Manager Paul Lambert

[Big_John_10]

Really!!!!! At half time in that game GABBY AGBONLAHOR and ANDREAS WEIMANN came on!!! having both been recently out injured!!!

Haha shouting your point. Good one.

So how did things work previously with them in the team? Funny how we scored so many more goals once they were played in that system.

And also, when they came on, there is no way we were playing the 433 we played for the rest of the season

Haha, if you say so.

the only defenders left were Lowton, Baker and Clark

I was right you didn't see the game. We had those 3 and Vlaar playing in that game.

As I pointed out to you way back, our poor form also funnily coincided with a period when we were relying on the likes of Herd, Lichaj and Bannan in the team

Our poor form started from the start of the season until we made that system change half time against Newcastle so like your point about gabby and weimman it's rubbish.

using the formation, which by the way has got us results at Liverpool, some decent enough points after that performance, and recently against Man City.

Agreed. Doesn't change the fact we looked a completely different team when we made that system change.

[praisedmambo]

 

Agreed. Doesn't change the fact we looked a completely different team when we made that system change.

 

 

I missed Vlaar. Ok, so we DID go 433 in that game. That's fine.

 

With my last post I went on a mad edit binge, so my best points you will have missed. This undermines your insistence on the half time change at Newcastle being the significant turning point.

 

Here they are:

 

As I pointed out to you way back, our poor form also funnily coincided with a period when we were relying on the likes of Herd, Lichaj, Stephens and Bannan in the team, and also at times playing Lowton at CB. You choose to see it as: we played 352, and that's why we were shit over christmas, but there is no way on earth it is as black and white as that. Not to mention playing that formation began when Vlaar and Gabby were injured. Injuries have been an enormous part of using that formation, which by the way has got us a result at Liverpool and recently against Man City and Norwich. 

 

We also did not use 352 in the 1-0 home defeat to Southampton, a game where we were robbed, and which was before the Newcastle game. That was when Weimann and Agbonlahor were returning from injury. That game we played something like 433, funnily enough, with more players fit. The miraculous change in the second half at Newcastle did not mark the moment we first changed formation. We also didn't use 352 in the FA cup against Ipswich, nor the League Cup games against Bradford—one a particularly shit result with the 433 system. All those games came pre-Newcastle. 

 

Also, before the Newcastle game, we drew 2-2 against West Brom—and I remember we were good in that game. We played 352!!!! When Weimann was injured. 

 

You're twisting history. 

 

My point is: We were better last season when we had important players fit, irrespective of the formation. We have never played 352 when all the main players are fit (hence it explains why we use it). The shit results really did coincide with injuries. 

Edited November 7, 2013 by praisedmambo

[praisedmambo]

Our poor form started from the start of the season until we made that system change half time against Newcastle so like your point about gabby and weimman it's rubbish.

 

It was always going to take time to get the young inexperienced players up and running, it was almost a given. And—look how it turned out. A bit of faith and they started to perform very well. This did happen once everyone was fit, which as a consequence gave us the option to play the 433 formation, because we could put Gabby and Weimann either side of Benteke, which was impossible when Gabby was injured. 

 

433 with Gabby, Weimann and Benteke is significantly a total different beast to a 433 with Bent, Holman and Albrighton, for example. 

 

It was THE PLAYERS who brought about our form, specific ones, good ones, not the formation. I didn't like the 352, but I can see the reasons why it was used, just as I can see how important Gabby was for us last season—see the Fulham game, when he next got injured, because we were rubbish. 

Edited November 7, 2013 by praisedmambo

[Big_John_10]

You're twisting history

You just told me we played 3-4-3 with no Vlaar against Newcastle How am I twisting history?

Before the Newcastle game it looked like this

23 games - 20 Pts - 0.85 points per game

23 games - 19 goals - 0.82 goals

23 games - 43 goals conceded - 1.86 goals conceded per game

After the Newcastle game it was

14 games - 21 Pts - 1.5 points per game

14 games - 27 goals - 1.9 goals per game

14 games - 22 goals conceded - 1.6 goals per game conceded

I mean how can you argue the change in formation didn't change the way we played?

It was THE PLAYERS who brought about our form

Absolute rubbish!! Why do managers even think about formations if they don't matter? Why were we so awful then before we started playing that formation consistently? You really think that we'd have improved that much no matter what system we played? Really?

[BOF]

I'd be interested in a similar points breakdown that was pre-Vlaar's return from injury and post-Vlaar's return from injury.

[Isa]

Vlaar's return from injury wouldn't really explain our upturn in goals scored though. All to do with the formation for me. It was ultimately the front three that bailed us out.

[praisedmambo]

I'd be interested in a similar points breakdown that was pre-Vlaar's return from injury and post-Vlaar's return from injury.

I think the key one for me is Agbonlahor. 

 

Big John, formations come second in importance to players. I believe Crystal Palace have been playing 433 this season. 

 

Basically, I think you're making way too much of a deal about the formation, when there is so much more to the bad form, and then change of form afterwards, than that change in formation. Yes, 433 is the best formation for our players. But you still can't play it without the players to...play it. 

 

We're worse without our best players. It's not complicated. 

Edited November 7, 2013 by praisedmambo

[praisedmambo]

Vlaar's return from injury wouldn't really explain our upturn in goals scored though. All to do with the formation for me. It was ultimately the front three that bailed us out.

The front three!!! Exactly what I've been saying. The period of our bad form coincided with losing Gabby (and Vlaar—we let in enough goals, eh). 

 

At half time in the Newcastle game we put on AGBONLAHOR and WEIMANN! Both of which were coming back from injuries. 

 

Then they managed to stay fit. Vlaar also came back from injury. With these players available we were able to play 433. With these players fit, and in a 433, we went on to get some good form. 

 

Clearly it's not as simple as saying, 'Meh, we should have played 433 earlier,' when the players who are so effective in it were not there to play it. 

 

Gabby or Holman? 

[Big_John_10]

Big John, formations come second in importance to players. I believe Crystal Palace have been playing 433 this season.

Haha what on earth have palace got to do with this? Struggling now, especially as you can't even remember the game i'm talking about.

Basically, I think you're making way too much of a deal about the formation

Do you think we'd have seen the same level of improvement regardless of the formation we chose to play?

We're worse without our best players. It's not complicated.

And we were shit with our good players when they were used in the wrong formation. A team has to be set up to get the best out of the players you have. Do you think managers just pick the best 11 and send them out with no structure to how they play? Why do you think managers pick formations if they don't matter much?

[Big_John_10]

I'd be interested in a similar points breakdown that was pre-Vlaar's return from injury and post-Vlaar's return from injury.

This is why the newcastle game is so clearly the changing point.

Vlaar returned and we were 2-0 down playing some awful stuff. Anyone who was there then saw the massive improvement in the second half.

[Big_John_10]

Vlaar's return from injury wouldn't really explain our upturn in goals scored though. All to do with the formation for me. It was ultimately the front three that bailed us out.

The front three!!! Exactly what I've been saying. The period of our bad form coincided with losing Gabby (and Vlaar—we let in enough goals, eh). 

 

At half time in the Newcastle game we put on AGBONLAHOR and WEIMANN! Both of which were coming back from injuries. 

 

Then they managed to stay fit. Vlaar also came back from injury. With these players available we were able to play 433. With these players fit, and in a 433, we went on to get some good form. 

 

Clearly it's not as simple as saying, 'Meh, we should have played 433 earlier,' when the players who are so effective in it were not there to play it. 

 

Gabby or Holman?

You make it sound like gabby and weimman didn't play much before the newcastle game. Gabby played in 16 games and weimman played in 15 games before the newcastle game.

[PieFacE]

Yeah for me the turning point was going 4-3-3 at Newcastle at half time. It was soooooo bloody obvious that the 3-5-2 formation was just not working. Every fan in the ground could see that, and I think there was a hell of a lot of people on here saying we should play 4-3-3.  When we changed to 4-3-3 we looked a different team. The formation change had made a difference.

Edited November 7, 2013 by PieFacE

[praisedmambo]

 

 

Vlaar's return from injury wouldn't really explain our upturn in goals scored though. All to do with the formation for me. It was ultimately the front three that bailed us out.

The front three!!! Exactly what I've been saying. The period of our bad form coincided with losing Gabby (and Vlaar—we let in enough goals, eh). 

 

At half time in the Newcastle game we put on AGBONLAHOR and WEIMANN! Both of which were coming back from injuries. 

 

Then they managed to stay fit. Vlaar also came back from injury. With these players available we were able to play 433. With these players fit, and in a 433, we went on to get some good form. 

 

Clearly it's not as simple as saying, 'Meh, we should have played 433 earlier,' when the players who are so effective in it were not there to play it. 

 

Gabby or Holman?

You make it sound like gabby and weimman didn't play much before the newcastle game. Gabby played in 16 games and weimman played in 15 games before the newcastle game.

 

Gabby was injured from the Liverpool game and only started playing consistently again (note: players do need time to 'return from injury') after the Newcastle game. 

 

I'm sure you're not understanding what I'm saying and perhaps I'm not understanding you, because I can't believe you'd argue if you did understand. 

 

And Vlaar came back pre-West Brom, maybe earlier. In the West Brom game we played well, should have won, and played 352. 

[praisedmambo]

Yeah for me the turning point was going 4-3-3 at Newcastle at half time. It was soooooo bloody obvious that the 3-5-2 formation was just not working. Every fan in the ground could see that, and I think there was a hell of a lot of people on here saying we should play 4-3-3.  When we changed to 4-3-3 we looked a different team. The formation change had made a difference.

