November 21, 2017, 01:31:24 AM

Author Topic: '4-6-0'  (Read 4272 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

September 15, 2010, 10:55:29 PM
Reply #15
Offline

GLewis

NSNO Subscriber
you really do have to question why he's not fit to be honest

it is odd.

Guessing, I'd put it down to his body shape/build etc. He's a heavy set guy so he might lose sharpness a lot quicker than Pienaar for example.

Plus it may depend how willing he is to put in extra sessions etc to get up to speed quicker.

deCoubertin

September 15, 2010, 10:55:36 PM
Reply #16
Offline

blargins

NSNO Subscriber
It should be Moyes' priority to have Yak fit.

Saha is unreliable (and injured right now anyway), Beckford still untried, but the Yak should have been available before now. I don't know why he hasn't.

And if Cahill is to remain in the team (which on present form, he should), then he always plays best when Yak is in the team.
"All the adversity I've had in my life, all my troubles and obstacles, have strengthened me... You may not realize it when it happens, but a kick in the teeth may be the best thing in the world for you."
- Walt Disney

September 15, 2010, 11:01:13 PM
Reply #17
Offline

GLewis

NSNO Subscriber
The team plays best never mind just Cahill.


September 15, 2010, 11:02:48 PM
Reply #18
Online

Ridge


This is something I think everyone agrees on, a fit, confident and in form Yak starts.

He had a mare of a world cup, he was Nigeria's scapeyak for that miss. I think over the season he will benefit from being using wisely at the right time rather than played as he is the only experienced striker. A depressed Yak is no good for anyone, ideally he should be in form, happy, fit and playing, but he wasn't so an alternative was used.

September 15, 2010, 11:10:56 PM
Reply #19
Offline

Rhys


it's a formation that, if adopted by both sides in games - as the 4-5-1 we "pioneered" has been - will lead to incredibly dull games of football where both teams neutralise each other and rely on a lucky break / mistake from the opposition

it's a formation played by managers more scared of losing than determined to win

it's a formation which really should be used as a last resort when your "best ever squad" includes an 11m striker who has form for scoring 20+ goals in the Premier League.

it's a formation that requires width and balance.  We have natural width on one side.

It's a formation that requires players to be able to break out of defence quickly on the counter-attack....

it's a formation that has won us ONE of our last six games in which it has been utilsed....football is about winning, not "avoiding defeat"

stick your "at least we didn't lose" up your arse

It is a last resort formation, which is why it was used 2 years ago in a last resort situation. This time round we may have had a 11m striker on the bench, who isnt nearly fit. He had his mind set on going to west ham and didnt put in the effort in in training which is why he is in terrible shape and Moyes was loathed to play him. As I said, we needed energy in the performance and having a very unfit Yakubu up front on his own would have had the opposite effect and Jermaine Beckford isnt ready especially for that kind of game shown by his inconsistent hold up play against Wolves and Villa. (Aside from that on another note, how often has Yakubu scored over 20 goals in the premier league?)

It won 1 out of the last 6 games....against Liverpool 3 times, United twice and Arsenal!! How often have we got results against them playing 4-4-2, 4-5-1, 4-4-1-1, 4-1-4-1? Very rarely. The fact that we only lost once (a game 3 days after the 120minutes against liverpool in the cup) against those teams, 2 years ago with no strikers shows how effective it can be.

Of course it is about winning, but sometimes you have to be realistic and know you arent in the best of positions. Last season when it came to the United game we were playing really well. We had a good shape with Donovan and Pienaar on the wings giving good balance, Saha still looked lively, Arteta was just back and Osman was in great form in the middle. This season we had lost 3 games out of 4, no option on the right, no striker worth playing in a game like that, Fellaini coming back to fitness and a midfield that had looked wide open in the opening 3 games. What choice did we have? Go and have a go like we did against Villa and get ripped apart on the break? If Villa had been any good we would have lost 3-0 in that game the amount of times we were exposed when we lost the ball.

The fact of the matter is we needed to be more solid. We needed to make sure we wouldnt be wide open and most importantly we needed the ball to stick up front. Someone who would give their centre halves a rough ride, keep the ball and bring the midfield into play. Yak wasnt fit enough, Beckford wasnt ready. So we had little option but to play Cahill....and look we had 52% of the possession. As I said, it isnt a long term solution and Moyes know that. I would be stunned if Yak doesnt start on Saturday, play 60 minutes then throw Beckford on for the last 30 minutes. But you can get away with being unfit at home to Newcastle, not Man U.


Bluetoffee...we werent positive on Saturday? 52%, more corners and more shots than them said we were a lot more positive then people realise. We really had a go in the first half then we were in a bit shock when they got the goals either side of half time. After that we gave it a go, got hit on the break but kept going and it resulted in the goals. I actually think we were more positive by having Fellaini up by Cahill rather than Arteta, and that is one of the things everyone was moaning about having Fellaini forward. He helped us get hold of the ball, keep it and feed into key areas for Pienaar better than Arteta did.

All in all, it wasnt a negative performance, everyone accepted we were good value for a result and it was a one off performance for a time lacking in valid options. Again, surely that is a manager being inventive and knowing how to get a result against an opposition with what he had available?
« Last Edit: September 15, 2010, 11:16:01 PM by Rhys »

September 15, 2010, 11:11:54 PM
Reply #20
Offline

ToxtethBlue


I'd say lack of consistent football and missing two full pre-season's has played it's part, as Glewis said, he's a big lad, a player like Yakubu needs to be training and playing week in week out. Strikers in general do, but given Yak's physique, him more so than others. He also picked up an injury when he came back and missed a few pre-season games, which couldn't have helped him.

