PBW Ram Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 After a few glasses of red with my mate, both have followed The Rams for over thirty years, we had decided that we failed due to lack of on field communication. When Barker came on we had a target man Individually the team played some good football, however as a team we had no spine, no natural leader, no one to organise and focus. We where a bunch of individual personalities today, however we seemed to lack a degree of luck as well. TOM GLICK.......if you are listening, go spend a million on a midfield general We could have had one for bugger all - all we needed to do was agree personal terms with Eustace - whether people agree he was good enough or not- he was our first choice target all summer. Losing him on the eve of the season is unforgivable. Whoever is to blame for that needs their head looking at. (board or manager) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PBW Ram Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 I still think Cywka is one of very few match winners we have in our squad. Doesn't help NC batters him every time he plays, doesn't help with his confidence at all. Ok he doesn't have the work rate like alot of the squad, but now it seems because we're losing games, we need somebody like Cywka who can pull that piece of magic out of the bag and create or score a goal. Where is that coming from and when? Only Tomasz can make this work. He's got to show enough to stay in. I don't think our manager over complicates his selection policy - play well, work hard, stay in the side, Don't play well, don't work hard - bugger off and let someone else have a go.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PBW Ram Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 utter nonsense, the second best player in the world christiano ronaldo who tore up the premiership had an extremely low work rate. utter nonsense. You don't play for the best teams in the world if you're lazy - the fact that you don't see how hard he works is where the root of the problem lies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PBW Ram Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 As I said before, odd how two of the top managers in the World who have also managed the boy think the opposite to you. Mourinho and Ferguson must have such a lot they could learn from you. Madrid: Real Madrid manager Jose Mourinho has handed a compliment to his "friend" Sir Alex Ferguson for the work ethic inculcated in Cristiano Ronaldo during his time at Manchester United. The former Chelsea boss shared a healthy rivalry with the Scot even before he worked in the Premier League, but still considers his Manchester-based counterpart a friend. The ex-Porto and Inter manager also revealed that the pair had spoken about Ronaldo in the past, and remained impressed with the Portual international's work rate having watched the player during the club's pre-season. "Jorge Mendes [Mourinho and Ronaldo's agent] works with me and with him and we always talk a lot about Cristiano," Mourinho told AS. "In addition, there are few coaches that I am friends with and Sir Alex Ferguson is one of them. And I talked to him, too. "He said that the 'lad' as he called him, had an amazing way of working. After seeing it up close, I think it is impressive for a player with the status he has that no one works harder than him. "I had very experienced players at Inter, much older, they were examples. Zanetti, Cordoba and Materazzi showed how it was done. "Here I have a Cristiano and, by the way he works, it is easy to demand from others what I want in regard to the dedication to work." Nah - I'm not having that BCN, You've totally made that up. There is no way anyone knows more about football that this little upstart Young Ram..Mourinho would never have said that- Ronaldo is lazy and doesnt work. PS - If young ram says "the man" or "that man" about our manager one more time I'm going to cave my own head in from anger... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcnram Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 Where is that coming from and when? Only Tomasz can make this work. He's got to show enough to stay in. I don't think our manager over complicates his selection policy - play well, work hard, stay in the side, Don't play well, don't work hard - bugger off and let someone else have a go.... I think that is pretty much what he said in his radio interview on Saturday evening. Seems simple to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hucknall Ram Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 The thing is Cwyka I don't know if he, Clough or anyone knows his best position Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alph Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 The thing is Cwyka I don't know if he, Clough or anyone knows his best position It's certainly not in the horrible 442. Not unless he plays off a class striker. I hate 442. It's so rigid. Hendrick and Bryson are like rabbits in the headlights. 442- full backs play the ball down the line, wingers cross it, cm's run about a bit. OR long balls to Striker to knock on for partner. Boring, outdated predictable garbage. IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CumbrianRam Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 It's certainly not in the horrible 442. Not unless he plays off a class striker. I hate 442. It's so rigid. Hendrick and Bryson are like rabbits in the headlights. 442- full backs play the ball down the line, wingers cross it, cm's run about a bit. OR long balls to Striker to knock on for partner. Boring, outdated predictable garbage. IMO Look the amout of times we been outplayed by teams who play DMs and play with formations such like 4-3-3 and 4-2-3-1, Burnley, Cardiff off the top of my head. Also you tend need pace and gile on the wings to make 4-4-2 work and Ben Davies doesn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bris Vegas Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 It's certainly not in the horrible 442. Not unless he plays off a class striker. I hate 442. It's so rigid. Hendrick and Bryson are like rabbits in the headlights. 