Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Parma Ham's gone mouldy

You don't know what you're singing

Recommended Posts

Whilst yesterday''s result and some aspects of the performance were disappointing, very view of them (on this occasion) had much to do with the manager. Redmond played very poorly and was a positional and strategic liability. His forward gifts were considerably (on the day) by his callow tactical awareness, repeated mental slowness as he received possession ( from some thoroughly progressive passes in positive areas) and a repeated tendency to cede possession in dangerous turnover positions. To chant to the manager that he "doesn''t know what he''s doing" in this instance shows the increasing tendency to pre-conceived judgments that are not based on the empirical action on the pitch. There is a negative and damaging pre-meditation to this criticism.

The irony here is that the only negativity Norwich displayed yesterday was in the stands. Team selection and approach to the game were undoubtedly influenced by this negativity as the set up was too open, too attacking and too open. Norwich could have easily conceded twice before they did and the midfield was hugely susceptible to the counter attack. A further irony was that it was Lambert who set up extremely defensively and played strictly on the counter, exclusively via a fast- breaking, fluid, but isolated 3. This strategy was abandoned following the goal scored and the loss of LUkaku. Scoring the first goal fundamental changes the pattern of play at the top level and missing the penalty was fundamental to the outcome. This has nothing to do with HUghton and I was glad to see him stress that he expected RVW to take it. Any top striker should kick and bite teammates out of huge way to score from 12 yards at any time, in any game. Synod grass, Martin and Redmond all had excellent opportunities to drive balls across the 6 yard box repeatedly through the game and fails to do so. There was a good deal of solid approach players the final third and some very timid, technically poor efforts and some poor options selected. This has nothing to do with the manager. RVW not reacting with his head and cheating over the bar, Hooper not anticipating the ball and making lucky, shinned contact that GUzan saved, snodgrass pulling rank and Rvw not calling him, REdmond pausing for a second every time he got a good attacking minded pass that encouraged him to drive past players and collect the ball on the move, are nothing to do with the manager.

There are new players starting to gel. There are signs that we can press and dominate teams in forward areas. There are signs that RVW is starting to demand the ball better. Snodgrass is and has been central to our play and he is suffering. His dead balls remain an important weapon nevertheless.

Hughton was undoubtedly influenced by the criticism and let drift some of the excellent defensive structure, particularly in huge key deep midfield area in front of the back 4, opening us up to easy counters and leaving us light in terms of possession in midfield.

Lambert is a lucky manager and got away with one yesterday. Conversely HUghton did very little wrong, other than trying too hard to please fans and set up in too attacking a fashion. A thinner midfield, plus Elmander at 10 does not make us more attacking, despite having more attacking players on the pitch.

We can have a debate about the merits and demerits of Hughton, the team and the shape, but it must be based on the empirical evidence of the action, not on a pre-determined view of everything the manager does or the understandable disappointment of the result itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you Parma, you just about confirmed everything I said on here yesterday.I got crucified for saying Redmond was below par and ineffective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Any top striker should kick and bite teammates out of huge way to score from 12 yards at any time, in any game. Synod grass"precisely

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the analysis Parma, couple of errors in your post btw (Benteke for one!) but nothing that detracts from the points you make.

I watched the game yesterday and have to say that I agree the players let themselves down to a certain extent with some really poor decision making and delivery in the final third. I''m not Hughton''s biggets fan, he has not done enough to convince me yet that he deserves to remain in charge, but I felt he was unlucky yesterday, he set out attacking and open (probably due to fan pressure) and the players didn''t perform.

I agree that Redmond was pretty ineffective, especially second half, and I would like to think the chanting about the decision was more frustration than a concerted belief that the sub was wrong.

I would rather have seen Wes play than Elmander and wonder if it wasn''t for Bassongs injury that the subs might have been different.

I''m not going to knock anyone who is anti-Hughton after our start this season and the lingering feelings from last, but I did feel sorry for him after a result that really could have gone either way with some better player performances, it was our players that frustrated me most when watching the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Decent and fair analysis, that and Ricardo''s report are the two accounts of the game that seem closest to my viewpoint, with us being the better side, getting into decent positions only to be let down by our final ball.

