- This topic has 8 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Not posted on here for a while now, as I haven’t really had much to post, but I thought I’d start off a thread with a post summarizing what I think and what the World Cup has told me…
1. Well done Roberto for playing 4-2-3-1, this formation has shape and has a midfield that causes the opposition problems, with more time we could be a thread, England proved that 4-4-2 is becoming out-dated.
2. We need a creative, skilful player to play in the ‘hole’, okay, I’m not expecting Iniesta or Ozil, but we need a player in the style of Gomez (only better) to play that position to it’s full effect, as I’m sure you’ve seen how much of a thread this position can be, when a clever player plays there.
3. We need faster counter attacks, these catch out the opposition and are a lethal weapon. We already have the pace (if we don’t sell them) in N’Zogbia and Rodallega, and I imagine Boselli’s no Scotland either, we need to spread the ball quicker on the counter and make use of our pace. Too many times we pass the ball too slowly, allowing the opposition to get back, and the chance is gone.
4. Full backs, this World Cup has completely changed my opinion on full backs, I thought that for us, the best policy would be for the full backs to defend and fuel the odd attack. However, having seen Maicon and the likes in action, full backs have shown how much of an attacking thread they can be, and with N’Zogbia cutting in from the right, it gives that full back great space to overlap, plus we have the defensive cover of the two centre mids (Diame and Thomas?). Again I don’t expect our full backs to be of the standard of Maicon or Bastos, but I think we can make use of attacking full backs.
5. Now onto refereeing, I think we can all agree that we need technology in some form, but how? Will it slow the game down? Plus, where do you draw the line? I think goal line technology is essential, it makes the game much fairer, and as we saw with Lampard, it takes a matter of seconds to make a decision, even less if we use ‘micro-chip’ technology. Video evidence for things like offsides and fouls I am against however, this will slow the game down, and we risk having a video refereeing decision taking place every 2 minutes. The ‘limited challenges idea’ that has mentioned, and used in tennis I’m against aswell, imagine this, Scotland goes clean through on goal, he scores (I said imagine, not that it was realistic) but the lines man makes an incorrect offside call, Bobby has used up all of his challenges and the video ref can’t intervene, do you think that’ll go down well with us? This scenario would undoubtedly happen to someone I think.
Sorry for the essay, but your thoughts please?
Not sure if we have a consistent view on point 5 about referees (we probably do) but many of us were saying what you say in points 1-4 for the whole of last season. Having the players capable of doing it is, as always, the key.
Well yes, however alot were also saying, ‘Get that useless Martinez out he’s bloody rubbish” etc
And yeah, as you say, we need the players and the likes of Bikey and Mears (who we’ve been linked with I hear) don’t fit the bill atall for me, however the likes of Poulson and Tshabalala (from what I’ve seen) do, we’ll just have to wait and see…
My gripe with roberto’s 4-2-3-1system is the midfield are not up field fast enough to support the lone striker/targetman,and we are continually losing possession,thus making it easy’er for the opposition to control the game.
That’s the manager’s fault imo!.That’s the manager’s fault imo!.Well, it sort of is his fault if he fails to recognise that those players can’t do it. Personally, I like the formation and the style of play (note that I didn’t say it is the right way to play) and hopefully we can get the right players to fit it.
As Duke mentioned, the key area for me is having a clever, creative attacking midfielder. Without that we will struggle, no matter what nominal formation we play. I was hoping Gomez was the answer and he still could be – provided that someone has found him a yard and a half of pace over the summer.
“1. Well done Roberto for playing 4-2-3-1, this formation has shape and has a midfield that causes the opposition problems, with more time we could be a thread, England proved that 4-4-2 is becoming out-dated.”
Duke – I discussed this on a different threadf a couple of weeks ago but I’d disagree completely on the comments of “well done on Roberto for playing 4-2-3-1” & “England proved that 4-4-2 is becoming out-dated”
My gripe with Bobby playing 4-5-1 (which is what it is) was not that the formation doesn’t work as numerous domestic & international sides show that it can BUT you have to have the personnel to be able to play it. Last season Latics didn’t – we didn’t have the lone striker capable of putting the opposition back 4 under constant pressure or able to hold the ball up when in possession so others could join the attack. Neither did we have any “in the hole” players good enough to play that role.
