Jump to content
Note to existing users - password reset is required Read more... ×
Sign in to follow this  
Number 9

Definition of Insanity

Recommended Posts

It''s been said that the definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing whilst expecting a different result.

Now we do have a change for Sunday''s game with Kei finishing his loan spell, but other than that, what is Chrissy babes going to change to achieve a different result from recent games and stop us all going insane?

Surely he can''t set out too defensive this time, can he?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If that''s the definition of insanity, then picking a player who isn''t match fit and hasn''t done enough to displace Jackson from the subs bench, and chucking him into the starting line up for a must-win game would appear to be the definition of stupidity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Mister Chops"]

picking a player who isn''t match fit and hasn''t done enough to displace Jackson from the subs bench

[/quote]

 

I think there''s more to it than that Chops...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So are you saying one up front?

Cant wait to see who starts / formation, a game we need to win.

This will tell us a lot about Hughton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="The Great Mass Debater"]

But who else is there to fill KKs boots other than Jacko?

[/quote]

 

We literally only have Holt, Jackson and Becchio, and 2 of those haven''t kicked a ball in months.

 

Our only other option is to call up Jamar Loza from the U21''s or Carlton Morris from the U18''s. Fingers crossed we can give Holty the service he needs and he can do the business!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think I would go one up top yes with Hoolahan behind Holt, despite many experts on here deeming that to be a negative tactic, it really isn''t. Its certainly worked for United this year

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, Ellis.

4231 is not a negative formation. it is how the formation is used. it can be used defensively or attack.

I see a 4-2-3-1, with holt up top, wes behind. ruddy back in goal, and BJ + tettey in the holding mids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="The Voice Of Reason"]we have been playing one up front and not getting goals / results. insanity to assume tomorrow will bring different result?[/quote]

 

4-2-3-1 isn''t a negative formation, provided the 3 get up the pitch supported by the 2 and the full backs overlap.

 

We need to attack as a unit, for me it''s that simple. Support the man in possession, give him options.

 

4-4-1-1 can work too providing the CM''s push up and the full backs overlap. It''s no good having Pilks or Snoddy having the ball on the flanks, up against 2 players and with only Holt in the box to aim at. Also, if Wes plays he needs players around him to be effective, if he gets isolated we all know what happens.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To play two up front requires us to play Holt plus another.

This another has to be as has been pointed out one of Jacko or Becchio, both likely to be unfit and not match sharp. Jackson seems to offer very little and Becchio has been accused of being too like Holt to form and effective partnership with him.

Other options if we insist on a second striker is to play someone out of position (Darrel Russell anyone?). Only real candidates are Pilks (who we need on the left for lack of any other option) or Bennett. Neither of these have been getting extended runs of late though so probably playing them out of position offers little advantage over playing an unfit striker.

Granted Hughton wanted to run the rule over KK to make a call on a permenant signing, but was this at the expense of rendering a striker who is with us for the whole season an unusable option? Was that a wise decision?

Circumstances I think have rendered a 2 up front option nonviable.

One potential option to ensure Holt has support could be the approach we had at Arsenal - a 4-3-3 with Holt flanked by Snoddy with Pilks replacing KK in that line up. Play both BJ and Tettey, would probably be enough defensive cover to allow Hoolahan to play attacking midfield.

Again not major surgery, but a redefinition of roles.

Think we''ll see Holt up front on his own again though...

Pity, as we know whom fortune favours...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Watching the Chelsea/Villa match and the development/improvement seen in Villa the definition of insanity is not backing Paul Lambert to the hilt and not backing his ambition therefore tempting him to move on in the same way as we did Martin O''Neill!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Number 9"]It''s been said that the definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing whilst expecting a different result.[/quote]Er, can you tell us exactly who said it please?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Derby Canary"Watching the Chelsea/Villa match and the development/improvement seen in Villa the definition of insanity is not backing Paul Lambert to the hilt and not backing his ambition therefore tempting him to move on in the same way as we did Martin O''Neill!!!

