Newcastle United 3 - 1 Plymouth Argyle - 19/09/09 - post match reaction from p12

[Mr. Snrub]

Only in England could people get abuse for having good teeth.

[Liam Liam Liam O]

Colgate should use that in an ad

 

Taylor's more likely to do one of those Shampoo adverts.

 

"Because I'm worth it"

[Guest fraser]

He is playing 4-4-1-1 purely so he can acomidate his"big players", Hughton needs to grow a pair and pick a balanced side, with our inform players.

 

He made three changes from the team beaten by Blackpool; this included dropping Butt. Which big players is he accommodating?

 

Nolan & Barton, and in order to do so he is playing a stupid formation..

 

 

Back four picks itself, Simpson, Taylor, Colo, Jose

 

Smith is a must in CM, Barton is poor Nolan cannot run, so Guthrie in the middle alongside Smith, Loven on the left and Ryan Taylor on the right, Carroll and Ramger upfront, its not rocket science.

 

He started Guthrie against Blackpool and only subbed him after it went to 2-1.

 

It's not just the personnel, it''s also about picking 11 players who will complement each other. No point in picking guthrie if you are going to stick Nolan up front as a result.

 

Accommodating players is solely about the personnel which is what the original point was about; he's picked Guthrie and Butt and dropped both. Seems to me he picks a goal-keeper and back four we all agree with; rotates his midfield except Smith whose inclusion most of us agree with, selects the rest of the midfield to deal with what's in front of them and is willing to change things when it's the right time, as he did yesterday.

 

I think someone already made the point but why play only one striker at home against a s**** team? It's this decision or lack of, that most people don't agree with.

 

Because apparently we're better off not attacking s*** teams at home, instead waiting until they threaten to get something from the game before changing things.

 

 

4-5-1 doesn't necessarily mean that a team doesn't attack and certainly didn't mean that on Saturday. What it meant was  going to 4-4-2 that at a later stage, full advantage was taken from a position of parity and that resulted in a win.

[Segun Oluwaniyi]

I don't understand people who say 4-4-2 is attack and 4-5-1 is defend. We played 4-4-2 last year and we had a pitiful amount of attacking support to the strikers. 4-5-1 is also interchangeable with 4-3-3 especially if your the team that is likely to have the most possession.

[Shak]

I don't understand people who say 4-4-2 is attack and 4-5-1 is defend. We played 4-4-2 last year and we had a pitiful amount of attacking support to the strikers. 4-5-1 is also interchangeable with 4-3-3 especially if your the team that is likely to have the most possession.

 

You'll usually be able to tell by the wingers.

 

If they're the likes of Messi and Henry, then it's a more offensive system IMO.

 

Meanwhile, our first choice wingers are probably Barton and Jonas.

[madras]

I don't understand people who say 4-4-2 is attack and 4-5-1 is defend. We played 4-4-2 last year and we had a pitiful amount of attacking support to the strikers. 4-5-1 is also interchangeable with 4-3-3 especially if your the team that is likely to have the most possession.

 

You'll usually be able to tell by the wingers.

 

If they're the likes of Messi and Henry, then it's a more offensive system IMO.

 

Meanwhile, our first choice wingers are probably Barton and Jonas.

and out of those the only one i would possibly describe as a winger is jonas. even when the others stretch play wide they are hardly playing a wingers role.

[Segun Oluwaniyi]

Barca are different. They play full 4-3-3. Hell, they almost play 4-2-4 if you consider the positions Iniesta takes up. Kind of like Chelsea and Man U, the positions become blurred because the players are so good and they spend 90 percent of most games entrenched in other team's half. For us, when we play the formation, things become narrow because all the people we play there look to cut inside. Until we get Jonas back and Lovenkrands fit it will look flat, as will 4-4-2. Also, Barton has no business on the wing. If any of our centre midfielders play wide it should be Guthrie

[Jayson]

 

4-5-1 doesn't necessarily mean that a team doesn't attack and certainly didn't mean that on Saturday. What it meant was  going to 4-4-2 that at a later stage, full advantage was taken from a position of parity and that resulted in a win.

