phillo Posted 4 September 2013 Posted 4 September 2013 Can one player change our season for the better
ealingfox Posted 4 September 2013 Posted 4 September 2013 Can one player change our season for the better Van Persie to Man United springs to mind...
Wilson_6 Posted 4 September 2013 Posted 4 September 2013 showed 2 good goals on EMN one right foot shot one left, looks promising What is EMN?
Wilson_6 Posted 4 September 2013 Posted 4 September 2013 But with a flat 5-3-2/3-5-2 he is playing James - Drinkwater - King straight across the middle, where's the creativity coming from? 4-3-3 he sticks three forwards up front and pushes two out wide, why when it's shit? One of Knockaert or Dyer need to start, or maybe even both in a 4-4-2, else fans will keep on moaning about no creativity and a lot of performances this season will be frustrating to watch. We was poor against Birmingham, until Dyer and Knockaert came on and changed the game. So back to 442 then? every one loved that before.... oh wait!
GingerrrFox Posted 4 September 2013 Posted 4 September 2013 Dean Hammond was signed for 352 in my view. Nigel obviously wants to play with 3 central midfielders hopefully the fact he's brought in an experienced defensive minded player will mean he allows Knockaert to flourish in a free role. With Schlupp and RDL on wing back duty. Nigel's always stated he likes playing with 2 up top and with Miquel showing how comfortable and how good on the ball he is we can progress in the formation.
kingfox Posted 4 September 2013 Posted 4 September 2013 So back to 442 then? every one loved that before.... oh wait! Only way Dyer will play, unless Pearson sticks him in a 4-3-3 instead of putting Nugent or Vardy out wide.
Wilson_6 Posted 4 September 2013 Posted 4 September 2013 Only way Dyer will play, unless Pearson sticks him in a 4-3-3 instead of putting Nugent or Vardy out wide. So you are saying we should base our whole style of football on Dyer?
Guest Col city fan Posted 4 September 2013 Posted 4 September 2013 You've been crying out for a DM for the best part of a year, then when we sign one, you're still not happy! Good old Col I can want both! In all seriousness, this could be a great signing. That's the midfield made more solid now, which should bode well when away from home. Away from home last season was where we looked fragile and that's improved already, even without Hammond.
The Horse's Mouth Posted 4 September 2013 Posted 4 September 2013 Hammond will just make us even more negative.
kingfox Posted 4 September 2013 Posted 4 September 2013 So you are saying we should base our whole style of football on Dyer? Second most assists for us last season, a long with Knockaert. And they don't get played. Says it all really, just stupid people saying oh Hammond is a good signing, happy with this, but some of those people have probably moaned that 3-5-2 don't work and we lack creativity.
Harry - LCFC Posted 4 September 2013 Posted 4 September 2013 Second most assists for us last season, a long with Knockaert. And they don't get played. Says it all really, just stupid people saying oh Hammond is a good signing, happy with this, but some of those people have probably moaned that 3-5-2 don't work and we lack creativity. It's been explained to you already how putting a more defensively minded player in the midfield could actually make us more effective going forward. I know it's only a theory but it's fairly logical. You don't know for certain that playing Hammond will make us less creative. At least give it a try before you come to a rigid conclusion on this.
dayday Posted 4 September 2013 Posted 4 September 2013 Do you think Pearson may even consider playing a diamond formation? Hammond at the back, Knockaert at the front with James/Kingy or Drinkwater in the middle,then you still have your 2 full backs pushing on
Lineker's Left Foot Posted 4 September 2013 Posted 4 September 2013 Tbf day day that would probably suit us, but would utilise this formation at home though. Although we're still getting to grips with it, I think a 3-5-2 away from home is still good to play
Guest Col city fan Posted 4 September 2013 Posted 4 September 2013 Do you think Pearson may even consider playing a diamond formation? Hammond at the back, Knockaert at the front with James/Kingy or Drinkwater in the middle,then you still have your 2 full backs pushing on I doubt it very much I think he will stick with the central midfield 3, and drop Drinky for Hammond.
HoustonFox Posted 4 September 2013 Posted 4 September 2013 I doubt it very much I think he will stick with the central midfield 3, and drop Drinky for Hammond. Well, James is suspended next game isn't he so that sorts out the midfield 3. Drinkwater Hammond King
Bert Posted 4 September 2013 Posted 4 September 2013 But with a flat 5-3-2/3-5-2 he is playing James - Drinkwater - King straight across the middle, where's the creativity coming from? 4-3-3 he sticks three forwards up front and pushes two out wide, why when it's shit? One of Knockaert or Dyer need to start, or maybe even both in a 4-4-2, else fans will keep on moaning about no creativity and a lot of performances this season will be frustrating to watch. We was poor against Birmingham, until Dyer and Knockaert came on and changed the game. So we have the players then yeah?
kingfox Posted 4 September 2013 Posted 4 September 2013 So we have the players then yeah? Not saying it like that I'm I though. Course he has the players, but the two players who make the biggest impact assist wise, don't even start. Baffling.
Ashley Posted 4 September 2013 Posted 4 September 2013 Do you think Pearson may even consider playing a diamond formation? Hammond at the back, Knockaert at the front with James/Kingy or Drinkwater in the middle,then you still have your 2 full backs pushing on Exactly what Forest are doing at the minute. Packing the midfielder and full backs push on.
Jimmy Posted 4 September 2013 Posted 4 September 2013 Kingfox our 442 got found out, teams flooded the midfield and we barely won a game from February... Or did you stop watching in January
kingfox Posted 4 September 2013 Posted 4 September 2013 Kingfox our 442 got found out, teams flooded the midfield and we barely won a game from February... Or did you stop watching in January People say 3-5-2 is too negative We had to change from a 4-3-3 against Birmingham because it wasn't working 4-4-2 don't work either 4-4-2 worked against Birmingham and Carlisle.
Jimmy Posted 4 September 2013 Posted 4 September 2013 Play King Hammond and Knockaert as a 3 and its very creative, the manager is the issue not the players or the formation, it's how HE sets us up
Strokes Posted 4 September 2013 Posted 4 September 2013 People say 3-5-2 is too negative We had to change from a 4-3-3 against Birmingham because it wasn't working 4-4-2 don't work either 4-4-2 worked against Birmingham and Carlisle. Mixing it up and being unpredictable is working, being rigid and predictable wasnt. We seem to be altering our game in play, to find a way through. I think 3-5-2 is the right formation, it just seems we play it more like 5-3-2. If hammond sits back and protects the back 3 more, then the wing backs can bomb forwards with less fear. Its a good weapon to have the ability to change shape effectivly in the middle of the match, if the opposition has something to protect it means they will likely change too and it usually upsets any rhythem and cohesion. Much better than a like for like personell swap like last years tactics.
blueblood88 Posted 5 September 2013 Posted 5 September 2013 Do you think Pearson may even consider playing a diamond formation? Hammond at the back, Knockaert at the front with James/Kingy or Drinkwater in the middle,then you still have your 2 full backs pushing on Was thinking that myself, think it would be best suited to us.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.