Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2011 21:05:07 GMT
I don't think our formation is necessarily negative. I think of it as 4-2-3-1 ... Me too. I wonder if that's how the Harrow boys lined up at Chapel Hill? Sir George Prescott, Bart. in the O'Kane role? |
|
|
|
Post by aussie on Jan 8, 2011 9:52:15 GMT
I agree with Meerkat, 4-4-1-1 was aweful against 4-3-3 and when we changed it to 4-4-2 we were absolutely killing them, 3-3 then he changed it again and took of the attacking Eunan O`kane and brought on a more defensive Oastler, what happened, they scored 3-4. Unless Eunan was injured from the clash he had previously then I can see no reason why we would change what was definately working extremely well! So I wasn`t making any points `eh! |
|
|
|
Post by aussie on Jan 8, 2011 9:52:53 GMT
Kee played upfront on his own against Oxford away. He replaced Benyon who also played up front on his own. The 4-5-1 we started with against Oxford became a 4-4-1 when Macklin was sent off. I really think you (and Aussie for that matter) need to see an away game to fully understand why we play a 4-5-1 with a lone striker. The theory behind the 4-5-1 is that we can play O'Kane in a central position. Oastler sits a bit deeper and is there to provide security for Wroe so he can have some creative freedom. The wingers (Zebroski and Hemmings) are there to provide disciplined width and support to front man whilst giving O'Kane and Wroe an extra outlet. When they don't provide the outlet we just lump it up to Benyon (like at Stockport and Crewe), who does a job he's not built for and it all looks a bit disjointed. The problem is that if we start playing 4-4-2 at home I don't think Eunan O'Kane can play in a flat 4 man midfield, I don't think he's strong enough to play there for 90 minutes. Besides it's probably not the best use of his talent for him to do the dog work in the middle of the park. I don't think you can play him on the left wing either. He can play in both positions but you're not going to get the best out of him. If you pair him and Oastler in the centre of midfield you'll lose out on Wroe's creative ability, if you drop Oastler and pair Wroe with O'Kane then you'll lose a ball winner, plus if Stevens plays on the left wing with them we start looking a bit lightweight in midfield. Our current formation reminds me a lot of the Nottingham Forest formation back in the 1993-1994 season in the old division two where they had a couple of very good wingers in Steve Stone and Ian Woan plus Stan Collymore up front on his own. But thats the problem isn't it? Collymore, back then, was a very good player who could do everything. Our lone striker needs to be a cross between Kee, Benyon and Gritton. Unfortunately we can only choose one of them or make a sacrifice somewhere else. Chris that would be fine but 4-4-1-1 was the formation not 4-5-1 and either of those is not really the formation I would select to oppose 4-3-3, if they want to play 3 up top and 3 in the middle then you should seize the opportunity to rip them to shreds which is exactly what happened when we went 4-4-2. How can you not see that? And another! |
|
|
|
Post by aussie on Jan 8, 2011 9:53:51 GMT
Ok so if you, Dave and that Australian fellow say we need to start playing 4-4-2 at home. Where are you proposing to play Eunan O'Kane exactly? Don't forget that playing 4-4-2 eliminates the free role Eunan O'Kane has been filling so well. Having said that of course PB described O'Kane as a "striker" in his latest article on dot com. Is he (O'Kane) on steroids?  If you are advocating that we change the formation a bit quicker at home when the "absurd" 4-4-1-1 or 4-5-1 isn't working then fair enough, you should always try and mix it up a little bit. But to change the whole formation at home to a 4-4-2 on the strength of ten decent minutes is a bit knee-jerk isn't it? That formation that worked for about fifteen to twenty minutes didn`t just work, we were battering them, the crowd noise rose incredibly, that`s how you should play at home and it only stopped working when Eunan O`kane was taken out of midfield and replaced so to say he can`t play in the midfield is pretty weak, especially because that`s his position! And another! |
|
|
|
Post by aussie on Jan 8, 2011 9:55:00 GMT
Eunan, in case you haven`t noticed is improving massively and works well with 4-4-1-1, or 4-5-1 as some like to call it, and works well now in a 4-4-2. Or can`t people see that young players learn and improve with good coaching and masses of natural ability! For goodness sake we know what we saw and it would happen that most people actually believe what they saw, the difference was enormous in the game. And another! |
|
|
|
Post by aussie on Jan 8, 2011 9:55:35 GMT
For heavens sake  - you can't simplify it so much to say that we abandon the 4-4-1-1 system, for a rigid 4-4-2 on the back of a 15 minute spell........when we were 3-1 down, of course it appears more attacking, we were chasing a game gung-ho that, at the time, was all but lost. It was of course right to go 4-4-2 as the 4-4-1-1 wasn't working, that's the beauty of having a Plan B, to change to and try and win or save a game (if you can critisize Buckle for anything it would be fair to say that we should have changed it 10 mins earlier at 1-2) - Buckle was blasted on here by his usual bashers (Terry etc) for not having a Plan B....back in the days that we used to play........yeah you guessed it 4-4-2!!! We all agree O'Kane is our most creative player, we all want him in the starting XI too.........Buckle has hit upon a system that allows that, and i think we are generally playing very attractive and ATTACKING football, it hasn't produced better results yet, but few can argue that generally it looks like it will in the future. Like any system though, some days it wont work or be as effective as others. I`m not argueing with any of that, I even questioned the removal of eunan by asking if he was injured due to the knock he took! My beef is 4-4-1-1 wasn`t working (at home that day), didn`t work and was never gunna work in that game against 4-3-3, especially if ya wingers aren`t firing. The change was essential and worked extremely well, if you think otherwise then I would question which game you were at! I would like to clarify that it is in my opinion that 4-4-1-1 works very well away when on the counter attack and against teams playing certain