Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Canary02 IV

The next test for Hughton

Recommended Posts

The formation over the past two matches has been successful on many levels. Tettey anchoring has allowed Fer and Howson the freedom to push on and support, and with Olsson in particular bombing on and adding width, Pilks has been able to come inside and link up with RvW so he looks much less isolated. Effectively we''re playing 4-1-2-2-1 or even 2-3-2-2-1 with the full backs pushing forward.

As with any system it has it''s pro''s and con''s and if we keep playing it teams will suss it out and adapt their play to counter it. I think the next test for CH will be to adapt accordingly. It''s great that we''ve found this system, but the key to maintaining it''s effectiveness will be to not flog it to death, but to use it when it can be most effective. The more clubs we have in the golf bag, the better we can play the whole course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Waveney Canary"]The next test for me would be can he actually manage a game of football where as a percentage of possession we have more than the opposition[/quote]

Why? Would that change your opinion then?

Anyway, under Lambert in the Premiership, we rarely dominated possession and you still go on and on about him all the while.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Surely the time has come to give Hooper an opportunity to show what he can do. If the manger is afraid to play two up front then rest Wolfswinkle. Having watched every Prem Match this season in all that time only once have I seen him collect a clearance from his defence or goal kicks. He is weakly thrust off the ball and subsequently fouls his man. It is hard thing to accept having spent all that money but if the rest of the team is performing action must be taken to improve the goal tally. We cannot afford to wait.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Canary02 IV"]The formation over the past two matches has been successful on many levels. Tettey anchoring has allowed Fer and Howson the freedom to push on and support, and with Olsson in particular bombing on and adding width, Pilks has been able to come inside and link up with RvW so he looks much less isolated. Effectively we''re playing 4-1-2-2-1 or even 2-3-2-2-1 with the full backs pushing forward.

As with any system it has it''s pro''s and con''s and if we keep playing it teams will suss it out and adapt their play to counter it. I think the next test for CH will be to adapt accordingly. It''s great that we''ve found this system, but the key to maintaining it''s effectiveness will be to not flog it to death, but to use it when it can be most effective. The more clubs we have in the golf bag, the better we can play the whole course.[/quote]It is yet quite right because the link between Howson and RVW is almost non-existent. I would now be looking towards Hooper & Elmander working as a partnership as an alternative to Howson & RVW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="tom cavendish"][quote user="Canary02 IV"]The formation over the past two matches has been successful on many levels. Tettey anchoring has allowed Fer and Howson the freedom to push on and support, and with Olsson in particular bombing on and adding width, Pilks has been able to come inside and link up with RvW so he looks much less isolated. Effectively we''re playing 4-1-2-2-1 or even 2-3-2-2-1 with the full backs pushing forward.

As with any system it has it''s pro''s and con''s and if we keep playing it teams will suss it out and adapt their play to counter it. I think the next test for CH will be to adapt accordingly. It''s great that we''ve found this system, but the key to maintaining it''s effectiveness will be to not flog it to death, but to use it when it can be most effective. The more clubs we have in the golf bag, the better we can play the whole course.[/quote]It is yet quite right because the link between Howson and RVW is almost non-existent. I would now be looking towards Hooper & Elmander working as a partnership as an alternative to Howson & RVW.[/quote]

 

If you mean two up front in a 4-4-2 then no. If you mean Hooper up front in place of RvW and Elmander as the link then also no. Elmander can''t play that role. It took a while for that particular penny to drop wth Hughton, but drop it finally did. If you mean Hooper as the link behind Elmander that just seems like another case of trying to bash a square peg (Hooper) into a round hole. But there is a chance he could do the job better than Elmander.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

[quote user="tom cavendish"][quote user="Canary02 IV"]The formation over the past two matches has been successful on many levels. Tettey anchoring has allowed Fer and Howson the freedom to push on and support, and with Olsson in particular bombing on and adding width, Pilks has been able to come inside and link up with RvW so he looks much less isolated. Effectively we''re playing 4-1-2-2-1 or even 2-3-2-2-1 with the full backs pushing forward.

