Finally caught up with the posts,5 days worth after the abject game against Spurs, as I said in my team pick why YBR was announcing to all and sundry that he was intending to play 3-5-2 prior to the game was so bliddy amateurish and then man marking Poyet took the biscuit,on the law of averages next time we play the Pool silly auld b--ggar will put 3 on Owen. 3 at the back works in SerieA for the bigger clubs, have the players to adopt to the system, comfortable on the ball etc, probably only faced with one striker up front , that is why you could free a defender to break thro. Against other clubs of equal talent usually in Europe and away from home they would play a cattechino sp or sweeper as insurance allowing Center backs to play further forward. I rack my brains but for the life of me cannot remember the Eyties going for the 2 wing backs. Now Celtic play this game, 3 out and out defenders and two wing backs, works fine in SPL but has been found out in the CL, Porto counter by playing one thro the middle and two wide, players with flair and ability, apart from the Sutton/Larson combin-ation Celtics main attacking strength are the runs down the right from Didier Agathe , I am now convinced that this poor guy will have to be shot when he is 28-30 , he is expected to do far too much and they are being downright cruel to him, football mind thinks,how does Bobby think Solano and Robert can carry out this role, as long as I have air to breathe, never in a million years will they be able to fulfill this role, At a guess I am sure this will have been the talk in the dressing room , footballers are usually thick but not daft in respect to their trade, what strengths they may have Bobby for hells sake play to them and the main one in my thinking is to have Robert up front playing off the target man with Bellamy behind.

BTW if this lot had been representative of Dagleish/Gullitt we would shouting for the removal of the manager. I go along with Clarky in thinking all is not right in the dressing room and their may still be evidence of a senior clique which does not bode well for the team

-- Anonymous, October 26, 2001

Answers

100% agreement marra - after 5 days I'm still 'steaming' over this bloody charade, even though the temperature here in Embleton must be about 40 deg! I haven't managed a plodge as yet - I've been too busy stoking the fire!

-- Anonymous, October 26, 2001

Which again begs the question, why, if it's so glaringly obvious to the likes of us, isn't it so obvious to BR ?

Bobby reckons it's not about tactics, it's about men. You can just see it. Colonel Robson gees the men up with 'Right chaps, I want you over the top to take that bunker full of Huns with spandaus, never mind that we've run out of ammunition, you've still got your bayonets, and you're all the sort of chaps who can overcome any handicap.'

If it wasn't happening to us, it would be hilarious.

Clarky, do you need a gardener/handyman up at Embleton ? Might take my attention away from this lot. It's reaching soap proportions from what I can see, people all over the universe tuning in for the latest twist. :-)))

-- Anonymous, October 26, 2001

Private Pit Bill , fastnen your greatcoat laddie, tot of rum ,fix bayonets (don`t like it up em you see), over the top , to the skirl of the pipes and Goodbye Dolly Gray,

-- Anonymous, October 26, 2001

Just thinking: we were playing Spurs, Everton pay three at the back and so do Villa. YB R probably thought we should try a home game to get comfy with the system.

-- Anonymous, October 26, 2001

Dougal, yes to a degree *Everton - remember Watson and Naysmith are primarily full backs who are encouraged to get forward , Bobby`s master plan concerns two wingers who are encouraged to get back!

-- Anonymous, October 26, 2001

3-5-2 doesn't have wingbacks. That's 5-3-2. Pedantic of me really but it does depend where you're asking a player to be on whether they're a wingback or a winger. I would say a wingback is a defender asked to get forward into midfield and a winger is a midfielder asked to get up front. Maybe that's why Nobby and Lolo said they were happy with the role because it wasn't actually any different to the one they've already got !

Celtic haven't been found out at home in the CL,only away. That's because 3-5-2 is a very attacking formation and leaves you exposed (even though they play 5-3-2). Hughes did a very able job man marking Totti against Roma and proved he is more than capable of the role. If he'd given Totti the same room he gave Poyet we'd have been murdered.

I would never contemplate a Newcastle side playing such attacking formations away from home but at SJP it actually showed an intent to give the opposition more to worry about than we were concerned about them.