A good manager adjusts his system to fit the players that he has available & Bobby’s insistance on persisting with 4-5-1 meant he shoved numerous square pegs into round holes & it didn’t work.Likewise with Capello & England, IMO you cannot play a rigid 4-4-2 if you do not take a recognised left winger in your squad. 4-5-1 would have been the correct formation for England to play IMO because that is the formation that best suited the personnel we had available. If we’d had good enough wingers, any left winger, a holding midfielder who was fit or two central midfielders capable of playing side by side in midfield then 4-4-2 would have worked fine. But Capello insisted it was 4-4-2 & shoved numerous square pegs in numerous round holes. Just like Bobby & it didn’t work
Also i doubt very much whether the formation had anythign to do with numerous England players not being able to trap a bag of cement for the whole time we were in the tournamentI’d also disagree with technology argument. I don’t wanna see it – never have & never will regardless of whether it disadvantages a team I’m supporting – whether that be lampard’s “goal” for England, De Zeeuw’s header against Gillingham at Wembley not being given or Shaun Goater handballing his winning goal for City in the play offs.
Footballers make mistakes, managers make mistakes, referees make mistakes & sometimes supporters (even me) make mistakes – its called being human. That there is “so much money” riding on refereeing decisions is a bigger problem IMO than the ref’s getting every decision spot on. Also having seen it used in RL I’ve seen many controversial decisions still given/not given, the pundits arguing, the fans arguing & even when you get numerous replays & your Sky plus showing highlights of a Latics game you still get people disagreeing about decisions (Caldwell’s sending off against City as an example) so it won’t solve all the problems anywayI would draw the line in a way that it connected the two posts together while remaining consistent with the rest of the touch line.
”1. Well done Roberto for playing 4-2-3-1, this formation has shape and has a midfield that causes the opposition problems, with more time we could be a thread, England proved that 4-4-2 is becoming out-dated.”Duke – I discussed this on a different threadf a couple of weeks ago but I’d disagree completely on the comments of “well done on Roberto for playing 4-2-3-1” & “England proved that 4-4-2 is becoming out-dated”
My gripe with Bobby playing 4-5-1 (which is what it is) was not that the formation doesn’t work as numerous domestic & international sides show that it can BUT you have to have the personnel to be able to play it. Last season Latics didn’t – we didn’t have the lone striker capable of putting the opposition back 4 under constant pressure or able to hold the ball up when in possession so others could join the attack. Neither did we have any “in the hole” players good enough to play that role.
A good manager adjusts his system to fit the players that he has available & Bobby’s insistance on persisting with 4-5-1 meant he shoved numerous square pegs into round holes & it didn’t work.Likewise with Capello & England, IMO you cannot play a rigid 4-4-2 if you do not take a recognised left winger in your squad. 4-5-1 would have been the correct formation for England to play IMO because that is the formation that best suited the personnel we had available. If we’d had good enough wingers, any left winger, a holding midfielder who was fit or two central midfielders capable of playing side by side in midfield then 4-4-2 would have worked fine. But Capello insisted it was 4-4-2 & shoved numerous square pegs in numerous round holes. Just like Bobby & it didn’t work
Also i doubt very much whether the formation had anythign to do with numerous England players not being able to trap a bag of cement for the whole time we were in the tournamentI’d also disagree with technology argument. I don’t wanna see it – never have & never will regardless of whether it disadvantages a team I’m supporting – whether that be lampard’s “goal” for England, De Zeeuw’s header against Gillingham at Wembley not being given or Shaun Goater handballing his winning goal for City in the play offs.
Footballers make mistakes, managers make mistakes, referees make mistakes & sometimes supporters (even me) make mistakes – its called being human. That there is “so much money” riding on refereeing decisions is a bigger problem IMO than the ref’s getting every decision spot on. Also having seen it used in RL I’ve seen many controversial decisions still given/not given, the pundits arguing, the fans arguing & even when you get numerous replays & your Sky plus showing highlights of a Latics game you still get people disagreeing about decisions (Caldwell’s sending off against City as an example) so it won’t solve all the problems anywayI have to say, I think Rodallega would have played that lone striker role okay, hes fast, strong all he needs to do is chase down defenders abit more, but we put him on the wing, which I don’t understand. Anyway, assuming he stays, does Bosselli’s arrival indicate he’ll be on the wing again?
And 4-2-3-1 is not 4-5-1 (technically it is, but in footballing terms, it’s not), 4-5-1 is defensive minded and doesn’t have that ‘hole player’, unlike the 4-2-3-1, which has 3 attacking midfielders, on of which is a ‘hole player’ and it has 2 orthodox wingers, giving the system fluidity, when played well with the right players. I think that England definitely have the players to play that way, and with a few more signings, so will Latics, not to England’s standards of course, but it will cause people problems.
And for video refeering, the only reason people disagreed with the Caldwell decision is because Sepp ‘Fooking Coont’ Blatter is killing our game and is trying to eradicate the sliding tackle and bit by bit is heading towards a non-contact sport, this man must be sacked before he ruins our sport. Caldwell’s tackle was perfect, but we’re taught by ‘experts’ like him that obviously know very little about the sport, that sliding tackles are wrong even if they get the ball. Sigh.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