 

I pointed out we played 433 before the Newcastle game—we played it against Southampton in the previous home game. 

 

352: played because we had injuries. 

 

433: began working when we had Weimann and Agbonlahor back fit to play. 

 

For instance, I don't think 433 would have made much difference against, say, Chelsea, Spurs and Wigan, when we were playing all sorts of players in defence: Stephens, Herd, Lichaj, and the likes of Lowton at CB. These games we were missing Vlaar and Gabby, playing Ireland and Bannan in the team. Anyone, just look at the players we had in those games and you can see we were screwed from the outset. 

 

Half time at the Newcastle game was like a convergence of many events. It was the turning point, although there were positive signs in the Southampton game and the West Brom game. It was the turning point because we had the players on the pitch to play the right formation. 

 

Look at my argument: I have never said 433 is not our best formation. I have never said I liked the 352. But I am acknowledging, firstly, that injuries played their part in having to use the 352 formation as opposed to a 433; secondly, that injuries would have made the 433 much less effective pre-Newcastle as there was no Gabby, Weimann—and N'Zogbia too—all out at various different times (Gabby and N'Zogbia long term); so, thirdly, having our best players return from injury was a huge reason for a change in fortunes. How anyone can not acknowledge that astounds me. It is a Mel Gibson level of denial. 

 

 I only care about saying all this as I think over-simplifying things goes on way too often on this website. 

Edited November 7, 2013 by praisedmambo

[Big_John_10]

Gabby was injured from the Liverpool game and only started playing consistently again (note: players do need time to 'return from injury') after the Newcastle game.

The liverpool game was our 17th game of the season. Gabby had played in 13 of the previous 16. Yet its just a coincidence we improve so much when he played in a 4-3-3 formation.

[briny_ear]

Oops, just ignore me.

Edited November 7, 2013 by briny_ear

[praisedmambo]

 

Gabby was injured from the Liverpool game and only started playing consistently again (note: players do need time to 'return from injury') after the Newcastle game.

The liverpool game was our 17th game of the season. Gabby had played in 13 of the previous 16. Yet its just a coincidence we improve so much when he played in a 4-3-3 formation.

 

There's no such things as coincidences bigjohn. Our form up to the Liverpool game was modest-bad, but it wasn't dog shite awful like the period from the Chelsea game. We still drew with Newcastle, West Brom, Norwich, Arsenal, QPR, Stoke, and beat Swansea, Reading, Liverpool and Sunderland. 

 

That was with a lot of young players new to the league. 

 

Once we lost some leaders—Gabby, Vlaar—then we went through the Christmas period where we couldn't get a win or a draw, were shipping goals, and looked awful. 

 

The important players came back, we found our best team, stopped relying on the wrong players (Stephens, Lichaj, Herd, Bannan, Ireland, Holman), young players like Westwood and Lowton became more adapted, we played a formation that allowed our strengths (the front three) to shine, we added Sylla to the team, who effectively replaced Bannan, so now we had some more steel. 

 

All of this happened. 

 

All of it happened. And we improved. 

 

We didn't just switch from 352 to a 433 and started beating Sunderland 6-1. It was a part of it. A part of it. But not all of it. 

 

That's what I'm saying. 

 

And that the 352 only happens because of injuries. 

Edited November 7, 2013 by praisedmambo

[Big_John_10]

There's no such things as coincidences

I know.

Simple question. Do you think the final 14 games would have seen the improvement in points per game and goals per game if we hadn't played that formation?

Do you think we'd have improved that much with all the other things you mention if we'd played a different formation?

[praisedmambo]

 

There's no such things as coincidences

I know.

Simple question. Do you think the final 14 games would have seen the improvement in points per game and goals per game if we hadn't played that formation?

Do you think we'd have improved that much with all the other things you mention if we'd played a different formation?

 

 

I like the 433.

 

I think we found the right formation and the right players came back. Of course, the 433 was a part of it. But there were a lot of pieces that came together. 

 

By the Newcastle game certain players, like Westwood, had also established themselves in the team. I think he was a big part of our good run. Also, following the Newcastle game is a period where Darren Bent, Ireland, Bannan, Herd, Lichaj, Holman, Stephens, etc. began playing less.

 

Put it another way, I don't think we'd have had such an improvement over the last 14 games if we hadn't signed Sylla. I don't think we would have had the same level of run if Gabby or Weimann had been out injured for a time. 

 

That's why I brought up Crystal Palace, because to me you're saying the change in formation was the only thing that mattered. 

 

And I couldn't disagree more with that thinking. 

Edited November 7, 2013 by praisedmambo

[Villarocker]

In this argument about formations and important players returning from injury; has anyone considered that the penny may just have dropped with the players and they realised that unless they bucked their ideas up they would be responsible for relegating a famous football club?