 

What are you trying to say though? That we gained an advantage from changing to 4-4-2 later on instead of playing it from the start ?

 

Anyway the result of us playing 4-5-1 for the last few games has largely been garbage, being level pegged by the side bottom of the championship purely summed that up. We did better when we went to 4-4-2 because we play better at 4-4-2. The midfielders generally do not support enough atall when there is only one upfront, simple as that. Guthrie is the only one that sometimes gets up there to.

 

Literally everyone one of our goals this season in the league bar the west brom game has been the result of either a long ball or a cross of some kind. Every single one.

So in what moronic world does it make sense to then play one lad upfront to get on the end of these against 2/3 defenders at a time. A waste is an understatement. If we're going to play like that, we may aswell do it efficiently.

[Cronky]

Barca are different. They play full 4-3-3. Hell, they almost play 4-2-4 if you consider the positions Iniesta takes up. Kind of like Chelsea and Man U, the positions become blurred because the players are so good and they spend 90 percent of most games entrenched in other team's half. For us, when we play the formation, things become narrow because all the people we play there look to cut inside. Until we get Jonas back and Lovenkrands fit it will look flat, as will 4-4-2. Also, Barton has no business on the wing. If any of our centre midfielders play wide it should be Guthrie

 

I agree with this, at least partly. He's only there as the least worst option at the moment. The trouble is we're then losing his ability to create from the middle.

 

Hughton is having to juggle with scarce resources, and given that we're 6-1-1, it's hard to criticise. Having watched Guthrie out in the wing, he's even worse.

[TRon]

 

4-5-1 doesn't necessarily mean that a team doesn't attack and certainly didn't mean that on Saturday. What it meant was  going to 4-4-2 that at a later stage, full advantage was taken from a position of parity and that resulted in a win.

 

What are you trying to say though? That we gained an advantage from changing to 4-4-2 later on instead of playing it from the start ?

 

Anyway the result of us playing 4-5-1 for the last few games has largely been garbage, being level pegged by the side bottom of the championship purely summed that up. We did better when we went to 4-4-2 because we play better at 4-4-2. The midfielders generally do not support enough atall when there is only one upfront, simple as that. Guthrie is the only one that sometimes gets up there to.

 

Literally everyone one of our goals this season in the league bar the west brom game has been the result of either a long ball or a cross of some kind. Every single one.

So in what moronic world does it make sense to then play one lad upfront to get on the end of these against 2/3 defenders at a time. A waste is an understatement. If we're going to play like that, we may aswell do it efficiently.

 

Couldn't agree more, it seems like those trying to defend the 4-5-1 are using the numbers as an argumrnt to hide behind. Just take the blinkers off for a moment and ask yourselves how many midfielders actually get onto the box to support the solitary striker in the 4-5-1 when we use it? It's usually reverted to a backs to the wall defensive job after the first 15 minutes in nearly every game I've seen it deployed.

[madras]

 

4-5-1 doesn't necessarily mean that a team doesn't attack and certainly didn't mean that on Saturday. What it meant was  going to 4-4-2 that at a later stage, full advantage was taken from a position of parity and that resulted in a win.

 

What are you trying to say though? That we gained an advantage from changing to 4-4-2 later on instead of playing it from the start ?

 

Anyway the result of us playing 4-5-1 for the last few games has largely been garbage, being level pegged by the side bottom of the championship purely summed that up. We did better when we went to 4-4-2 because we play better at 4-4-2. The midfielders generally do not support enough atall when there is only one upfront, simple as that. Guthrie is the only one that sometimes gets up there to.

 

Literally everyone one of our goals this season in the league bar the west brom game has been the result of either a long ball or a cross of some kind. Every single one.

So in what moronic world does it make sense to then play one lad upfront to get on the end of these against 2/3 defenders at a time. A waste is an understatement. If we're going to play like that, we may aswell do it efficiently.

