AyeDubbleYoo Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 I think Marveaux is much more suited to a 4-3-3 as well, either as one of the central three or as the left forward. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 I think Marveaux is much more suited to a 4-3-3 as well, either as one of the central three or as the left forward. i agree, though i have to stress again as debuchy (or similar) is the key as it means ben arfa/marveaux/jonas or whoever need not play so much of an orthadox wide role out there. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole_Toonfan Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 I think Marveaux is much more suited to a 4-3-3 as well, either as one of the central three or as the left forward. Majority of the squad is quite frankly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Archie Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 We no'w have two good strikers, its not like we have to shoehorn them in together. Plenty of games to go around.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tooj Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 We ended up playing hoofball because of Williamson and Simpson. I think it's that simple. Get Douglas and Debuchy in and i'm confident that 4-4-2 won't mean hoofball. Yet they were both playing the 4-3-3 as well and we never resorted to hooftball using that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiresias Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 It's about having players constantly available to pass to, which means playing more compact. I guess Pards is concentrating on passing in training but playing a passing game with 4-4-2 is harder than with 4-3-3 because of numbers of opposing players in zones compared to number of other team. Wigan destroyed us with midfield numbers in the middle of our run when Pards couldn't quite settle on 4-3-3 so shifted us back to 4-4-2. of course there is 3-5-2... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanj Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 I'm just happy to see he wants to stay. I'll let a full preseason with Cisse, the coaching staff and my trust in Pards to get the formation right, whatever it may be. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Realist Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 We ended up playing hoofball because of Williamson and Simpson. I think it's that simple. Get Douglas and Debuchy in and i'm confident that 4-4-2 won't mean hoofball. Yet they were both playing the 4-3-3 as well and we never resorted to hooftball using that. Never. I think the style of football we played under each system is being grossly exaggerated. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiresias Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 think that's fair, point but we did some very poor footy at times and our posession stats weren't great. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanshithispantz Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 4-4-2 doesn't have to be hoofball, as we will probably see when we phase out Williamson and Simpson. For some reason I cannot imagine a backline of 'Santon Coloccini Douglas* Debuchy*' being set out to contain teams and hit it long. *The style of players we are looking to bring in atleast. No it doesn't, but 4-3-3 allows you to keep the ball better and have a better balance between attack and defense. Not to mention it suits Cisse, Ben Arfa, Cabaye, Jonas etc etc a lot more. As England showed at the Euros showed 4-4-2 is fine without the ball, but in possession you lack options to go forward properly which is where 4-3-3 excels. There have been many teams in the history of football who have been fucking sublime going forwards playing a 4-4-2 system. We were one of them. It depends on our personnel next year but there's nothing wrong with playing 2 strikers up top, and you certainly don't "lack options". We aren't Barcelona and we aren't going to try and monopolise possession. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole_Toonfan Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 4-4-2 doesn't have to be hoofball, as we will probably see when we phase out Williamson and Simpson. For some reason I cannot imagine a backline of 'Santon Coloccini Douglas* Debuchy*' being set out to contain teams and hit it long. *The style of players we are looking to bring in atleast. No it doesn't, but 4-3-3 allows you to keep the ball better and have a better balance between attack and defense. Not to mention it suits Cisse, Ben Arfa, Cabaye, Jonas etc etc a lot more. As England showed at the Euros showed 4-4-2 is fine without the ball, but in possession you lack options to go forward properly which is where 4-3-3 excels. There have been many teams in the history of football who have been f***ing sublime going forwards playing a 4-4-2 system. We were one of them. It depends on our personnel next year but there's nothing wrong with playing 2 strikers up top, and you certainly don't "lack options". We aren't Barcelona and we aren't going to try and monopolise possession. History of football is irrelevant. In Today's game a lot of teams play 3 in midfield so it's only natural that they would keep possession better as they have more options. The main reason we struggled with possession for most of last season was because we played 4-4-2. Again the team's in the Euro's that played 4-4-2 struggled to keep possession it's no coincidence it's just not a system designed to keep possession. Besides all that is irrelevant, i'm arguing the point of 4-3-3 because i feel the majority of our player's suit it more than 4-4-2. If we had flying wingers and fullbacks who don't treat the ball like a bomb is going to explode at their feet then i'd think differently but we don't. Doesn't mean we shouldn't play 4-4-2 at all, depending on the situation and opposition we should switch up our tactics. Just that 4-3-3 suit's the majority of the squad the most and quite frankly should be the main system we use. Regardless if it doesn't suit Demba. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yorkie Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 God it'd be so fucking frustrating if we never saw the 4-3-3 again. Six wins on the bounce, man. Not just that, but it became abundantly clear that it suited all of our best players. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiresias Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 The Stoke game Cabaye completely dominated in the attacking midfield role, was immense. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jayson Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 Besides all that is irrelevant, i'm arguing the point of 4-3-3 because i feel the majority of our player's suit it more than 4-4-2. If we had flying wingers and fullbacks who don't treat the ball like a bomb is going to explode at their feet then i'd think differently but we don't. We'll be going into next season with Ben Arfa, Marveaux, Santon, Jonas & hopefully Debuchy. We could have some of the best flanks in the league. Anyway, trust in Pards. From all his interviews & our general form etc, he seems very aware of our strengths and weaknesses last season. Hes not going to go with & stay at 4-4-2 if it doesnt work, theres no reason to worry about it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 History is being reinvented. During that great spell towards the back end we were alternating formations throughout the match 442 443 4231 because we had that flexibility. We beat Swansea and Chelsea playing a more rigid 442 though. And Wigan whipped us when we started out playing 4231. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aussiemag Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 History is being reinvented. During that great spell towards the back end we were alternating formations throughout the match 442 443 4231 because we had that flexibility. We beat Swansea and Chelsea playing a more rigid 442 though. And Wigan whipped us when we started out playing 4231. Swansea was 4-2-3-1, Cabaye in behind Cisse, threading through 2 beautiful balls. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cronky Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 Regardless of the formation, you should try and avoid playing two centre forward-types IMO. That's the issue with Ba and Cisse. One of them is bound to lose some effectiveness if you play them together. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ATB Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 If I could choose I would not play Cisse and Ba togheter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest taps01 Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 History is being reinvented. During that great spell towards the back end we were alternating formations throughout the match 442 443 4231 because we had that flexibility. We beat Swansea and Chelsea playing a more rigid 442 though. And Wigan whipped us when we started out playing 4231. Swansea was 4-2-3-1, Cabaye in behind Cisse, threading through 2 beautiful balls. Yeah Swansea was 4-2-3-1 as i remember Cisse and Ba took it in turns to fill in on the left. Chelsea however was 442. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dinotheprehistoricgeordie Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 Ba shone when he had Best/Shola next to him to win balls in the air and do a lot of chasing and harrying. Since Cisse arrived Ba hasn't had that kind of player next to him resulting in the loss of form. Makes me wonder what Ba and Carroll would look like playing together......... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 History is being reinvented. During that great spell towards the back end we were alternating formations throughout the match 442 443 4231 because we had that flexibility. We beat Swansea and Chelsea playing a more rigid 442 though. And Wigan whipped us when we started out playing 4231. Swansea was 4-2-3-1, Cabaye in behind Cisse, threading through 2 beautiful balls. Yeah Swansea was 4-2-3-1 as i remember Cisse and Ba took it in turns to fill in on the left. Chelsea however was 442. swansea when they had the ball was very much a 4-5-1 often with cabaye being the furthest forward pressuring the short ball from centre half to leon britton. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/newcastle-united/nufc-news/2012/07/14/demba-ba-slams-talk-of-quitting-newcastle-united-72703-31392918/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BooBoo Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 Ba-rilliant news. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BottledDog Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 "People talk, but what I can say is that none of the teams that have been talked about have approached me. I’m still a Newcastle United player." ...for now. Sounds lika a come and get me plea. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheshire Mag Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 When is the deadline on this 'clause' supposed to be? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now