ajthefox Posted 17 November 2011 Posted 17 November 2011 I couldnt give a fcuk to be honest, I 'm not going to hold back just because some people are to stupid to see the obvious in front of their own eyes. Pah. Are you even reading what I'm saying? You completely missed my point and in fact just made it even more obvious.
Guest MattP Posted 17 November 2011 Posted 17 November 2011 Pah. Are you even reading what I'm saying? You completely missed my point and in fact just made it even more obvious. I took the point completely, you missed the point about how its ok to be self-righteous when your own opinion is correct and you were slaughtered for it.
ajthefox Posted 17 November 2011 Posted 17 November 2011 I took the point completely, you missed the point about how its ok to be self-righteous when your own opinion is correct and you were slaughtered for it. So you're quite aware of how self righteous you're being and actually telling me how I'm the one in the wrong? OK then, I'm glad that's sorted.
MPH Posted 17 November 2011 Posted 17 November 2011 I know we need wingers. You know we need wingers. Nigel knows we need wingers. So why could Sven fail to see? Because Sven didnt play a formation where wingers were used. I've been saying it since July but was just slagged off as a Sven hater and was told to shut it as I knew nothing about football compared to Sven and "he knew what he was doing". It really did bring home how far up the arse so many on here were, I'd have expected a novice to the game to realise at some point during a season you might need wide players to break someone down. Again, if he was playing a formation where wingers were not used, but a front three ( which is different) then why would he of bought wingers? Pearson had ALWAYS had a formation where he has played people out wide.
hackneyfox Posted 17 November 2011 Posted 17 November 2011 Don't waste your time ajthefox, people spend too much time on this board lording it as to how they have been proved right or are itk. If he can't see how his post comes over then that is his problem.
James. Posted 17 November 2011 Posted 17 November 2011 Because Sven didnt play a formation where wingers were used. Again, if he was playing a formation where wingers were not used, but a front three ( which is different) then why would he of bought wingers? This again just highlights Sven' weaknesses. It was mentioned by Man City fans and was sometimes apparent when he was in charge of England - Sven rarely had a Plan B. Just because your preferred formation doesn't include wingers doesn't mean you should not have any in the squad. What if you need to change things during a game, what if the opposition are leaving gaps on the flanks, what if you get injuries? I'm with MattP, it was massively obvious that at times we NEEDED width but Sven never addressed that. I'm confident Pearson won't make the same mistake.
Guest MattP Posted 17 November 2011 Posted 17 November 2011 Because Sven didnt play a formation where wingers were used. Again, if he was playing a formation where wingers were not used, but a front three ( which is different) then why would he of bought wingers? Pearson had ALWAYS had a formation where he has played people out wide. If Sven thought he could stick through the same formation without the use of any width for 46 games then he's a even bigger turnip than I thought he was.
foxoffderby Posted 17 November 2011 Posted 17 November 2011 Don't waste your time ajthefox, people spend too much time on this board lording it as to how they have been proved right or are itk. If he can't see how his post comes over then that is his problem. And you spend all your time slagging off the people on this forum off to the knucleheads on Bentleys.
muzzy1981 Posted 17 November 2011 Posted 17 November 2011 Kebe want out in Jan. How long is Brady on loan for at hull? Is he allowed to be loaned out two 2nd club same league?
DanTheFox07 Posted 17 November 2011 Posted 17 November 2011 would be silly for us not to go in for kebe in my opinion! already proved his class against us last season and proved quality in this league!
sphericalfox Posted 17 November 2011 Posted 17 November 2011 Sven played his team at Man City with width. How in the **** do people know for a fact that Sven didn't seek quality wingers but couldn't bring them in for a variety of reasons. Jeebus wept! Yet if it makes your 'I told you so's' more concrete, then who can argue with that.
MPH Posted 17 November 2011 Posted 17 November 2011 This again just highlights Sven' weaknesses. It was mentioned by Man City fans and was sometimes apparent when he was in charge of England - Sven rarely had a Plan B. Just because your preferred formation doesn't include wingers doesn't mean you should not have any in the squad. What if you need to change things during a game, what if the opposition are leaving gaps on the flanks, what if you get injuries? I'm with MattP, it was massively obvious that at times we NEEDED width but Sven never addressed that. I'm confident Pearson won't make the same mistake. If Sven thought he could stick through the same formation without the use of any width for 46 games then he's a even bigger turnip than I thought he was. Sven DID mix things up a bit... he just played narrow formations. There is more than 1 formation that doesnt require wingers....
