Hughton was a defender, Adams was a winger

[SussexYellow]

I expect you can see where I am going with this. Hughton set his teams up to be as defensively solid as possible. Adams sets his teams up to attack down the wings. When under pressure, and Adams now is coming under pressure, the natural tendency is to rely more on these fundamental preferences. For instance starting Josh Murphy against Leeds.

This would be fine if attacking down the wing was producing results. However it is not. I do not claim any expertise but from observation I can see a number of problems with over reliance on this tactic:

First the opposition are setting up to double team our wingers to either cut crosses out at source or put on such pressure as to minimise the quality of a cross.

Second our strikers are not that great aerially. Lafferty despite his size is a poor header of the ball, and not at his best in a crowded box for that matter looking better when he is able to stretch his legs and be direct. possibly why he looks better for Northern Ireland where he gets lots of open space to attack! I am not sure that I would pick out any of our other strikers as being naturals for attacking the aerial ball.

Third providing the centre backs are disciplined and go with our two strikers the opposition can deal fairly comfortably with the threat because we tend not to have anybody else arriving in the box.

So time for Adams to mix up his tactics and not just the personnel. We have already seen this season that 4231 can work. If we want to go with 2 strikers then could 4312 do a job? I guess essentially a type of diamond. The three could come from Howson, Tettey, BJ and VOO, and the one either Redders or Wes. Width would have to come from the full backs, which may get the best out of Olsson. Hopefully it would give us greater cover defensively and provide alternative attacking options.

However whatever the merits of various formations I would like to see us having two or possible three different tactical formations that we start with. At present we are too predictable and make it too easy for the opposition manager to set a team to deal with it.

 

[Yellow Fever]

I agree with your logic Sussex. I also dislike the 4-4-2 as being too predictable. My formation would be 4-2-3-1:

Ruddy
Martin, Turner, Hooiveld, Olssen (or Garrido)

Howson, Tettey 
Redmond,  Odjidja-Ofoe, Jerome
Hooper

 

[SussexYellow]

And Yellow Fever your formation could morph into my one (and back again) without a substition to give the opposition a different look and different problems - not least of which would be a different number of strikers.

 

[Canaryboy]

Ironic that our greatest area of concern at the moment is the left wing, and I really don't understand why Elliott Bennett is so far down the pecking order considering we've shipped out two wingers.

I know that Redmond is better on the right than he is on the left, but surely playing Redmond on the left is preferable to playing Lafferty on the left? 

Not only could we play Redmond on the left with Bennett on the right, but could try Olsson on the left with Garrido at left back. If we are playing Martin at centre back, and Lafferty or Wes left side, then are we really putting out our strongest team? That's my main concern, rather than the formations themselves, the square peg round hole thing. 

 

[Yellow Fever]

And Yellow Fever your formation could morph into my one (and back again) without a substitution to give the opposition a different look and different problems - not least of which would be a different number of strikers.

The advantage of the 4-2-3-1 is that it allows movement up front and can morph into a 4-1-3-2, a 4-3-3 or a 4-5-1 when the ball is lost. The 4-4-2 is static by comparison, with the only option being for the wide players to track back to form two banks of four when the ball is lost. Dated and very predictable.

 

[eatonparkboy]

I expect you can see where I am going with this. Hughton set his teams up to be as defensively solid as possible. Adams sets his teams up to attack down the wings. When under pressure, and Adams now is coming under pressure, the natural tendency is to rely more on these fundamental preferences. For instance starting Josh Murphy against Leeds.

This would be fine if attacking down the wing was producing results. However it is not. I do not claim any expertise but from observation I can see a number of problems with over reliance on this tactic:

First the opposition are setting up to double team our wingers to either cut crosses out at source or put on such pressure as to minimise the quality of a cross.

Second our strikers are not that great aerially. Lafferty despite his size is a poor header of the ball, and not at his best in a crowded box for that matter looking better when he is able to stretch his legs and be direct. possibly why he looks better for Northern Ireland where he gets lots of open space to attack! I am not sure that I would pick out any of our other strikers as being naturals for attacking the aerial ball.

Third providing the centre backs are disciplined and go with our two strikers the opposition can deal fairly comfortably with the threat because we tend not to have anybody else arriving in the box.

So time for Adams to mix up his tactics and not just the personnel. We have already seen this season that 4231 can work. If we want to go with 2 strikers then could 4312 do a job? I guess essentially a type of diamond. The three could come from Howson, Tettey, BJ and VOO, and the one either Redders or Wes. Width would have to come from the full backs, which may get the best out of Olsson. Hopefully it would give us greater cover defensively and provide alternative attacking options.

However whatever the merits of various formations I would like to see us having two or possible three different tactical formations that we start with. At present we are too predictable and make it too easy for the opposition manager to set a team to deal with it.

Arguably, our better managers have been defenders who set up attacking footballing teams with width. Bond, Brown, Stringer and Walker.

 

[Beauseant]

Ironic that our greatest area of concern at the moment is the left wing, and I really don't understand why Elliott Bennett is so far down the pecking order considering we've shipped out two wingers.