And if RvW wanted the pen, he should have MADE it his.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Warren Hill"]Decent and fair analysis, that and Ricardo''s report are the two accounts of the game that seem closest to my viewpoint, with us being the better side, getting into decent positions only to be let down by our final ball. And if RvW wanted the pen, he should have MADE it his.[/quote]

 

He did try, but Snodgrass wouldnt give him the ball and who want to upset snodgrass

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Interesting read.

Some good points, some mistakes, some wrong analysis but a decent ending!

A bit heavy to read as no real paragraphs.

C grade from me (meant in jest!)

Snake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="killiecanary"]Thank God!

By a country mile the most intelligent and reasoned post I''ve read all weekend.

Parma please post more often![/quote]

Ditto.

The rational element is on the move at last.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Very good post.  I have to hold my hands up & say that I wanted Hughton to be more adventurous in his approach after the hull & spurs games.  I agree yesterday he gambled ''a la mode Lambert'' by leaving Johnson/ Tetty out & putting Howson in his place we were certainly more open through the middle, but that was the gamble.I don''t entirely agree with Parma''s comments regarding Redmond''s performance, yes he was below par but I felt Lambert singled him out for some special attention by doubling sometimes trebling up on him.I am curious to find out Parma''s view on the why managers all now seem to play wide players on their opposite sides?Yesterday I just felt that many of our attacks via Snodgrass or Redmond lost momentum by them working the ball inside to cross it with their ''good'' foot consequently the ball was delivered into an overcrowded box.  Yes they could cross using their weaker foot but most players are less inclined to do this through not wanting to risk a poor delivery.  Perhaps an old fashioned view but if wide players are played on their natural side the ball could be delivered into the box much earlier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is the impression that some fans have developed a Twitter mentality where any "event" is better than status quo. This is to fundamentally misunderstand the realities of our recent history and current status. Trigger-finger, social media expectations are a dangerous drug that is easy to take.We have invested heavily in improved players and we are playing our 3 rd season in the Premier League. We would have dreamed of stability in the Premier League on the exciting, all-action ascent through the Leagues under Lambert, this was the goal. It appears that having dreamed of it that many fans are bored of the stability and the prosaic reality of staying in the Premier League year after year. "Hughton sort [what] out?" Financial disparities? Murdoch dominated media? Over-inflated prices for English players? Super sophisticated scouting networks that see top clubs hoover talent they never play? The loss of surprise after the first season? The departure of Lambert? The crushing boredom of not winning every game, losing about half of the games you play, wiiing about 10 a year? Keeing us up..? Sorting the defence out...? Isn''t this what 72 clubs dream of...? It appears that the reality of achieving the goal is not exciting enough for some, who feel we should be endlessly attacking, regardless of who we play and how they set up. This is precisely the attitude that holds the England National Team back as it implies that there is an inherent superiority and a right to win before a ball is kicked. This is more damaging than a so-called negative approach, as it utterly denies reality and is nothing more than a suspension of disbelief that is quickly dispelled when a results go against you and leads to a repeated mind-blindness and a messianic unwillingness to view the actualité or look in the mirror at one''s failings and weaknesses. As the German''s know well, it is only by ruthlessly confronting your weaknesses and autistically striving to improve them day-by-day that you can truly become great. It is the reason the German''s always score penalties. They do not believe they will score, because they banish the fear and pretend they dobn''t care. They embrace and counteract the fear, by knowing that they have faced the fear and drilled their technique to such a level that it overcomes the situation. This is not the same as "confidence" or "belief", particularly as it would be perceived by fans. Anyone can "believe" they are the best or "believe" that they will survive without a parachute if they jump, this does not make it true. Real belief comes from knowing