CosbehFox Posted 4 March 2013 Share Posted 4 March 2013 To play an anchorman, you actually have to play more rigid than fluid. Might seem me daft saying that but looking at Sousa's spell where he insisted on playing Oakley as a defensive midfielder. What would happen is you'd effectively split your ten outfield players into two teams of five working seperately rather than with each other. In using an anchorman, you are also wasting a potential attacker (to win games, you've gotta score!). You need someone very intelligent to play that position. Interesting to see Col cite Lennon, De Jong, Mascherano and Derry as good examples of anchormen. Lennon was more of a requirement with three at the back as opposed to four. De Jong was considered surplus to requirements at Man City and really didn't looked the part in Europe. Mascherano is never used by Barca as an anchorman, he's played at centre back for them and uses his confidence on the ball in that position. Barca playing an anchorman would be a total waste. Derry was a requirement, freeing Taarabt of defensive duty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Les-TA-Jon Posted 4 March 2013 Share Posted 4 March 2013 I totally agree with Col's sentiments about creating more chances away from home, buy employing an anchorman, thus allowing our attacking players more time to attack. But I really don't subscribe to this theory that teams must employ different tactics/formations/players when away from home. Why? Look at the games we've won this season - home or away. We've won every game by playing our A game - i.e playing it on the floor, on the front foot, taking our chances and being solid at the back. I don't think we've been beaten by a 'footballing' side home or away this season either (palace at home is the exeception? - Although they still got away with a handball on the line). My point is, us winning games isn't about us 'shoring up midfield' or 'putting in more tackles' it's about us more consistently executing our A game and taking our chances. Hence Pearson's approach of sticking with what's worked this season and hoping it pays off. I find it so contradictory that a lot of people are calling us to follow the footsteps of Hull, Palace and Watford and play like the home game in away games, and also call for us to abandon all that's made us successful this season. Obviously it'd be great if we had a bit more of a plan B when chasing the game and if we had more strength in depth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marbelladave Posted 4 March 2013 Share Posted 4 March 2013 I totally agree with Col's sentiments about creating more chances away from home, buy employing an anchorman, thus allowing our attacking players more time to attack. But I really don't subscribe to this theory that teams must employ different tactics/formations/players when away from home. Why? Look at the games we've won this season - home or away. We've won every game by playing our A game - i.e playing it on the floor, on the front foot, taking our chances and being solid at the back. I don't think we've been beaten by a 'footballing' side home or away this season either (palace at home is the exeception? - Although they still got away with a handball on the line). My point is, us winning games isn't about us 'shoring up midfield' or 'putting in more tackles' it's about us more consistently executing our A game and taking our chances. Hence Pearson's approach of sticking with what's worked this season and hoping it pays off. I find it so contradictory that a lot of people are calling us to follow the footsteps of Hull, Palace and Watford and play like the home game in away games, and also call for us to abandon all that's made us successful this season. Obviously it'd be great if we had a bit more of a plan B when chasing the game and if we had more strength in depth. Good post until we get to the highlighted paragraph, which is total nonsense...... Put simply NFP's approach is not successful because of our away form. We are bobbins away from home precisely because we do change the way we play, we tuck in, play defensively and give much of the initiative to the other side and get turned over. Play our regular aggressive style, just like we do at home, at this point in the season it is our only realistic option.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spittingfeathers Posted 4 March 2013 Share Posted 4 March 2013 High tempo to feet Kasper Morgan Keane Wellens Rdl James Drinky Konch Knock/ Ben Wood Kane/ Nuge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marbelladave Posted 4 March 2013 Share Posted 4 March 2013 High tempo to feet Kasper Morgan Keane Wellens Rdl James Drinky Konch Knock/ Ben Wood Kane/ Nuge Fantastic, I am in awe........