By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
The more you think about it, the more it makes sense.
Whichever players play wide, we get more out of them as their jobs become simple - stay wide, help the full back, get crosses into TWO strikers.
The midfield two get the ball and look for a ball into two options up top or go wide. In the current formation they may have more options but it's all becoming too complicated and cluttered. We need simple. The players we have should be more than capable of playing in a two, I hate that argument that they'll get overrun; professional players should cope with less numbers if they can choose the correct options.
Up front someone like Andrew will have a partner who can play off him and there will hopefully be more crosses of quality into the box, rather than relying on fullbacks doing it. McNulty must have put over more crosses than anyone this season, and he's not good enough at it. Also, Henderson can be a proper striker in a front two, and if he can't find form he can be out wide or on the bench.
4-4-2 has been proven not to be an obsolete idea in recent times, and it needn't be the ultimate answer. However, right now we're over-thinking the questions.
The more you think about it, the more it makes sense.
Whichever players play wide, we get more out of them as their jobs become simple - stay wide, help the full back, get crosses into TWO strikers.
The midfield two get the ball and look for a ball into two options up top or go wide. In the current formation they may have more options but it's all becoming too complicated and cluttered. We need simple. The players we have should be more than capable of playing in a two, I hate that argument that they'll get overrun; professional players should cope with less numbers if they can choose the correct options.
Up front someone like Andrew will have a partner who can play off him and there will hopefully be more crosses of quality into the box, rather than relying on fullbacks doing it. McNulty must have put over more crosses than anyone this season, and he's not good enough at it. Also, Henderson can be a proper striker in a front two, and if he can't find form he can be out wide or on the bench.
4-4-2 has been proven not to be an obsolete idea in recent times, and it needn't be the ultimate answer. However, right now we're over-thinking the questions.
It'll be interesting to see what happens once Keane's ready to play.
If his role is defensive midfield, that'll surely result in Henderson being pushed further forward, since Allen Lund and/or Camps will be taking up the other midfield positions.
Unfortunately, Cannon's injury puts a spoke in the wheel, unless Vincenti is fit to start, in which case I can see Keane taking that spot, to begin with at least.
I'd have either Davies or Andrew plus Henderson playing just off whichever one.
The thing is, we've got options, and decent ones. That's why there's no need for anyone to get too despondent just yet. We just don't know what our best line-up is. Our midweek bounce game against the Sunderland U11's might help in that respect.
It'll be interesting to see what happens once Keane's ready to play.
If his role is defensive midfield, that'll surely result in Henderson being pushed further forward, since Allen Lund and/or Camps will be taking up the other midfield positions.
Unfortunately, Cannon's injury puts a spoke in the wheel, unless Vincenti is fit to start, in which case I can see Keane taking that spot, to begin with at least.
I'd have either Davies or Andrew plus Henderson playing just off whichever one.
The thing is, we've got options, and decent ones. That's why there's no need for anyone to get too despondent just yet. We just don't know what our best line-up is. Our midweek bounce game against the Sunderland U11's might help in that respect.
We do need to get back to a basic 4-4-2 but we have no left back (Hill won't play Tanser). Our cover for right back is far better played as a midfielder. We have 100000 midfielders who are of the same mould i.e play centrally. Our striking options are less than woeful and if we were in league two it would remain that way.
The starting XI from last season isn't changed much but the squad as a whole is very much worse than it was then.
It'll be interesting to see what happens once Keane's ready to play.
If his role is defensive midfield, that'll surely result in Henderson being pushed further forward, since Allen Lund and/or Camps will be taking up the other midfield positions.
Unfortunately, Cannon's injury puts a spoke in the wheel, unless Vincenti is fit to start, in which case I can see Keane taking that spot, to begin with at least.
I'd have either Davies or Andrew plus Henderson playing just off whichever one.
The thing is, we've got options, and decent ones. That's why there's no need for anyone to get too despondent just yet. We just don't know what our best line-up is. Our midweek bounce game against the Sunderland U11's might help in that respect.
Team for Tuesday, the game could be useful if only to try something new.
Any player not involved should be made to watch and see how they'd fit into that, because as you say there are options. The players themselves should be able to picture how they could contribute in such a formation. Can't be stressed how simple that is.
It'll be interesting to see what happens once Keane's ready to play.
If his role is defensive midfield, that'll surely result in Henderson being pushed further forward, since Allen Lund and/or Camps will be taking up the other midfield positions.