As with any system it has it''s pro''s and con''s and if we keep playing it teams will suss it out and adapt their play to counter it. I think the next test for CH will be to adapt accordingly. It''s great that we''ve found this system, but the key to maintaining it''s effectiveness will be to not flog it to death, but to use it when it can be most effective. The more clubs we have in the golf bag, the better we can play the whole course.[/quote]It isn''t yet quite right because the link between Howson and RVW is almost non-existent. I would now be looking towards Hooper & Elmander working as a partnership as an alternative to Howson & RVW.[/quote]

If you mean two up front in a 4-4-2 then no. If you mean Hooper up front in place of RvW and Elmander as the link then also no. Elmander can''t play that role. It took a while for that particular penny to drop wth Hughton, but drop it finally did. If you mean Hooper as the link behind Elmander that just seems like another case of trying to bash a square peg (Hooper) into a round hole. But there is a chance he could do the job better than Elmander.

[/quote]Chris Hughton seems to agree with me that both Elmander and Hooper could

play that 9 1/2 role. I would play them both so that they could take it

in turns to be the more forward striker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Waveney Canary"]The next test for me would be can he actually manage a game of football where as a percentage of possession we have more than the opposition[/quote]
We had 61% of the possession against Hull.
Personally I would rather see us win games than obsess about a meaningless statistic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Waveney Canary"]I don''t disagree but generally you need to have the ball to win a game. Something Hughton has quite grasped yet[/quote]

 

You could never touch the ball and win a game.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="tom cavendish"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]

[quote user="tom cavendish"][quote user="Canary02 IV"]The formation over the past two matches has been successful on many levels. Tettey anchoring has allowed Fer and Howson the freedom to push on and support, and with Olsson in particular bombing on and adding width, Pilks has been able to come inside and link up with RvW so he looks much less isolated. Effectively we''re playing 4-1-2-2-1 or even 2-3-2-2-1 with the full backs pushing forward. As with any system it has it''s pro''s and con''s and if we keep playing it teams will suss it out and adapt their play to counter it. I think the next test for CH will be to adapt accordingly. It''s great that we''ve found this system, but the key to maintaining it''s effectiveness will be to not flog it to death, but to use it when it can be most effective. The more clubs we have in the golf bag, the better we can play the whole course.[/quote]

It isn''t yet quite right because the link between Howson and RVW is almost non-existent.

I would now be looking towards Hooper & Elmander working as a partnership as an alternative to Howson & RVW.

[/quote]

If you mean two up front in a 4-4-2 then no. If you mean Hooper up front in place of RvW and Elmander as the link then also no. Elmander can''t play that role. It took a while for that particular penny to drop wth Hughton, but drop it finally did. If you mean Hooper as the link behind Elmander that just seems like another case of trying to bash a square peg (Hooper) into a round hole. But there is a chance he could do the job better than Elmander.

[/quote]

Chris Hughton seems to agree with me that both Elmander and Hooper could play that 9 1/2 role. I would play them both so that they could take it in turns to be the more forward striker.
[/quote]

 

That''s great Tom, and what else has Chris Hughton consulted you on?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="TCCANARY"]

[quote user="Waveney Canary"]I don''t disagree but generally you need to have the ball to win a game. Something Hughton has quite grasped yet[/quote]

 

You could never touch the ball and win a game.

 

 

[/quote]

 

OK, you''d have to touch it at least once when you kick off but you could still win the game without touching it again.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="tom cavendish"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]

[quote user="tom cavendish"][quote user="Canary02 IV"]The formation over the past two matches has been successful on many levels. Tettey anchoring has allowed Fer and Howson the freedom to push on and support, and with Olsson in particular bombing on and adding width, Pilks has been able to come inside and link up with RvW so he looks much less isolated. Effectively we''re playing 4-1-2-2-1 or even 2-3-2-2-1 with the full backs pushing forward.

