We will start two strikers next game!

[nutty nigel 7,534]

[quote user="priceyrice"][quote user="Gingerpele"]Nutty, I can''t remember Snodgrass ever being dangerous crossing with his right, I can hardly remember him even using us right foot.[/quote]

Have to disagree with this, i thought in recent weeks we have seen an improvement in his crossing with his right foot, no doubt this has been drilled into him since the fact he always cuts back in must make him much easier to read

[/quote]

 

As I understand it he had an injury on his right foot earlier in the season Pricey. If you look at the link I provided, especially the QPR game, I doubt that ability has been drilled into him. I should imagine it was there when we signed him. The criticism he gets amazes me. He has been consistently our top performer all season.

 

 

[Aggy 755]

Yep, fair point AJ. However, you do also have to wonder where the wingers get the ball from. More often than not, I dare say (although haven''t got any passing statistics to prove as such) that Hoolahan is far more involved in most of the moves that see a winger eventually getting a cross in than Holt is, despite Holt dropping off to get involved.

I think because Becchio has already shown, in my opinion, that he is far more likely to stay centrally in and around the box, he is likely to become a mainstay of the starting eleven now. The tricky question is whether you drop Hoolahan or Holt. It''s a tricky one. I''d like to see Holt and Becchio together for a while, but I thinkdown the road we may end up discovering that Hoolahan and Becchio works better in the 451 formation. The only thing with that is that we then really could do with Tettey or Johnson getting into the box more often as well.

Anyway, Hughton''s decision, that''s what he''s paid for. Will be interesting to see how we line up against Everton.

[priceyrice 123]

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="priceyrice"][quote user="Gingerpele"]Nutty, I can''t remember Snodgrass ever being dangerous crossing with his right, I can hardly remember him even using us right foot.[/quote]

Have to disagree with this, i thought in recent weeks we have seen an improvement in his crossing with his right foot, no doubt this has been drilled into him since the fact he always cuts back in must make him much easier to read

[/quote]

 

As I understand it he had an injury on his right foot earlier in the season Pricey. If you look at the link I provided, especially the QPR game, I doubt that ability has been drilled into him. I should imagine it was there when we signed him. The criticism he gets amazes me. He has been consistently our top performer all season.

 

 

[/quote]

Currently on my phone Nutty, but i''ll check it out later. Interesting to hear though and puts to bed the myth he is totally one footed. I agree with your assessment of him and I would add that his improvement and determination and drive over the season just seems to be increasing. I expect we have one hell of a talent on our hands here.

I would actually be inclined to give him a go in the Wes hole at some point, if we continue with 4 5 1.

[nutty nigel 7,534]

I like him where he is Pricey buddy. But I''d like Holty in an advanced Wes role if we need to be more direct.

 

 

 

[Yellow Wal 314]

If we go to 442 would not the system call out for Howson to, at last, show us what he can do?

Perhaps he has been a bit of a disappointment so far but all the plaudits cannot be wrong can they? He came with a good reputation and the way we have previously played may not have helped him. Perhaps now is the time to show what he really can do?

[ZLF 274]

442 has never been dependent on having 2 decent strikers, its about having a midfield 4 that can hold and control a game against the opponents 4 or 5.

None of the 442 suggestions have the power or legs to be effective as a 442 unless we make the two strikers even more remote and rely completely on route one football.

Once we have better central midfielders it may be an option - otherwise 451 plays to our strengths.

Nutty - you suggest Holt can play the hoolahan role - I think from an attacking point of view he can, but we would lose a lot from a defensive point of view, Wes is far more mobile and effective defending 10 yards inside his own half - I dont see holt doing that in a 451 (or want him to be if I am honest)

Maybe Kamara behind Holt though?

[Highland Canary 76]

In playing 4-4-2 I agree with AJ''s analysis.

We need to get at least one striker actually in the box if he to get on the end of the wingers'' crosses.

[nutty nigel 7,534]

[quote user="ZippersLeftFoot"]442 has never been dependent on having 2 decent strikers, its about having a midfield 4 that can hold and control a game against the opponents 4 or 5. None of the 442 suggestions have the power or legs to be effective as a 442 unless we make the two strikers even more remote and rely completely on route one football. Once we have better central midfielders it may be an option - otherwise 451 plays to our strengths. Nutty - you suggest Holt can play the hoolahan role - I think from an attacking point of view he can, but we would lose a lot from a defensive point of view, Wes is far more mobile and effective defending 10 yards inside his own half - I dont see holt doing that in a 451 (or want him to be if I am honest) Maybe Kamara behind Holt though?[/quote]

 

Like I said Zip, an advanced Wes role which would give us the option of being more direct. And from what I''ve seen of Kamara I''d play him furthest forward but no system is set in stone and if you''ve got the players to make it happen a formation can be fluid. With Holt in the Wes role if Kamara is out wide Holty can be in the box. You say Holt isn''t so mobile and effective defending and I say Hoolahan isn''t so threatening or effective in the opponents box. So it''s swings and roundabouts and there''s probably room for both pairings in the same 90 minutes. That''s the options these new signings have given us.

 

 

[Yelloow Since 72 54]

I think Fellaini would have a field day if City went to a 4-4-2 on Saturday. I don''t think the formation is the main problem, it''s the execution in the final third. City produced 15 shots against Fulham, 8 on target, but still didn''t score. It didn''t help that both Holt and Pilks were missing, but the passing and through balls need to be sharper. The move early against Fulham where Bennett fed a clever reverse pass to Garrido who then found Becchio in front of goal was an example. Becchio had to stretch for the ball and then couldn''t place it past the keeper. A more accurate ball could have made that possible. Once a goal or two go in, the confidence will return and the execution will follow. That is more important than messing around with the formation now, IMO.

[Mr Angry 1,561]

How about only playing 1 winger, that way we can have 2 up front, keep Hoolahan in and also Johnson & Tettey?