Juggy 0 Posted September 28, 2013 Each have scored a goal, Osvaldo and Lambert.Neither of those can realistically be described as a ''second striker'', they are centre forwards full stop, even if one is playing deep. We are apparently playing a 4-5-1 but let''s face it, we have two number 9''s on the pitch in RVW and Elmander.So if Southampton can play two strikers at home, and if we pretty much already are but don''t want to admit it, then there can be absolutely no reason why we can''t play Hooper and Van Wolfswinkel together when mummy kisses pretty boy''s bruised toe better can there?Those who say "everybody plays 4-5-1", what do you say to this? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nutty nigel 7,351 Posted September 28, 2013 I say #10 is a caff or a fag and the hole is on a golf course. Having 2 strikers on the pitch gives teams more attacking options whatever their role is perceived to be. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Juggy 0 Posted September 28, 2013 [quote user="nutty nigel"]I say #10 is a caff or a fag and the hole is on a golf course.Having 2 strikers on the pitch gives teams more attacking options whatever their role is perceived to be.[/quote]I agree Nutty.But others have suggested in the past that two strikers just isn''t how it is done, but it looks as if it is the way it is done unless you are blessed with a prolific goalscoring midfielder (like Nolan or Lampard).And with Hoolahan not being a prolific goalscoring midfielder (although a great player of course), I wonder whether Hughton will experiment with Hooper playing that so called ''deeper role''.Some will call this 4-5-1.... I call it playing two strikers. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
snake-eyes 13 Posted September 28, 2013 It''s not as simple as you make out. It depends on a anumber of things: OppositionOpposition formationOpposition players playingWhat players are available for usWhat players are on formWhat players do you pick 442 could work, but would you always play this at home? A lot to consider before saying this is the solution to all our problems! Snake Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nutty nigel 7,351 Posted September 28, 2013 Super Hooper has put himself forward for it. Hughton''s got a decision to make that''s for sure. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Juggy 0 Posted September 28, 2013 [quote user="nutty nigel"]Super Hooper has put himself forward for it. Hughton''s got a decision to make that''s for sure.[/quote]Probably not one he has to make tomorrow though, because RVW will likely be on the bench. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nutty nigel 7,351 Posted September 28, 2013 But he does have to consider the merits of BJ, Tettey and Howson too. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Juggy 0 Posted September 28, 2013 [quote user="snake-eyes"]Opposition formationOpposition players playing[/quote]Would be very difficult to know this one in advance wouldn''t it?I thought the teams give the team sheets to the referee about 15 minutes before kick off? You could make an educated guess at lineup and formation, but even when you get the teamsheet you won''t know the oppositions ''formation'' or strategy until they are out there on the pitch playing it out.That is unless you bug the away dressing room, which was quite common in the late eighties and early nineties, as was turning the heating up to 40 degrees to make them sleepy. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nutty nigel 7,351 Posted September 28, 2013 Well if they''re both fit I would play Hooper and RVW. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mel0 0 Posted September 28, 2013 Lambert played wide in a front 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
snake-eyes 13 Posted September 28, 2013 No need to be pedantic TNB! They are all still vey valid variables that have to be considered when selecting your formation, style, tactics etc or do you not agree? Or do you think 442 is the cure all? If only life was so simple! [^o)] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Juggy 0 Posted September 28, 2013 [quote user="snake-eyes"]No need to be pedantic TNB!They are all still vey valid variables that have to be considered when selecting your formation, style, tactics etc or do you not agree?Or do you think 442 is the cure all?If only life was so simple! [^o)][/quote]Well I may have been being pedantic, but I don''t think it would be pedantic to argue that at no stage have I argued the case for a 4-4-2 or even suggested we try a 4-4-2.My point really is that with RVW and Elmander on the pitch, we are already playing a 4-4-2. Back in the day when 4-4-2 was called 4-4-2 there would still be a number 9 and a number 10, and one would still lead the line, and we would still play poachers and big men.I don''t understand how people can differentiate between 4-4-2 and 4-5-1 when Elmander and RVW are playing together, because Elmander is not a midfielder and neither is he playing as one.With Hoolahan you could perhaps argue we were playing a 4-4-1-1, an advanced midfielder. As far as I''ve seen so far this season we are playing what used to be called a 4-4-2, and what Paul Merson calls a 4-4-2, and what other people claim to be a 4-5-1 or 4-2-3-1 or 4-4-1-1.And so I''m questioning the frequent assertion that teams in this league don''t play 4-4-2, when quite clearly we have been, and when quite clearly Southampton still are (for the next couple of minutes, until the final whistle blows).So when RVW and Hooper play together, in what I call a 4-4-2, I hope they will be successful enough to put to bed this stupid argument that 4-4-2 can''t work. Otherwise I hope we see Hoolahan return, so that we can play a 4-4-1-1. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites