4-4-2 was Irrelevant, we we're just rubbish! - Ricketts.

SAM Ricketts reckons poor individual performances and not a second-half change in system cost Wanderers at least a share of the points at Carrow Road.

The full-back believes his side were well placed to get something from the game after Owen Coyle opted to switch to a two-man strikeforce, sending Kevin Davies on for midfielder Fabrice Muamba.

Just 13 minutes later, Andrew Surman broke the deadlock, but Ricketts refused to blame the tactical switch for the change in fortune.

“I don’t think you can blame the system because as players, if you’re bob on your game, you should go out and win it no matter what,” he said.

“When Davo came on he did well and we looked more like creating something. We started the second half a lot better than we did the first, and I thought we were going to push on and win the game from there.

“We needed to try and keep it a stalemate at one end and try to nick something at the other,”

More here... [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The thing is that rightly or wrongly Coyle went to a system that (with the players involved) as failed disastrously for well over twelve months now!

I simply don't see a front two of Davies and Ngog being effective - maybe that is just me though.

A midfield without Muamba - of Petrov, Eagles and Mark Davies is simply too weak for Reo-Coker - on his own - defend the back four.

Knight imo has been a liability - a potential accident waiting to happen in every game he plays.

For me therefore there is a weakness in attack, midfield and defence with the above named players in this system - and as they account for about half of the team - is it any wonder that people expect the inevitable defeat when Coyle goes to 4-4-2?

It's not like it's a one off - we've lost about THIRTY games playing this system with these players over the last year or so.

I simply can't understand why Coyle continues to keep on playing it with the same players?

Ream, Sordell and Ryo could be the answer to our prayers. Let's bloody hope so!

Sam has a point though - but I bet he was referring specifically to Eagles, not that anyone else was particularly brilliant.

The thing is, if we are shit at 4-4-2 (as we have already proven) and BKD is not as mobile or effective as he used to be (as we have already proven) why give away a probable point in search of three points, using BKD as the additional striker?

I would have probably gotten some pace on the pitch with instructions to keep the ball in the opposing final third as much as possible to see if we could create something, if I wasn't satisfied with the potential point to be gained by playing 4-5-1.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

One of the things I didn't understand was that Coyle named three strikers on the bench - Davies, Tuncay and Sordell - yet played just a lone striker for much of the game - who must have been getting knackered as the second half went on.

Why then didn't he play two fresh strikers rather than bring Tuncay on as a winger (why does he do that - it simply doesn't work - he's tried it enough times to know that)?

What’s the point in bringing on someone who can win the ball in the air - then take off one of the main suppliers of crosses to him in the very next substitution?

I just can't see any logic in what Coyle does - I simply don't think he has any kind of a game plan if the strategy he kicks off the game with isn't working.

I know it is easy to criticise and all that but I can't see any thought behind what Coyle does must of the time - just looks like blind panicking to me.

I can't think what possesed Coyle to ever play Tuncay out wide in the first place, I haven't studied his career but I am sure he has always been either up front or just behind the striker for other clubs.

I am not having this 4-4-2 was irrelevant rubbish either, I can see why Coyle did it but it left us wide open from the moment he did it as Mark Davies never adjusted to slotting back into the centre of the park with NRC, which in turn left us pretty much having 3 players in the middle and m.davies sitting behind the strikers.

If we ever want Mark Davies to "come good" we will need to play him in the Messi Zone.

the strip of pitch just behind the striker about 5 yards away from the 18 yard box.

it also means having midfielders behind him who can either, pass the ball (we don't have that) or who are strictly defensive.

I think he will benefit from having Holden back, having NRC and Holden behind him will bring the best out of him i'm sure.

Going slightly off topic but I am starting to see a lot of Elmander in N'gogs performances, which is worrying me, all effort but no end product.

It's very simple - Davies and N'Gog does not cry out, GOALS!
It's an incredibly lame partnership that could take us down if we had to rely on it for the rest of the season.
We looked more creative playing 4-4-2 with Davies and N'gog yet somehow, no more likely to score. Headers were being won, but for nobody nearby to get onto. Loose balls were being picked up but by nobody who could truly threatened the Norwich goal. Such is the lack of real footballing quality in that strike partnership. Like many, Coyle overestimates the usefulness of Davies as a weapon. Even with him at the best he can be isn't necessarily the best way to go about attacking. If we wanted to go for it, was bringing on a player with pace (Sordell) not a better idea than bringing on a player that wins knock-downs when we don't have players that are going to make the most of them?

I think we should go 4-4-2 on Saturday, not a fan of playing 1 man up front at home, especially against weaker sides who are there for the taking.

My problem with Coyle now is that if he did go 4-4-2 you can guarantee he wouldn't play N'gog and Sordell with each other before N'gog and Davies.

I disagree we need to go 4-5-1, I'd stick with Ngog too. I wonder if Sordell could fill into the Eagles role.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Where Messi picks up the ball here is exclusively where Mark Davies should be playing his football.

I.E His role should change from "midfielder" to "Striker"

Hipster_Nebula wrote:I disagree we need to go 4-5-1, I'd stick with Ngog too. I wonder if Sordell could fill into the Eagles role.

I personally can't wait for Lee to come back, there is just something abouth Eagles that I don't like.

As for the 4-5-1, I think it works against teams like Liverpool & Arsenal but I just think having 1 up front against Wigan isn't the way to go, however our midfield seems to shine when Muamba, NRC and M.davies play together.

I agree with the 4-5-1 formation, but our problem is supporting an airy-fairy striker who won't go in on a tackle, or let their defenders know he's about. It would be nice if Sordell turned out to be the finisher, with Ngog supporting, The problem is that I don't think OC has the confidence to let the two play together, without dragging in SKD somewhere. I also think that playing Davies was meant to show that he (OC) did the right thing by not selling him, although we all know that didn't work

I think we certainly need to adpot the 4-5-1 formation against the better sides in the leauge. Maybe we can change to Coyle's favoured 4-4-2 formation against Wigan?

We have obviously been dire, this season playing the 4-4-2 formation. I don't know whether we could perhaps try NRC & Muamba together in the centre and then play with 2 wide men. This would mean dropping either Eagles, Petrov or Mavies.

Eagles/Mavies----NRC----Muamba----Petrov/Ryo

N'Gog----Sordell

Does Mavies play well on the wing?

[quote="gloswhite"]Not really, but neither does Eagles, most of the time, imo.

agreed