Grewks Posted 4 May 2013 Share Posted 4 May 2013 I know we all question NP's decisions at times, and claim he is 'tactically inept' but today it was his change of tactics which inevitable led to the winning goal. To change to a 3-5-2 was brave, and in the most important game of the season the decision paid off. I'm sure many will respond with the 'we had to go for it' line, but usually going for it under NP just means shoving another forward on and putting a center back up top, but today the tactics work a treat. Think it might be something which he could experiment with next season if we don't make the play offs, as watford and hull have proved this year how threatening it can be. Just look at our 3rd goal for instance, if knockaert hadn't had scored, there was wood, marshall and kane breaking for the rebound. The formation could be extremely effective, and it may be useful for the home leg against watford to 'match up' with them. Personally i would try it.... ...........................kasper ...........RDL.........Morgan.........Keane Dyer......................................................Schlupp .................James..............King ...........................Knocky ................Nuge.................Wood I think you have the pace with dyer and schlupp to handle anya, the pace of RDL to help with Vydra, the physical ability of morgan and keane to attempt to stop deeney (second leg), the free roaming knocky to create just like today, james and kingy do just control the midfield, which should lead to wood and nuge being allowed to stop up field just like deeney and vydra did against us, in order to stop us getting too deep. Sometimes in games like these, risks can win you or lose you the match, i for one would rather see NP try to adapt to Watford's approach, by not playing a 4-4-2 again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leicesterpool Posted 4 May 2013 Share Posted 4 May 2013 I've been calling for three at the back for a while and it as seemed to have worked. The only difference I would make is, i don't think we should start with de laet he doesn't seem to last the whole ninety minutes. Moore, Morgan & wait for it St Ledger in our defence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grewks Posted 4 May 2013 Author Share Posted 4 May 2013 I've been calling for three at the back for a while and it as seemed to have worked. The only difference I would make is, i don't think we should start with de laet he doesn't seem to last the whole ninety minutes. Moore, Morgan & wait for it St Ledger in our defence. But if De laet plays as a wide center back, he won't be making the forward runs which tire him out, so i'd imagine he would last a lot longer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScouseFox Posted 4 May 2013 Share Posted 4 May 2013 You're both more mental than I'd ever even really considered if you think the PLAY OFFS TO GET IN THE PREMIER LEAGUE is the time to start experimenting with 3s at the back and new, quirky FM style tactics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grewks Posted 4 May 2013 Author Share Posted 4 May 2013 You're both more mental than I'd ever even really considered if you think the PLAY OFFS TO GET IN THE PREMIER LEAGUE is the time to start experimenting with 3s at the back and new, quirky FM style tactics. Why not?? Experimenting today in the second half is what has got us into the play-offs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cc_star Posted 4 May 2013 Share Posted 4 May 2013 Tactically inept? Players stuck to NP's task at hand brilliantly & ripped Forest to shreds for 40mins after a disastrous first 5, creating chance after chance after chance. With Dyer & Nugent causing them loads of problems. Football is a game of two teams, for every lock there's a key, the other team will adapt & find that key through the game so when Forest adapted & made the second half more even NP changed again & we started making chances again... And then to push for a winner changed it a 3rd time going 424 according to Stringer as James slotted in at the back when Keane went off for Marshall making it Kane, Nugent, Wood & Marshall as a front 4. I'm eternally disappointed we never played 4231 more than once or 4411 at all, think we have the players for it, but one thing Pearson isn't is tactically inept. We were only beaten by more than one goal once all season, that stinker at Barnsley who had won 8 out of 10 or whatever... And we had the best second half record in the division meaning Pearson's HT team talk & 2nd half changes and subs (ie. tactics) are as good as anyone's. There's a bit to criticise Pearson over, but tactics is one of the last things you can. Not sure we can play so open Vs Watford they have pace to punish us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterborofox Posted 5 May 2013 Share Posted 5 May 2013 Players seemed all over at the end. Was always going to be a break away for one team in the circumstance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox92 Posted 5 May 2013 Share Posted 5 May 2013 Why not?? Experimenting today in the second half is what has got us into the play-offs. Exactly. It's a different situation, isn't it? We had to go out and score/win to make the play offs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deucalion Posted 5 May 2013 Share Posted 5 May 2013 To take off a defender and put on an attacker must be Pearson's most tactically agricultural move this season. Basically, Pearson created circumstances where there would probably be another goal. Luckily it was for us !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manwell Pablo Posted 5 May 2013 Share Posted 5 May 2013 Yeah our formation is why we had men over........ Nothing to do with the fact that 9 of Forests outfield players were in our half looking for a goal and 4 of ours were always ready to break as it was the only way either club had a chance of making the play offs. Some of the shi1 people come out with on here at times..... to use our third goal as an example is......just..........Like we'd EVER get that much space normally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chapero82 Posted 5 May 2013 Share Posted 5 May 2013 I wonder if he read my post the other week when I said to go 352 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peach0000 Posted 5 May 2013 Share Posted 5 May 2013 Stick with what works in my opinion 442 or 433. All our players would have grown up playing those formations and in games as important as the ones coming up i think its too risky to try 3 at the back. Also it worked at forest but I think through look in the final minutes you wouldn't want this through the whole game, Watfords attackers, sorry i mean Udineses attackers would make a mockery of a 3 at the back defence which won't know what it doing. Some of the best in the world (man city) try to switch to 3 at the back in important games and they get it wrong so what are the chances we would get it right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ADK Posted 5 May 2013 Share Posted 5 May 2013 I think our last goal had more to do with getting a 4 on 1 thanks to Forest throwing everyone forward needing a goal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr The Singh Posted 5 May 2013 Share Posted 5 May 2013 I think our last goal had more to do with getting a 4 on 1 thanks to Forest throwing everyone forward needing a goal. Agreed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corky Posted 5 May 2013 Share Posted 5 May 2013 What's more important is how we played from 10 minutes to 45, quick passing, good movement, not afraid to shoot, moving players around like Dyer and Knockaert to not allow them to settle. It's how we were earlier in the season, it was a huge match with lots of pressure on it but we played with a freedom and release in that 35 minutes that didn't show any nerves or pressure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayday Posted 5 May 2013 Share Posted 5 May 2013 I thought we had lost our chance when he brought Kane on for Dyer,we lost our outlet and it showed, as it allowed there fullback to push on..we got lucky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coolhandfox Posted 5 May 2013 Share Posted 5 May 2013 Nothing to do with formations or tactics! Both teams need to score, and had to throw men forward! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.