Good footballers can adapt

[lrm14]

16 minutes ago, cheron85 said:

Ferguson played the same "flat back 4 with a CB in CM to cover" the entire time he was an Man Utd and proved that even with a fairly talentless bunch at the end he could still win that way...

Yeah but that's because it was Ferguson. His squad had perfected his style and he could just change the formation/system to how he wanted, everyone knew what to do. The fact he won the prem with that team is astonishing, looking at it now is crazy because it was so average. 

[archied]

4 hours ago, Coconut said:

Footballers can adapt, but it doesn't mean that what they're being asked to adapt to is good for the team, or the player.

Hughes can adapt to being a defensive central midfielder who never ventures more than 60 yards from his own goal, but why the **** should he have to?

Well the thing is that most good teams have an element of fluidity sometimes one midfielder pushes and the other reads it and sits to provide cover as one of our better players in terms of reading the game and vision going forward ,perhaps Pearson wants him put the work in to expand his game on the defensive side ,I doubt very much that he is not not allowed  more than 60 yards from our goal but I'm willing to bet he has been made aware that he also has a vital role in midfield and the team defensively , from what I can make out Pearson is not about dour defensive football but he is trying to get our team working as a unit in defence and attack and perhaps the players are struggling to find that balance between playing with freedom but also having some structure and discipline , I do firmly believe that if Pearson and Hughes spend at least a season together it will be good for Hughes and help him develop into a better more rounded player but hey that's just my view it may go tits up ,,that's football

[archied]

Also if we have only Hughes who pushes and the other sits then it's a piece of pxss for teams to set up for us ,they know that if they stifle and double up on Hughes our threat is gone ? We need two midfielders that are capable of either role ,pushing on or sitting and having enough savvy and discipline to cover for each other ,, we have / had become far too easy to read and stifle for a decent opposition manager with half decent set of players prepared to work and do the jobs they are given against us

[froggg]

4 hours ago, cheron85 said:

Over to you mate... Beer thread away... Let me know when you've started and I'll come chip in...

 

Ha ha, when it's started? Some of us have been slotted in there for years.

[RadioactiveWaste]

2 minutes ago, archied said:

Also if we have only Hughes who pushes and the other sits then it's a piece of pxss for teams to set up for us ,they know that if they stifle and double up on Hughes our threat is gone ? We need two midfielders that are capable of either role ,pushing on or sitting and having enough savvy and discipline to cover for each other ,, we have / had become far too easy to read and stifle for a decent opposition manager with half decent set of players prepared to work and do the jobs they are given against us

Hence the Bryson and Hughes 2 keep getting picked even though there is no muscle in there.

[TroyDyer]

16 minutes ago, lrm14 said:

Yeah but that's because it was Ferguson. His squad had perfected his style and he could just change the formation/system to how he wanted, everyone knew what to do. The fact he won the prem with that team is astonishing, looking at it now is crazy because it was so average. 

Another thing he had, was players would run through brick walls for him, such was the respect he commanded. I don't think our lot would run through a cobweb.

[brady1993]

11 minutes ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

Hence the Bryson and Hughes 2 keep getting picked even though there is no muscle in there.

I don't think problem is necessarily down to lack of 'muscle'. I think that could be mitigated both in attack and defence if one striker was more willing to drop in and help out the midfield. Wilson, Vydra and Bent seem to be only interested in playing on the shoulder, which makes us incredibly easy to defend against. 

Having both strikers trying to get in behind the defence can only be effective if the opposition defence is really pushed up to leave space in behind. This means we will easy to defend against if we go a goal down or the opposition are only interested in getting a point.

 

[archied]

29 minutes ago, lrm14 said:

I agree that managers have a style that they like to stick to but they also adapt and change dramatically based on the squad they have. Wenger is a very attacking, stylish type of manager but he has changed how he achieved this with every different squad he had. The invincibles to the Fabregas era to RVP to Sanchez/Ozil, all those sides retained the style Wenger wanted but they played in different systems and formations. Klopp likes to press, everyone knows it, but Dortmund were focused a lot on countering with a 4-2-3-1 whereas Liverpool control games with a 4-3-3, both sides pressed crazily however. Guardiola loves to keep the ball all game, but he changed his formation and system almost every season at Barca and almost every game at Bayern based on their opponents and what he had at his disposal. 