that that you are capable, having embraced the fear and negatives [first having accepted that they are there], then striving day-by-day in boring, repetitive fashion to ingrain the techniques and methods necessary to counteract and overcome the pressures, until it is second nature. This is not something the manager does at half time, it is achieved over years.We are in a scenario where we can not and will not win every game. The level is too high and the margins too fine. The way we have played in recent years was fearless and exciting and wonderful and I loved it and loved Lambert, but it was a product of the scenario we found ourselves in. Lambert is not even remotely trying to repeat it at Aston Villa where he is faced with similar issues. Hughton is employing a lot of good, prosaic [dull if you like] methods, which are designed to produce over the long term. This is a brave and committed strategy and does not pander to the modern fallacy that Managers make an enormous difference and are somehow the lightning rod for all events.Norwich are not underperforming. We are enjoying the most successful period for decades. Let us strive to be Germans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Parma Hams gone mouldy"]Whilst yesterday''s result and some aspects of the performance were disappointing, very view of them (on this occasion) had much to do with the manager. Redmond played very poorly and was a positional and strategic liability. His forward gifts were considerably (on the day) by his callow tactical awareness, repeated mental slowness as he received possession ( from some thoroughly progressive passes in positive areas) and a repeated tendency to cede possession in dangerous turnover positions. To chant to the manager that he "doesn''t know what he''s doing" in this instance shows the increasing tendency to pre-conceived judgments that are not based on the empirical action on the pitch. There is a negative and damaging pre-meditation to this criticism. The irony here is that the only negativity Norwich displayed yesterday was in the stands. Team selection and approach to the game were undoubtedly influenced by this negativity as the set up was too open, too attacking and too open. Norwich could have easily conceded twice before they did and the midfield was hugely susceptible to the counter attack. A further irony was that it was Lambert who set up extremely defensively and played strictly on the counter, exclusively via a fast- breaking, fluid, but isolated 3. This strategy was abandoned following the goal scored and the loss of LUkaku. Scoring the first goal fundamental changes the pattern of play at the top level and missing the penalty was fundamental to the outcome. This has nothing to do with HUghton and I was glad to see him stress that he expected RVW to take it. Any top striker should kick and bite teammates out of huge way to score from 12 yards at any time, in any game. Synod grass, Martin and Redmond all had excellent opportunities to drive balls across the 6 yard box repeatedly through the game and fails to do so. There was a good deal of solid approach players the final third and some very timid, technically poor efforts and some poor options selected. This has nothing to do with the manager. RVW not reacting with his head and cheating over the bar, Hooper not anticipating the ball and making lucky, shinned contact that GUzan saved, snodgrass pulling rank and Rvw not calling him, REdmond pausing for a second every time he got a good attacking minded pass that encouraged him to drive past players and collect the ball on the move, are nothing to do with the manager. There are new players starting to gel. There are signs that we can press and dominate teams in forward areas. There are signs that RVW is starting to demand the ball better. Snodgrass is and has been central to our play and he is suffering. His dead balls remain an important weapon nevertheless. Hughton was undoubtedly influenced by the criticism and let drift some of the excellent defensive structure, particularly in huge key deep midfield area in front of the back 4, opening us up to easy counters and leaving us light in terms of possession in midfield. Lambert is a lucky manager and got away with one yesterday. Conversely HUghton did very little wrong, other than trying too hard to please fans and set up in too attacking a fashion. A thinner midfield, plus Elmander at 10 does not make us more attacking, despite having more attacking players on the pitch. We can have a debate about the merits and demerits of Hughton, the team and the shape, but it must be based on the empirical evidence of the action, not on a pre-determined view of everything the manager does or the understandable disappointment of the result itself.[/quote]

 