I just hope Yakubu gets a goal to boost his confidence, I have no doubt that he'll help the team in other areas, holding up the ball, getting involved and linking play, but he hasn't been a consistent scorer for a while now. Hopefully he gets back to his best in this area.
ToxtethBlue


September 15, 2010, 11:18:03 PM
Reply #21
Offline

nomorechang

RIP
Something I have just noticed , season 2007/8 when yak was scoring for fun we scored 55 goals in the Prem , the following season , 2008/9 when Yak was injured and we were forced toplay Cahill and Felli up front as makeshift strikers we scored 55 goals in the prem again ..... last season when we finished 8th , Yak out of form Louis in form for half a season we scored 60 goals ..... confusing ??? or does this indicate that we dont have to rely on our forwards to contribute the majority of our goals .. ie its better to have the goals spread between our players ?
Once Everton has touched you nothing will be the same"
Alan Ball

" Notoriously shy and laconic off the field, Dean's quotes are sparse. He is reputed to have said to an over-enthusiastic marker 'I'm going for a pee. You coming?' "

September 15, 2010, 11:28:54 PM
Reply #22
Offline

American Evertonian


I think we should just play a 1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-0-1-0-0-1. Yes that means we play with no goal keeper, but other than that I see no downside. Case closed.
A ship is safe in the harbor, but that's not what ships are for.

September 16, 2010, 01:23:01 AM
Reply #23
Offline

Fern


I don't really understand that last paragraph. Good collection of info at the start though.

Her just missed the word 'be' not that hard to work out.

September 16, 2010, 04:00:17 PM
Reply #24
Offline

dangermouse


it's a formation that, if adopted by both sides in games - as the 4-5-1 we "pioneered" has been - will lead to incredibly dull games of football where both teams neutralise each other and rely on a lucky break / mistake from the opposition

it's a formation played by managers more scared of losing than determined to win

it's a formation which really should be used as a last resort when your "best ever squad" includes an 11m striker who has form for scoring 20+ goals in the Premier League.

it's a formation that requires width and balance.  We have natural width on one side.

It's a formation that requires players to be able to break out of defence quickly on the counter-attack....

it's a formation that has won us ONE of our last six games in which it has been utilsed....football is about winning, not "avoiding defeat"

stick your "at least we didn't lose" up your arse

I can do you a 2 for 1 on offfer on Everton hate flags if you want....with your feelings towards Kenwright and Moyes I think you will need it  :eh:
Everton Programmes Books & DVD's

http://www.facebook.com/evertonprogrammes

September 16, 2010, 04:03:30 PM
Reply #25
Offline

dangermouse


Chelsea play 4-3-3 when they are attacking and 4-5-1 when they are defending

that's different to playing 4-5-1 all the time

It could even be argued that when they're going forward Chelsea play 2-5-3 with only Terry and whoever is alongside him staying back, with Essien as the deepest midfielder

Does that bare any kind of resemblance to anything David Moyes has ever employed?

United and Chelsea's sides are both full of pace - are Everton?

we seem to play 4-4-2 when we're attacking, 4-6-0 when we're lining up, and 6-4-0 when we're defending - unless it's a corner when it's 11-0-0

Your a moaning sod.... but at least I agree with you on this......

In all honestly if we want to make that next step... we need to go into games with a positive attitude and formation...
Everton Programmes Books & DVD's

http://www.facebook.com/evertonprogrammes

September 16, 2010, 04:55:38 PM
Reply #26
Offline

Mikel10


The thing is it had a nice balance on Saturday but I think his tactics were poor. We were abit isolated upfront and Fellaini should NEVER be thrown up there just to accomodate Heitinga. Mind you, the fact remains is that the defence was to blame for being so open.

September 16, 2010, 07:26:55 PM
Reply #27
Offline

Scouse Ruletero


it's a formation that, if adopted by both sides in games - as the 4-5-1 we "pioneered" has been - will lead to incredibly dull games of football where both teams neutralise each other and rely on a lucky break / mistake from the opposition

it's a formation played by managers more scared of losing than determined to win

it's a formation which really should be used as a last resort when your "best ever squad" includes an 11m striker who has form for scoring 20+ goals in the Premier League.

it's a formation that requires width and balance.  We have natural width on one side.

It's a formation that requires players to be able to break out of defence quickly on the counter-attack....

it's a formation that has won us ONE of our last six games in which it has been utilsed....football is about winning, not "avoiding defeat"

stick your "at least we didn't lose" up your arse

I like it. It suits the players we have got. Very few teams play a standard 4-4-2 anymore. With the right wide midfielders pushing forward, it can be a very attacking formation. It has certainly served us well over the past 6 years plus.

September 16, 2010, 09:45:41 PM
Reply #28
Offline

blargins

NSNO Subscriber
Si out!
"All the adversity I've had in my life, all my troubles and obstacles, have strengthened me... You may not realize it when it happens, but a kick in the teeth may be the best thing in the world for you."
- Walt Disney

September 16, 2010, 10:40:21 PM
Reply #29
Offline

Jamokachi


Of the closet?