As with any system it has it''s pro''s and con''s and if we keep playing it teams will suss it out and adapt their play to counter it. I think the next test for CH will be to adapt accordingly. It''s great that we''ve found this system, but the key to maintaining it''s effectiveness will be to not flog it to death, but to use it when it can be most effective. The more clubs we have in the golf bag, the better we can play the whole course.[/quote]It isn''t yet quite right because the link between Howson and RVW is almost non-existent. I would now be looking towards Hooper & Elmander working as a partnership as an alternative to Howson & RVW.[/quote]

If you mean two up front in a 4-4-2 then no. If you mean Hooper up front in place of RvW and Elmander as the link then also no. Elmander can''t play that role. It took a while for that particular penny to drop wth Hughton, but drop it finally did. If you mean Hooper as the link behind Elmander that just seems like another case of trying to bash a square peg (Hooper) into a round hole. But there is a chance he could do the job better than Elmander.

[/quote]Chris Hughton seems to agree with me that both Elmander and Hooper could

play that 9 1/2 role. I would play them both so that they could take it

in turns to be the more forward striker.[/quote]

 

Hughton has said it about Elmander, but people in football say all sorts of things they don''t mean or believe, The fact is that after trying Elmander in that position for  a few games he then dropped him, obviously deciding it wasn''t working. Which had started to become apparent to pretty much everybody, amateur and professional. As Clive Allen said during the Villa game, Elmander just isn''t suited to that role. And it was then the penny dropped with Hughton.Of course he still has to say publicly he thinks Elmander can play there, because otherwise he looks an idiot for having carried on with a plan that wasn''t working.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2-3-2-2-1? Really?

Id eat my cat if Hughton drew that formation on the white board in the dressing room.

Its 4-3-3, not that it makes a difference. 4-2-3-1 4-4-1-1 its all the same and makes no odds to the performance. Some people on here place so much importance on formation, tell them we played 4-4-1-1 and there up in arms saying negative this and defensive that. Tell them it was actually a 4-2-3-1 with Snoddy, Pilks and Redmond pushing up to support RVW and they love it. Its essentially the same formation however you write it down, 4411, 4231, makes no odds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On a separate note, playing FIFA 14 with a 433, was getting nowhere with RVW up front. Put Elmander there with Pilks and Snoddy either side and ive finally started winning.

Just sayin'' :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="tom cavendish"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]

[quote user="tom cavendish"][quote user="Canary02 IV"]The formation over the past two matches has been successful on many levels. Tettey anchoring has allowed Fer and Howson the freedom to push on and support, and with Olsson in particular bombing on and adding width, Pilks has been able to come inside and link up with RvW so he looks much less isolated. Effectively we''re playing 4-1-2-2-1 or even 2-3-2-2-1 with the full backs pushing forward. As with any system it has it''s pro''s and con''s and if we keep playing it teams will suss it out and adapt their play to counter it. I think the next test for CH will be to adapt accordingly. It''s great that we''ve found this system, but the key to maintaining it''s effectiveness will be to not flog it to death, but to use it when it can be most effective. The more clubs we have in the golf bag, the better we can play the whole course.[/quote]

It isn''t yet quite right because the link between Howson and RVW is almost non-existent.

I would now be looking towards Hooper & Elmander working as a partnership as an alternative to Howson & RVW.

[/quote]

If you mean two up front in a 4-4-2 then no. If you mean Hooper up front in place of RvW and Elmander as the link then also no. Elmander can''t play that role. It took a while for that particular penny to drop wth Hughton, but drop it finally did. If you mean Hooper as the link behind Elmander that just seems like another case of trying to bash a square peg (Hooper) into a round hole. But there is a chance he could do the job better than Elmander.

[/quote]

Chris Hughton seems to agree with me that both Elmander and Hooper could play that 9 1/2 role. I would play them both so that they could take it in turns to be the more forward striker.
[/quote]

 

Hughton has said it about Elmander, but people in football say all sorts of things they don''t mean or believe, The fact is that after trying Elmander in that position for  a few games he then dropped him, obviously deciding it wasn''t working. Which had started to become apparent to pretty much everybody, amateur and professional. As Clive Allen said during the Villa game, Elmander just isn''t suited to that role. And it was then the penny dropped with Hughton.