 

Couldn't agree more, it seems like those trying to defend the 4-5-1 are using the numbers as an argumrnt to hide behind. Just take the blinkers off for a moment and ask yourselves how many midfielders actually get onto the box to support the solitary striker in the 4-5-1 when we use it? It's usually reverted to a backs to the wall defensive job after the first 15 minutes in nearly every game I've seen it deployed.

i don't even think the advantage came on saturday from changing the formation as much as the personnel.

 

playing 4-5-1 or 4-4-2 the wide men will still drop to half way when defending and pick up the oppo full backs when pushing forward. and the full backs will pick up the more advanced wide midfielders/wingers. the problem as ever is with movement more than the formation as even if nolan played up front in a 4-4-2 his lack of movement  hinders his being there whereas if you had  a mobile and attcak mided midfield they should be looking to get up with the forwards and even (dare i say it) beyond them.

 

as ever with nufc the problem,which has been the problem since robson left has been a lack of basic technique and movement.

[TRon]

 

4-5-1 doesn't necessarily mean that a team doesn't attack and certainly didn't mean that on Saturday. What it meant was  going to 4-4-2 that at a later stage, full advantage was taken from a position of parity and that resulted in a win.

 

What are you trying to say though? That we gained an advantage from changing to 4-4-2 later on instead of playing it from the start ?

 

Anyway the result of us playing 4-5-1 for the last few games has largely been garbage, being level pegged by the side bottom of the championship purely summed that up. We did better when we went to 4-4-2 because we play better at 4-4-2. The midfielders generally do not support enough atall when there is only one upfront, simple as that. Guthrie is the only one that sometimes gets up there to.

 

Literally everyone one of our goals this season in the league bar the west brom game has been the result of either a long ball or a cross of some kind. Every single one.

So in what moronic world does it make sense to then play one lad upfront to get on the end of these against 2/3 defenders at a time. A waste is an understatement. If we're going to play like that, we may aswell do it efficiently.

 

Couldn't agree more, it seems like those trying to defend the 4-5-1 are using the numbers as an argumrnt to hide behind. Just take the blinkers off for a moment and ask yourselves how many midfielders actually get onto the box to support the solitary striker in the 4-5-1 when we use it? It's usually reverted to a backs to the wall defensive job after the first 15 minutes in nearly every game I've seen it deployed.

i don't even think the advantage came on saturday from changing the formation as much as the personnel.

 

playing 4-5-1 or 4-4-2 the wide men will still drop to half way when defending and pick up the oppo full backs when pushing forward. and the full backs will pick up the more advanced wide midfielders/wingers. the problem as ever is with movement more than the formation as even if nolan played up front in a 4-4-2 his lack of movement  hinders his being there whereas if you had  a mobile and attcak mided midfield they should be looking to get up with the forwards and even (dare i say it) beyond them.

 

as ever with nufc the problem,which has been the problem since robson left has been a lack of basic technique and movement.

 

Probably why Robson made such a big deal about Dyer having "two engines". For all people didn't like him for various reasons his movement off the ball was exceptional. This is probably the difference between the best sides and the rest; they have players who possess mobility and intelligence, we usually have players with one attribute or the other. Noaln for example is actually quite a clever player, he's just too slow around the pitch so we end up losing control of the game due to lack of movement when we have too many players like him in the side.

[madras]

 

4-5-1 doesn't necessarily mean that a team doesn't attack and certainly didn't mean that on Saturday. What it meant was  going to 4-4-2 that at a later stage, full advantage was taken from a position of parity and that resulted in a win.

 

What are you trying to say though? That we gained an advantage from changing to 4-4-2 later on instead of playing it from the start ?

 

Anyway the result of us playing 4-5-1 for the last few games has largely been garbage, being level pegged by the side bottom of the championship purely summed that up. We did better when we went to 4-4-2 because we play better at 4-4-2. The midfielders generally do not support enough atall when there is only one upfront, simple as that. Guthrie is the only one that sometimes gets up there to.

 

Literally everyone one of our goals this season in the league bar the west brom game has been the result of either a long ball or a cross of some kind. Every single one.

