I'll admit when he first came I thought he didn't look the player that played against us in November. Once he'd got a few games under his belt he looked as good as any striker in this division. If he hits 25 league goals and fires us into the play offs he'll be considered a bit of legend. Comparisons with Quinn and Regis are taking it a bit far. But fair play to him. I'd give Cody a run alongside him in the next two home games.
I agree, I think we need to go 2 up top at home, especially against these teams coming up. Next 3 coming up, if we have aspirations of the play-offs, all need to be won. And if we could win big for goal difference, that would be wonderful!
Why do we need to play 2 upfront, there's no evidence that we do better playing 4-4-2.
... Especially when we barely have 2 strikers to play! Cody is not as dangerous as, say, Moussa.
I think it was more of a suggestion!! I actually think 2 strikers would be better at home. It creates more of an opportunity to open the defences up.
If anything, 4-4-2 is more defensive than attacking.
Cody and Leon are too similar to be a successful partnership, both too static and in a 4-4-2, it tends to have a striker who gets the goals and another to create, (Cody nor Elliott could create or get goals!) that's how 4-2-3-1 came into existence, you had a striker who didn't get the goals to be a striker, whilst being too attacking for a midfielder, so the CAM position was born.
we should be working on not conseeding from corners
Your right. Dion hardly ever scored while Huckerby was banging them in.
Elliot has 4 or 5 goals this season and he's hardly played so I'm not too sure about your point on him. Cody, albeit in a lower league, has put a few away. He gets into all the right positions and is a natural poacher.
It is possible to multi-task. You can create goals and have a go at scoring them too. There's 90+ minutes in a match. Plus to have 2 strikers doesn't neccessarily mean 4-4-2, which quite clearly you're a passionate procrastinator of.
I'd do what Strachan did with Huck and Dion and give Cody and Leon an extra hour a day in training specifically working on their partnership.
3-5-2 or 5-3-2 at home is the way forward...
Too much talk of formations like SP states... we have the players whatever the formation to beat Colchester(with respect).. its time for them to perform at the Ricoh
Why do we need to play 2 upfront, there's no evidence that we do better playing 4-4-2.
... Especially when we barely have 2 strikers to play! Cody is not as dangerous as, say, Moussa.
Elliott has started 1 games less than Clarke, came on 8 times, has 4 goals and 1 assist to show for it - poor return, and not worth starting ahead of Moussa, Thomas or Fleck, and even Barton for that matter!
On Dion and Huck, I wasn't lucky to see them 2 in action, so I can't speak with much authority but what I have seen, Huckerby was a creater who was good at crossing (hence being a winger for a bit?) who certainly chipped in with a fair few whilst Dion was a poacher, and a bloody good one! Thing is, Cody isn't a 'Dublin', whereas Clarke is, and he (Cody nor Elliott) isn't a Huckerby either!
Cody and Clarke wouldn't be effective, I would guarantee that, too similar, on, and off the ball, if those 2 played together, the midfield would be further isolated.
I'm well against 4-4-2, I believe it's holding English football back (along with other factors), that, however, doesn't mean if we play 4-2-3-1 or 4-3-3 we'll start winning World Cups or European Championships, but it'll give us a platform to do better than we have done, when was the last time we got past the Quarters in a major championship? It clear we need to modernise and change the formation because when we play 4-4-2 against the big teams, we get torn apart.
Elliott has started 1 games less than Clarke, came on 8 times, has 4 goals and 1 assist to show for it - poor return, and not worth starting ahead of Moussa, Thomas or Fleck, and even Barton for that matter!
Huckerby was a creater who was good at crossing (hence being a winger for a bit?) who certainly chipped in with a fair few whilst Dion was a poacher, and a bloody good one! Thing is, Cody isn't a 'Dublin', whereas Clarke is, and he (Cody nor Elliott) isn't a Huckerby either!
Cody and Clarke wouldn't be effective, I would guarantee that, too similar, on, and off the ball, if those 2 played together, the midfield would be further isolated.
This isn't FIFA 13 and being good at it doen't make you a football visionary.
Where did he say this? I'd like to give that a read tbh.
</p>I agree with you but we HAVE to fall within FFP regs or face points reductions. To do this we'll need to reduce the payroll significantly, meaning top earners such as Clarke.
First off, how much game time has Elliott had? Not nearly as much as Leon. I'm not suggesting he would have scored the same amount as Leon if he had, but that says more about Leon Clarke than it does Stephen Elliott. Considering the game time, Elliott has done well, especially during Robins' reign.
You've contradicted yourself with this next statement. On one hand saying that Cody and Leon different types of player but in the next breath, saying they are too similar to play along side each other.
It seems you've got a very blinkered view on formations and see it as a strict guide as to what style of play you use. Formations aren't that rigid and can be exploited in many ways. All have pros and cons.
This isn't FIFA 13 and being good at it doen't make you a football visionary.
Oh for God's sake. You play to the occasion and the opposition. If that requires 4-4-2 then so be it. If not then so be it too.
At this level, for now, we have to look at the short term and get out of this division. Or at least try. The foundations have to be laid for a long term vision... and I hope they have been.
Its not the formations that win Championships and tournaments, its the quality of the players you have at your disposal !!