Unfortunately, Cannon's injury puts a spoke in the wheel, unless Vincenti is fit to start, in which case I can see Keane taking that spot, to begin with at least.
I'd have either Davies or Andrew plus Henderson playing just off whichever one.
The thing is, we've got options, and decent ones. That's why there's no need for anyone to get too despondent just yet. We just don't know what our best line-up is. Our midweek bounce game against the Sunderland U11's might help in that respect.
I must say as I listened to some of the commentary it beggars belief we are so poor results wise,we have some quality players who seem baffled and weighed down by wild complicated tactics,Hilly needs to lay off the ridiculous courses they all attend and keep a simple game just that....
I must say as I listened to some of the commentary it beggars belief we are so poor results wise,we have some quality players who seem baffled and weighed down by wild complicated tactics,Hilly needs to lay off the ridiculous courses they all attend and keep a simple game just that....
Hill acknowledged in the interview after that they didn't want to give the players too much information. By trying something basic, a formation any player should know how to play, that would support the manager's thoughts.
Hill acknowledged in the interview after that they didn't want to give the players too much information. By trying something basic, a formation any player should know how to play, that would support the manager's thoughts.
Was that the full interview or the two minutes on YouTube?:
KH was in no-panic mode: "we're not in a bad run of form but in a bad run of results" - there's not a lot that's wrong and he believes in the players we've got.
At least he's not claiming we've been unlucky, which seems to be the last refuge of the desperate manager. But last season I thought we'd got away (if not "lucky" to do so) with several players scoring a few goals and had managed without a consistent goalscorer (most of Hendo's 13 were penalties).
Still, I'm still expecting Coventry to be the first L1 club to sack their manager, and at least we'll not have to worry that Keith Hill will be offered the job.
Edit: Don't know why the PRE-match interview came up. Will try again:
I am not saying it was THE reason for our turnaround last season and I'm not suggesting it works without having the right players. But we were rock bottom in November playing variations of 4-5-1. It was as bad as I've ever seen, in fact it reminded me of our sie in late 2012 when Keith was sacked.
Hammill came in, LJ finally trusted Hourihane in a two, and we just became a frightening side to play against. If you saw Barnsley at Spotland playing 4-5-1 and then saw the return fixture at Oakwell, 4-4-2, you'd realise the difference. We gave up more of the ball, but we attacked with pace, broke on sides who faffed with the ball in midfield.
It didn't always work. We lost two or three games. But we went from bottom to 6th, won the playoff final, the JPT and now we're 3rd in the division above having changed nothing, yet lost Mawson, Isgrove, Fletcher and Brownhill.
There'll be some luck involved, although I can't recall too many obvious examples. It was just a real change of focus. Simple football/tactics. And once you get on a run (good or bad) it can go on for ages.
We will probably hit shit form sooner or later, but the last 9 months have been thrilling. I never want to see that three in the centre bollocks again, tippy tappy football, possession without reason, losing 1-0 to a set piece or mistake late on. Playing 'well' but losing.
Logan
Raff McGahey Canavan Tanser
Pete V Allen Camps NML
Calv Hendo
However.... Keith never played 4-4-2 when our gaffer. Has he done so at Dale?
I am not saying it was THE reason for our turnaround last season and I'm not suggesting it works without having the right players. But we were rock bottom in November playing variations of 4-5-1. It was as bad as I've ever seen, in fact it reminded me of our sie in late 2012 when Keith was sacked.
Hammill came in, LJ finally trusted Hourihane in a two, and we just became a frightening side to play against. If you saw Barnsley at Spotland playing 4-5-1 and then saw the return fixture at Oakwell, 4-4-2, you'd realise the difference. We gave up more of the ball, but we attacked with pace, broke on sides who faffed with the ball in midfield.
It didn't always work. We lost two or three games. But we went from bottom to 6th, won the playoff final, the JPT and now we're 3rd in the division above having changed nothing, yet lost Mawson, Isgrove, Fletcher and Brownhill.
There'll be some luck involved, although I can't recall too many obvious examples. It was just a real change of focus. Simple football/tactics. And once you get on a run (good or bad) it can go on for ages.
We will probably hit shit form sooner or later, but the last 9 months have been thrilling. I never want to see that three in the centre bollocks again, tippy tappy football, possession without reason, losing 1-0 to a set piece or mistake late on. Playing 'well' but losing.
