Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Patches OHoolahan

Return of the diamond?

Recommended Posts

Obviously there is still a great deal to happen between now and the start of the new season, and we don''t know exactly what personnel we will have by the time the first game comes around, but what formation do people imagine we will play?

Neil has favoured the diamond in the past, and we''ve done well with it under Lambert, but I''m not sure it would be the best use of our current personnel. We have built more towards playing with wingers in recent years so, assuming Neil intends to play two strikers, would a flat 4-4-2 with out-and-out wingers be more suited to our squad?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
I could see a diamond working again. I think we do have the personnel and personally hope we get away from the idea that Snodgrass and Redmond are just wingers. I think they are better than that,

I believe either of those two could play at the head of a diamond.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
From what I know of Adams, he favours 3 formations:
4-3-3/4-1-4-1: This is the formation used during the youth FA cup run. 
4-2-3-1: This is the formation used for the majority (3 and a 3/4) of his caretaker spell.
4-1-2-1-2: Used for the Fulham game and the beginning of the Liverpool match.
I personally think that we''re going to spend the majority of next season playing either a 4-2-3-1 or a 4-3-3, but that''s just a general feeling I have not really based on any evidence as such. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Diamond is the way forward only if you get hoolahan type player at the front of it and a midfielder at the back who can break play up and pass the ball to that sixpence

So two midfielder then two strikers then two full backs and we will be fine :/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Adams has been around the club long enough to have seen how successful each od the formations has proved in each circumstance, I don''t believe he is rigid in his thinking that he''ll stick to one formation.

 

Exciting times ahead!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Question- does anyone think we can play the steve bruce way for hull and go 3-5-2

--------------------Ruddy----------------------

-------Martin----Bassong---Olsson-------

Bennett-------Fer----Tettey---Snodgrass

--------------------Howson--------------------

-------------Hooper----Grabban------------

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Martin Bassong Olsson is very shakey. Martin and Olsson are both full backs. I know Martin can play centrally, but I''ve never been particularly impressed; his positioning is not brilliant and he isn''t great in the air. Olsson gives us a bit of pace there I suppose, but again, trying to get a full back to play as a centre back is often not easy.

Maybe a Turner Bennett Bassong back three could work, but lacks pace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just think we have some great players in midfield (in the championship) and if we are to play possession football, this might be an interesting option to go for. In terms of the defenders, I agree with the back looking a bit shakey but I think it only needs one good signing of a faster centre back and this option would be a real possibility, especially if we then moved Olsson into LM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
[quote user="mrs miggins"]Question- does anyone think we can play the steve bruce way for hull and go 3-5-2

--------------------Ruddy----------------------

-------Martin----Bassong---Olsson-------

Bennett-------Fer----Tettey---Snodgrass

--------------------Howson--------------------

-------------Hooper----Grabban------------[/quote]

Watching the England game last evening convinced me that pace and directness can win games and upset rigid formations. AOC, Barkley and Wilshere showed that attacking up the middle can wreak havoc.

I think we have similar players at NCFC and always a fan of attacking football over results means I can''t agree with your formation.

If he stays, I am prepared to accept that Fer looked totally out of place in Hughton''s formation but could be a good attacking weapon. I am assuming that Snodgrass will be gone.

So I would like to see:

Ruddy

Whittaker R Bennett Martin Olsson

Tettey

E Bennett Fer

Redmond

Hooper Grabban

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ruddy/ Rudd/ Bunn

Martin/ Whittaker

Turner/ Bennett

Bassong/ Molla Waggue or A.N.Other

Olsson/ Garrido

Snodgrass/ Bennett

Fer/ Howson

Tettey/ Johnson

Redmond/ Pilkington

Hooper/ Becchio, RvW or A.N.Other

Grabban/ Loza

Back to 4-4-2 and dictating games how we want them to be run.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I live in eternal hope that the diamond or a flat 4-4-2 return as our formation of choice. I am of the opinion that the

current fashionable 4-2-3-1 formation is destroying entertainment in football as it is an overtly defensive formation and when deployed by weaker teams leaves the three forward players effectively isolated when they receive the ball, and unless they have unbelievable pace, great technique, or an ability to pick a pass and put it on a sixpence for a striker who moves off the ball really well, well you''re stuffed and can''t score from open play. Oh yeah, that was us last season.

So, please please please Neil, a diamond or 4-4-2 next season. Let''s attack with more than one player next season!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Jimmy Smith"]Back to 4-4-2 and dictating games how we want them to be run.[/quote]It should be kept in mind thought that we should be building something that does the job in the Championship and is viable long term in the Premier League.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well that should rule out the 4-2-3-1 formation then. We''re never going to be able to attract the kind of quality attacking players you need to make that formation work in the premiership. The attacking players in that formation need to be seriously good to be able to cope being isolated and turn such positions into a favourable scoring chance. We had over £20 million worth of striking talent up front last year and still couldn''t score goals with that formation. Just shows how much you need to spend on attacking players to make that formation work at that level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Canary Poirot"]Well that should rule out the 4-2-3-1 formation then. We''re never going to be able to attract the kind of quality attacking players you need to make that formation work in the premiership. The attacking players in that formation need to be seriously good to be able to cope being isolated and turn such positions into a favourable scoring chance. We had over £20 million worth of striking talent up front last year and still couldn''t score goals with that formation. Just shows how much you need to spend on attacking players to make that formation work at that level.[/quote]
Yet Swansea are? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Phillip J Fry"][quote user="Canary Poirot"]Well that should rule out the 4-2-3-1 formation then. We''re never going to be able to attract the kind of quality attacking players you need to make that formation work in the premiership. The attacking players in that formation need to be seriously good to be able to cope being isolated and turn such positions into a favourable scoring chance. We had over £20 million worth of striking talent up front last year and still couldn''t score goals with that formation. Just shows how much you need to spend on attacking players to make that formation work at that level.[/quote]
Yet Swansea are? 
[/quote]