Guest Col city fan Posted 17 November 2011 Posted 17 November 2011 The problem with Svens teams, especially away from home was getting the ball forward quickly enough to set up a counter attack. The ball was kept in the middle of the park for too long which enabled the opposition defences to regroup. Whether Pearson opts for proper 'wide-men' or wingers, whatever you want to call them, I'd like an injection of pace into this team, so we get the opposition on the backfoot and take the game to them. I want to see some quick, sharp, attacking football please Nige. That'd be nice
Legend_in_blue Posted 17 November 2011 Posted 17 November 2011 Nigel Pearson has to shake off his Nigel Predictable tab and evolve into Nigel Unpredictable. To do this he needs wide men that can terrorise down the wings. I cannot remember a time since Guppy on the left and to an extent Savage/Impey on the right that we played with decent wide players. Oakley and Gallagher on the right will not get us anywhere and we'll shortfall once again.
city1993 Posted 17 November 2011 Posted 17 November 2011 If we could go back in for Jimmy Kebe and Maxi Gradel come January, or even Robert Koren, can he play on the wing? Failing all of that, we could always get Kieth Gillespie back?
Thracian Posted 17 November 2011 Posted 17 November 2011 Wingers in the modern game are misunderstood and being phased out. However, we have a distinct lack of players who can operate in wider positions to give ourselves an alternative to playing intricate play through the middle. Most teams don't play 4-4-2 any longer with traditional wingers but we've tried various formations under Sven this season and none of them have consistently worked. I'm not against players being played wide who aren't out and out wingers, but they've got to be able to provide us with an option from out there that the opposition can't nullify automatically. Under Pearson the last team, we often didn't play with 2 wingers but the lads he had out wide would make it harder for the opposition to play against and by marking them we could manouvere the ball through the middle when space was created or move it out wide and stretch teams that way. Yes, I've seen where the disciples of the modern game have taken English football. And what an apology it is as Crapello demonstrates so readily even when we win. I've also seen the consequence of successive Leicester managers going that way and I'm not impressed. In fact i've never much cared how other people choose to play. if their theories are flawed they're flawed, however many might join the ranks of the convinced. Pearson theory does make it harder for the opposition but it also leaves us short of sufficient potential scorers. And you cannot stretch teams without pace. If you want to play effective defensive football then you need to draw the opposition onto you and break from behind the halfway line faster than they can recover, using two wingers and (preferably) two players capable of beating anyone into the opposition penalty box. You can miss out the preamble passing in central midfield and just angle the ball out of defence for the speed merchants who, if they run from deep, have little chance of being offside. But the ball does have to be delivered quickly and accurately once possession is won. Defensively there's no real fears. Even Leicester are capable of keeping a clean sheet with six backstage baulkers. But, until recently we haven't had any of those weapons - or at least we haven't used them much. Playing slow players or what I call ball-retainers like Oakley/Abe/Danns out wide is so negative. It's easy to defend against because what little penetration might be attempted isn't fast enough. We've demonstrated it countless times and it's woeful to watch. And because the opposition have nothing to fear they can afford to commit another player or two in attacking, creating enough problems to cost us a goal and the game. You have to give opponents something to be scared of, even in away games.
Kitchandro Posted 17 November 2011 Posted 17 November 2011 Sven played his team at Man City with width. How in the **** do people know for a fact that Sven didn't seek quality wingers but couldn't bring them in for a variety of reasons. Jeebus wept! Yet if it makes your 'I told you so's' more concrete, then who can argue with that. If he didn't bring them in then there's no excuses, it's your job as a manager to bring in the right players. When the loan window opened he said he was very happy with his squad and wasn't interested in bringing anyone else in. It also took him several games to realise that 4-3-3 couldn't work with the players we've got. Many of us realised it would be a mistake not to bring in a winger in the summer, I still doubt whether Sven has realised even now.
