stez Posted 30 January 2006 Share Posted 30 January 2006 he's going to have to change his style if he does turn up. de vies is no target man and dions buggered off. i can't see hammond or hume playing the lone striker role that well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ive got the blues Posted 30 January 2006 Share Posted 30 January 2006 he's going to have to change his style if he does turn up. de vies is no target man and dions buggered off. i can't see hammond or hume playing the lone striker role that well. the 4-5-1 issue seems a bit premature to worry about, he is using the best system that is available to him considering the players he has at burnley. to me if he is our new manager he is good enough to understand that each match requires different tactics (not different players else you lose consistancy) he would relise that we must use the most suited formation for that match with the players we have. as for 4-5-1 if you look at chelsea, bolton man utd etc they play 4-5-1 utilising their wingers, basically it could be called 4-3-3. im not saying we have the standard of chelsea etc but to me it can also be a very attacking formation that is flexible so it can become a defensive formation without to many changes, it gives managers the chance to change from attacking to defending without any of the complications of changing a formation but like i say we cant not choose a manager becuse he uses a formation at another club with different players, he doesnt have to play that way its not set in stone!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ive got the blues Posted 30 January 2006 Share Posted 30 January 2006 oh im for him by the way. think he is perfect for the job, in terms that he seems interested can work in the short term (already knows the place) and the long term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Posted 30 January 2006 Share Posted 30 January 2006 I'd be for him. He's a gritty, determined manager, who can grind out the 1-0 results that we currently find very hard to come by. He's good defensively, so things could improve further at the back. He's not the most attacking minded manager in the world, but I believe he's the type of manager (him or Newell) that will keep us up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gjp Posted 30 January 2006 Share Posted 30 January 2006 Newells the one for me but everyone says we have no chance of getting him. I live in hope Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chairman of the Bored Posted 30 January 2006 Share Posted 30 January 2006 He'd also buy lots of Bournemouth players (three so far at Burnley: O'Connor, Elliott and Spicer) plus we might get Frank Sinclair back? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gené and Tonic Posted 30 January 2006 Share Posted 30 January 2006 Bournemouth have some pretty good players (well, they did, they're now at Burnley ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Posted 30 January 2006 Share Posted 30 January 2006 I'd be for him. He's a gritty, determined manager, who can grind out the 1-0 results that we currently find very hard to come by. He's good defensively, so things could improve further at the back. He's not the most attacking minded manager in the world, but I believe he's the type of manager (him or Newell) that will keep us up. But they don't need improving at the back - we can afford to concede a goal every now and then, if we score. We never get thrashed by anyone so that's not the area that needs most work. Not scoring results in more and more pressure on the back four. It''s been the problem all season, and i can't see how bringing in a more defense minded manager than Levein is going to help that. Levein grinded out dull 1-0 wins at Hearts, he's failed to do it here. Cotterill has done the same at Burnley, why go for the same type of manager? We've got attacking players, we need a manager to help on that side of the game first, cause we're going down otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Fox Posted 30 January 2006 Share Posted 30 January 2006 I think Cotts would be all right. He's not my number one choice but he'll do the job! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Posted 30 January 2006 Share Posted 30 January 2006 But they don't need improving at the back - we can afford to concede a goal every now and then, if we score. We never get thrashed by anyone so that's not the area that needs most work. Not scoring results in more and more pressure on the back four. It''s been the problem all season, and i can't see how bringing in a more defense minded manager than Levein is going to help that. Levein grinded out dull 1-0 wins at Hearts, he's failed to do it here. Cotterill has done the same at Burnley, why go for the same type of manager? We've got attacking players, we need a manager to help on that side of the game first, cause we're going down otherwise. .... because one Manager is effective and the other one is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longsiders1882 Posted 30 January 2006 Share Posted 30 January 2006 the 4-5-1 issue seems a bit premature to worry about, he is using the best system that is available to him considering the players he has at burnley. to me if he is our new manager he is good enough to understand that each match requires different tactics (not different players else you lose consistancy) he would relise that we must use the most suited formation for that match with the players we have. as for 4-5-1 if you look at chelsea, bolton man utd etc they play 4-5-1 utilising their wingers, basically it could be called 4-3-3. im not saying we have the standard of chelsea etc but to me it can also be a very attacking formation that is flexible so it can become a defensive formation without to many changes, it gives managers the chance to change from attacking to defending without any of the complications of changing a formation but like i say we cant not choose a manager becuse he uses a formation at another club with different players, he doesnt have to play that way its not set in stone!! I'm against (obviously) but I would ask you a question:- Who do you think signed each and every one of the players at Burnley? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ive got the blues Posted 30 January 2006 Share Posted 30 January 2006 I'm against (obviously) but I would ask you a question:- Who do you think signed each and every one of the players at Burnley? good question, the thing is its not like he had free rain to sign who ever he wanted, he had a very tight budget, alot tighter than ours and with a smaller club it would be more difficult to buy. I think he has got in what decent players he can and used a formation that will get burnley results. this dictated what formation he played, rather than simply buying a standard set of players no matter what the ability he brought players who were good and used a formation around them (the oposite of levein who brought sub standard players to fit into his formation elvis, de vries, hamil etc) to me 4-5-1 like i said above is one of the most flexible systems to play allowing you to attack and defend with out changing formation. but like i said he is a good enough manager to choose a formation for what players he has, not choose players for what formation he wants. in the case of burnley he was restricted to what players he could buy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thracian Posted 31 January 2006 Share Posted 31 January 2006 .... because one Manager is effective and the other one is not. He's not been so effective lately. That may be for all sorts of reasons, the departure of Akinbiyi for a start, but it could also be that other clubs know his style now and that he has failed to adjust. There are so many factors but it remains a fact that whoever is chosen will have to stave off relegation with, mostly, the players who presently make up our squad and that means he will have to attack. I've said I am attack-minded anyway but this is not about making a case for attacking generally. It is about accepting the type of players we've got and making the best of them. Defensively we are reasonably good so long as we stay high up the field and don't get involved dealing with too many free-kicks into the box where we don't have the height and strength to deal with a charge. What we have not done so far is play enough attack-capable players to turn our possession into goals. It is not just me, the statistics indicate that too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ric Flair Posted 31 January 2006 Share Posted 31 January 2006 He's not been so effective lately. That may be for all sorts of reasons, the departure of Akinbiyi for a start, but it could also be that other clubs know his style now and that he has failed to adjust. There are so many factors but it remains a fact that whoever is chosen will have to stave off relegation with, mostly, the players who presently make up our squad and that means he will have to attack. I've said I am attack-minded anyway but this is not about making a case for attacking generally. It is about accepting the type of players we've got and making the best of them. Defensively we are reasonably good so long as we stay high up the field and don't get involved dealing with too many free-kicks into the box where we don't have the height and strength to deal with a charge. What we have not done so far is play enough attack-capable players to turn our possession into goals. It is not just me, the statistics indicate that too. Thracian I echo your concerns but your missing the point. Cotterill plays 4-5-1 at Burnley because with the resources he has there and the players he has that is the best formation for them. As the Burnley fan who was on here yesterday said, they played 4-4-2 at the start of the season and it didn't suit them. They went to 4-5-1 and have done remarkably well considering the squad they have. Cotterill took over when they had 6 players on their books and no money whatsoever. He's signed some excellent lower league players such as Michael Duff, John Spicer, Elliott and O'Connor. They have also score alot more goals than us this season. It's not a case of he plays 4-5-1 so we don't want him, surely it's a case of he recognises what players can and cannot do individually and as a team and employs the best system to suit them. As you say, our current squad is more geared to play attractive, passing football instead of direct and aggressive football. I'm sure Cotterill is astute enough to see that. With Hume, Hammond, MDV, Fryatt and Smith in our squad there is no way he could legislate for 4-5-1. Unless he plays a formation similar to Chelsea play, which correct me if i'm wrong actually works like a 4-5-1 when defending and 4-3-3 when attacking and I know for a fact you've put this forward as a possible formation for Leicester in the past. I wouldn't tarnish Cotterill as a defensive manager just because he plays that way at Burnley. He might be a manager who likes his team to battle and grind out results but that's a sign of a good manager who can also win ugly when their team isn't playing well. Everyone can win games when they play well, but not when they don't! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ive got the blues Posted 31 January 2006 Share Posted 31 January 2006 Thracian I echo your concerns but your missing the point. Cotterill plays 4-5-1 at Burnley because with the resources he has there and the players he has that is the best formation for them. As the Burnley fan who was on here yesterday said, they played 4-4-2 at the start of the season and it didn't suit them. They went to 4-5-1 and have done remarkably well considering the squad they have. Cotterill took over when they had 6 players on their books and no money whatsoever. He's signed some excellent lower league players such as Michael Duff, John Spicer, Elliott and O'Connor. They have also score alot more goals than us this season. It's not a case of he plays 4-5-1 so we don't want him, surely it's a case of he recognises what players can and cannot do individually and as a team and employs the best system to suit them. As you say, our current squad is more geared to play attractive, passing football instead of direct and aggressive football. I'm sure Cotterill is astute enough to see that. With Hume, Hammond, MDV, Fryatt and Smith in our squad there is no way he could legislate for 4-5-1. Unless he plays a formation similar to Chelsea play, which correct me if i'm wrong actually works like a 4-5-1 when defending and 4-3-3 when attacking and I know for a fact you've put this forward as a possible formation for Leicester in the past. I wouldn't tarnish Cotterill as a defensive manager just because he plays that way at Burnley. He might be a manager who likes his team to battle and grind out results but that's a sign of a good manager who can also win ugly when their team isn't playing well. Everyone can win games when they play well, but not when they don't! exactly what i have been saying, its a fine line between 4-5-1 and 4-3-3 and a formation should be choose around the players we have, don assume what he does at burnley he will force on our players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest seanfox778 Posted 31 January 2006 Share Posted 31 January 2006 i'm in favour at least he's not john gregory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Katy Posted 31 January 2006 Share Posted 31 January 2006 Basically we'd left it too late when we sacked CL. The next guy has to take the bull by the horns and keep us up whatever it takes, there will be no time for dithering. Im not 100% sure if SC can do this, in fact, im not 100% sure who would fit the bill at the moment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.