Pi*s off Delia...................Hughton out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I could understand Redmond being substituted, but I do not think he was any worse than Snodgrass. Personally I would like to see our wide players swap sides every now and then, just to keep the full backs guessing. I really like Snodgrass but he needs to sharpen up on his final ball into the box and his corners, I lost count of how many went straight into the hands of Guzan, and for those reasons he was a candidate to be replaced.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Great stuff Parma. I recall posters calling for ''Arry Rednapp amongst others to come here last season. What did he achieve at QPR? What did QPR achieve in bringing Mark Hughes? What did Reading achieve with their managerial change. Sunderland escaped but where are they now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Modern football is far less forgiving of weaknesses than it has ever been. Space is at a premium. There is rarely a "you attack, we attack" simplicity to games.Watch a game from 30 years ago, note how incredibly slow it is. Note how little players do when they don''t have the ball. Note how much time there is. Big teams now scientifically analyse and attack the weaknesses of smaller teams ruthlessly. Big teams have more money and better players. If you are a good manager, you know your team has weaknesses, so you try to protect them as best you can. Smaller teams have to do this more than bigger teams. This can be construed as negative if you have a weakness you need to protect and other teams have strengths, because you are inevitably "defending" against your weakness.These are not absolutes, because you can play Peter Crouch bang balls at him and beat Spain, it can happen. But you have to develop a pattern of play that will allow you to have a chance in most games. Unless you want to play the "mini-league" game of the newly promoted, trying only to beat teams around you. You must develop a repeatable, consistent [German] approach to tactics, discipline and pattern of play. If you ingrain this enough, the team will perform this as second nature and have the [real] confidence to perform above their mean level on a ongoing basis [until it is no longer over-performing, but the de-facto status quo. In the first instance , you must face reality and find a way to absorb the pressure of coming up against [say] a fluid, dropped 3 of Oscar, Mata and Hazard or similar and using weapons you have that are hard for any team to defend [set pieces, patience in possession, pace].Wide players play on opposite sides because it is less risky to receive short passes and drive inside onto the weaker foot of the full back. This inevitably has more passing options as teammates are closer to the ball. Old-fashioned chalk on the boots, wide, drive to the bylibne only works when there is space to do so and an open, counter-attack is in progress...this happens less often now. You are also more likely to be caught out of shape in this way on transition.The hugely frustrating thing on Saturday was that Norwich did have a lot of wide opportunities to overload and drive into the box, in a somewhat rare display of poor defensive structure from the opposition. That we failed to maximise these opportunities was down to the players. Lambert got lucky and Hughton didn''t. There is only so much you can control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point about wingers is interesting Parma, but I wish I had some way of visually demonstrating why the traditional way works so well and the options it brings.

 

In a nutshell it results in defenders dropping deeper and  having to defend facing their own goal.  I have said this before, but ask any defender and they will say they would rather defend facing away from the goal with the ball in front of them than facing towards their own goal and trying to clear it from there.

 

It also means when the winger eventually does cut in they are not cutting in across the front of the goal area, but into the goal area causing even more problems for the defence.

 

Once a fullback has no idea which way a winger is going to go he is lost and will drop off allowing time to cross, even when doubled up on.  The worst is generally a corner. 

 

I appreciate the ''modern'' idea, but for me it is too predictable, less dangerous for a defence and especially with the ''overlapping fullbacks'' actually leaves you more exposed defensively if the ball is lost and open to the counter attack.

 

Oh for the magnetic pitch board and coloured counters.  It is hard to convey the movement and development in words alone!

 

Snake

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is a "defensive attacking" strategy, not an "attacking attacking" one. It is normal that fans focus on the positive elements of what a player does and does not [or can not] see the structural or tactical weaknesses of apalyer and the "risks" that are being run by those weaknesses. Particularly in the case of exciting wingers, the selective memory / perception of fans is fully operational.Beckham was hugely appreciated in Italy [far more so than in England], because it was recognised that his gifts [set pieces, raking passes, shooting] were offered on top of his defensive work, reliability, tactical diligence and sheer perpetual motion. This meant he was considered the Italian Holy Grail of a 55% player. Someone who consistently offers more to the balance of play than he costs.This gives Managers and coaches a week in, week out chess piece that his stronger than the opposition, allowing for another piece to be given more licence, additional risks to be taken precisely because you have a Holy Grail piece. This is not an absolute, but Casinos make billions on 1/36 odds. Over enough time, you will come out on top. Premier League survival anyone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In summery then, it would appear that it doesn''t matter if this city side is set up for attcking or defending, the players we have are just not good enough! is that what we are saying?

