Would you be happy if we kept the same team for Newcastle?

[Hank shoots Skyler 2,094]

I would like to firstly stress that I have been a firm member of the Hughton-in camp.. Well, up until that Manchester week, the West Ham game freed up some time for Hughton from the majority of the fans (for now).

But I feel like we were very lucky on Saturday. The first time I have felt like we didn''t actually deserve to win in a long long time (not that we don''t deserve some luck of course!). But I seriously worry as to what would have happened had Jaaskelainen successfully plucked the ball from the air..

We never looked like scoring up until then and even afterwards we created naff all. It was only that one occasion when we won the ball in their defensive midfield area leading to Howson hitting the crossbar from long range, which in turn led to the freekick.

After we went 2-1 up we did play well, we were pressing West Ham higher up the pitch- what I think you need to do with 4-4-2 (e.g. Southampton).

Don''t get me wrong I am as happy with the result as any one else, but I think you''ve been flattered by the scoreline if you think we were actually any good really..(overall)

If we take this formation to Newcastle and set up anything like we did for the first three quarters of the match on Saturday, I fear the worst. I think we would see a repeat performance of Saturday, only probably without the happy ending..

I personally think we need to either revert back to the 4-5-1/4-3-3 (hopefully Tettey is back), or press Newcastle all over the pitch like we did in the last quarter on Saturday (which will be very difficult over the course of 90 minutes).

I would like to see us set up like this..

...............................Ruddy...............................

.......................................................................

....Martin......Bennett...........Turner....Ollson.......

.............................Tettey (if fit)..........................

.....................Howson........Fer..........................

....Snodgrass................................Pilks (if fit).....

...............................Hooper...............................

If Tettey is out then Johnson, or perhaps even Whittaker could step up and have a crack at the Tettey role, obviously Redmond to start if Pilkington is out.

In short I don''t think we can set up with a 4-4-2/4-4-1-1 and then sit off the opponent which is what we seem to do 90% of the time no matter what formation we play.

I know we should always keep a winning team etc.. but when the winning team wins after 60 pathetic minutes, a couple of lucky (and quality) breaks, and 15 good minutes does this rule still apply? Do you think Chelsea should have kept the same team in their next match after stealing the 3pts here? I guess momentum is a factor which favours keeping the same team, I just hope we continue playing like we were in the last 15 against West Ham and not the first 75.

So would you like us to keep the same team?

[lincoln canary (& Golden Coppel) 0]

[quote user="Lord Eddard Stark"]I would like to firstly stress that I have been a firm member of the Hughton-in camp.. Well, up until that Manchester week, the West Ham game freed up some time for Hughton from the majority of the fans (for now).

But I feel like we were very lucky on Saturday. The first time I have felt like we didn''t actually deserve to win in a long long time (not that we don''t deserve some luck of course!). But I seriously worry as to what would have happened had Jaaskelainen successfully plucked the ball from the air..

We never looked like scoring up until then and even afterwards we created naff all. It was only that one occasion when we won the ball in their defensive midfield area leading to Howson hitting the crossbar from long range, which in turn led to the freekick.

After we went 2-1 up we did play well, we were pressing West Ham higher up the pitch- what I think you need to do with 4-4-2 (e.g. Southampton).

Don''t get me wrong I am as happy with the result as any one else, but I think you''ve been flattered by the scoreline if you think we were actually any good really..(overall)

If we take this formation to Newcastle and set up anything like we did for the first three quarters of the match on Saturday, I fear the worst. I think we would see a repeat performance of Saturday, only probably without the happy ending..

I personally think we need to either revert back to the 4-5-1/4-3-3 (hopefully Tettey is back), or press Newcastle all over the pitch like we did in the last quarter on Saturday (which will be very difficult over the course of 90 minutes).

I would like to see us set up like this..

...............................Ruddy...............................

.......................................................................

....Martin......Bennett...........Turner....Ollson.......

.............................Tettey (if fit)..........................

.....................Howson........Fer..........................

....Snodgrass................................Pilks (if fit).....

...............................Hooper...............................

If Tettey is out then Johnson, or perhaps even Whittaker could step up and have a crack at the Tettey role, obviously Redmond to start if Pilkington is out.

In short I don''t think we can set up with a 4-4-2/4-4-1-1 and then sit off the opponent which is what we seem to do 90% of the time no matter what formation we play.