Of course he still has to say publicly he thinks Elmander can play there, because otherwise he looks an idiot for having carried on with a plan that wasn''t working.

[/quote]

 

The penny dropped because of what Clive Allen said? Clive Allen? That student of the game? Clive Allen who once managed Spurs for one match, ( a defeat by Blackburn) and played five times for England (including a game against Israel) and never scored?

Well that''s it then. That''s who we need. Clive Allen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Graham Paddons Beard"]

The penny dropped because of what Clive Allen said? Clive Allen? That student of the game? Clive Allen who once managed Spurs for one match, ( a defeat by Blackburn) and played five times for England (including a game against Israel) and never scored?

Well that''s it then. That''s who we need. Clive Allen.

[/quote]I disagree.  If history has taught us but one thing, it''s that you can''t trust anyone with a reversible name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Graham Paddons Beard"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="tom cavendish"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]

[quote user="tom cavendish"][quote user="Canary02 IV"]The formation over the past two matches has been successful on many levels. Tettey anchoring has allowed Fer and Howson the freedom to push on and support, and with Olsson in particular bombing on and adding width, Pilks has been able to come inside and link up with RvW so he looks much less isolated. Effectively we''re playing 4-1-2-2-1 or even 2-3-2-2-1 with the full backs pushing forward. As with any system it has it''s pro''s and con''s and if we keep playing it teams will suss it out and adapt their play to counter it. I think the next test for CH will be to adapt accordingly. It''s great that we''ve found this system, but the key to maintaining it''s effectiveness will be to not flog it to death, but to use it when it can be most effective. The more clubs we have in the golf bag, the better we can play the whole course.[/quote]It isn''t yet quite right because the link between Howson and RVW is almost non-existent. I would now be looking towards Hooper & Elmander working as a partnership as an alternative to Howson & RVW.[/quote]

If you mean two up front in a 4-4-2 then no. If you mean Hooper up front in place of RvW and Elmander as the link then also no. Elmander can''t play that role. It took a while for that particular penny to drop wth Hughton, but drop it finally did. If you mean Hooper as the link behind Elmander that just seems like another case of trying to bash a square peg (Hooper) into a round hole. But there is a chance he could do the job better than Elmander.

[/quote]Chris Hughton seems to agree with me that both Elmander and Hooper could play that 9 1/2 role. I would play them both so that they could take it in turns to be the more forward striker.[/quote]

 

Hughton has said it about Elmander, but people in football say all sorts of things they don''t mean or believe, The fact is that after trying Elmander in that position for  a few games he then dropped him, obviously deciding it wasn''t working. Which had started to become apparent to pretty much everybody, amateur and professional. As Clive Allen said during the Villa game, Elmander just isn''t suited to that role. And it was then the penny dropped with Hughton.Of course he still has to say publicly he thinks Elmander can play there, because otherwise he looks an idiot for having carried on with a plan that wasn''t working.

[/quote]

 

The penny dropped because of what Clive Allen said? Clive Allen? That student of the game? Clive Allen who once managed Spurs for one match, ( a defeat by Blackburn) and played five times for England (including a game against Israel) and never scored?

Well that''s it then. That''s who we need. Clive Allen.

[/quote]

 

Please don''t twist what I said. Since Hughton was on the touchline at the time I doubt he heard what Clive Allen said. You may decry Allen but as I once saw him score a hattrick for Spurs against us at White Hart Lane in about nine minutes I think he may know a bit about attacking play. But I was simply using his comments to show that this view - that Elmander just isn''t a No.10 - is held by professionals as well as amateurs. And since Hughton after that game - against Villa - dropped Elmander to the subs bench I think his actions show he does now agree with Allen''s assessment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Waveney Canary"]The next test for me would be can he actually manage a game of football where as a percentage of possession we have more than the opposition[/quote]Like against Hull and Aston Villa this season. What was the score in those games? The ONLY stat that matters in football is the goals scored one.

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  

×
×
  • Create New...