Crab Lungs Posted 2 April, 2011 Share Posted 2 April, 2011 (edited) I can see the reasoning behind it but can anyone report whether the diamond formation really works? It's seems as that since this became our first choice formation we've lacked width and force too much responsibility on the fullbacks to attack and defend, whilst also overcrowding the midfield. Just seems that we're creating more problems than we're solving and every time we revert to 4-4-2 we look more balanced and threatening... PS: Not being negative, just wanted a solid tactical discussion from those who have observed it... Edited 2 April, 2011 by Crab Lungs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint In Exile Posted 2 April, 2011 Share Posted 2 April, 2011 Thought the same, the probem with the diamond is two-fold, the lack of width, and if the oppposition do what most teams seem to be doing against us, and play with 5 in midfield then the midfield gets too crowded and the opposition is able to stifle our passing game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 2 April, 2011 Share Posted 2 April, 2011 works at times...others it does not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 2 April, 2011 Share Posted 2 April, 2011 I can understand it away from home, the idea being to keep it tight in midfield nad norrow the game and keep posession but at home i dont understand it. Surely when we need to break teams down we need width tp spread the game and also get whipped crosses coming into the box. To play it the dimond properly you need two good attacking full backs who are able to get down the line and get crosses in, of our full backs who can do this, one of those was on the bench and the other was not even in the squad. Hardings crossing was awful, in the first half every cross went straight to their keeper, he offered little going forward. The diamond can work if you have the full backs to play it, but the ones we have who are best suited to this formation are both out of favour at the moment. We have always looked better flating with a normal midfield 4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonManager Posted 2 April, 2011 Share Posted 2 April, 2011 Shine on you crazy diamond. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 2 April, 2011 Share Posted 2 April, 2011 (edited) Along with the fullbacks attacking, the width is also meant to come from the two strikers pulling out wide and the player in the hole staying central. Edited 2 April, 2011 by Matthew Le God Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGTL Posted 2 April, 2011 Share Posted 2 April, 2011 It would be better with Dickson and Richardson, but we've tried it 1st half today and for Sheff Weds and didn't really work either time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simo Posted 2 April, 2011 Share Posted 2 April, 2011 Worked ok vs manure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ringwood Posted 2 April, 2011 Share Posted 2 April, 2011 The diamond today led to Guly not really understanding where he was supposed to be in my view, seemed at times that the diamond was rotating, caused mainly by RL getting frustrated at the lack of passing, that allied to Chaplows poor passing at the moment meant AL had to run his socks off. Hammond was the only reason we were not more than 1 down at half time he just kept moving across to cover the gaps . There isn't enough time on the ball to play the diamond, the players are used to 4 4 2 and players are creatures of habit hence when DS came on he knew where to play and looked composed. Time to consign the diamond to the bin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beatlesaint Posted 2 April, 2011 Share Posted 2 April, 2011 Along with the fullbacks attacking, the width is also mean to come from the two strikers pulling out wide and the player in the hole staying central. And thereby lies the problem. Lambert is crap when he ventures out wide. What is the point, he has no pace and the big centre forward that defenders in this league hate isnt in the bloody middle. Second half, when the subs came on, Lambert played more like last season, in other words leading the line, in the middle of the park, not on the wing ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thornhill_saints Posted 2 April, 2011 Share Posted 2 April, 2011 I dont care about what formation is implemented if we win... And we did ................................ who gives a f*ck about it really.. the points are on the table now, NEXT GAME! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