The point I'm trying to get is that Pearson want's to press for a bit, get a goal then defend and hit teams on the break. Fine, even though I think our squad isn't built for that and is much more suited to controlling possession, if he wants to do it then ok. But he doesn't have to play 4-4-2 to achieve this, especially when he's got a squad with a midfield like ours. Wassall had us pressing very heavily against Hull, that's why he picked Weimann and Russell, why he can't give that a go is purely down to stubbornness.

I want him to succeed I really do, because in turn that means Derby will succeed. But at the moment he's making some very questionable decisions (another being signing a striker like Vydra who is known to only work with a target man, yet not replacing the target man we sold) and refusing to budge on them, which makes me question him. I agree with both your worries in the second paragraph, a 'Walshless' Pearson looks lost and I just don't think a manager with this style should have been appointed in the first place.

Edit - My quotes gone weird and it's made me sad.

You say our squad and team are built and suited to keeping and controlling posetion , I disagree totally with that , I think the players may feel they are good enough to do that and they are and were when teams allowed it but teams have pushed up onto us and pressed us got in our faces and we have gone to pieces when they do that and could nt string two passes together ,, then when teams sit back and allow us the time to play we usually totally forget about defence and shape and are very very vulnerable to be hit on the counter ,,,, the football for a spell under Steve Mac was great to watch and I loved it but it caught people by surprise for a while then they were no longer the surprise package ,we became the team to beat and that exposed us ,,, never mind adapting to pearsons way ,, players have to adapt for themselves during games and we have not done that for a long time ,,, if these players are as good as we have believed then Pearson should be able to put eleven out there and they should beat most teams in this division but are they ? Is this the real reason that our mantra for so long has been we have no plan b ,, good players adapt and find a way when they cross the white line and a game does not pan out the way they or the manager was expecting or planned for,, for whatever reason we have player who look round for someone to blame when thing don't pan out , whether that be a team mate ,, wassell , or now Pearson or maybe even the crowd ,, adapt ?? I want them to adapt to being the kind of players that find a way to win games that they really should be winning and perhaps performing heroically in games we are not really expected to win ,,,, 

[brady1993]

10 minutes ago, archied said:

You say our squad and team are built and suited to keeping and controlling posetion , I disagree totally with that , I think the players may feel they are good enough to do that and they are and were when teams allowed it but teams have pushed up onto us and pressed us got in our faces and we have gone to pieces when they do that and could nt string two passes together ,, then when teams sit back and allow us the time to play we usually totally forget about defence and shape and are very very vulnerable to be hit on the counter ,,,, the football for a spell under Steve Mac was great to watch and I loved it but it caught people by surprise for a while then they were no longer the surprise package ,we became the team to beat and that exposed us ,,, never mind adapting to pearsons way ,, players have to adapt for themselves during games and we have not done that for a long time ,,, if these players are as good as we have believed then Pearson should be able to put eleven out there and they should beat most teams in this division but are they ? Is this the real reason that our mantra for so long has been we have no plan b ,, good players adapt and find a way when they cross the white line and a game does not pan out the way they or the manager was expecting or planned for,, for whatever reason we have player who look round for someone to blame when thing don't pan out , whether that be a team mate ,, wassell , or now Pearson or maybe even the crowd ,, adapt ?? I want them to adapt to being the kind of players that find a way to win games that they really should be winning and perhaps performing heroically in games we are not really expected to win ,,,, 

Your argument seems to be that it's down to the players to make the difference and to an extent I agree with you. However the correct system allows you to get more out of the collective because you play to the strengths of the players and cover their weakness. 

For example compare Barcelona before and after Guardiola took over. Largely the same players, however he tweaked the system and suddenly they go up another gear. Or take Iceland at the euros, they had a very clear tactical plan and it elevated a bunch of subpar individuals (at the world stage) to exceed expectations.

[sage]

7 hours ago, David said:

Never truer words spoken and I could not agree more with Mr Butterfield. The adjustment period can be frustrating when you're paying good money to watch and travel in some cases, I feel it in my pocket as well, but this is great to hear from a player when I often read on this forum that 4-3-3 is the only way.

Good footballers can adapt, yes they do.

 

They can't get taller, quicker or much stronger. 

Perhaps 1 manager could adapt instead of 20 players.

[Day]

13 minutes ago, sage said:

They can't get taller, quicker or much stronger. 

Not true, over in India you can have limb lengthing proceedures and you can also go to the gym to become stronger. We've also bought pace into the team.