 

I mean I can''t argue against anything Parma has said but we still lost. Does that mean that 5 wins in 27 or 11 wins in 43 is acceptable? after spending the best part of 40 million in two seasons Hughton is not producing the performances or results.

 

So are you for keeping Hughton and the current coaches or is it time to change as this is results business and scoring 3 goals in 5 games is not going to keep us up.

 

After reading this and very good OP and subsiquent responses I must conclude that if it''s not the manager, it must be the squad just isn''t good enough so the players brought it are not up to standard and that would be Hughton who signed these.

 

I have said and will continue to say I respect and like Hughton but something just isn''t right at City. So what''s to be done, just turn up like loyal supporters, accept that our team is not as good as we had hoped and watch Hughton fight a relegation battle? I don''t know the answer, but I had sort of made my mind up that I wanted a change, but not so sure it would make much difference after reading this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
,,,,,,,,,,Whilst yesterday''s result and some aspects of the performance were disappointing, very view of them (on this occasion) had much to do with the manager. Redmond played very poorly and was a positional and strategic liability. His forward gifts were considerably (on the day) by his callow tactical awareness, repeated mental slowness as he received possession ( from some thoroughly progressive passes in positive areas) and a repeated tendency to cede possession in dangerous turnover positions. To chant to the manager that he "doesn''t know what he''s doing" in this instance shows the increasing tendency to pre-conceived judgments that are not based on the empirical action on the pitch. There is a negative and damaging pre-meditation to this criticism.

The irony here is that the only negativity Norwich displayed yesterday was in the stands. Team selection and approach to the game were undoubtedly influenced by this negativity as the set up was too open, too attacking and too open. Norwich could have easily conceded twice before they did and the midfield was hugely susceptible to the counter attack. A further irony was that it was Lambert who set up extremely defensively and played strictly on the counter, exclusively via a fast- breaking, fluid, but isolated 3. This strategy was abandoned following the goal scored and the loss of LUkaku. Scoring the first goal fundamental changes the pattern of play at the top level and missing the penalty was fundamental to the outcome. This has nothing to do with HUghton and I was glad to see him stress that he expected RVW to take it. Any top striker should kick and bite teammates out of huge way to score from 12 yards at any time, in any game. Synod grass, Martin and Redmond all had excellent opportunities to drive balls across the 6 yard box repeatedly through the game and fails to do so. There was a good deal of solid approach players the final third and some very timid, technically poor efforts and some poor options selected. This has nothing to do with the manager. RVW not reacting with his head and cheating over the bar, Hooper not anticipating the ball and making lucky, shinned contact that GUzan saved, snodgrass pulling rank and Rvw not calling him, REdmond pausing for a second every time he got a good attacking minded pass that encouraged him to drive past players and collect the ball on the move, are nothing to do with the manager.

There are new players starting to gel. There are signs that we can press and dominate teams in forward areas. There are signs that RVW is starting to demand the ball better. Snodgrass is and has been central to our play and he is suffering. His dead balls remain an important weapon nevertheless.

Hughton was undoubtedly influenced by the criticism and let drift some of the excellent defensive structure, particularly in huge key deep midfield area in front of the back 4, opening us up to easy counters and leaving us light in terms of possession in midfield.

Lambert is a lucky manager and got away with one yesterday. Conversely HUghton did very little wrong, other than trying too hard to please fans and set up in too attacking a fashion. A thinner midfield, plus Elmander at 10 does not make us more attacking, despite having more attacking players on the pitch.

We can have a debate about the merits and demerits of Hughton, the team and the shape, but it must be based on the empirical evidence of the action, not on a pre-determined view of everything the manager does or the understandable disappointment of the result itself.!!!!!''''!!!!!

I am just bumping a great post and thread, apart form some some idiots normal response.