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Les-TA-Jon Posted 4 March 2013 Share Posted 4 March 2013 Good post until we get to the highlighted paragraph, which is total nonsense...... Put simply NFP's approach is not successful because of our away form. We are bobbins away from home precisely because we do change the way we play, we tuck in, play defensively and give much of the initiative to the other side and get turned over. Play our regular aggressive style, just like we do at home, at this point in the season it is our only realistic option.... Fair enough. To clarify though: I'm also saying that we should play like the home team away from home too (i.e play our A game). I'm just highlighting that some posters paradoxically want us to play like the home team away from home (a la Palace, Hull, Watford) and also change our approach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leicester_Numan Posted 5 March 2013 Share Posted 5 March 2013 But still a complete fantasy, totally meaningless...... I asked Col earlier today a pretty specific question, I'll open it out to everyone....... We have 12 games left, what should we do in these games to give us the best chance of promotion? Any takers..........? We have to go for it, our current more conservative approach will just keep getting the same results. If we are going to lose, I and I suspect everyone else, would rather see us lose by playing attacking, go for the jugular football for the last 12 games than setting up to contain teams away from home. We're getting to the stage where we have to win just to stay in the play offs, and we won't do that setting up for a draw and losing to sucker punches. I really hope we just go for it now, we've still got a chance to grab second, and we won't do it sitting back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marbelladave Posted 5 March 2013 Share Posted 5 March 2013 Fair enough. To clarify though: I'm also saying that we should play like the home team away from home too (i.e play our A game). I'm just highlighting that some posters paradoxically want us to play like the home team away from home (a la Palace, Hull, Watford) and also change our approach. We have to go for it, our current more conservative approach will just keep getting the same results. If we are going to lose, I and I suspect everyone else, would rather see us lose by playing attacking, go for the jugular football for the last 12 games than setting up to contain teams away from home. We're getting to the stage where we have to win just to stay in the play offs, and we won't do that setting up for a draw and losing to sucker punches. I really hope we just go for it now, we've still got a chance to grab second, and we won't do it sitting back. Exactly guys. I am not advocating that we play all out attacking football though, just our regular assertive game...... This is not out of some misplace desire that we should play attacking football for the sake of it but because it offers the best chance of promotion and, quite frankly, me are better going forward than trying to contain...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cc_star Posted 5 March 2013 Share Posted 5 March 2013 Our defence doesn't need more cover... I don't know how many stats people need to point to, that a defensive midfielder is the last thing we need. All that's needed is that the players we do have - operate at a high tempo when attacking & make sure they pressure the ball when defending. If anything there is room to throw the shackles off further and go after more goals... Especially away from home. Inability to be at the races in some games isn't a defensive midfielder issue & playing a cracking defender out of position creates 2 problems, one at the back in the position he's vacated where someone not as good is played, or a not as good partnership is formed... and the fact he himself becomes a square peg in a round hole. A couple of loan signings would have assisted in this dropping off the pace in some games, but when you look at wage bills etc... I just don't see how it's possible. All our eggs are essentially in 2011/12's basket & will be for a while to come. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Col city fan Posted 5 March 2013 Share Posted 5 March 2013 Our defence doesn't need more cover... I don't know how many stats people need to point to, that a defensive midfielder is the last thing we need. All that's needed is that the players we do have - operate at a high tempo when attacking & make sure they pressure the ball when defending. If anything there is room to throw the shackles off further and go after more goals... Especially away from home. Inability to be at the races in some games isn't a defensive midfielder issue & playing a cracking defender out of position creates 2 problems, one at the back in the position he's vacated where someone not as good is played, or a not as good partnership is formed... and the fact he himself becomes a square peg in a round hole. A couple of loan signings would have assisted in this dropping off the pace in some games, but when you look at wage bills etc... I just don't see how it's possible. All our eggs are essentially in 2011/12's basket & will be for a while to come. I'm shocked cos I think only 'Grewks' seems to get this. Playing a defensive minded midfielder off the back four DOES NOT have to mean we stop our attacking play. It could well augment it. How many more times.... Do you see Barcelona or Man City as teams that don't like to impose their game onto the opposition? The reassurance of a holding midfielder gives the attackers licence to attack.......... Oh forget it...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.