[ossieram]

20 minutes ago, sage said:

They can't get taller, quicker or much stronger. 

Perhaps 1 manager could adapt instead of 20 players.

Exactly. We should have a manager that plays the way the players want to because it has brought us so much success over the last few years

[sage]

5 minutes ago, David said:

Not true, over in India you can have limb lengthing proceedures and you can also go to the gym to become stronger. We've also bought pace into the team.

So buying rather than adapting then. 

[sage]

1 minute ago, ossieram said:

Exactly. We should have a manager that plays the way the players want to because it has brought us so much success over the last few years

In comparison to now and the previous 6 years, yes it has been a success.  

[Day]

3 minutes ago, sage said:

So buying rather than adapting then. 

We would have needed to buy even if we stuck with 4-3-3 as we have no fit CDM and for me you can't even think about Thorne this season, so invalid point right there!  

 

[sage]

1 minute ago, David said:

We would have needed to buy even if we stuck with 4-3-3 as we have no fit CDM and for me you can't even think about Thorne this season, so invalid point right there!  

 

Wtf are you talking about?

You said players can't adapt. I said they can't get faster. You said we have bought fast players. That isn't adaptation. 

Have we bought a CDM or  a CM who can defend? No

Talking nonsense David. 

[WystonRam]

8 hours ago, David said:

Never truer words spoken and I could not agree more with Mr Butterfield. The adjustment period can be frustrating when you're paying good money to watch and travel in some cases, I feel it in my pocket as well, but this is great to hear from a player when I often read on this forum that 4-3-3 is the only way.

Good footballers can adapt, yes they do.

 

Yes players can adapt, but you will not see them perform as well as they will in position they are naturally more comfortable in or suited to . Carson COULD for example play as a centre half, given time to adapt he might be quite good, but in the time he is adapting he will probably not be that good.

[Day]

2 minutes ago, sage said:

Wtf are you talking about?

You said players can't adapt. I said they can't get faster. You said we have bought fast players. That isn't adaptation. 

Have we bought a CDM or  a CM who can defend? No

Talking nonsense David. 

I said players can adapt, which they have to. I never said we should never sign another player again because any footballer can change physical appearances.

You're the one that's come on with the nonsense argument talking about players becoming taller.

Why do players need to be taller? Because the myth that we are now a long ball team? I'll leave you with a few stats below.

Yes we needed new players as we would had we stuck with 4-3-3, the system that saw the summer signings you were so critical of as they didn't fit the system last season that you now long for.

Signings were nessesary as is adaption.

 

[Day]

5 minutes ago, WystonRam said:

Yes players can adapt, but you will not see them perform as well as they will in position they are naturally more comfortable in or suited to . Carson COULD for example play as a centre half, given time to adapt he might be quite good, but in the time he is adapting he will probably not be that good.

How do we know that they are not suited to this formation? Because it hasn't clicked in 8 games? 

Sometimes taking a player out of his comfort zone and into a new position can transform him but it won't happen overnight.

I'm not saying 4-4-2 is the right way, just agreeing with Butterfield that good players will adapt. 

[lrm14]

1 hour ago, archied said:

You say our squad and team are built and suited to keeping and controlling posetion , I disagree totally with that , I think the players may feel they are good enough to do that and they are and were when teams allowed it but teams have pushed up onto us and pressed us got in our faces and we have gone to pieces when they do that and could nt string two passes together ,, then when teams sit back and allow us the time to play we usually totally forget about defence and shape and are very very vulnerable to be hit on the counter ...

I'll use the same counter argument I use against everyone who says we were 'figured out', we were so figured out that we got the play-offs with an interim manager. The full Mac season was him being a snake and injuries, we were not figured out in the slightest. The midfielders who look weaker in our system and clueless when teams sit back are Butterfield and Johnson, who quite frankly wouldn't have been bought if Bryson and Hughes had not got injured at Bolton. When we played Hughes - Thorne - Bryson you had to sit back otherwise you'd get pasted, but even then we'd win much more than we lost. Thorne is obviously injured all the time, so it begs the question as to why cover hasn't been brought in, that's a different story however. The players we have (especially the older ones) have shown they can do it, even under Clement they were top for ages yet now Pearson is here and we're **** suddenly they're not good enough and need to adapt? Maybe the manager needs to adapt for once. Clement didn't and he was sacked, now Pearson isn't and we're looking much worse.