formations, but every bleedin` game is a bit predictable for opposition managers isn`t it? We don`t need to do homework on Torquay because it`s nailed on they will play 4-4-1-1 with the same personel, even at home! Certain formations counter other formations and certain players fit roles differently, therefore if we study the oppostions formation and learn how their players use that formation then we would do better in some games than we have. Sometimes it`s wiser to play a team to counter other teams strenghts rather than play to your own attacking strengths, it`s a very hard call but all I am trying to say is that the permanent attack theory is obviously flawed. It should be applied in large amounts but in my opinion at the correct times against the correct situations, not all the bleedin` time! I believe it`s called managerial balance, he is young and still has lots to learn, he will learn because he is that way inclined to succeed and driven. One of many reasons I would be very gutted if we lost him! And another! |
|
Dave
TFF member
Posts: 13,081
|
Post by Dave on Jan 8, 2011 9:57:30 GMT
I think we got it now aussie that you made many points on the thread
|
|
|
|
Post by aussie on Jan 8, 2011 10:03:50 GMT
I was trying to provoke a bit of proper debate for a change, not win any arguments. I'm not sure if I can actually start to lose an argument if you don't make a counter argument in the first place? Some one thinks I have made no points for him to counter, was just trying to prove otherwise! |
|
Dave
TFF member
Posts: 13,081
|
Post by Dave on Jan 8, 2011 10:07:23 GMT
I was trying to provoke a bit of proper debate for a change, not win any arguments. I'm not sure if I can actually start to lose an argument if you don't make a counter argument in the first place? Some one thinks I have made no points for him to counter, was just trying to prove otherwise! Fair enough aussie, but maybe time to move on as we do have a game on today. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by aussie on Jan 8, 2011 10:09:46 GMT
I was told not so long ago that I needed to use facts rather than just off on one at people, this is all I`m doing, what I was told to do!
|
|
|
|
Post by alunmeerkat on Jan 9, 2011 11:42:55 GMT
Did anyone catch Branstons hilarious interview on radio devon after the game. "Money in the coffins" - did he actually say that - I am sure he said it twice. Great stuff.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrish on Jan 9, 2011 21:17:42 GMT
That formation that worked for about fifteen to twenty minutes didn`t just work, we were battering them, the crowd noise rose incredibly, that`s how you should play at home and it only stopped working when Eunan O`kane was taken out of midfield and replaced so to say he can`t play in the midfield is pretty weak, especially because that`s his position! And another! But that's the point isn't it? Central midfield isn't his position. Certainly not for 90 minutes. |
|
|
|
Post by chrish on Jan 9, 2011 21:22:01 GMT
Eunan, in case you haven`t noticed is improving massively and works well with 4-4-1-1, or 4-5-1 as some like to call it, and works well now in a 4-4-2. Or can`t people see that young players learn and improve with good coaching and masses of natural ability! For goodness sake we know what we saw and it would happen that most people actually believe what they saw, the difference was enormous in the game. And another! It worked well for 10-15 minutes in a 4-4-2 according to everyone who attended the match. You're playing minder again to players who I guess you know personally. Nobody is questionning his ability. We were questioning where you play him in certain formations if you wanted to get the best out of him. Do you really think we are going to get the best out of him playing in a congested midfield and mixing it up with more physical players? |
|
|
|
Post by chrish on Jan 9, 2011 21:46:51 GMT
I`m not argueing with any of that, I even questioned the removal of eunan by asking if he was injured due to the knock he took! My beef is 4-4-1-1 wasn`t working (at home that day), didn`t work and was never gunna work in that game against 4-3-3, especially if ya wingers aren`t firing. The change was essential and worked extremely well, if you think otherwise then I would question which game you were at! I would like to clarify that it is in my opinion that 4-4-1-1 works very well away when on the counter attack and against teams playing certain formations, but every bleedin` game is a bit predictable for opposition managers isn`t it? We don`t need to do homework on Torquay because it`s nailed on they will play 4-4-1-1 with the same personel, even at home! Certain formations counter other formations and certain players fit roles differently, therefore if we study the oppostions formation and learn how their players use that formation then we would do better in some games than we have. Sometimes it`s wiser to play a team to counter other teams strenghts rather than play to your own attacking strengths, it`s a very hard call but all I am trying to say is that the permanent attack theory is obviously flawed. It should be applied in large amounts but in my opinion at the correct times against the correct situations, not all the bleedin` time! I believe it`s called managerial balance, he is young and still has lots to learn, he will learn because he is that way inclined to succeed and driven. One of many reasons I would be very gutted if we lost him! And another! That's a bit more like it. Why didn't you post that instead of accusing me of "total denial"? The thread could've been a lot shorter and much less niggly and we wouldn't have started this Country Bumpkin V London Snob bollocks again. |
|
Dave
TFF member
Posts: 13,081
|
Post by Dave on Jan 9, 2011 21:55:56 GMT
That's a bit more like it. Why didn't you post that instead of accusing me of "total denial"? The thread could've been a lot shorter and much less niggly and we wouldn't have started this Country Bumpkin V London Snob bollocks again. Something we should never have seen in the first place and sure don't want to see again on here. Take note Aussie. |
|
- you can't simplify it so much to say that we abandon the 4-4-1-1 system, for a rigid 4-4-2 on the back of a 15 minute spell........when we were 3-1 down, of course it appears more attacking, we were chasing a game gung-ho that, at the time, was all but lost.