Bobby felt we could contain the front two with only three players and prevent them getting any of the ball by choking the supply. This would still give a large number of players to get forward and cause problems in their box.4-4-2 wouldn't have changed anything at all. Gary Speed would still have scored an OG and Poyet would still have left Hughes for dead for his free header at the back post.

4-4-2 would not have created many more chances than we did after that and wouldn't have made our players take them instead of the fluffs we witnessed.

-- Anonymous, October 26, 2001

it should be noted that Nobby has played wingback (for Peru) but I'm not sure that it was for the best...Peru are out of the WC!!!

-- Anonymous, October 26, 2001

Homer, after 25 mins against Porto , O`Neil had the nous to drop Lennon back to sweeper to stop a rout, for 3-5-2 or 5-3-2 not going to argue, except ex Newcastle Alan Thompson (Midfield) coat is on a dodgy nail cos he cannot handle the wing back role, he has no speed, no puff, needs time on the ball, Agathe (Forward) patrols from corner to corner flag on the right (they shoot horses don`t they). Watching Arsenal other night 98% of Van Bronkhorsts passes were either square or angled backed to CB or keeper, the two he played forward Arsenal scored, he is a midfielder playing orthodox full back, he has ability, he can play there, Robson has no such luxury`s so as most here have stated , play 4-4-2,

-- Anonymous, October 26, 2001

Bill, your instinct on what was right or wrong for Celtic and Arsenal appears to be true. However, not sure which points you've made which suggest that 4-4-2 would have been more effective for NUFC against Spurs. How would us playing 4-4-2 have prevented either of the goals or caused us to score ?

-- Anonymous, October 26, 2001

We might have scored with 442- maybe that's the difference. The team were still rubbish though, so BR's assertion that it's about players not systems is not wholly untrue.

As my old Dad says 'wingers win matches'.

-- Anonymous, October 26, 2001

If we'd had a left back then Anderton would have had less space, wingers love to play against wingers

Solano was left as the right hand side defender for a cross to a good header of the ball, Nobby doesn't have Buff's heading ability (kiss that pal).

Hughes is an excellent man to man marker when the player involved is a footballer who thrives on the ball ..... Totti, McManaman, Hassler. Poyet is not that player, he's someone who drifts form midfield into positions in the box. Waste of a player trying to stop him, defensive midfielders like Speed/ACuna should be trackign him anyway.

With two wingers also covering defensive duties they must be compromising their attacking duties. Neither of them is an Agathe, nor a Petrescu, both of these guys can tackle, no one has ever seen our players tackling.

3-5-2 works if it means you have extra men in defence and at least parity in midfield, we played with one of the mf as a man to man marker, just lost from the game.

-- Anonymous, October 26, 2001

Al must have misheard him to say 'whingers win matches' `8¬)

The chances would have fallen to the same people, pretty much whichever formation we played. I think BR is pretty much spot on when he blamed the players rather than the system.

As for wingers, 3-5-2 is playing with wingers. The fact we never bothered to pass to Lolo and when we passed to Nobby he gave it away was the problem, not the lack of wingers.

-- Anonymous, October 26, 2001

Difficult to answer Homer and I always point out that those who were at the game, will always have a boxing 10-9 going for them in any debates,discussions. Your question is really unanswerable but I will give it my best shot , and pardon me if I do not use "If" as the operable word. Twenty fours before ko it was leaked?, that Newcastle were going into the game playing 3 at the back and a man marker,btw Softies point about Robert returning late was a good one and opened my eyes. Bobby Robson is not a KD/RG , the word you think of when talking about him is respect, with this in mind I doubt whether any of the players would have been giving him pelters face to face, "Hey Boss we cannot play that way, lets forget it eh" , Shearer maybe but this smacks of not having an able no 2 at his right hand side to offer another opinion. The players try to sleep on it for 24 hrs, but its on their minds , remember 50,000 eyes are on them , OBrian/Dabs/Distin are in all honesty sh--tting bricks. They run out but it is my opinion from experience that mentally they have lost it , this will then affect all aspects of their play, the physical side, lack of concentration and confidence, people state Shearer was whingeing, he had a good right, win previous week , footballers are thick not daft, plain to realise that solano and robert would not be comfortable in their assigned roles amongst others. Goals for, Goals against, a hypothetical question mate, the damage was done before kick off.