up and away Posted 2 April, 2011 Share Posted 2 April, 2011 Thought the same, the probem with the diamond is two-fold, the lack of width, and if the oppposition do what most teams seem to be doing against us, and play with 5 in midfield then the midfield gets too crowded and the opposition is able to stifle our passing game. The other problem is Ricky and Lee coming too far back without the pace to scare a tortoise. I would far prefer us to play 4411 in these situations. I would drop one of Lambert or Barnard and put Guly in front of the midfield, which would be Lambert after that amount of chances. Guly never shone today, neither did Ricky but I can't see Ricky's shelf life extending to the Championship. First priority for me is secure the midfield, then start on them when we have some control. The defence and full backs were ok, getting forward well, a couple of individual errors and Fonte lives a charmed life on rare occasions. There is something wrong with these disjointed performances, apart from the result. Generally it's because the midfield gets exposed and the flanks left open, along with a forward line that's neither forward or mobile. This has to go down to Adkins along with the turn around, but I can see us having major problems with all the games in April. The forward line does not work mainly because of Ricky and the midfield just gets too exposed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crab Lungs Posted 2 April, 2011 Author Share Posted 2 April, 2011 I dont care about what formation is implemented if we win... And we did ................................ who gives a f*ck about it really.. the points are on the table now, NEXT GAME! Well, neither do I but I prefer us to play with the best possible tactics/formation to give us the best possible chance of winning. There is something wrong with these disjointed performances, apart from the result. Generally it's because the midfield gets exposed and the flanks left open, along with a forward line that's neither forward or mobile. This has to go down to Adkins along with the turn around, but I can see us having major problems with all the games in April. The forward line does not work mainly because of Ricky and the midfield just gets too exposed. You've pretty summed it up there as to why it doesn't work. And the solution for it to work is a few posts above.... just means rotating the full backs around, which we should do as we have the luxury of doing so and being more flexible with our tactics/formation.s.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dig Dig Posted 2 April, 2011 Share Posted 2 April, 2011 Not a fan, we over congest the middle of the park and it gets scrappy. Butters and harding always make themselves availible but rarely get down the line chosing to come inside instead. Plus chaplow seems to lack the composure to play when it's tight in the middle causing us to lose the ball too often. If we play the diamond, he has to be dropped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelkel31 Posted 2 April, 2011 Share Posted 2 April, 2011 The diamond today led to Guly not really understanding where he was supposed to be in my view, seemed at times that the diamond was rotating, caused mainly by RL getting frustrated at the lack of passing, that allied to Chaplows poor passing at the moment meant AL had to run his socks off. Hammond was the only reason we were not more than 1 down at half time he just kept moving across to cover the gaps . There isn't enough time on the ball to play the diamond, the players are used to 4 4 2 and players are creatures of habit hence when DS came on he knew where to play and looked composed. Time to consign the diamond to the bin. largely this is right, the players tried(badly for most of the game) to pass the ball into positions held by a 442 formation, this combined with the front 5 floating around meant most balls were misplaced. should have been changed earlier but proved to be soon enough. the comments about RL are also right, he needs to be told to play more central for 90% of the game and for god sake when will a manager of our club learn to get someone to attack the far post! not really trying to moan after a win just my opinion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bailey Posted 2 April, 2011 Share Posted 2 April, 2011 We didn't start with a diamond today, it was 4-3-1-2 as shown below. ---------------------- Davis -------------------- Butters ----- Fonte ----- Jaidi ----- Harding ---- Chaplow --- Hammond --- Lallana ---- ----------------------- Guly ---------------------- ------------- Lambert --- Barnard ------------- The formation is actually why we started so well. We caught MK Dons out with a tactical surprise, and it took them 20 minutes or so to settle down and adjust to it. For what it's worth, I thought it worked initially but Adkins was right to alter it. Full credit to Nigel, his tactics and substitutions were spot on today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 2 April, 2011 Share Posted 2 April, 2011 We didn't start with a diamond today, it was 4-3-1-2 as shown below. ---------------------- Davis -------------------- Butters ----- Fonte ----- Jaidi ----- Harding ---- Chaplow --- Hammond --- Lallana ---- ----------------------- Guly ---------------------- ------------- Lambert --- Barnard ------------- The formation is actually why we started so well. We caught MK Dons out with a tactical surprise, and it took them 20 minutes or so to settle down and adjust to it. For what it's worth, I thought it worked initially but Adkins was right to alter it. Full credit to Nigel, his tactics and substitutions were spot on today. It was a diamond. Hammond was sitting just in front of Jaidi and Fonte from kick off in the first half. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bailey Posted 2 April, 2011 Share Posted 2 April, 2011 It was a diamond. Hammond was sitting just in front of Jaidi and Fonte from kick off in the first half. You're right, he was. But I promise you our game plan involved starting with a 4-3-1-2 formation, trust me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 2 April, 2011 Share Posted 2 April, 2011 Along with the fullbacks attacking, the width is also mean to come from the two strikers pulling out wide and the player in the hole staying central. And that didn't work 1st half in anyway, shape or form. The fullbacks were both excellent today but, 1st half, didn't switch play quickly enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 2 April, 2011 Share Posted 2 April, 2011 You're right, he was. But I promise you our game plan involved starting with a 4-3-1-2 formation, trust me! But if he was(and you agree he was), then it was a diamond and not 4132. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doddisalegend Posted 2 April, 2011 Share Posted 2 April, 2011 As we're Lambert bashing again today he did in fact provide the assists for two out of our three goals today. Yes he is slow, yes its frustrating when he is out on the wing instead of in the box, but he is our top scorer again this season and he is a great passer of the ball and not bad with his feet for a big bloke. If he has been avaliable he has played which suggests that the manager sees something in him our fans don't. As for the diamond ..meh I'm a dinosuar give me 4-4-2 with nippy wingers banging in crosses it seems thats the way players are most comfortable with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bailey Posted 2 April, 2011 Share Posted 2 April, 2011 But if he was(and you agree he was), then it was a diamond and not 4132. MLG, you're very particular aren't you!? His role inevitably would be to sit a little deeper than Lallana and Chaplow to give the back four some protection. Arguably, that's similar to a diamond, but from the off emphasis was on 4-3-1-2! Either way, whatever you choose to believe, for what it's worth I prefer it when we play with width. Playing too narrow across the midfield leaves us vulnerable defending in wide positions. However, in Nigel we trust! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint_John Posted 2 April, 2011 Share Posted 2 April, 2011 It is nice that we can switch systems from the "diamond" to a "flat 4" and vice versa without too much difficulty. Today I thought MK had done their homework on the "diamond" BUT couldn't adjust when we switched systems. There was a 15 min period where they were unsure who should be doing what, e.g. should the right winger be dropping back to cover Adam when we went on the left. They didn't adjust to our change of tactics. There have been other games (e.g.swindon) where they played a "tight 3" in central midfield (in a 4-5-1 system) and we started with a "flat 4" (Alex on the right; Adam on the left), but their 3 in midfield were playing nice triangles around our 2. In that match we switched to the "diamond" around the hour period and again scored 3 goals in a short period of time because they were unable to adjust. My big concern is Rickie when we play the diamond because his lack of movement is shown up, i.e. he should be making runs behind the fullbacks so that they do not advance and play in the space on the flanks, but he doesn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 2 April, 2011 Share Posted 2 April, 2011 MLG, you're very particular aren't you!? Isn't that taken as a given on this forum? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
up and away Posted 3 April, 2011 Share Posted 3 April, 2011 As we're Lambert bashing again today he did in fact provide the assists for two out of our three goals today. Yes he is slow, yes its frustrating when he is out on the wing instead of in the box, but he is our top scorer again this season and he is a great passer of the ball and not bad with his feet for a big bloke. If he has been avaliable he has played which suggests that the manager sees something in him our fans don't. As for the diamond ..meh I'm a dinosuar give me 4-4-2 with nippy wingers banging in crosses it seems thats the way players are most comfortable with. I agree that Lambert does contribute, my problem has always been what we actually need from Lambert. I was hoping after this small lay up he would come back far better, as he did when we had the last lay up because of the weather. I thought we played some decent stuff in the first half, dominant without threatening their goal. Something you seem to agree with "What ever pretty stuff we played was wasted because no one was in the opposition box to do any damage." When you have had two, if not the best two wingers in the league in your side, to then find your main striker out there struggling to find that striker to pass to in the box, you really have to question the logic of the situation. Just what is our greatest need, a decent striker or an average provider? If Ricky starts doing his job, this will go away the same as it did for Morgan. If we don't go up this season, my guess would be down to the fact that Adkins never had the striker Pardew had. I am coming to the conclusion that the reason we are not effective in front of goal is mainly because of Ricky's lack of pace. You can zip the ball around as fast as you like, but if the person providing the end product cannot find space in the box or are running in treacle, it's wasted most of the time. This can't be all Ricky's fault as Adkins has eyes in his head as well as the rest of us, but our need for a striker is far, far greater than a sometime provider. We have a lot of very good players in our squad, but we regularly under perform from the quality we have available to us. Just go and look at the Brighton squad and the riches we have bought or brought through from the youth set up, even makes them look like paupers in comparison. Adkins has certainly made improvements over Pardew in some areas, but we are no where near doing a Norwich. Interestingly, the other issue of the midfield, where success against the MK Dons last season with a 451. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saints_is_the_south Posted 3 April, 2011 Share Posted 3 April, 2011 Until Forte came on I thought we had no shape atall, at times in the first half it looked like we were playing 4-2-2-2, Guly and Lallana were just roaming about the pitch where ever they wanted to. No width at all, even if Harding did get forward well. 4-4-2 is the way to go for the rest of the season imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doddisalegend Posted 3 April, 2011 Share Posted 3 April, 2011 I agree that Lambert does contribute, my problem has always been what we actually need from Lambert. I was hoping after this small lay up he would come back far better, as he did when we had the last lay up because of the weather. I thought we played some decent stuff in the first half, dominant without threatening their goal. Something you seem to agree with "What ever pretty stuff we played was wasted because no one was in the opposition box to do any damage." When you have had two, if not the best two wingers in the league in your side, to then find your main striker out there struggling to find that striker to pass to in the box, you really have to question the logic of the situation. Just what is our greatest need, a decent striker or an average provider? If Ricky starts doing his job, this will go away the same as it did for Morgan. If we don't go up this season, my guess would be down to the fact that Adkins never had the striker Pardew had. I am coming to the conclusion that the reason we are not effective in front of goal is mainly because of Ricky's lack of pace. You can zip the ball around as fast as you like, but if the person providing the end product cannot find space in the box or are running in treacle, it's wasted most of the time. This can't be all Ricky's fault as Adkins has eyes in his head as well as the rest of us, but our need for a striker is far, far greater than a sometime provider. We have a lot of very good players in our squad, but we regularly under perform from the quality we have available to us. Just go and look at the Brighton squad and the riches we have bought or brought through from the youth set up, even makes them look like paupers in comparison. Adkins has certainly made improvements over Pardew in some areas, but we are no where near doing a Norwich. Interestingly, the other issue of the midfield, where success against the MK Dons last season with a 451. Interesting piece in the pink today saints have had more shots on target than any other team in all four divisions, and in our team the player with the most shots on target is one Rickie Lambert. What ever his fualts he brings a lot to the team. As for not being in the box it frustrates the hell out of me but it's being going on so long I'm assuming it's what Nigel wants Lambert to do otherwise surely Nigel would have stopped it by now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 3 April, 2011 Share Posted 3 April, 2011 I can understand it away from home, the idea being to keep it tight in midfield nad norrow the game and keep posession but at home i dont understand it. Surely when we need to break teams down we need width tp spread the game and also get whipped crosses coming into the box. To play it the dimond properly you need two good attacking full backs who are able to get down the line and get crosses in, of our full backs who can do this, one of those was on the bench and the other was not even in the squad. Hardings crossing was awful, in the first half every cross went straight to their keeper, he offered little going forward. The diamond can work if you have the full backs to play it, but the ones we have who are best suited to this formation are both out of favour at the moment. We have always looked better flating with a normal midfield 4. Harding's crossing is usually better and the fact he got into so many good positions is a sign it was working fine. There was nothing wrong with the system at all, just poor execution on a few occasions from some players. It's good to have a couple of effective ways of playing up our sleeve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 3 April, 2011 Share Posted 3 April, 2011 And thereby lies the problem. Lambert is crap when he ventures out wide. What is the point, he has no pace and the big centre forward that defenders in this league hate isnt in the bloody middle. Second half, when the subs came on, Lambert played more like last season, in other words leading the line, in the middle of the park, not on the wing ! He's not crap there at all and often creates goals. Like yesterday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 3 April, 2011 Share Posted 3 April, 2011 We murdered them for the first half an hour precisely because they couldn't stop the supply to Guly ie. the system worked great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derry Posted 3 April, 2011 Share Posted 3 April, 2011 Looks more like an omoeba than a diamond. Otherwise known as a shapeless mess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crab Lungs Posted 12 April, 2011 Author Share Posted 12 April, 2011 Nigel. Pressure doesn't make diamonds, idiots do. STOP IT!!!!! (For the record, have bumped this to get feedback from anyone at the game tonight who saw the tactics first-hand....) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 12 April, 2011 Share Posted 12 April, 2011 Nigel. Pressure doesn't make diamonds, idiots do. STOP IT!!!!! (For the record, have bumped this to get feedback from anyone at the game tonight who saw the tactics first-hand....) IMHO the Diamond works when we have Lallana in the team. Guly "sounded" as if he tried hard tonight, but with Hammond in the DM role that means the newbie Stephens had to play wider. May have been a bit optimistic by the sound of it, Dickson sounded as if he kept his shape better but would like input from someone there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
channonball Posted 13 April, 2011 Share Posted 13 April, 2011 He's got to learn to change it quicker! There have been countless games where we've started with the diamond and then changed it and improved. The only game it seemed to work was against Man U, which was a surprise. We haven't been playing well for months but have ground out results. With this team we should be dominating teams and playing positive football like Brighton do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry the Badger Posted 13 April, 2011 Share Posted 13 April, 2011 I generally dislike the formation threads as they highlight all that's wrong with football fans, i.e. we MUST play 442, or 451 is negative, we should play like this....and so on. Flexibility is a good thing, but more importantly, there is no perfect formation. The crying out for 442 in recent years when playing other formations was embarassing. Some seemed to think it was a brilliant cure-all formation that the manager hadn't thought of. In reality, we'd been as good and bad in that formation as we had in others. I've seen us play very well and very poorly with wingers, the diamond, 1 up front, 2 up front and so on. With Chamberlain out, maybe the diamond makes more sense. I prefer to see us play with width, and Lallana is best on the left cutting in, IMO, but we still had some very poor games in that formation. I like Adkins because he does change things. It didn't work last night, but it has in other games and like the squad, I'm sure he's learning all the time. I could have written this I agree with it to the letter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wade Garrett Posted 13 April, 2011 Share Posted 13 April, 2011 I think we'd go 4-4-2 all day long if Lallana amd AOC are fit. Unfortunately they're not so Nigel is trying to make us harder to break down. Personally, I think we have enough in the squad to roll most teams over with 4-4-2. Certainly sounded better in the second half last night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
up and away Posted 13 April, 2011 Share Posted 13 April, 2011 I generally dislike the formation threads as they highlight all that's wrong with football fans, i.e. we MUST play 442, or 451 is negative, we should play like this....and so on. Flexibility is a good thing, but more importantly, there is no perfect formation. The crying out for 442 in recent years when playing other formations was embarassing. Some seemed to think it was a brilliant cure-all formation that the manager hadn't thought of. In reality, we'd been as good and bad in that formation as we had in others. I've seen us play very well and very poorly with wingers, the diamond, 1 up front, 2 up front and so on. With Chamberlain out, maybe the diamond makes more sense. I prefer to see us play with width, and Lallana is best on the left cutting in, IMO, but we still had some very poor games in that formation. I like Adkins because he does change things. It didn't work last night, but it has in other games and like the squad, I'm sure he's learning all the time. Whether you think about this in terms of formations or players, it really does not matter. What is important is that you recognise the problems within the team and what must be done to cure those problems. No one with any sense is going to argue that our midfield can create all sorts of problems for the team, especially where the opposition have been regularly getting down the flanks and exposing us defensively. Now it's pretty obvious that by giving the full back cover, you will minimise that exposure. Now calling that 442 or giving the full back cover is neither here nor there, either works. It's all about having the right player in the right position, however you want to describe it. The main problem we have is getting the strikers to work and we bend the team out of shape to achieve that end. Get a decent target man and it's a different story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kpturner Posted 13 April, 2011 Share Posted 13 April, 2011 It just looks like 22 blokes running around a football pitch to me - regardless of formation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 