So in what moronic world does it make sense to then play one lad upfront to get on the end of these against 2/3 defenders at a time. A waste is an understatement. If we're going to play like that, we may aswell do it efficiently.

 

Couldn't agree more, it seems like those trying to defend the 4-5-1 are using the numbers as an argumrnt to hide behind. Just take the blinkers off for a moment and ask yourselves how many midfielders actually get onto the box to support the solitary striker in the 4-5-1 when we use it? It's usually reverted to a backs to the wall defensive job after the first 15 minutes in nearly every game I've seen it deployed.

i don't even think the advantage came on saturday from changing the formation as much as the personnel.

 

playing 4-5-1 or 4-4-2 the wide men will still drop to half way when defending and pick up the oppo full backs when pushing forward. and the full backs will pick up the more advanced wide midfielders/wingers. the problem as ever is with movement more than the formation as even if nolan played up front in a 4-4-2 his lack of movement  hinders his being there whereas if you had  a mobile and attcak mided midfield they should be looking to get up with the forwards and even (dare i say it) beyond them.

 

as ever with nufc the problem,which has been the problem since robson left has been a lack of basic technique and movement.

 

Probably why Robson made such a big deal about Dyer having "two engines". For all people didn't like him for various reasons his movement off the ball was exceptional. This is probably the difference between the best sides and the rest; they have players who possess mobility and intelligence, we usually have players with one attribute or the other. Noaln for example is actually quite a clever player, he's just too slow around the pitch so we end up losing control of the game due to lack of movement when we have too many players like him in the side.

it's not pace alone with nolan. players can be slow but make up for it with technique or intelligence. he doesn't have either enough to make up for his lack of pace.

 

the ability to find good space and the technique to then use it are the most important attributes for a footballer,far far too much is made of pace in the footy manager days.

 

re dyer, i always preferred him as a wide midfielder,not hugging the line but finding gaps and exploiting that. he couldn't do the defensive work needed of a central midfielder and didn't have enough offensivly to offset it.

[Rocker]

How can I manage to keep myself in shape, work full time, and study at college, and Kevin Nolan can't manage to just keep himself in shape?

 

and he gets paid to do it 

[Jayson]

i don't even think the advantage came on saturday from changing the formation as much as the personnel.

 

playing 4-5-1 or 4-4-2 the wide men will still drop to half way when defending and pick up the oppo full backs when pushing forward. and the full backs will pick up the more advanced wide midfielders/wingers. the problem as ever is with movement more than the formation as even if nolan played up front in a 4-4-2 his lack of movement  hinders his being there whereas if you had  a mobile and attack mided midfield they should be looking to get up with the forwards and even (dare i say it) beyond them.

 

as ever with nufc the problem,which has been the problem since robson left has been a lack of basic technique and movement.

 

4-4-2 works better specifically because you put in another lad whos job is to stay upfront which makes up for the lack of support from midfield, Nolan isnt being told to do that. He drops back further & then doesnt have the pace to keep up with play when we play it long, leaving Ranger/Carroll/whoever to deal with it on their own. The odd time Nolan has kept up with play, he often does well with the ball. As i said in another thread, he has been a part of goals in most of our matches so far this season, i would never play him as a striker though. Formation though i would say has a larger amount to do with this than much else.

[madras]

i don't even think the advantage came on saturday from changing the formation as much as the personnel.

 

playing 4-5-1 or 4-4-2 the wide men will still drop to half way when defending and pick up the oppo full backs when pushing forward. and the full backs will pick up the more advanced wide midfielders/wingers. the problem as ever is with movement more than the formation as even if nolan played up front in a 4-4-2 his lack of movement  hinders his being there whereas if you had  a mobile and attack mided midfield they should be looking to get up with the forwards and even (dare i say it) beyond them.

 

as ever with nufc the problem,which has been the problem since robson left has been a lack of basic technique and movement.