-- Anonymous, October 26, 2001

Macbeth, wingers love to play against wingers. If Anderton wasn't also playing in a semi-defensive role (which would void the argument) then we should have had a spare man in midfield. My original post was that it is a very attacking formation. So it becomes a question of who uses that space in the best way. So it's still a question of performance rather than tactics.

Disagree with Hughes abilities or Poyet's style of play. To suggest he isn't excellent with the ball at his feet is to underestimate the player. His goals against us have all been in the air but that is not the extent of his talents in support of the attackers.

What's with this wing-backs thing ? They're wingers. The formation we played when defending was to have 5 across the back by dropping two central midfielders into line. Distin picked up Anderton not Lolo. Nobby shouldn't have marked Poyet or anyone at the back post that was Hughes job.

3-5-2 works if you operate 5-3-2 to defend 3-5-2 when you break and 3- 3-4 when you attack. It doesn't mean the wide players have to get up and down the full length of the pitch.

-- Anonymous, October 26, 2001

Homer, are you saying that we'd have lost even playing 4-4-2? In other words that we had no hope against Spurs? I'm not sure that either of those goal scenarios would have come up had we been playing our usual game. Who knows? Maybe they'd have won by more. However, what we can say is that the Spurs defence wasn't that resolute and had we been focussing on an attacking game, making the best use of our resources, we would certainly have scored. I'm afraid I agree with MacB that Poyet is more an aerial presence that should be dealt with by your centre halves than anything you should waste a player on marking, particularly if the rest of the team is going missing (there was no one on the entire right dealing with Anderton for that cross which is why Hughes cocked up and left Poyet: whose mistake? His or the tw*ts who left Anderton unmarked?).

-- Anonymous, October 26, 2001

If you have the players 5-3-2 defensively switching to 3-5-2 then to 3-4-4 is great. We all know we don't have the players though.

France have Lizarus and Thuram, superb athletes who can be defenders and flying wingers. We have either Barton/Griffin/Elliot type defensive players, or Solano/Robert attack minded players. They are all comfortable in their natural role. Solano is never in a million years a defender, doesn't have the physical strength to be right back and outside right, Robert seems the same. This doesn't make them bad players, just good at wht they are good at. We would have had different problems if we'd picked say Barton on the right. Stronger defensively but little use beyond the half way line. But we know that, we know what our players can do.

The whole team formation, used in every game this season (I think) was changed to allow us to put Hughes on Poyet. One outcome of that is that Robert and Solano are expected to play 20 yards deeper. All our attacks have to begin deeper, the links between Robert and Bellamy say, are not close to their defenders but in our half, no danger there.

It is a bit incongruous to say it is the players not the system. Dalglish's side that lost 4-3 at Liverpool played the first half with 5-4-1, with Beardsley in a defensive midfield player protecting the defence rather than being what he is best at. That wasn't the wrong player, just plainly wrong tactics.

If we have Agathe and Ziege or two other workhorses then great, but we don't. We should have been making Hoddle worry about Robert/Bellamy/Solano/Shearer rather than the other way around.

-- Anonymous, October 26, 2001

Agreed macbeth, we don't have the players to play that formation, simple as that. That's why we were all so surprised when it wasn't a 4-4-2.

However, it may be a positive move, hopefully BR will learn a lot from this and stick with winning teams.

I completely agree with dougal as well, in that the Spurs goals probably wouldn't have happened with a 4-4-2 in place, although the match would have been different and you never know what would have happened. However, the crowd would see Solano and Robert attacking the flanks instead of being caught in two minds whether to attack or defend. This, coupled with greater confidence playing a 4-4-2 would have created a better atmosphere and possibly got the players playing up for it.

The man marking on Poyet was by far the worst bit though, as it's been said before he isn't a playmaker, just someone to watch out for on set pieces. We basically had 10 men for the whole match as long as Poyet and Hughes were on the same field.

If it all goes right again at Everton and we get a nice 3-0 win or something, all will be well, but if we get stuffed 4-0 then I dread to think what might happen...

