Do we stick with the diamond?

[Jacks Back 0]

Adams clearly prefers this diamond formation, with Snoddy behind the strikers with Redmond providing pace up front for Hooper/ RVW. And it certainly gives us more of an attacking edge.

It was fine against Fulham because after they scored they parked the bus. But at times against Liverpool it was almost suicidal, as shown in the first 11 minutes. Should we be more conservative and maybe go 4-4-1-1, or just stick with it and make United change to our style of play? I''m not even sure myself!

[splutcho 173]

Go 4231 like we played for 80 mins against Liverpool. The diamond will not work in this league, as shown in the last two games.

[mrs miggins 0]

we switched to a 4-2-3-1 before the break because the shape didn''t work. We couldn''t get close to them and sticking Redmond up front is just pointless. Play to your strengths I would ay

[Tetteys Jig 830]

I''d try play ugly and keep it tight with Man U with the odd break. Tight marking of the Man U strikers and quick closing down. This is a game we''d have had a chance in last season by winning set pieces, especially if Fellani doesn''t play.

[morty 0]

[quote user="splutcho"]Go 4231 like we played for 80 mins against Liverpool. The diamond will not work in this league, as shown in the last two games.[/quote]^^^That.We don''t have a striker that can dominate and retain the ball to make the diamond work.

[Guest]

I was shocked we went for the diamond given Liverpool''s pace and ability to exploit the wide areas of the pitch, but happy that Adams was willing to make the change at half time when it was obvious it wasn''t working.

I don''t think we have the quality of personnel to play that formation against the better teams in this division. I still think we look far better when we play a 4-5-1/4-3-3 - I just wish that Pilks hadn''t gone AWOL.

[mrs miggins 0]

I.S. wrote the following post at 22/04/2014 11:17 AM:

I was shocked we went for the diamond given Liverpool''s pace and ability to exploit the wide areas of the pitch, but happy that Adams was willing to make the change at half time when it was obvious it wasn''t working.

---------------------------------------------------------

when we were 2-0 down?

[ZLF 271]

We should abandon it;   we dont have the players to make it work and it was a shame we had to lose two games to painfully learn the leasson;   fortunately Adams did rectify his mistake and once we changed formation half way through the first half we became more competetive.

 

Retain the 4231 & get our best players on and we have a chance against any team - we did with Hughton in charge so the re-energised Adams version can too - just hope we pick the right 11. 

[Phillip J Fry 0]

Adams use of the diamond was... interesting to say the least. I think he played the diamond against Fulham as he wanted to do something unexpected, he wanted to play a formation most English teams don''t have alot of experience playing against. The idea was, I believe, to put Fulham on the back foot by playing such an unusual system in such an attacking way. It worked by and large but we didn''t capitilise on our early domination and eventually lost.

The only reason I can see for playing the diamond against Liverpool was that he wanted to match Liverpool in the midfield if they also played a diamond. If you remember the Man City/Liverpool game, Liverpool dominated most of the first half because their narrow diamond meant that they had 4 central midfielders against Man City''s 3. I think the idea was to limit Liverpool''s midfield domination if they played that diamond. Of course, Liverpool started 4-3-2-1 and the entire point of playing a diamond was rendered moot. Adams deserves credit for changing his system (something quite a few managers are reluctant to do so early in a game) but the change should have come earlier than that, ideally as soon as he realised Liverpool weren''t playing a diamond.

I think the Liverpool game also showed that our best formation is definitely a 4-2-3-1 as it provides a solid defensive base (the players looked at ease defending in a 4-2-3-1 compared to their panic when playing a diamond) and the greater attacking fluidity that Adams has allowed his side mean that we can still be a threat offensively. So I''d go with the 4-2-3-1 with Fer and Johnson holding and the atacking trio of Redmond, Howson and Snodgrass playing behind Hooper.  

[ZLF 271]

Agree with nearly all of that PJFry - with the exception of having a team that starts with Howson & Johnson;  

 

Its a heavily losing partnership in the middle,  and we conceed more too and has been each season.    Together this season (which is the worst yet) they have lost 70% of games,  compared to 50% with just one of them (we are yet to start a game without one of them in the team)    Likewise they have just one win (10% - WBA away) compared to a win ratio of double that with just BJ starting (20%), 23% all season, and 40% with just howson.  (points per game both 0.5, season total and just BJ 0.9, just JH 1.3.

 

For me the lesson is clear - start with only one of them,  and that should be Howson.    Tettey in for BJ.   

[mrs miggins 0]

agree with zipper (tettey in for BJ), not because he was at fault for the last goal, but just he is a better player. He''s quicker, doesn''t try too many risky passes and can read the game better in the defensive midfield role