Thracian Posted 17 November 2011 Posted 17 November 2011 That was not my point. It was the self righteous tone of your post. Posters being up their own arses? Talk about pot and kettle.. If a person doesn't believe he's right when he says something there's no point in his speaking at all.
Bugg Posted 17 November 2011 Posted 17 November 2011 Although it would never happen, it would be just fantastic if we could get Oxlade-Chamberlain on loan. Every time I've seen him play he looks quality and he's only 17.
Kitchandro Posted 17 November 2011 Posted 17 November 2011 Yes, I've seen where the disciples of the modern game have taken English football. And what an apology it is as Crapello demonstrates so readily even when we win. I've also seen the consequence of successive Leicester managers going that way and I'm not impressed. In fact i've never much cared how other people choose to play. if their theories are flawed they're flawed, however many might join the ranks of the convinced. Pearson theory does make it harder for the opposition but it also leaves us short of sufficient potential scorers. And you cannot stretch teams without pace. If you want to play effective defensive football then you need to draw the opposition onto you and break from behind the halfway line faster than they can recover, using two wingers and (preferably) two players capable of beating anyone into the opposition penalty box. You can miss out the preamble passing in central midfield and just angle the ball out of defence for the speed merchants who, if they run from deep, have little chance of being offside. But the ball does have to be delivered quickly and accurately once possession is won. Defensively there's no real fears. Even Leicester are capable of keeping a clean sheet with six backstage baulkers. But, until recently we haven't had any of those weapons - or at least we haven't used them much. Playing slow players or what I call ball-retainers like Oakley/Abe/Danns out wide is so negative. It's easy to defend against because what little penetration might be attempted isn't fast enough. We've demonstrated it countless times and it's woeful to watch. And because the opposition have nothing to fear they can afford to commit another player or two in attacking, creating enough problems to cost us a goal and the game. You have to give opponents something to be scared of, even in away games. I agree with this. I'm not one who would say that you definitely need old-school wingers to succeed, but we specifically are in desperate need of at least one. If you don't have pace out wide, you need to move the ball far quicker than we do, and you also need someone who can dribble and beat players in midfield. Neither Norwich last season or Southampton this season really play/played with wingers, but both have played some great attacking football in this division. Their movement off the ball allowed them to create width in play without having wingers, and they played the ball on the floor at pace. Norwich also had Wes Hoolahan, and Southampton have a similar player in Adam Lallana, attacking midfielders who get between the lines and make something happen. I was hoping King would have been this player for us, sadly his all round game hasn't developed enough and he is not up to that role.
Kitchandro Posted 17 November 2011 Posted 17 November 2011 Get Danny Rose from Tottenham - he's in my squad on Fifa 12 Mine too He's quick but not a lot else for me. Sits on the bench most of the time!
Thracian Posted 17 November 2011 Posted 17 November 2011 Sven played his team at Man City with width. How in the **** do people know for a fact that Sven didn't seek quality wingers but couldn't bring them in for a variety of reasons. Jeebus wept! Don't make excuses for the guy - not at £1m a failure. From what I understand he "wanted" Craig Mackail-Smith but then thought he'd got a better opportunity and ended up getting neither. With his worldwide contacts I'm bloody sure he could have bought a winger or even used the one we had in Dyer more. He didn't and cocked up big time. He even used Vassell out of position as the striker he never was instead of utilising him as the winger we needed til we could buy better. In so doing he blunted our strike force and sacrificed effective width, five-star tactics I must say! No, Vassell isn't a bad player. But he's horse-power short of a sports car now and the Lord knows he's no marksman.
Kitchandro Posted 17 November 2011 Posted 17 November 2011 Because Sven didnt play a formation where wingers were used. Again, if he was playing a formation where wingers were not used, but a front three ( which is different) then why would he of bought wingers? Pearson had ALWAYS had a formation where he has played people out wide. Wingers would be far more useful in a front 3 than Vassell or Danns. Wingers are supposed to be wide attacking players so playing them out wide in a front 3 makes perfect sense. In fact, there was no way 4-3-3 was going to work for us without at least one winger.
Kitchandro Posted 17 November 2011 Posted 17 November 2011 Sven DID mix things up a bit... he just played narrow formations. There is more than 1 formation that doesnt require wingers.... And they all pretty much failed.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.