-- Anonymous, October 26, 2001

Homer, the point about the system against Spurs was that the defence hadn't got a bliddy clue what was going on. They never have when we've played 3 big-uns. And to add to that, it was Distin's first game. You should bring a new player into a settled formation not one that is struggling to know exactly what to do. And for one thing, if Elliott (or Hughes or any LB) had been playing, it's unlikely that Spurs would have got the FK from which they scored. We might also have had somebody pointing uut that Andertaon was goig free on the edge of the box - but that is probably stretching things a bit to far :-(

-- Anonymous, October 27, 2001

OK, you all seem to be sticking to your view that the system and not the players were to blame and yet all your arguments are centered around players not doing their job !

Dougal, any team that defends with that level of ineptitude and fails to pass to players on their own team (I really can't see how playing 4-4-2 would change the fact our players couldn't pass) would lose to a team as good as Spurs are.

How can the centre halves pick up Poyet if you've only got two of them ? Who marks Les and Teddy then ?

Poyets aerial presence is very dangerous but his pass completion and goal assist ratio compared very favourable to Ryan Giggs last season. Stats available for Totti in Europe this season are worse than those for Poyet in the league. However, stats don't always provide the whole picture so I'm just going to have to say I'm right and you're wrong ! `8¬)

Macbeth, you're still talking about wing backs. The central midfield players defend not the wingers. Robert was NEVER 20 yards deeper. If anything he was 20 yards further forward. Solano appeared to play where he always does.

I don't want to suggest that it's never the system and always the players as your comment on a Dalglish system seems to argue. That game wasn't the Spurs game.

The four players you said he should be worried about got forward well enough and didn't take their chances. On another day it could have been 3-2 but we were woeful in front of goal. (I can't see how 4-4-2 would make our strikers hit the target)

Paul, no we don't have the players to play wing backs but we weren't playing 5-3-2. Not sure how you can say you don't know what would happen as a backing argument to saying we wouldn't have conceded the goals ? Why would playing 4-4-2 suddenly change the fact we didn't pass to Robert and Solano couldn't pass to another black 'n' white shirt ? Why would that suddenly inspire the crowd ?

Something being stated previously doesn't make it true, see above for my view on Poyet.

Screacher, I agree that the defence were clueless but that isn't the first occasion this season (West Ham anyone?) and so can't necessarily be attributed to the system. Their ineptitude also fits quite nicely with my players error viewpoint.

-- Anonymous, October 29, 2001

Homer, 3-5-2 and 5-3-2 are very very similar formations with only subtle differences in them.

My point about the players was valid I think, as Clarky says surely you don't throw a new player into the pot in a formation where it is completely new and there are still players getting used to it.

The formation contributes a hell of a lot to getting the ball to Robert and Solano as well. Regardless of whether it was 3-5-2 or 5-3- 2, Solano and Robert had clearly been asked by BR to carry out defensive duties, so when the ball was there they weren't always there to get the pass. This meant Speed and Acuna couldn't release the ball and were caught in possession. Only when Andy O'Brien started his mazy dribbles out of defence did Robert and Solano have time to get forward and join the attack.

As far as I am concerned the formation is still the biggest factor in why we lost. I admit some of the players had stinkers, but surely when you are playing a team who attacks from all sides you want at least to be able to call upon a team that knows their system inside and out, rather than trying something clever that is bound to go dramatically wrong.

RE: your point about Poyet. Dabizas and O'Brien would pick up Sheringham and Ferdinand, with one of either Acuna or Speed - more likely Speed with his headers - to pick up Poyet. Simple really, doesn't require man marking as he is only dangerous from crosses and set pieces. As well as this, a full back would be closing down the wide man putting the ball into the box putting pressure on him and making the cross harder.

-- Anonymous, October 29, 2001

.....well actually, 3-5-2 and 5-3-2 are so similar as to be completely, totally and utterly identical! It simply depends where you feel like showing the WB's.

-- Anonymous, October 29, 2001

If it wa sthe players then Distin and Hughes for Elliot and Griffin were the difference and it is they who are the problem.

Not for me

-- Anonymous, October 29, 2001