Darren Bent

[JJ-AV]

In any case how many different ways of playing are we going have to adopt in order to get the best out of him, Bent, Ireland, Albrighton and Gabby? It's a team game and the players have to fit into that, not the other way round.

Maybe that's the problem?

N'Zogbia - signed by McLeish
Bent - signed by Houllier
Gabby & Super Marc - developed by K-Mac & Sid, with Gabby then adapted to the first team by MON and Marc by Houllier 
Ireland - signed without a manager

There's a lack of consistency of approach there, which is understandable when you look at the managerial changes we've had since MON walked 18 months ago.  which is one of the reasons I think we have to give AM some time and back him in the market to evolve the squad as he wants.  The big question is, whether it be him or someone else, the money is there to do that?

That's a fair point.

[Dante Lavelli]

Someone on here was sat next to Roberto Martinez at one of our matches recently, and engaged him in conversation.

Martinez was telling him how we weren't playing CNZ in the right way to get the best out of him. Maybe Alex could give Martinez a bell and ask him.

Didn't he play a free roll/ second striker roll at Wigan and sometimes at Newcastle? He seemed to have been falling into that roll with Gabby up front and playing better. He's another one on why we don't seem to have a forward formation that works when all our players are fit.

A wigan fan came on here after we signed him and said his best position whilst at Wigan was as a right sided player.  I am not sure whether that means as a winger, midfielder or just off the striker.  Whichever, it appears he, like gabby, is better coming in off the wing onto their stronger foot.  That might mean less crosses for Bent, regardless he'll be there to rap in the rebound.

[Concrete John]

I think his best games for us so far have been on the left.

[Ad@m]

In any case how many different ways of playing are we going have to adopt in order to get the best out of him, Bent, Ireland, Albrighton and Gabby? It's a team game and the players have to fit into that, not the other way round.

Blimey, you really do have the same tactical nouse as MON.  Saying 'that's the way I want to play and the players will just have to fit in to it' is how you end up with midfielder/centre halves playing right back/left back, etc.

Surely a manager's primary objective is to get the most out of the players at his disposal and I don't see how you can do that without playing to their strengths?

[Concrete John]

The issue is that a manager will evolve the squad to match how he wants to play, hence MON buying big strikers and wingers who can cross.  AM has not had that luxury and instead has needed to try and blend together a set of forward players bought by different managers for different systems, as I mentioned above.

[andrew08]

The issue is that a manager will evolve the squad to match how he wants to play, hence MON buying big strikers and wingers who can cross.  AM has not had that luxury and instead has needed to try and blend together a set of forward players bought by different managers for different systems, as I mentioned above.

Good Point !

I don't believe Randy will not back Alex this window. It makes no sense I'm convinced we will spend biggish money. Otherwise he's just leaving the guy out to dry.

The other issue to me is I also don't think he's(AM) anywhere near to either gaining or losing the fans support, most people haven't made their minds up yet and can see what he's had to deal with. I don't believe he's had anywhere near what he had to spend over the road yet let alone MON/GH type budgets

The away crowd are probably happy with recent results I would imagine  and lets be honest if you're a long term season ticket holder of our club this current situation is nothing new !

[Concrete John]

I don't believe Randy will not back Alex this window. It makes no sense I'm convinced we will spend biggish money. Otherwise he's just leaving the guy out to dry.

I agree, but think it will be in the summer window.  If wages is our issue then the players reaching the end of big contracts give both McLeigh and Randy room to move again, but not until they go.

If that isn't the case then he really has left his manager up shit creek!

[Merv]

I don't believe Randy will not back Alex this window. It makes no sense I'm convinced we will spend biggish money. Otherwise he's just leaving the guy out to dry.

Bet he doesn't. Why does he need to give McLeish money to spend? All is going well for Randy. We don't look like we're going down, we're managing to put a squad together for every game, we win a match occasionally enough to stay away from the lower reaches of the league. It's hard to accept, because we want to see good football and exciting players and achievement on the field, but that's not what this season is about... and maybe not the next few seasons, either.

[MarkM]

I don't believe Randy will not back Alex this window. It makes no sense I'm convinced we will spend biggish money. Otherwise he's just leaving the guy out to dry.

Bet he doesn't. Why does he need to give McLeish money to spend? All is going well for Randy. We don't look like we're going down, we're managing to put a squad together for every game, we win a match occasionally enough to stay away from the lower reaches of the league. It's hard to accept, because we want to see good football and exciting players and achievement on the field, but that's not what this season is about... and maybe not the next few seasons, either.

Mcliesh has said already that he has to sell to buy.

That does not sound like someone who has money to spend.

We will probably just get a couple on loan

[pauliewalnuts]

The issue is that a manager will evolve the squad to match how he wants to play, hence MON buying big strikers and wingers who can cross.  AM has not had that luxury and instead has needed to try and blend together a set of forward players bought by different managers for different systems, as I mentioned above.

That's true.

However, AM did buy N'Zogbia, so I'm not entirely sure that excuse is valid there.

Even thought he'd be playing with players AM didn't buy, it'd be nice to think he had an idea how he was going to use him with his other assets when signing him.

[Concrete John]

I think the initial plan was a 4-3-3 with CNZ and Gabby wide of Bent.  Didn't I hear somewhere about AM trying to model it on the Dutch national side?  Problem was that we were too narrow, his use of Heskey behind bent and Charlie struggling for form early on.  Then, when Bent got injured we played better in more of a 4-2-3-1 formation as his form picked up, as did Marc's and Ireland's. 

