Worst attacking options since January 2000

[Forbury Lion]

We didn't win the last 9 games of Coppell's reign playing 4-4-2

Yet you conveniently forget about the rest of the season, where we at times looked capable of beating anyone and played excellent football. And you forget about the years before that, and all the good results it brought us.
106 points! You just CAN NOT beat that for arguments, and we beat the likes of Liverpool, are you going to say you did not enjoy it?
The style of play we now have can only bring more Tommy Burns'ish results, and the transfer policy is a joke. We sold our best players and kept Kebe, if you call that a success.. well... good luck to you.

Rodgers revolution? NO, Rodgers RELEGATION.

4-4-2 relies on effective wingers. We don't have that any more. We must adapt.

4-5-1relies on an effective striker. We don't have that any more. We must adapt.

[Ryn]

Owned, TBH.

[papereyes]

I don't think he had been playing football for very long tbf to him, he was more into hurling wasn't it?

Yup, he was the first person to play both Gaelic and English sports at Croke Park.

[Vision]

4-5-1relies on an effective striker. We don't have that any more. We must adapt.

It relies on more than just that. It also relies on those players entrusted to support and create space and opportunities doing just that. Something which Kebe at Barnsley apart hasn't happened. Hunt can play and be effective in this system in my opinion but its whether the wider forward players can do their job thats up for debate for me.

Being a lone striker doesn't necessarily mean you have to do everything yourself even if our previous experience of it with Forster appeared to work that way.

[papereyes]

Its going to bring a few numpties out of their shells but imo Andy Hughes was as important to the success of that 4-5-1 as anyone else, bar Forster

[Vision]

Its going to bring a few numpties out of their shells but imo Andy Hughes was as important to the success of that 4-5-1 as anyone else, bar Forster

Absolutely.

In fact , as much as we missed Forster from that play-off semi at home to Wolves we also lost out because Pardew moved Hughes from his position and played him in the "Forster Role" .

[Man Friday]

OK, we haven't got strikers who can score from virtually nothing (ala Drogba at the weekend) but it's been the supply that has been the main problem with only half-chances being created. Also, due to not getting bods in the box quick enough when we do attack down the wings (which admittedly is rare).

[papereyes]

Its going to bring a few numpties out of their shells but imo Andy Hughes was as important to the success of that 4-5-1 as anyone else, bar Forster

Absolutely.

In fact , as much as we missed Forster from that play-off semi at home to Wolves we also lost out because Pardew moved Hughes from his position and played him in the "Forster Role" .

With Henderson, a potential replacement for Forster out on the wing, if memory serves.

[Negative_Jeff]

Its going to bring a few numpties out of their shells but imo Andy Hughes was as important to the success of that 4-5-1 as anyone else, bar Forster

Absolutely.

In fact , as much as we missed Forster from that play-off semi at home to Wolves we also lost out because Pardew moved Hughes from his position and played him in the "Forster Role" .

Yes, a change was forced upon Pardew and he should have gone 4-4-2 with Cureton and Henderson.
Conversely, Barnsley have been the only team we have repeatedly got behind this season so an unforced change by Rodgers in moving Sigurdsson after a good performance by him up there made little sense.

[wolsey]

Yes, a change was forced upon Pardew and he should have gone 4-4-2 with Cureton and Henderson.
Conversely, Barnsley have been the only team we have repeatedly got behind this season so an unforced change by Rodgers in moving Sigurdsson after a good performance by him up there made little sense.

One of the problems that Rodgers is facing this season: his desire to prove how good he is.

Patience is the key word here.

If Rodgers is the Coach he thinks he is, (and most of us hope that he is) he needs to give himself more time to work out the problem without making vainglorious statements and/or promising things that are (at least) difficult to deliver.

He reminds me of an Ian Botham/Andrew Flintoff type of cricketer. Talking himself up before a crucial match, stressing the need to be focussed, and the need for team strength, but then going in at 19 for 5, trying to hit every ball for 6.

[SteveRoyal]

You forgot about Mooney.

[Vision]

Its going to bring a few numpties out of their shells but imo Andy Hughes was as important to the success of that 4-5-1 as anyone else, bar Forster

Absolutely.

In fact , as much as we missed Forster from that play-off semi at home to Wolves we also lost out because Pardew moved Hughes from his position and played him in the "Forster Role" .

Yes, a change was forced upon Pardew and he should have gone 4-4-2 with Cureton and Henderson.
Conversely, Barnsley have been the only team we have repeatedly got behind this season so an unforced change by Rodgers in moving Sigurdsson after a good performance by him up there made little sense.

Of course the other problem was that the natural replacement for Forster would have been Tyson but he'd got himself sent off so wasn't available. You know I've just looked this up on Soccerbase and it has Cureton as starting that game which I quite honestly can't remember so probably he did play as the lone striker rather than Hughes.

Agree about Siggurdsson as well. I just think at the moment Rodgers is trying to be a little too clever rather than trying to give some stability and consistency to a side that has already gone through a massive amount of changes.

[Hoop Blah]

You were right about Hughes Vision.

I seem to remember Hughes played upfront in Forsters role (because of his pace and similar running power I guess) and Cureton played behind him in Hughes traditional role.

[Archie's penalty]

I just think at the moment Rodgers is trying to be a little too clever rather than trying to give some stability and consistency to a side that has already gone through a massive amount of changes.

Completely agree Vision. He's new to this managerial malarkey and he needs to remember that stability is crucial to any successful team.

He can mix and match when he's got a team that is working and is settled, but it's a bit silly to be doing that before. (although you could say he needs to mix and match to find his best team).

[papereyes]

You were right about Hughes Vision.

I seem to remember Hughes played upfront in Forsters role (because of his pace and similar running power I guess) and Cureton played behind him in Hughes traditional role.

THAT'S THE WRONG WAY ROUND

[Vision]

You were right about Hughes Vision.

I seem to remember Hughes played upfront in Forsters role (because of his pace and similar running power I guess) and Cureton played behind him in Hughes traditional role.

THAT'S THE WRONG WAY ROUND

Thats the odd thing. My memory is that Hughes played as the lone forward in that game. However that same memory totally fails to remember Cureton playing at all, yet does recall Henderson playing out on the left.

[papereyes]

I remember Henderson on the left.

Its interesting that he chose to stick with the formation when perhaps the players didn't suit it (due to injury and suspension)

[Vision]

I remember Henderson on the left.

Its interesting that he chose to stick with the formation when perhaps the players didn't suit it (due to injury and suspension)

Exactly. You look at that team on paper and its a no-brainer 4-4-2 with Henderson/Cureton up front and Hughes moves out to the left.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing obviously and I guess we'd had so much success with the 4-5-1 that he was reluctant to change a winning system but looking coldly at it now it seems positively bizarre.

[Hoop Blah]

You were right about Hughes Vision.

I seem to remember Hughes played upfront in Forsters role (because of his pace and similar running power I guess) and Cureton played behind him in Hughes traditional role.

THAT'S THE WRONG WAY ROUND

Don't tell me that, go back and tell Pardew!!

I can understand why he did it, but it wasn't ever really going to work well. A bit like when he played Cureton wide midfield at Cambridge.

[Archie's penalty]

Or like when Sven brought on Teddy at right wing against Brazil in 2002.