Jump to content

Recommended Posts

You haven't grasped the point that Pardew was making. It's not just that Kane is a good player. It's that he is the player , in that role, that we should be building the attack around.

 

Kane is a precious commodity among strikers in that he is both a good target man and a good finisher. A player like that can solve a lot of selection dilemmas.

 

He is an automatic choice in that role, and everything should flow from that decision. That will mean asking others to take on roles that are not ideal for them, but we shouldn't be asking that of Kane, like Hodgson did against Portugal.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest neesy111

You haven't grasped the point that Pardew was making. It's not just that Kane is a good player. It's that he is the player , in that role, that we should be building the attack around.

 

Kane is a precious commodity among strikers in that he is both a good target man and a good finisher. A player like that can solve a lot of selection dilemmas.

 

He is an automatic choice in that role, and everything should flow from that decision. That will mean asking others to take on roles that are not ideal for them, but we shouldn't be asking that of Kane, like Hodgson did against Portugal.

 

 

Most people would agree with that view of Kane.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest firetotheworks

What on earth did Beckham do in 06? Terry and Ferdinand were quality in that tournament, too. Main thing that squad lacked was, as you say, a Shearer. A talisman who'd put the ball in the net when it counted.

 

He wasn't crap and the one thing he excelled at actually made him a threat. :lol: Re: Hargreaves as well, I was mixing up my tournaments and thought that it was Euro 2004 in which he was immense, but it was '06, so he's another one that did well. Rio and Terry were solid, but yeah, going forward we were an absolute waste of time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest firetotheworks

It's all moot anyway, because Roy will shoehorn players in and dilute a lot of the players who've been in fine form.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The only people that point needs to be directed at are those who would play Vardy ahead of Kane as a lone striker.

 

Because the theory behind Kane being upfront is so complicated that it needs explaining by Pardew & others. Everyones aware of the prevailing theory, its still debatable. Whats happened in the recent games doesnt even back it up. Two upfront obviously works, he'll probably try one and then shift it about.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We could play two strikers anarl, but I know that's not the "in" thing these days. It's much more fashionable to worry about the opposition, than to play for a win.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Vardy might struggle in the group stages because our opponents will defend in numbers. Later on he might come into his own catching out more attacking teams. Pushing him too far wide is pointless anyway, may as well drop him.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The only people that point needs to be directed at are those who would play Vardy ahead of Kane as a lone striker.

 

Not really. A lot of journos and posters on here favour a twin strike force of Vardy and Kane. The difficulty with that is that normally with a twosome - and particularly if you're operating with a target man - one of the strikers has a more withdrawn, creative role, and that's not Vardy's strength. He operates on the line of the last defender.

 

The other problem is you're then back in the territory of 4-4-2, which international teams find easy to counter, and you can end up getting overrun in central midfield. Plus that isn't the way this team has been playing, and we don't have out and out wingers in the squad, unless you count Sterling.

 

If you're going for some version of 4-3-3, you need players who are versatile in the two positions between midfield and striker, because they have to share the duties of both supporting your main striker and helping out their full back. With 4-4-2, those jobs are more clearly delegated to particular players. With a 4-3-3, a bit of flexibility and thinking on their feet is needed. Personally, I'd go for Rooney and Lallana.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No-one wants us to play a 4-4-2, like you say it would be suicide with us having no wingers.

 

If he plays both then they both need to be right upfront though otherwise what's the point?

 

Edit: FWIW I think it should be one or the other. If Vardy is on the wing I'll not even watch the game.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Against Germany it was Vardy & Kane, Barkley off them, Alli left & Henderson right in that diamond.

 

I know its a friendly, but surely better to go off what we've actually seen than theoretical ideas of what will and wont work. We could have scored 3 against Germany in 20 minutes, we overran them. Work from that.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Welbeck is a big tube of Pritt Stick in that he makes teams and formations work, especially from that left sided role. He's almost the complete opposite of Rooney in that his general play is brilliant, but he doesn't get to take the 85th minute penalties that recover you from the rest of the game of shit, and get you your match rating of 7 for sucking off Martin Samuel.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...