442- full backs play the ball down the line, wingers cross it, cm's run about a bit. OR long balls to Striker to knock on for partner. Boring, outdated predictable garbage. IMO You also need to have good partnerships all over the pitc for it to work, and 2 strkers who are willing to defend from the front and bring others into play.. You need the perfect players or it will never work The best team I saw play a 4-4-2 was Reading under Steve Coppell.. He relied on two wingers who could beat their fullbacks (Glenn Little and Bobby Convey/Stephen Hunt) two CMs who were both box to box (Sidwell and Harper) 2 strikers who had pace, movement, intelligence and good in the air (Kitson/Lita and Doyle/Long) and also two fullbacks who could bomb on, overlap but also defend (Shorey and Murty).. Notto mention the CBs Sonko and Ingimarsson who were also perfect, Sonko being a brute who offers alot at set pieces and Ivar who could distribute well from the back. Our 4-4-2 is nothing like that.. Our LB doesn't get forward, our RB is restricted by whoeve plays RW, Our CMs aren't box to box, our winger B.Davies can't beat a man, Robinson, S.Davies, whoevers upfront is poor in the air, S.Davies also doesn't move.. So static.. Our CBs OB and Shakell are alright, but they need work on their distribution.. We do have strengths but we have so many faults as to why we won't reach the top 6 with this set of players, especially in a 4-4-2 formation.. The players we have are so much more suited to 4-5-1/4-3-3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alph Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 Man Utd have thrown out some good 442's in recent memory too. But I look at Derby and think "How would I beat them?" Worry about Ward. He's good. But Roberts doesnt like the ball much so you can afford to double up on Ward. Stay tight on B.Davies. Not much pace. Stay tight and he'll struggle. Don't let him cross in space. Allow CBs to have ball. Instead tighten up on CMs. They'll eventually go backwards No target man to worry about. Robinson is a bit unpredictable but will often flap under pressure. Let him know your there if he manages to trap a long ball. A sly nudge in the back will usually see him off. Don't let him turn. If you have to any play long balls then target Roberts. The only thing I really see Derby trouble is set pieces or the trickery and pace of Ward. I look at us and while I like Hendrick and Bryson I just see them trapped. No freedom and few options. I think with more bodies in midfield would make us far less predictable and far more adaptable. As said, 442 needs certain ingredients. We need B.Davies and Ward to merge into one player just to have a proper 442 winger!! If only Pearson could of crossed then we'd just need something for them to aim at...... Oh dear Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RotherhamRam Posted November 21, 2011 Author Share Posted November 21, 2011 It's certainly not in the horrible 442. Not unless he plays off a class striker. I hate 442. It's so rigid. Hendrick and Bryson are like rabbits in the headlights. 442- full backs play the ball down the line, wingers cross it, cm's run about a bit. OR long balls to Striker to knock on for partner. Boring, outdated predictable garbage. IMO What formation do you want us to play. The reason I ask (not saying it was you!) at the beginning of the season we played 4132 formation and winning and people on here crying out it was rubbish producing rubbish but not acknowledging we were winning. We have now moved to a 442 that some wanted us to play (mainly due to injuries) we are playing very poorly but not getting results. I would have the 4132 formation and the results any time over performance as that allows us to build. Injuries come back soon so we can go back to it. People ask why we were playing 4132 think results answers for themselves it was a formation that got results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Teale Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 What formation do you want us to play. The reason I ask (not saying it was you!) at the beginning of the season we played 4132 formation and winning and people on here crying out it was rubbish producing rubbish but not acknowledging we were winning. We have now moved to a 442 that some wanted us to play (mainly due to injuries) we are playing very poorly but not getting results. I would have the 4132 formation and the results any time over performance as that allows us to build. Injuries come back soon so we can go back to it. People ask why we were playing 4132 think results answers for themselves it was a formation that got results. We were playing 442 the same as we are now with hendrick and Bryson in the middle of midfield and the wide players being Davies and Croft then it became Davies and Ward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asanovic Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 Bisgaard, Tommy Smith, Idiakez.. A proper target man in Rasiak.. A rock in CM in Ian Taylor.. We miss those 3 key types of players now. Our squad is a bunch of triers with little quality. Ian Taylor used to get absolute dog's abuse - I remember nearly having a fight with someone away at Watford who was just talking sh*te about him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RotherhamRam Posted November 22, 2011 Author Share Posted November 22, 2011 We were playing 442 the same as we are now with hendrick and Bryson in the middle of midfield and the wide players being Davies and Croft then it became Davies and Ward. We weren't until Bailey got injured. We played -------------------Fielding------------------- Brayford O'Brien Shackell The Irsih lad -----------------Bailey---------------------- Croft------------Ben Davies---------Ward ----------Bryson---------------------- -------------------Steve Davies---------- We played the back 4 with Bailey in front of them. three across the middle of Ben Davies, Croft and Ward who all interchanged and Bryson was just behind Steve Davies. Croft then had a bit of a dip and an injury and was ruled out just coming back from injury now. Bailey picked up an injury and this led to the 442 formation. Bryson had to drop back into the 442 and his movement behind the striker was taken away as he is better attacking than holding in the middle of the 4 as he is quick and had the time to support the striker which the holding position in the 4 does not allow in the midfield. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alph Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 I think Derby being one of the weakest teams in the division means we should pack the midfield. I mean weakest as in ball winning, as oppose to weak quality. We haven't got the aerial players to win the first ball and our success rate at winning the second ball is abysmal. OB's distribution is horrific, Barker a little better but still poor, we need to give these guys options because without a target man they shouldnt go long ball. A few more bodies in there would help out with distribution from the back and also maybe give us a chance of competing for the second ball (we must have the worse success rate for winning loose balls in midfield) Nigel also likes us to begin defending from the halfway line so I think 2 strikers are often wasted and bypassed when defending. Whether it be work rate or tactical our strikers rarely get behind the ball to help out. Robinson does sometimes tbf. I just want to see that midfield packed. 