Could not agree more and I am positive that the board will not waiver in there support for Hoots. He is the man for the long term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="QwertyMick"],,,,,,,,,,Whilst yesterday''s result and some aspects of the performance were disappointing, very view of them (on this occasion) had much to do with the manager. Redmond played very poorly and was a positional and strategic liability. His forward gifts were considerably (on the day) by his callow tactical awareness, repeated mental slowness as he received possession ( from some thoroughly progressive passes in positive areas) and a repeated tendency to cede possession in dangerous turnover positions. To chant to the manager that he "doesn''t know what he''s doing" in this instance shows the increasing tendency to pre-conceived judgments that are not based on the empirical action on the pitch. There is a negative and damaging pre-meditation to this criticism. The irony here is that the only negativity Norwich displayed yesterday was in the stands. Team selection and approach to the game were undoubtedly influenced by this negativity as the set up was too open, too attacking and too open. Norwich could have easily conceded twice before they did and the midfield was hugely susceptible to the counter attack. A further irony was that it was Lambert who set up extremely defensively and played strictly on the counter, exclusively via a fast- breaking, fluid, but isolated 3. This strategy was abandoned following the goal scored and the loss of LUkaku. Scoring the first goal fundamental changes the pattern of play at the top level and missing the penalty was fundamental to the outcome. This has nothing to do with HUghton and I was glad to see him stress that he expected RVW to take it. Any top striker should kick and bite teammates out of huge way to score from 12 yards at any time, in any game. Synod grass, Martin and Redmond all had excellent opportunities to drive balls across the 6 yard box repeatedly through the game and fails to do so. There was a good deal of solid approach players the final third and some very timid, technically poor efforts and some poor options selected. This has nothing to do with the manager. RVW not reacting with his head and cheating over the bar, Hooper not anticipating the ball and making lucky, shinned contact that GUzan saved, snodgrass pulling rank and Rvw not calling him, REdmond pausing for a second every time he got a good attacking minded pass that encouraged him to drive past players and collect the ball on the move, are nothing to do with the manager. There are new players starting to gel. There are signs that we can press and dominate teams in forward areas. There are signs that RVW is starting to demand the ball better. Snodgrass is and has been central to our play and he is suffering. His dead balls remain an important weapon nevertheless. Hughton was undoubtedly influenced by the criticism and let drift some of the excellent defensive structure, particularly in huge key deep midfield area in front of the back 4, opening us up to easy counters and leaving us light in terms of possession in midfield. Lambert is a lucky manager and got away with one yesterday. Conversely HUghton did very little wrong, other than trying too hard to please fans and set up in too attacking a fashion. A thinner midfield, plus Elmander at 10 does not make us more attacking, despite having more attacking players on the pitch. We can have a debate about the merits and demerits of Hughton, the team and the shape, but it must be based on the empirical evidence of the action, not on a pre-determined view of everything the manager does or the understandable disappointment of the result itself.!!!!!''''!!!!! I am just bumping a great post and thread, apart form some some idiots normal response. Could not agree more and I am positive that the board will not waiver in there support for Hoots. He is the man for the long term.[/quote]

Who are you refering to with some idiots?

 

I stand by what I have asked, Parma has some goods points but we are still losing, so who''s fault is it that after spending 40 million we have only won 11 games out of 43 under Hughton? Is it the players, manager, coaching or just that we are out of class in this league?

 

Please let me know which one you think is at fault as the results don''t prove what is being said, we can''t keep going on about how unlucky we were, Villa did a job on us. Hull did a job on us and both times we failed to create chances we needed. So that must mean the player we have got in do not fit ur style, are not good enough for this league or are not being coached right, what is it?

 

Last I ask why do we lack leadership on and off the pitch?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spot on with Redmond.   Leave on a player who has become peripheral and uninvolved - an uninvolved player will not create a chance.    One who is involved and getting into good positions only needs to even just get lucky to create a chance.    That still didnt happen to Snoddy (or Martin) on Sat but at least with them we had a chance - take snoddy of and what would we have been reduced to?