13 April, 2011 Share Posted 13 April, 2011 (edited) I think we'd go 4-4-2 all day long if Lallana amd AOC are fit. Unfortunately they're not so Nigel is trying to make us harder to break down. Personally, I think we have enough in the squad to roll most teams over with 4-4-2. Certainly sounded better in the second half last night. I pretty much concur with all of that - at the moment with the available players it's a question of whether playing someone completely out of position as a wide right midfielder is preferable to playing 3 of the 4 more central players *slightly* out of position. I didn't go to Rochdale but you could see at Orient that their left sided midfielder Cox was in acres of space 1-on-1 with Butterfield with Chaplow having to run 15 yards just to have someone else for backup... after a while Orient started actually dribbling at Butterfield from the centre with a player and one in support - fortunately on that day we just about coped with the crosses. Don't forget we've played a narrow diamond with Lallana and Oxlade-Chamberlain in it already this season as well, which is counter-intuitive at best. We started using it when Lallana was out in order to have a creative midfielder who could influence the game more centrally (Guly), and used it against Man Utd and played well, but it killed Ox-Cham's natural game and I don't think we'd be using it much if we had both Oxlade-Chamberlain and Lallana available. Then again there are plenty of nuances to it - Dickson was wide left and no-one was wide right at Orient, it was more of a 4-1-3-2 with the 3 shifted to the left, as much a wide 4-4-2 as a diamond ! Edited 13 April, 2011 by The9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derry Posted 13 April, 2011 Share Posted 13 April, 2011 We are just playing without a right midfielder and very narrow surrendering the wide areas to the opposition. We got away with it v MK Dons and Orient but we were exposed wide last night. Both goals came from out wide, the first a deep cross and Harding ball watching yet again, as against Peterborough, he allowed his man to nudge him out of the way and get a free header, he just doesn't know where to position himself so he can see the man and the ball and not be baulked. The second a speculative shot from wide right yet again missed at the near post. Play 4-4-2 and use Forte/N'guessan/Guly wide until Lallana/O-C are fit to start. We should be positive now and go for it in the last six games. It doesn't look like Stephens is the answer. The view from Oldham was he plays well in a team playing well but goes missing if the going gets tough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustMike Posted 14 April, 2011 Share Posted 14 April, 2011 diamond doesnt work, especially with Guly as the forward player Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry the Badger Posted 14 April, 2011 Share Posted 14 April, 2011 diamond doesnt work Are you talking about the same diamond we played in beating Charlton? Or the one we used to beat Leyton Orient? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crab Lungs Posted 14 April, 2011 Author Share Posted 14 April, 2011 Are you talking about the same diamond we played in beating Charlton? Or the one we used to beat Leyton Orient? Results are sometimes are good, but flaws are exposed. There is obvious problems as the flanks are left wide open, leaving a midfielder to make up a lot of ground just to protect a full back, thus making the diamond a bit of an achilles heel. We've powered past LO and Charlton, but will it work if it's targeted by a more savvy manager? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry the Badger Posted 14 April, 2011 Share Posted 14 April, 2011 Results are sometimes are good, but flaws are exposed. There is obvious problems as the flanks are left wide open, leaving a midfielder to make up a lot of ground just to protect a full back, thus making the diamond a bit of an achilles heel. We've powered past LO and Charlton, but will it work if it's targeted by a more savvy manager? I'm sorry but I just don't buy it. I've seen us play pretty badly with good old 4-4-2 at times. The only difference here is that there is an obvious perceived flaw in the diamond so everybody jumps on it . Play 4-5-1 and lose and everybody shouts "there's no support for the striker", and it's the same here, anything other than 4-4-2 and it's a flawed system rather than just a poor performance. Every system has it's flaws I just think it's far to simplistic to blame "the diamond" for our defeat. Given our recent run of 9 unbeaten I am happy that Adkins knows which formations to play and when to get results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 14 April, 2011 Share Posted 14 April, 2011 The diamond works if the players are able to operate it. I suggest that Tuesday's defeat was more down to the players we had on the pitch than the formation used. Apparently Harding looked way way off of full fitness from the start.If we had started Dickson at left back with someone else in midfield it may have been better. Strange decision to start an unfit player though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 16 April, 2011 Share Posted 16 April, 2011 no diamond today and we sound so f-ing shyt.. Link to comment 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