 

4-4-2 works better specifically because you put in another lad whos job is to stay upfront which makes up for the lack of support from midfield, Nolan isnt being told to do that. He drops back further & then doesnt have the pace to keep up with play when we play it long, leaving Ranger/Carroll/whoever to deal with it on their own. The odd time Nolan has kept up with play, he often does well with the ball. As i said in another thread, he has been a part of goals in most of our matches so far this season, i would never play him as a striker though. Formation though i would say has a larger amount to do with this than much else.

in a supposed 4-5-1 the support would come from midfield,hopefully more support than a 2 man forward line. some 4-5-1's work as a 4-3-3 when they have the ball. like i says the formation isn't that important, movement,technique and i telligence will overcome any formation.

[Jayson]

Thats true, im not making an absolute statement about 4-5-1 being a useless formation. Just that it isnt efficient atall for how we're playing. You need to put out a formation that is most suitable for what you have...& our side becomes far more efficient at 4-4-2 rather than 4-5-1 clearly. We keep the ball more when its hoofed up/crossed in & two big lads will cause any defence in this league problems in that situation. So the formation we choose, is very important for us in determining how well we perform in these games.

[Guest fraser]

i don't even think the advantage came on saturday from changing the formation as much as the personnel.

 

playing 4-5-1 or 4-4-2 the wide men will still drop to half way when defending and pick up the oppo full backs when pushing forward. and the full backs will pick up the more advanced wide midfielders/wingers. the problem as ever is with movement more than the formation as even if nolan played up front in a 4-4-2 his lack of movement  hinders his being there whereas if you had  a mobile and attack mided midfield they should be looking to get up with the forwards and even (dare i say it) beyond them.

 

as ever with nufc the problem,which has been the problem since robson left has been a lack of basic technique and movement.

 

4-4-2 works better specifically because you put in another lad whos job is to stay upfront which makes up for the lack of support from midfield, Nolan isnt being told to do that. He drops back further & then doesnt have the pace to keep up with play when we play it long, leaving Ranger/Carroll/whoever to deal with it on their own. The odd time Nolan has kept up with play, he often does well with the ball. As i said in another thread, he has been a part of goals in most of our matches so far this season, i would never play him as a striker though. Formation though i would say has a larger amount to do with this than much else.

in a supposed 4-5-1 the support would come from midfield,hopefully more support than a 2 man forward line. some 4-5-1's work as a 4-3-3 when they have the ball. like i says the formation isn't that important, movement,technique and i telligence will overcome any formation.

 

I think one of the reasons Hughton chose it on Saturday was because we have such a one-paced midfield; if we put two in against three we'll be overrun.

[madras]

i don't even think the advantage came on saturday from changing the formation as much as the personnel.

 

playing 4-5-1 or 4-4-2 the wide men will still drop to half way when defending and pick up the oppo full backs when pushing forward. and the full backs will pick up the more advanced wide midfielders/wingers. the problem as ever is with movement more than the formation as even if nolan played up front in a 4-4-2 his lack of movement  hinders his being there whereas if you had  a mobile and attack mided midfield they should be looking to get up with the forwards and even (dare i say it) beyond them.

 

as ever with nufc the problem,which has been the problem since robson left has been a lack of basic technique and movement.

 

4-4-2 works better specifically because you put in another lad whos job is to stay upfront which makes up for the lack of support from midfield, Nolan isnt being told to do that. He drops back further & then doesnt have the pace to keep up with play when we play it long, leaving Ranger/Carroll/whoever to deal with it on their own. The odd time Nolan has kept up with play, he often does well with the ball. As i said in another thread, he has been a part of goals in most of our matches so far this season, i would never play him as a striker though. Formation though i would say has a larger amount to do with this than much else.

in a supposed 4-5-1 the support would come from midfield,hopefully more support than a 2 man forward line. some 4-5-1's work as a 4-3-3 when they have the ball. like i says the formation isn't that important, movement,technique and i telligence will overcome any formation.

 

I think one of the reasons Hughton chose it on Saturday was because we have such a one-paced midfield; if we put two in against three we'll be overrun.

you'd think with the extra quality we have over teams like plymouth we'd let them worry about us not vice versa.