5 men to give options and overwhelm with numbers. Problem is, Bailey is always injured. Now Green is back he's got to play, I know it's rushing him back but we shouldn't have only 2 fit midfielders!! 4231 can easily be adapted without making subs either. ........... Hendrick.....Green............ Bavies/Cywka.......Bryson.......... Ward ..........loan Howard (anyone we can for now) Nigel is right, he's a couple of players short. Green and Hendrick aren't ideal DMs. Brysons energy would be wasted if he played in a restrictive DM. Bavies and Cywka can be a bit thick at times. We need a couple of players still don't we?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOB BIGGS Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 I think Derby being one of the weakest teams in the division means we should pack the midfield. I mean weakest as in ball winning, as oppose to weak quality. We haven't got the aerial players to win the first ball and our success rate at winning the second ball is abysmal. OB's distribution is horrific, Barker a little better but still poor, we need to give these guys options because without a target man they shouldnt go long ball. A few more bodies in there would help out with distribution from the back and also maybe give us a chance of competing for the second ball (we must have the worse success rate for winning loose balls in midfield) Nigel also likes us to begin defending from the halfway line so I think 2 strikers are often wasted and bypassed when defending. Whether it be work rate or tactical our strikers rarely get behind the ball to help out. Robinson does sometimes tbf. I just want to see that midfield packed. 5 men to give options and overwhelm with numbers. Problem is, Bailey is always injured. Now Green is back he's got to play, I know it's rushing him back but we shouldn't have only 2 fit midfielders!! 4231 can easily be adapted without making subs either. ........... Hendrick.....Green............ Bavies/Cywka.......Bryson.......... Ward ..........loan Howard (anyone we can for now) Nigel is right, he's a couple of players short. Green and Hendrick aren't ideal DMs. Brysons energy would be wasted if he played in a restrictive DM. Bavies and Cywka can be a bit thick at times. We need a couple of players still don't we?? Bang on! We needed them when we were on our winning streak but the results helped us [the Board] to look the other way. I don't take the view that everything that NC does is correct but he was the one who said we needed them then and I'm sure he hasn't changed his mind over the last 10 games. The problem is that we ain't got no dosh available [excuse poor English!] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Teale Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 We weren't until Bailey got injured. We played -------------------Fielding------------------- Brayford O'Brien Shackell The Irsih lad -----------------Bailey---------------------- Croft------------Ben Davies---------Ward ----------Bryson---------------------- -------------------Steve Davies---------- We played the back 4 with Bailey in front of them. three across the middle of Ben Davies, Croft and Ward who all interchanged and Bryson was just behind Steve Davies. Croft then had a bit of a dip and an injury and was ruled out just coming back from injury now. Bailey picked up an injury and this led to the 442 formation. Bryson had to drop back into the 442 and his movement behind the striker was taken away as he is better attacking than holding in the middle of the 4 as he is quick and had the time to support the striker which the holding position in the 4 does not allow in the midfield. Ive now looked it up and didnt realise Bailey had played that many games, for some reason its felt like he has been injured longer. Im a big Bailey fan so not suprised we are missing him. Which begs the question why when we were doing so well did the choose not to bring another midfielder in to replace Bailey and not swap the whole team around and change the system. Hasnt Clough got that wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex W Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 Bailey and Hendrick are similiar players. And I do believe Clough went for Oakley didn't he? Not a like for like replacement no but certainly someone to keep the game ticking over and playing the simple passes when sat behind the more advanced players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Teale Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 So he went for one player, that didnt solve the problem though did it? We were working well with both Bailey and Hendrick with Bryson playing further forward as Rotheram Ram pointed out so an injury led us to reshuffling personel and system and we havent been as good since. Dont you think we maybe should have got more cover in there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex W Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 So he went for one player, that didnt solve the problem though did it? We were working well with both Bailey and Hendrick with Bryson playing further forward as Rotheram Ram pointed out so an injury led us to reshuffling personel and system and we havent been as good since. Dont you think we maybe should have got more cover in there? I don't think it was working well personally, i'm not sure if you can remember the Ipswich game but with those two in the middle it was all pretty passing going forwards but no-one to stop the Ipswich players getting forward, if Liam Trotter and Danny N'guessan could finish we could have easily been 3-0 down in that first half. He made an attempt to get someone in and couldn't, whether he decided it wasn't worth chasing or he just had the one target in mind is up for debate. With the attacking options we had at the time and the fact that Bryson can play there and probably add more bite to things then i'm not sure it required a loan in for first team action though. Clough has said before that we're light in centre-midfield and we were linked with a few players, plus the move for Oakley, so I think it's something Nigel was looking at but didn't see as that much of a priority. To be honest, moving Bryson should've meant that Cywka could've played somethere in that attacking three, not sure why that never happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.