I know we should always keep a winning team etc.. but when the winning team wins after 60 pathetic minutes, a couple of lucky (and quality) breaks, and 15 good minutes does this rule still apply? Do you think Chelsea should have kept the same team in their next match after stealing the 3pts here? I guess momentum is a factor which favours keeping the same team, I just hope we continue playing like we were in the last 15 against West Ham and not the first 75.

So would you like us to keep the same team?[/quote]

The Newcastle match is about 8 weeks too early for Tettey.

[York Canary 28]

What formation do Newcastle usually play?

[York Canary 28]

Just noticed they play with 4-3-3/4-3-2-1 so I''m not sure 4-4-2 would be best. The funny thing is their team in very similar to our fully fit team in that they have Tiote/Sissoko/Cabaye as the middle three where we would have Tettey/Fer/Howson. Then they have Remy on one wing and Gouffran on the other with Ameobi or Cisse up front. Marking Remy is going to be a crucial tactic as is trying to win the midfield battle. I''d expect our usual set-up with 4 at the back, Johnson/Fer/Howson in the middle and then Snoddy on one side and Redmond on the other unless Pilks shakes off his injury. Then Hooper up front most likely or RvW

[York Canary 28]

Could possibly switch to Fer and Howson in the middle with RvW or Hooper acting as the forward mifielder behind the other

[Hank shoots Skyler 2,094]

Okay so Newcastle may well be playing 4-4-2, in this case we should no doubt keep the same, so that''s twenty minutes of life I''ll never back

[Hank shoots Skyler 2,094]

They had Ameobi and Remy up top against Spurs

[Hank shoots Skyler 2,094]

If Remy was on the wing then Sky got the formations wrong..!

Although the amount of times I''ve seen Johnson as a left winger.. Surely identifying a rough formation is one of the simpler aspects of a match report..?

I wonder how accurate other stats actually are when they can''t even demonstrate where the players are playing!

[Yellow Wal 314]

Not many people have been as blunt, or honest as the OP.

I also was/am in the ''Hughton in'' camp but after the win on Saturday less so. That is not based on the result but based on the first half. .... we can''t be that lucky every week!

As far as Newcastle is concerned I believe we have set our stall out. Without Tettey I see more of the same with RvW replacing Elmander. But we must play Redmond on the right and Snodgrass on the left as we cannot play inverted wingers if we are playing with two up front.

If we have one up top then we can leave Snodgrass on the right, if we play him.

[Dubai Mark 0]

I thought it was credit all round to the management and team for the way they turned the situation around, and that was probably the first time we had a slice of luck this season (I have seen a few matches this season where some sides have had a seasons worth of luck in one match and pulled of an unlikely win), if that''s what it was that helped the turn round against a decent West Ham side who actually played very well in the first half when City were a complete bag of nerves. Anyway, I wouldnt have a huge problem if we the team was the same, other than injuries of course, but personally I would prefer to see Bassong back for Bennett, I know many wouldnt though, but he needs to play through his bad patch and if its down to fitness, then sitting on the bench is pointless, for me he is still an assett even if only at 80% right now.  

[Salopian 1]

Unfortunately Tettey is out until the new year, having had surgery. The result is that there is a big hole in central midfield which Johnson can''t fill. I'' m not sure how we solve this one. If Bassong were in form I might even suggest 4-1-2-3, with the one being Bennett, but I don''t see CH going this way.

 

It''s sad that we can''t find a starting place for Redmond, our most dangerous player, especially as we need pace to counterattack  if Howson and Fer are forced to play more defensively. Failing this, could any of the very youngest on the staff be drafted in?

 

Over to you, Mr. Hughton, this is your chance to shine!

[Fuzzar 1,702]

Given current injuries, I''d like to see...

                     Ruddy

Whittaker   Turner   Bennett  Olsson

      Howson   Fer   Snodgrass

          Redmond      Pilks

                     RVW

Full backs overlapping. Midfield three supporting/sitting as appropriate. Some pace on both sides. I''m sure some of you who''ve swallowed the FA coaching manual will disagree, but England played some of their best football using Venable''s Christmas tree formation.

[It's Character Forming 1,160]

I agree with the OP that on Saturday we got a bit of luck which allowed us to overcome the problems we had from playing 4-4-2 plus they failed to take advantage of their superiority for most of the game. 

 

So it we keep 4-4-2 at Newcastle I will expect us to get well beaten.  But a change to 4-5-1 will give us a decent chance. 