So I reckon 4-3-3 was the plan, and maybe still is, but it hasn't been a roaring succes.

[KRS]

The issue is that a manager will evolve the squad to match how he wants to play, hence MON buying big strikers and wingers who can cross.  AM has not had that luxury and instead has needed to try and blend together a set of forward players bought by different managers for different systems, as I mentioned above.

Sorry but I have to take issue with this. Most new managers up and down the country across all the divisions have to and are expected to make the best of what they've got initially. AM cant be blamed for the group of players at his disposal (such as Ireland, Bent, Gabby and Albrighton) but its not exactly a bad hand to be dealt with and its his job to get them to work and play as a team regardless of who signed them. In additon to this he also had an initial (albeit relatively small) budget to bring in 4 players of his own choice.

The squad clearly needs improving particularly in defence and midfield, but please dont make new excuses for AM for not getting the best out of the players initially or currently at his disposal. Would the other new managers such as Hodgson, Pardew, Boas, Daglish, Jol or even MON be able to get better results and performances given the same hand that AM has been dealt?

[Monty]

I think the initial plan was a 4-3-3 with CNZ and Gabby wide of Bent.  Didn't I hear somewhere about AM trying to model it on the Dutch national side?  Problem was that we were too narrow, his use of Heskey behind bent and Charlie struggling for form early on.  Then, when Bent got injured we played better in more of a 4-2-3-1 formation as his form picked up, as did Marc's and Ireland's. 

So I reckon 4-3-3 was the plan, and maybe still is, but it hasn't been a roaring succes.

System and game plan have to go hand in hand, it's no use playing the most modern, up-to-date formation if you don't know (or just plain don't) execute an appropriate strategy. MON-ball may have been a little outdated, but his functional 4-4-2 with pace on the wings and a midfield with energy and an out-ball is perfect for counter-attacking. System and style must be complementary.

What I guess I'm saying is that, even if Eck were to try to play that 4-3-3, the fact that he played Heskey in that middle three and, in the words of Zog earlier in the season, tried to "hit the striker early" shows that he either doesn't know how to execute the strategy appropriate to the formation or at the very least just got it wrong at that point. There's no point having a midfield good on the ground and inverted wingers good at cutting in on the diagonal if you encourage (or perhaps more tellingly, don't discourage) your defence and keeper to smack it down field when they get it, thus conceding possession. Our approach is confused and seems based less on a genuine, consistent approach and more on inconsistent and conflicting received wisdom and just 'doing things the way they're done', which is no good to anyone really.

[Concrete John]

The issue is that a manager will evolve the squad to match how he wants to play, hence MON buying big strikers and wingers who can cross.  AM has not had that luxury and instead has needed to try and blend together a set of forward players bought by different managers for different systems, as I mentioned above.

Sorry but I have to take issue with this. Most new managers up and down the country across all the divisions have to and are expected to make the best of what they've got initially. AM cant be blamed for the group of players at his disposal (such as Ireland, Bent, Gabby and Albrighton) but its not exactly a bad hand to be dealt with and its his job to get them to work and play as a team regardless of who signed them. In additon to this he also had an initial (albeit relatively small) budget to bring in 4 players of his own choice.

The squad clearly needs improving particularly in defence and midfield, but please dont make new excuses for AM for not getting the best out of the players initially or currently at his disposal. Would the other new managers such as Hodgson, Pardew, Boas, Daglish, Jol or even MON be able to get better results and performances given the same hand that AM has been dealt?

The point I made was in relation to the formation/pattern of play, not getting the most out of the players.  I agree they're capable of more and it's the manager's job to get it out of them.

[Concrete John]

I think the initial plan was a 4-3-3 with CNZ and Gabby wide of Bent.  Didn't I hear somewhere about AM trying to model it on the Dutch national side?  Problem was that we were too narrow, his use of Heskey behind bent and Charlie struggling for form early on.  Then, when Bent got injured we played better in more of a 4-2-3-1 formation as his form picked up, as did Marc's and Ireland's. 

So I reckon 4-3-3 was the plan, and maybe still is, but it hasn't been a roaring succes.

System and game plan have to go hand in hand, it's no use playing the most modern, up-to-date formation if you don't know (or just plain don't) execute an appropriate strategy. MON-ball may have been a little outdated, but his functional 4-4-2 with pace on the wings and a midfield with energy and an out-ball is perfect for counter-attacking. System and style must be complementary.

What I guess I'm saying is that, even if Eck were to try to play that 4-3-3, the fact that he played Heskey in that middle three and, in the words of Zog earlier in the season, tried to "hit the striker early" shows that he either doesn't know how to execute the strategy appropriate to the formation or at the very least just got it wrong at that point. There's no point having a midfield good on the ground and inverted wingers good at cutting in on the diagonal if you encourage (or perhaps more tellingly, don't discourage) your defence and keeper to smack it down field when they get it, thus conceding possession. Our approach is confused and seems based less on a genuine, consistent approach and more on inconsistent and conflicting received wisdom and just 'doing things the way they're done', which is no good to anyone really.

It's an old argument on here, but I personally think the 'hoof' (if ever there was a word to be banned on H&V, that's it!) is a symptom of the lack of movement from the midfield, not least in part due to his inclusion of Emile in that midfield.  It's no coincidence that our recent better play has come with Clark playing as a deep lying midfielder, thereby providing a passing option we didn't have previously. 

So I think it's at least partly personnel issue, but I'd like to think they've got more used to what's being asked of them and we're slowly getting better at it.