Logan
Raff McGahey Canavan Tanser
Pete V Allen Camps NML
Calv Hendo
However.... Keith never played 4-4-2 when our gaffer. Has he done so at Dale?
Plenty of times.
When he took over in 2007 we blew teams away with it.
Wembley season with Perkins and Jones in midfield.
Promotion 2010: Taylor and Kennedy in the middle, COG and Dagnall up front.
Promotion 2014: there were various instances of it, people forget that Donnelly or Cummins would regularly partner Hogan up front with Henderon and Vincenti wide.
It's when we've been in L1 that we have found different ways of playing, and they've been successful, however I can see no reason why we can't try 4-4-2 again now. Not as though it's going to produce a downturn in results.
I am not saying it was THE reason for our turnaround last season and I'm not suggesting it works without having the right players. But we were rock bottom in November playing variations of 4-5-1. It was as bad as I've ever seen, in fact it reminded me of our sie in late 2012 when Keith was sacked.
Hammill came in, LJ finally trusted Hourihane in a two, and we just became a frightening side to play against. If you saw Barnsley at Spotland playing 4-5-1 and then saw the return fixture at Oakwell, 4-4-2, you'd realise the difference. We gave up more of the ball, but we attacked with pace, broke on sides who faffed with the ball in midfield.
It didn't always work. We lost two or three games. But we went from bottom to 6th, won the playoff final, the JPT and now we're 3rd in the division above having changed nothing, yet lost Mawson, Isgrove, Fletcher and Brownhill.
There'll be some luck involved, although I can't recall too many obvious examples. It was just a real change of focus. Simple football/tactics. And once you get on a run (good or bad) it can go on for ages.
We will probably hit shit form sooner or later, but the last 9 months have been thrilling. I never want to see that three in the centre bollocks again, tippy tappy football, possession without reason, losing 1-0 to a set piece or mistake late on. Playing 'well' but losing.
Logan
Raff McGahey Canavan Tanser
Pete V Allen Camps NML
Calv Hendo
However.... Keith never played 4-4-2 when our gaffer. Has he done so at Dale?
Didn't your luck change in a JPT game v York? Hopefully ours does on Tuesday.
Its a BRILLIANT goal to cap a BRILLIANT start by Rochdale - Don Goodman 26/08/10
Agree with the OP. Hendo is our best finisher and while it's fine to play him in the no 10 role as he does have the skills, it does deprive us of our most likely goalscorer being in the positions to score goals. It's OK if you've got a Lineker sort of player ahead but we haven't.
Next game - current back 4, Allen and Lund, then Nml Donal Davies Hendo. Get at em
Agree with the OP. Hendo is our best finisher and while it's fine to play him in the no 10 role as he does have the skills, it does deprive us of our most likely goalscorer being in the positions to score goals. It's OK if you've got a Lineker sort of player ahead but we haven't.
Next game - current back 4, Allen and Lund, then Nml Donal Davies Hendo. Get at em
Is that your team selection against the Black Kittens on Tuesday or Bristol Rovers?
Suspect Hilly will try something different on Tuesday ........maybe down to injuries.
Tbh I reckon hill isn't the man for Dale, he's a egotistical tool, a few more defeats he will walk
Could you let us know which other managers out there are available and have a decent track record of working with a low budget and producing successful sides?
If he's not the man, presumably there's a name of somebody who is?
Please provide all stats to back up such an opinion.
There are lower league clubs :et all Stockport,fc united, Salford city -who are getting gates of 1500 plus.I know that doesnt really detract from how many Rocdale get but it does count.
Could you let us know which other managers out there are available and have a decent track record of working with a low budget and producing successful sides?
If he's not the man, presumably there's a name of somebody who is?
Please provide all stats to back up such an opinion.
Every dog has his day, hills had great times at Dale but his last pre game interview should've set the alarm bells ringing, would love him at gigg in the future, so I'm not a bitter bury fan
Every dog has his day, hills had great times at Dale but his last pre game interview should've set the alarm bells ringing, would love him at gigg in the future, so I'm not a bitter bury fan
Right, ok. But who's the man for Dale?
You may have a well reasoned argument that we can all enjoy reading.
Not convinced about this central defensive partnership, I think we are seriously missing Eastham - a massive mistake not tying him up on another contract IMO.
Not convinced about this central defensive partnership, I think we are seriously missing Eastham - a massive mistake not tying him up on another contract IMO.
There's not a lot we could do when Fleetwood come in and gasump us
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