 

The only question for me is who to cover for the injuries and I still think BJ is the best DM we have after Tettey.  On the flanks I don''t like the number of times Pilks has been substituted in the first half - I can remember at least 3 times now, more than any other player I can think of.  So I''d start with Redmond/Snoddy unless Pilks is fully fit.  And Murphy on the bench, please.  And what about Basso ? Tricky, I''d be tempted to play him against his former club as ex''s always seem to do well.

[Chip20 69]

[quote user="Yellow Wall"]I also was/am in the ''Hughton in'' camp but after the win on Saturday less so. That is not based on the result but based on the first half. .... we can''t be that lucky every week!.[/quote]But by the same token, we can''t play that badly every week either; right? In fact, we haven''t done. There have been matches where we have played poorly and matches where we have played well; just like most other sides at our end of the table. As others have pointed out, confidence plays a significant role in our performances. I am hopeful that scoring three goals at last and putting in a decent second half performance will have boosted the lads'' confidence.

[Syteanric 1]

as I said earlier in the week on another thread

you keep a winning team. if it means better players miss out then hey ho.. deal with it!

your best team is not necessarily your best players.

[GJP 79]

Your best team is also not necessarily the team that won the last game. And you should surely pick the best team to win a game.

[GJP 79]

If everyone was fit and sharp then I would play the same team against both Newcastle and Palace.

 

               Ruddy

Whittaker Turner Bassong Olsson

 

Snodgrass Howson Fer Pilkington

 

          Hooper   RVW

 

This would involve either Hooper or RVW dropping off and joining in with midfield, not a flat 442.

[Syteanric 1]

agreed GJP, however why should the players who fought so hard for a win not be given a chance to do it again?

[It's Character Forming 1,160]

[quote user="GJP"]

If everyone was fit and sharp then I would play the same team against both Newcastle and Palace.

               Ruddy
Whittaker Turner Bassong Olsson

Snodgrass Howson Fer Pilkington

          Hooper   RVW

This would involve either Hooper or RVW dropping off and joining in with midfield, not a flat 442.

[/quote]

Yep, it''s tricky whether we should try it with 2 strikers but with one tasked with falling back into the midfield when we don''t have the ball.  My feeling whenever Elmander has been the more withdrawn striker, is that he hasn''t really done that (don''t know whether he was asked to do so or not so not necessarily a criticism of him).  The question is whether one of them is capable of contributing in that role enough to stop our midfield getting outnumbered.    Wes used to be able to do this but obviously is out of favour now.

 

My view is that RVW could play this role, but for Newcastle away I''d go with 3 orthodox midfielders.  Against Palace at home would be a good opportunity to try RVW here.

[birchfest 397]

It''s going to have to be a slightly more solid formation for me, Johnson in to take the Tetty role in the 4-1-4-1 formation. That will free up Fer to have more opportunity to influence in the centre. Redmond and Bennet to keep their places, RVW on the bench if possible.

[GJP 79]

[quote user="jas the barclay king"]agreed GJP, however why should the players who fought so hard for a win not be given a chance to do it again?[/quote]

Yeah, I know what you''re saying. It''s tough on players who have come in and down well and it is of course good for morale to stand by players that have got you results.

 

On the other hand, you''ve still got to pick the best team to win the game. Can you pick someone because they were part of a winning team last time when you''ve got a player waiting to come in who you feel is better equipped to help win the next game?

 

Very difficult and I guess that really the "answer" falls somewhere in the middle.

[GJP 79]

[quote user="GJP"]

 and down well

[/quote]

*and done well

[The Great Mass Debater 1,078]

Personally Im not sure it matters what formation or personnel we play, I think most of our recent problems have been down to psychology. We will go into the Newcastle game having scored 3 times and having won. I think we will see a much better team performance purely due to that. We were a different team after the goals, thats what a bit of confidence and positivity and belief can do. I think we were very fortunate in that match, I think the OP has got it spot on - lets not convince ourselves that we wiped the floor with West Ham and that it was a resounding victory for Hughtons approach. Hughton did nothing to change the game, Jussi''s fumble and the subsequent soft penalty allowed us a free shot at goal. We were dross up until then and never really looked like scoring. West ham had 70% possession away and had 7 shots on target to our 1 in the first half. Without that penalty Im sure we would have lost. If ever a goal changed a game. We were like Arsenal at the Emirates last season until the ref stepped in. Hopefully the team will go in with a fresh positive mindset and will no longer be playing within themselves. Think that will changed our performances more that any change in system. It might be worth keeping the same personnel in order to capitalise on that