With all this Elvis stuff going on.
All us Sky blues fans should now be called 'kings of Leon'
True, I'm not totally against it because it does work well in certain occasions, but I want CCFC to break away from the 'traditional' 4-4-2 and build a 4-3-3 philosophy that Swansea have built from and their Chairman attributes their success to this (and other factors OF COURSE!).
I'm convinced 4-4-2 doesn't suit CCFC since preseason, and nothing has convinced me otherwise this season, last, but not least, I repeat, we don't have 2 strikers to play upfront*!
* We do, just the one that isn't Leon, isn't worth playing!
I would play 1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-2.
1. Swansea took 10 years to get that right. Barca even longer! Bayern... even longer than Barca (and those last 2 ones are really rich and 2 of the top clubs in the World)!
2. They had reached, literally, rock bottom.
3. They have a chairman in place who understands football.
4. We DO have 2 strikers. We DON'T, however, know how they'll play together.
5. Like I said, not all formations with 2 up top are 4-4-2.
You are confused about what formation means, but I think by accident you are correct (to a degree).
A formation does not dictate the manner in which you play and in real life is far more flexible than how it appears on a video game. A 4-4-2 does not mean that you have to play with a creator and a poacher and it does not mean you have to play hoof ball football up to a big guy. It's why I said 'tends', I was speaking generally, and that is usually your types of partnerships, am I wrong? You can play fast quick passing football in a 4-4-2 system Based on passing down the line of the midfield 4 or full back to winger, there's rarely any penetration down the middle, and being quite direct as well, which doesn't really promote possession football. the same way that you can through any other system. This weekend Manchester United played 4-4-2 against Chelski, they still played passing football and with Hernandez and Rooney up front you cant argue that either of them is not a complete footballer. Hernandez and Rooney is a typical 'poacher & creator' partnership, also, Rooney plays quite deep for CF and helps out with the midfield sometimes too much. You can also look at Liverpool, one of the leading passing sides in the premier league thanks to Brendan Rodgers, who also started 4-4-2 (4-2-3-1, Suarez in the '10' role) and won against a Tottenham side that played 4-5-1. Man CIty also played 4-4-2 How well are theey doing this season compared to last? Didn't they get slaughtered in Europe when other teams didn't play 4-4-2? (btw, creator (Aguero) + poacher (Dzeko) partnership again) As did Southampton, Qpr, Sunderland, Reading and Villa. None of whom play a particularly ugly style of football, except Villa who seem to have adopted the tactic of lump it up to Benteke. Bar Villa, they don't play hoof ball... But they play direct football, which lends itself to my argument.
Just because in recent years 4-5-1 has become synonymous with passing football thanks to Barcelona, Spain and to a lesser extent Swansea does not mean that such a philosophy cant be applied to different formations. Shapes of a formation go some way in determining the way you play and those formations allow them to play that style, they pass in triangles, 4-3-3 has natural triangles and 4-2-3-1 has interlocked triangles in the formation, 4-4-2 is '2 banks of 4', there's no triangles for the free flowing football to occur.
You also criticise England and almost blame the lack of success recently on the 4-4-2 system I said it was a big factor and it was holding England back, which it is, and I don't think there's an argument here, because it's obvious that is the case. Quick example, because we played 4-4-2 for years, we played Scholes and Gerrard on the WING! Had we played that, our midfield would no doubt been better. , I think that is almost entirely due to the poor standard of players Pretty sure we've produced good enough players to qualify for Euro 08 and to have got past the 1/4 finals in a major tournament since 1996. produced by this country in recent years when compared to the likes of Xabi, Iniesta, Villa, Pique etc that form the backbone of the Spanish side. They are world class players, the best players in the world, the closest we come is that scouse twat Rooney who is good yes, great no. Anyway I digress. Gerrard (Zidane said he was the best in the world), Lampard, Hart (top 5 GKs in the world atm, easily) Terry (not any more, but had been thee best CB in the world for years), Ferdinand (was one of the best CBs in the world a couple of years back), Beckham (do I need to explain?), Scholes (Xabi Alonso, Xavi and Iniesta appreciate how he plays: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...ew-Paul-Scholes-best-midfielder-20-years.html - also, what did I say about Xavi being slated if he was injured, well, we had our 'Xavi'.)
The formation we play needs to be dictated by the quality of the players we have in specific positions, should we have 2 quality strikers why would you not play 4-4-2 and include both of them? I've said on a number occasions that I wouldn't mind playing 4-4-2 if we had the strikers to do so... We don't. If you have 5-7 quality midfielders, why would you play 4 in midfield? Even if McG had stayed, I think we should've kept 1 striker, because we were doing so well at that point. Currently we only have 1 striker of note which is why for me 4-5-1 is the best formation for us at the minute, There's my logic. but should we sign another prolific goalscorer or Cody etc hit form I'm not holding my breathe. I would have no hesitation in adapting the shape we play.
When posters say 2 upfront on here, they usually mean 4-4-2, am I wrong?
I never said we literally don't have 2 strikers, but we don't have a striker fit to play alongside Leon, and certainly not one good enough to start ahead of a midfielder.
if we played two up front we would be outnumbered again in midfield,
We had 5 in midfield vs Swindon and they were all over us
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?