Swansea played completely differently to us. For starters they retained possession really well. We didn''t. We were sitting so deep most of the time, that our attackers were isolated when they got the ball. Swansea''s attackers aren''t isolated. Plus they got lucky with michu £2million signing and bony, both excellent strikers.

I still maintain that the 4-2-3-1 formation is sucking the life out of the premiership outside of the very best teams who have the world class attackers who can succeed in that formation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Canary Poirot"] Swansea played completely differently to us. For starters they retained possession really well. We didn''t. We were sitting so deep most of the time, that our attackers were isolated when they got the ball. Swansea''s attackers aren''t isolated. Plus they got lucky with michu £2million signing and bony, both excellent strikers.[/quote]
All of those are issues with the manager though, not the formation itself. It was Hughton who persisted with a midfield that struggled to maintain possession and maneuver the ball effectively and it was Hughton who instructed the team to sit so deep that it left forwards isolated (not that sitting deep actually means the forwards are always isolated, if you have a decent long-passer and some pace in your team then you can counter very effectively). Just because Hughton''s interpretation of a 4-2-3-1 was one that was negative and severly lacking in savvy does not mean that the formation itself is a negative formation
[quote user="Canary Poirot"]I still maintain that the 4-2-3-1 formation is sucking the life out of the premiership outside of the very best teams who have the world class attackers who can succeed in that formation.[/quote]
Southampton, Swansea, Norwich (under Lambert), and Stoke (under Hughes) all disagree. As I pointed out before it is the managers who decide how the formation is implemented, not the formation itself. Lambert''s Norwich and Hughes'' Stoke are both very direct, attacking teams, whilst Swansea favour ball retention and Southampton favoured high-pressing and one-touch football. All used a the same formation, but the style of play within that formation could not be anymore different.
All formations are inherently neutral. It is the managers and players that imbue upon them defensive or negative aspects. A 4-4-2 is no more inherently attacking than a 4-5-1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Phillip J Fry"][quote user="Canary Poirot"] Swansea played completely differently to us. For starters they retained possession really well. We didn''t. We were sitting so deep most of the time, that our attackers were isolated when they got the ball. Swansea''s attackers aren''t isolated. Plus they got lucky with michu £2million signing and bony, both excellent strikers.[/quote]
All of those are issues with the manager though, not the formation itself. It was Hughton who persisted with a midfield that struggled to maintain possession and maneuver the ball effectively and it was Hughton who instructed the team to sit so deep that it left forwards isolated (not that sitting deep actually means the forwards are always isolated, if you have a decent long-passer and some pace in your team then you can counter very effectively). Just because Hughton''s interpretation of a 4-2-3-1 was one that was negative and severly lacking in savvy does not mean that the formation itself is a negative formation
[quote user="Canary Poirot"]I still maintain that the 4-2-3-1 formation is sucking the life out of the premiership outside of the very best teams who have the world class attackers who can succeed in that formation.[/quote]
Southampton, Swansea, Norwich (under Lambert), and Stoke (under Hughes) all disagree. As I pointed out before it is the managers who decide how the formation is implemented, not the formation itself. Lambert''s Norwich and Hughes'' Stoke are both very direct, attacking teams, whilst Swansea favour ball retention and Southampton favoured high-pressing and one-touch football. All used a the same formation, but the style of play within that formation could not be anymore different.
All formations are inherently neutral. It is the managers and players that imbue upon them defensive or negative aspects. A 4-4-2 is no more inherently attacking than a 4-5-1.
[/quote]

I''m still not convinced that the 4-2-3-1 formation produces what I call entertaining football unless the team playing it has excellent technical players with flair. Out of the four teams you cite, only Southampton had the sufficient quality to make it work and look entertaining, whilst we entertained under lambert but only because he asked our players to take risks, meaning our games would get stretched and become open as players were out of position. Such games would be terrific. But when teams are set up in a standard 4-2-3-1 without technically quality attackers, then you''re more than likely about to watch a dire match with few or no chances created. As a neutral I would reach for the off switch for any stoke or Swansea match (possession for possessions sake does not make it entertaining). And we were abominable last season in the entertainment stakes.

I take your point that any formation can be neutral, more defensive or more attacking based on how adventurous the players are. A 4-4-2 can be two banks of 4 sat flat and deep and it is very hard to break down. But at least there are two central strikers up front to aim for, instead of one, so the counter attack has a chance...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is not just the formation it is the way the players are encouraged to play & interpret there roles

Neil bring the fun back to Carrow Road been bored whit-less last 2 years even worse this season

Only fun element was waiting for Wolf to make himself look a prat and the bets we had with each other as to what min he would be substituted (normally 70th - must have been in his contract - heard he did not like crowded shower rooms)

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...