What a load of nonsense. Lambert wanted to leave for a bigger club. He has a ruthless ambition and there is nothing we could have offered to keep him here. Unless you''re suggesting we bankrupted the club to tempt him to stay?!

You got to admit to yourself that he wanted to leave as we were only a stepping stone on his upward journey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="Number 9"]It''s been said that the definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing whilst expecting a different result.[/quote]

Er, can you tell us exactly who said it please?
[/quote]

Albert Einstein.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="Number 9"]It''s been said that the definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing whilst expecting a different result.[/quote]Er, can you tell us exactly who said it please?[/quote]I very much doubt it Lapps as it''s been attributed to a number of people such as Einstein, Franklin, Rita Mae Brown and even as an old chinese proverb.The only vaguely definitive evidence is that it has been found in Brown''s writing, so she''ll have to suffice for now - unless you can come up with something clearer yourself [:D]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was thinking that Ruddy will also be back in goal and Pilks is ready for a starting position.Overall you can point to the beginning of our slide to be around the same time Ruddy went out. Not saying that the lack of having Ruddy in the side attributes to our inability to pass the ball, but the two seem to match up.Not blaming anything on Bunn, I think overall he''s done a great job as a stand in, but I feel he''s cost us a few points as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Indy_Bones"][quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="Number 9"]It''s been said that the definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing whilst expecting a different result.[/quote]Er, can you tell us exactly who said it please?[/quote]I very much doubt it Lapps as it''s been attributed to a number of people such as Einstein, Franklin, Rita Mae Brown and even as an old chinese proverb.The only vaguely definitive evidence is that it has been found in Brown''s writing, so she''ll have to suffice for now - unless you can come up with something clearer yourself [:D][/quote]I''ve found this....."Most people will attribute this quote to Albert Einstein but there is no evidence to suggest that he made this statement.

This quote "Insanity is repeating the same mistakes and expecting

different results" appears in the Basic Text of Narcotics Anonymous

which was copyrighted in 1982 and later published in 1983. It is found

on page 11 of the final "Review Form" which was distributed to the

fellowship in November of 1981. It is found on page 23 of the current

sixth edition"Well, footie is a drug innit? [;)] [:D]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The definition of insanity was getting rid of aaron wilbraham a season too early, what really rankles is that lambert took this decision and then p1ssed off a couple of weeks later, absolutely scandalous decision OTBC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="im spartacus"]The definition of insanity was getting rid of aaron wilbraham a season too early, what really rankles is that lambert took this decision and then p1ssed off a couple of weeks later, absolutely scandalous decision OTBC[/quote]And this is a nice clear example of a ''troll'' post, so thanks for that [;)]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Javiers Deaf Translator"]yes, Ellis.

4231 is not a negative formation. it is how the formation is used. it can be used defensively or attack.

I see a 4-2-3-1, with holt up top, wes behind. ruddy back in goal, and BJ + tettey in the holding mids.[/quote]Youd drop Howson and play 2 defensive midielders at home? Blimey. If we were winning with 20 left id bring Tettey on. If we went with 2 def mids then the full backs must have licence to bomb forward. otherwise its 6 at the back!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Derby Canary"]Watching the Chelsea/Villa match and the development/improvement seen in Villa the definition of insanity is not backing Paul Lambert to the hilt and not backing his ambition therefore tempting him to move on in the same way as we did Martin O''Neill!!![/quote]

Paul Lambert is gone, he''s not coming back so get over it.

Oh, how did Villa do today, BTW?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Rock The Boat"]Paul Lambert is gone, he''s not coming back so get over it.

Oh, how did Villa do today, BTW?[/quote]They lost 2-1 to a side that''s full of top class expensive players who could still potentially finish 2nd in the league, whilst giving them a damn good game in the process.The points tally may well only show a big fat ''0'' for that game, but I''d rather get that ''0'' playing the type of football they did - which was attacking, fearless play, than the shambolic, turgid dross that we were forced to endure against sides like Stoke and Wigan which gave us the exact same ''0'' as they just got against Chelsea...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about our game at home to Chelsea Indy? Why do you have to compare their game with away games at Stoke and Wigan?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×