Things that i noticed people put yesterday

all this about your best team.

What is your best team. You have to change your point to fit the strengths of the opponents.

For example against leicester we played Wiseman and he played well.

Against the more direct Sheffield Wednesday we played Foster and i think it worked.


If you take it to cricket and well done to Ali cooks team on there win in india for 27 or 28 years.

England played there BEST team in the first testif you think of playing all the 10 or so other sides.

From the second to forth test they played a side that wasn't there best side but it was the best to play the side India and thats how it should be for all sports sides, surely.

 

Wiseman was at fault for the 2 Leicester goals so I can't see many agreeing with you!

 

He played well but cost us two goals.

 

But he played well scott.

Was he at fault totally really Scott? In My opinion not scott.

We'll never know this but i think if it was foster in for Wiseman at the king power i think we would have had a lot more problems.

 

scott scott scott scott scott scott scott

 

Didnt know Redstar was called Scott

 

My post wasn't to RedStar.
When i went to make my reply he hadn't even entered that post.

 

I do think against teams with little quick strikers, Wiseman would be a better option than Foster. But if we ever want to do any better than be in a relegation scrap every season we need better than both of them.

 

There's two ways of looking at it.

1 You play your best side and let the opposition worry about you, rather than you worrying about them.

2 You change your side every week in an attempt to try to accommodate the strengths of the opposition.

It seems to me we're going for option 2. It also seems to me it's not working as we haven't won any of our last 11 games. On Saturday we played one of the poorest sides we've met for many a year. In an attempt to match them at their own game we made a number of changes to both formation and personnel. We lost. I'd argue we lost because we didn't play our best side and didn't play to our strengths, like putting Jim O'Brien on the wing for example. We lost because we were scared of what the poorest side in the division might do to us, on our own patch, instead of going out and trying to hammer them.

 

It doesn't matter how good you are. If your weaknesses match the the oppositions strengths then you are going to have problems.

Although i do think he should stick to a formaton more and swap the the players.
4231. I think it suits the squad and if that means leaving certain players out then thats what will have to happen.

 

My main gripe with Hill.

When you're struggling, you go back to basics. Nothing fancy, you try and win and work hard.

My team Saturday would've been 442 with:

Steele
Stones
Foster
Cranie
Golbourne
O'Brien
Dawson
Buzasky
Lazarus
Davies
Tudgay

We did try and play more directly but we also didn't get in behind them enough from our midfield. When you keep changing things players that are out of form are being replaced by others that are out of form. The only way to get playing well again is to keep playing. Same team, experience, work hard. Full stop.

But albino's back now so we're cracking.

 

But when have we played at anywhere near our best in that formation.

I think that we play better when we can control the middle of the midfield which means 3 in there for me.

Perkins does a lot more than just stopping the ball though like some have said. He can pick a forward pass between the lines. Mellis should have back if perkins is playing for me in an attacking midfield role.

 

I agree - we've played our best football this year playing the way we did Saturday. But it's not worked in 2 months. We've become easy to play against.

If not 442, I'd have gone 451 with Tudgay up top on his own. Wingers. Width. Etc.

 

I agree with you but Tinkerman won't change.

 

My issue with this is approach is that it isn't working. We are seeing three or four changes per game (and a further three changes during the game itself). It isn't just Wiseman and Foster he is switching.

 

I think it is okay to change the defense to accommodate for the opposition's strengths. They are there to stop the opposition so I think we should choose those who are best suited to stopping their style of play.

But with the attack I do agree. We've brought in several new midfielders/forwards who are not used to playing with each other but by constantly changing the formation/personnel they are never going to bed in and we won't be able to perform well consistently as a team as a result.
However, not only do I think that we have two very good forwards, but we also now have three very good central midfielders (Buszacky, Dawson, Perkins) so I've got no idea which formation we should use and I don't think Hill does either (especially since he's trying to fit Greening into the team as well for some reason).

 

Poor clearance for the first and for the second he didn't close his man down well enough so Vardy got a free shot in. Do you think after getting a good point at a tough place like Leicester with 4-5-1 formation, Keef was right on saturday to go back to the 4-4-2 we've struggled with constantly? Do you think Hill has forgot it was the 4-5-1 formation that did us so well first half of last season? Injuries/suspensions permiting my team would be something like this......

GK: Steele.
LB: Golbourne.
RB: Stones.
CB: Hassell.
CB: Foster.
LW: JOB.
RW: Lazarus.
CM: Perkins.
CM: Dawson.
CM: Greening.
ST: Tudgay.

Then seven subs of......

Alnwick.
Edwards or Collins.
Wiseman.
Silva.
Buzasky.
Sinclair.
Davies.

 

However you dress it up Phil Hills gameplan(s) are a shambles and very easy to work out and play against. Unless we address this we are definitely going to be playing in league one next season.

 

At no point on Saturday did we play 4-4-2

.

 

Oxymoron?