How many tactical mistakes is Adkins allowed? (Part 2)

[jayrivers]

I'd say it was a 4231 against Man City on opening day though. JWP and Morgan as the two, Lallana ahead of them centrally, Puncheon and JRod out wide.

 

To a certain extent though 4-4-1-1, 4-2-3-1, and 4-3-3 could all the morphed into one another to a certain extent depending of your view?

 

For me you could use any one of them to describe the basics of our system? 2 holding midfielders, 2 wide players/wingers, 1 player in the hole, and 1 forward?

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

DPS got the kicking for repeatedly being a big Jessy and then insisting he was misunderstood - not for thinking Adkins time had come.

 

That's not true. It was because people disagreed with my ascertion that Adkins had learned from the mistakes that I had identified, and they then threw their toys out the pram and spent the whole evening going back through my back catalogue. I stand by what was ttsaid in my threads, especially those where I ask a question and people decide that is an opinion.

[buctootim]

That's not true. It was because people disagreed with my ascertion that Adkins had learned from the mistakes that I had identified, and they then threw their toys out the pram and spent the whole evening going back through my back catalogue. I stand by what was ttsaid in my threads, especially those where I ask a question and people decide that is an opinion.

 

Honestly you are such a ****. Its always 'everyone else not me', 'I got it right everybody is wrong'. And you lie. Its juvenile. Honestly, not as a pointed insult, if I didnt know you had posted here for five years and you claim to be a married business analyst I'd have you down as a 14 year old who hasnt got the hang of managing his emotions or adult social interraction yet.

[The Kraken]

To a certain extent though 4-4-1-1, 4-2-3-1, and 4-3-3 could all the morphed into one another to a certain extent depending of your view?

 

For me you could use any one of them to describe the basics of our system? 2 holding midfielders, 2 wide players/wingers, 1 player in the hole, and 1 forward?

Again, I don't disagree. I'm just replicating the terminology that NA used throughout pre-season and in the early season. He always referred to it as 433; when in actual fact it was typically a slight derivative of that. The only times I'd say we played a "true" 433 were against Man Utd and Arsenal, with a solid 3 of JWP, Morgan and Davis in the middle; and even then they were probably under a bit of instruction to hold/press forward more than others in the 3.

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

Honestly you are such a ****. Its always 'everyone else not me', 'I got it right everybody is wrong'. And you lie. Its juvenile. Honestly, not as a pointed insult, if I didnt know you had posted here for five years and you claim to be a married business analyst I'd have you down as a 14 year old who hasnt got the hang of managing his emotions or adult social interraction yet.

 

I hope the irony between your first and last sentences isn't lost on you, because it won't be lost on anyone else. Considering I was trying to discuss it amicably I guess we'll have to stop altogether.

[jayrivers]

Again, I don't disagree. I'm just replicating the terminology that NA used throughout pre-season and in the early season. He always referred to it as 433; when in actual fact it was typically a slight derivative of that. The only times I'd say we played a "true" 433 were against Man Utd and Arsenal, with a solid 3 of JWP, Morgan and Davis in the middle; and even then they were probably under a bit of instruction to hold/press forward more than others in the 3.

 

Yeh sorry was agreeing with you. Everyone saying we are now playing (insert variation of 4-3-3 here) I think are getting held up on the exact specifications. To me we are still playing 4-3-3 variation that Nigel has been talking about all season. Just now we have different personel to fill the roles. I think him saying 4-3-3 is just saying we play two wide players and 3 in the middle (with the varrying roles of DMs, Ballwinnders, and in the hole)

[up and away]

I do love some of the muppets on here, and I certainly thought better of Nicky boy, no debating of points made, in fact at the time nobody bothered to point out in inaccurate points in my posts, now I am a mug because I called for his head.

 

Yes, we may have dropped points against the better teams, now we have beaten two of the most out of form teams in the league. Its all relative really.

 

Ill stick my hand up and say I was knee jerk after 11 games, but because IMO we looked like we lacked confidence, too open and devoid of ideas. WBA was one of the worst team performances I have ever seen TBH.

 

I have no problems being called a muppet, but atleast try and debate the points made.

 

We looked absolutely terrible, the slo mo of a train wreck from a time gone by. I have little doubts this was down to no one realising what was needed to compete in the Premier and the shock was too great too handle. This was Adkins fault compounded by his ability to drag so many sorry arses into the Premier. Accepting it's his fault and wanting him gone are two different things, especially as he's just performed a modern day miracle to land himself in the sheite. I'm happy to leave the changes to others with more information to make that decision but I don't understand the numpties telling us about the back stabbing when the opposite has been true.

 

Trying to get some sort of platform from this train wreck has been Adkins biggest problem but it looks as he is about there now but with very little room for balance. When we have control of the midfield we look a different side but that comes at the expense of loading the midfield with just one player left to provide the attacking balance. Any team that makes a success of this generally has pace to balance but we have not done too bad. Still looks like we are searching for that player but after our experience with JRod, that answer may well come from Italy rather than Blackpool.

 

The team we put out against Newcastle never looked balanced but good enough to get through the first half without shooting ourselves in the foot. What did surprise me was how effective we were but on reflection of Pardew should not have been surprised. Ricky was ambling around picking up the bits and pieces with Lallana making the crashing runs to create an opening and add to the attacking mass. It was then pretty easy to see where our attacking treat would come from and knowing Pardew would not do anything tactical about the position. We tried the same approach against Wigan but they were wise to us, inviting us on and ability to defend and break on the counter with no real pace or skill to threaten them. Everton identified Clynes pace and that got snaffled but I thought the WBA game was a tactical classic. Just feed us enough space that we over load ourselves then go out hunting our weak defensive areas in numbers to force the opening.

 

We will not be able to put that same team out against different opposition and expect the same result, against the likes of Sunderland you can easily see that going the other way. We will need pace at some point but we have managed to get this close to the window with the opportunity to set things right. It's going to be interesting to see how we get on against Norwich and Liverpool, followed by 3 big games. I don't believe you can describe our formation as anything other than 451, morphing into space left by the opposition when we attack.

[Wade Garrett]

Hang on a minute; when was the 4-3-3 abandoned??

 

As far as I can see; while we're now playing different personnel (and not playing players out of position) we're using the same formation that started the season against Man City.

 

Looks like a 4-4-1-1 to me. The 2 wide men are definitely giving more cover to the full-backs.

[Wade Garrett]

To a certain extent though 4-4-1-1, 4-2-3-1, and 4-3-3 could all the morphed into one another to a certain extent depending of your view?

 

For me you could use any one of them to describe the basics of our system? 2 holding midfielders, 2 wide players/wingers, 1 player in the hole, and 1 forward?

 

I disagree. 4-4-1-1 is not like the other formations you mentioned. The 4 across the midfield is giving us a far more solid look. When we were playing the 4-2-3-1, the poor defence were getting overrun.

[Dig Dig]

I disagree. 4-4-1-1 is not like the other formations you mentioned. The 4 across the midfield is giving us a far more solid look. When we were playing the 4-2-3-1, the poor defence were getting overrun.

 

If you look at the match analysis screen shots on the post game thread, it looks like a 4-2-3-1. The team didn't play with a flat 4 across.

 

Don't think we are playing more defensively in terms of shape, just better players in about 4 positions and a more settled side.

[Saint Garrett]

I agree that you can call it a 4-3-3, 4-4-1-1 or 4-2-3-1. Just think our wide players have become a bit more aware of their job and have clearly been concentrating on the defensive side of their game. Dell Days was banging on about the fact we needed 3 proper CM's in there rather than Gaston. Proved wrong...