I know that Redmond is better on the right than he is on the left, but surely playing Redmond on the left is preferable to playing Lafferty on the left? 

Not only could we play Redmond on the left with Bennett on the right, but could try Olsson on the left with Garrido at left back. If we are playing Martin at centre back, and Lafferty or Wes left side, then are we really putting out our strongest team? That's my main concern, rather than the formations themselves, the square peg round hole thing. 

With respect I disagree. To me the greatest area of concern is the fact we rarely threaten the heart of defences, which in turn helps sides to double up on our wide players. Everything is filtered wide, as Sussex notes, and often the game cries out for someone to actually run at the central defenders and force them to move out of formation. I believe that we have players who can do it in VOO and Howson but they have to be unshackled by Adams.

 

[SussexYellow]

Quite possibly EatonParkBoy but they had a pedigree of playing in primarily attacking teams. Bond and Brown at West Ham who had a philosophy in those days of it doesn't matter how many we let in so long as we score more. Stringer in primarily attacking Norwich teams under Saunders and Bond. Not sure about Walkers pedigree.

What Hughton and Adams seem to have in common is a significant preference for just one system which coincidentally reflects the position in which they played.

The problem which is reflected elsewhere in this thread is that 442 is simply too predictable, and this becomes an increasing concern if as the pressure mounts Neil Adams clings to it more and more. Justifying it by the secondary statistics that tend to be overwhelmingly in our favour, but ignoring the big statistic, the score, and the fact that we have not really given the opposition keeper a busy day.

As Yellow Fever points out there are a number of more flexible systems that can easily change during a game, or even when the ball is lost. Plus we could put the same 11 names on the team sheet and the opposition manager still would not know how we were going to play. Select Redmond and Murphy and it becomes immediately apparent.

 

[eatonparkboy]

Quite possibly EatonParkBoy but they had a pedigree of playing in primarily attacking teams. Bond and Brown at West Ham who had a philosophy in those days of it doesn't matter how many we let in so long as we score more. Stringer in primarily attacking Norwich teams under Saunders and Bond. Not sure about Walkers pedigree.

What Hughton and Adams seem to have in common is a significant preference for just one system which coincidentally reflects the position in which they played.

The problem which is reflected elsewhere in this thread is that 442 is simply too predictable, and this becomes an increasing concern if as the pressure mounts Neil Adams clings to it more and more. Justifying it by the secondary statistics that tend to be overwhelmingly in our favour, but ignoring the big statistic, the score, and the fact that we have not really given the opposition keeper a busy day.

As Yellow Fever points out there are a number of more flexible systems that can easily change during a game, or even when the ball is lost. Plus we could put the same 11 names on the team sheet and the opposition manager still would not know how we were going to play. Select Redmond and Murphy and it becomes immediately apparent.

But isn't there an argument, if we believe that we have a number of players in the current squad who are, as individuals, better than most in this division, for just picking the best eleven, injuries and suspensions aside, and I discount the too much football argument, and sending them out in a starting formation but letting them decide on the pitch where and what is the best for the team.

I just sense from the limited matches I have seen, that we are too involved in systems and the extra pass goes in, rather than individuals taking responsibility for their position on the pitch at any given time. So Redmond and Murphy don't always have to hug the chalk line but make a run off the ball into a more central position and maybe just throw a bit of confusion into the opposition.

We appear to be playing attacking football but I do sense that is because, in general, we are just better than the opposition anyway and can't help but attack.

 

[SussexYellow]

But isn't there an argument, if we believe that we have a number of players in the current squad who are, as individuals, better than most in this division, for just picking the best eleven, injuries and suspensions aside, and I discount the too much football argument, and sending them out in a starting formation but letting them decide on the pitch where and what is the best for the team.

I just sense from the limited matches I have seen, that we are too involved in systems and the extra pass goes in, rather than individuals taking responsibility for their position on the pitch at any given time. So Redmond and Murphy don't always have to hug the chalk line but make a run off the ball into a more central position and maybe just throw a bit of confusion into the opposition.

We appear to be playing attacking football but I do sense that is because, in general, we are just better than the opposition anyway and can't help but attack.

I take your point and actually there is an argument that we are where we are in the league despite the tactics not because of them as a result of having better players.
However as we know it is not simply a matter of the team with the better players always coming out on top. If that was so we would probably have ended up with less than 10 points in our first year in the premiership, and conversely how on earth did Luton beat us? My answer is that managers, tactics and formations do also have an influence usually a significant one.

But back to the nub of your point is it the 442 formation that actually shackles the players, because being responsible in that system requires them to maintain their position? Which is ironic as Neil Adams has said he wants to give the players freedom to express themselves. So yes what you say is valid but the players need to be given the right framework in which to express themselves.

 

[Yellow Fever]

I agree with Sussex on this. Formations don't shackle players, they provide a framework within which to work. Early in the season, the 4-2-3-1 was working well because front players were given the freedom to swap around be fluid in their movement. This is more difficult in the 4-4-2. I do think that we have the players to work flexibly within formations, but we also need to attack up the centre as well as on the flanks.