 

Pilks showed his class with that cross (as did Garrido)   we have to use that flank more.   And any threaded ball through the middle would be nice!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Poor decision making, poor execution, failure to adhere to managers instructions concerning penalties, players out of position, arguing between the players,....this is Mr Hughtons team that play by Mr Hughtons rules! enough sloping the shoulders!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="snake-eyes"]

The point about wingers is interesting Parma, but I wish I had some way of visually demonstrating why the traditional way works so well and the options it brings.

 

In a nutshell it results in defenders dropping deeper and  having to defend facing their own goal.  I have said this before, but ask any defender and they will say they would rather defend facing away from the goal with the ball in front of them than facing towards their own goal and trying to clear it from there.

 

It also means when the winger eventually does cut in they are not cutting in across the front of the goal area, but into the goal area causing even more problems for the defence.

 

Once a fullback has no idea which way a winger is going to go he is lost and will drop off allowing time to cross, even when doubled up on.  The worst is generally a corner. 

 

I appreciate the ''modern'' idea, but for me it is too predictable, less dangerous for a defence and especially with the ''overlapping fullbacks'' actually leaves you more exposed defensively if the ball is lost and open to the counter attack.

 

Oh for the magnetic pitch board and coloured counters.  It is hard to convey the movement and development in words alone!

 

Snake

 

 

[/quote]Agree with this^^^ but I can now see Pama''s point on this subject too.  I would conclude there must be some benefit in the wingers swapping sides during the course of the game even if it just unsettles the opposition''s full backs.I suppose ideally you would want to employ wingers in your team that are naturally two footed then they can go on the outside or inside of the full back.....Pilkington??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Kangaroo Court"]Losing Lukaku must have been a massive blow, Mr Knowledgeable. [/quote]

I was starting to think he would get away with that one!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I take your point regarding the reasons for Saturday''s defeat, the need for second nature organisation and the tactics used on Saturday. Part of the issue is the clouding of that game and the previous performances. Although the failure to play a true defensive mid in front of the back four was imo a mistake, the tactics were ok.

However the inability of the players to convert CHs ideas into action support the view expressed elsewhere that there is a problem that predates the Villa game by many months.

A technical director could oversee the technical development and the manager/coach could inspire the players to believe in it. We don''t have that set up of course.

This fuels my view that whilst I think that CH should not be sacked, there needs to be changes in the coaching set up. Someone who can link up the various phases of play, raise morale and translate the technical ideas that CH wants to develop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The zeitgeist is for playing between the lines, which is where the wider players are preferred coming inside onto their stronger foot to ensure that the pattern of play is not reduced to straight lines. It can be noted that the formation 4231 already ensures that the 3 are between all of traditional lines associated with an English 442. Let me state that 442 per se can certainly be made to work as a system, but it can be observed that in England ( largely since 66) it has been characterised by a boxy, two dimension , inflexible shape that has seen English football(ers) play the game in a rigid, formulaic way more characterised by boxes than triangles ( draw 442 and then -say- the Dutch 343 on a sheet of paper and connect the dots). Over time this created a received wisdom of how each role should be performed. From school age, everybody tended to pick a chosen position and (worse), know how it was played. Given that football is such a wonderfully fluid game,this was simply limiting. games became characterised by repeated action in a predictable way, just as others around the world were exploring methods to unpick rigid systems via fluency of movement, fluency of position and multiple systems within matches.

In ENgland we are only now starting to touch on the sophistication of maintaining a defensive shape, whilst employing a fluid attacks shape designed to cause my maximum strategic problems for the opposition, whilst retaining good tactical discipline in case of turnover.

The truth is that the 3 of the 4231 are not wingers, they are designed to play and drive into the problem areas for modern defenders, namely between full back and centre back, between midfield and attack. This allows for better interconnection between other players on the pitch and moves away from the traditional adversarial one v one scenarios inherent to matching 442 scenarios.

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...