You'll have to take this up with Rog. He's the biggest fan of 442. You know that I prefer 451.
*Marcus's Management Education Tip #1* *Overview* In terms of who you have on the pitch in central midfield in 442, the choice needs to support the following flow: 1. Win the ball 2. Give it to a flair player 3. Create a scoring opportunity. 4. Score You're on the right lines with your thinking but you overlooked point 1. *Real world example* This is very much in the Ince/Gascoigne mold from England at the 1990 World Cup finals in Italy. I'd like to quote Matt Leese's opinion of Bobby Robson's England team briefing: "You (Ince) get the ball and give it to him (Gascoigne)." You can see the problems that recent England managers have had trying to shoehorn our best flair players into a midfield two. In the end, they conclude that someone like Barry is required to play the holding/ball-winning role. *Application to Wolves* It seems sensible to have a ball winning midfielder in Henry and a flair player in O'Hara. Having two flair players, as well as two attacking midfielders, means that we don't get hold of the ball, don't create chances and don't score. On 4 April 2011 09:06, Marcus Chantry <[email protected]> wrote: > As the owner of the club and the board have clearly stated that they will > not be relieving Mick of his duties under any circumstances, it would be a > pointless exercise to discuss who I would rather have in place of Thick > Mick. > > > > Aside from the complete lack of any organisation in the defence, the main > tactic that I have an issue with is this – he decided to switch to a 4-4-2 > formation, which was a nice, bold attacking move to try and get something > from the game. However, if you’re going to play two attackers then you need > to make sure that they receive decent service from midfield, so one would > safely assume that you keep your attacking/flair midfielders on the pitch to > provide the ammunition for the strikers. Unless you’re Thick Mick. His > attacking change of tactics involved removing Milijas, perhaps our best > passer of the ball, choosing instead to keep his incompetent buddy Karl > Henry on the field. I can only assume this decision was made to ensure we > met our quota of back-passes for the match. > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *On > Behalf Of *Steven Millward > *Sent:* Monday, 4 April 2011 8:58 AM > > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [NSWolves] Ince > > > > Thank-you. Now can you suggest a couple of other managers that you would > have in to replace Mick please? I feel unfair in asking you as it will > surely be the kiss-of-death for them but we should see anyway. > > > > Perhaps Mick got the tactics wrong for this game. I don't feel the need to > defend him for a single game, nor would I use the wins against Chelsea, > Liverpool, Man Utd etc to claim that he is a master tactician. If I could > explain it at all it's the experiement of trying to work our how to play > with Doyle out of the side. > > > > Which specific tactics did you most take umbrage with? > > > > > > On 4 April 2011 08:39, Marcus Chantry <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I am willing to admit that both Ince and Mooney have failed to deliver at > their respective clubs, however, I am not aware of their individual > circumstances with regards to playing personnel, funds available to them, > the level of control they may been given to influence the directions of > their clubs. How will we ever know how either of them would have performed > with better quality players and money available to re-build. It is a > hypothetical discussion that should be had during the off-season. > > > > As for now I want to discuss something that is very real (although quite > unbelievable) and that is the fate of Wolves under the guidance of one Magic > Mick/Thick Mick depending on which way you view him. Again, assuming you > watched the match Steve, how can you explain & support his tactics on the > weekend? I don’t know as much as you might think I do about football > management but receiving an explanation on Saturday’s match will very much > help with my education, as clearly I must have missed some vital concept or > tactic. > > > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *On > Behalf Of *Steven Millward > *Sent:* Monday, 4 April 2011 8:29 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [NSWolves] Ince > > > > I raise Paul Ince because in spite of my repeated requests for you to > suggest an alternative to Mick, Ince and Richard Money are the only two that > you've ever suggested. (Money is currently unemployed, by the way, after > leaving conference side Luton Town last year). > > > > If you know so much about what makes a good football manager, how come you > got it so wrong about those two? Why don't you put another couple of > suggestions forward now, and we'll track their careers into oblivion too. > > > > My detailed analysis of away performance is that it's not the away fixture > iteself but actual distance that's important. We got good results at Villa, > Stoke and West Brom but clearly Newcastle is a long way away so we got the > worst possible result there. It was a mathematical certainty. > > > > > > On 4 April 2011 08:12, Marcus Chantry <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Forget Paul Ince, he’s not our manager and never will be. This is simply a > diversionary tactic to avoid discussing Thick Mick’s own inadequacies. > > > > As Roger & I are the only ones who don’t support Thick Mick, there should > be plenty of people on this list who can explain to me his tactics in > Saturday’s game? It’s strange how there’s been no discussion on this at > all. Does silence indicate that he is indefensible? > > > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *On > Behalf Of *Steven Millward > *Sent:* Monday, 4 April 2011 5:31 AM > *To:* nswolves > *Subject:* [NSWolves] Ince > > > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/12951734.stm > > > > Is this now sufficient proof that he would have been rubbish as Wolves > manager? > > -- > > Q: If you could change one thing about Wolves history, what would it be? > A That Peter Knowles was on the bog when the door was knocked. > > The information contained in this email is confidential. If you are not the > intended recipient, you may not disclose or use the information in this > email in any way and should destroy any copies. Macquarie does not guarantee > the integrity of any emails or attached files. The views or opinions > expressed are the author's own and may not reflect the views or opinions of > Macquarie. > > > > -- > Q: If you could change one thing about Wolves history, what would it be? > A That Peter Knowles was on the bog when the door was knocked. > > > > -- > Q: If you could change one thing about Wolves history, what would it be? > A That Peter Knowles was on the bog when the door was knocked. > > -- > Q: If you could change one thing about Wolves history, what would it be? > A That Peter Knowles was on the bog when the door was knocked. > > > > -- > Q: If you could change one thing about Wolves history, what would it be? > A That Peter Knowles was on the bog when the door was knocked. > > -- > Q: If you could change one thing about Wolves history, what would it be? > A That Peter Knowles was on the bog when the door was knocked. > -- Q: If you could change one thing about Wolves history, what would it be? A That Peter Knowles was on the bog when the door was knocked.
