Howson as the central pairing in a MF 4 was QPR at home which we should have won and then Tottenham away which remains one of our best away peformances of the season and was certainly a game we should also have won. He stuck with it for West Ham at home but then reverted to a MF 5 for Newcastle away. Back to a MF4 for Liverpool at home but for which we had lost Bassong and we know it doesn''t matter what formation we''re playing when he''s out. Plus Turner had a total nightmare that game. Then it was back to a MF5 for Chelsea away, featuring almost the team that was to take us on ''that'' run. After that, the first re-appearance of the flat four featuring Howson came at the Liberty.Unmitigated disaster? The evidence doesn''t suggest it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0 Posted February 4, 2013 What is very clear is that any "Plan B" will only come into effect if we start losing a game.On Saturday, Harry implemented his Plan B - switch to 4-4-2 from 4-5-1 by bringing on Zamora to "go for the win" QPR were a saved penalty away from getting it.This is not our manager''s style. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0 Posted February 4, 2013 ----------- Why make changes to weaken the team in an attempt to get something out of a match? Why would any manager ever make a substitution. Different players have different qualities. For example Snod has a great shot, is good on the ball and has a good pass. E Bennett has pace to burn and a decent cross. Lambert showed how good use of subs and formations could change a game.----------- This shows the problems Hughton has had to overcome since he has been here as the majority of Lambert''s signings do not appear to be up to it. Lambert''s team (of no hopers) were on 35 points from 25 games last season. And I will agree, I think Tettey, Turner, Whittaker, Garrido and Snodgrass have all improved the first XI.----------- Hughton has given us a sound defence and made us difficult to beat. We have lost more games this season than at the same point last season. We have conceded 1 fewer goal. (40 rather than 41) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shyster 0 Posted February 4, 2013 Hoolahan hasn''t been able to play in central midfield previously because we didn''t have a good DM in the form of Tettey at the club - I''m quite surprised Lambert failed to address that issue during last season - I''m also more surprised Hughton hasn''t gone 4-4-2 with Hoolahan & Tettey in central midfield this season.If Hughton regards Becchio a better striker than Jackson & the departed Morison, then yes, Chopski, we may well witness your Plan ''B''.Hope so anyway. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Highland Canary 76 Posted February 5, 2013 Let''s hope we have plan B from the KO on Saturday. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites