Memo to Eddie

DJ said:
The “odd” goal is a fair description.

3 goals in 1,201 Premier League minutes.

I’d be very surprised if Solanke had those stats in 2 years time.
Click to expand...

And the odd Carling cup goal and has already scored this season and forced an own goal in a fraction of the minutes of Solanke.

Mousset was no great shakes so don’t get me wrong on that account but I always thought he was a threat. I have seen no threat at all from Dom but like you say... it might change in the next two years.
 
Neil Dawson said:
And the odd Carling cup goal and has already scored this season and forced an own goal in a fraction of the minutes of Solanke.

Mousset was no great shakes so don’t get me wrong on that account but I always thought he was a threat. I have seen no threat at all from Dom but like you say... it might change in the next two years.
Click to expand...

Come on Neil, you know I love Eddie so the cups don’t count...
 
BillMcgarrycherry said:
I think the major problem in all this....is that the ' peripheral squad' as its called are picked for these games each year....and their thinking is...we are second choice...'used' ...for cup games....why risk injury for this ' one - off' ...
Fans on the other hand , rightly so, think they should be trying 100% to impress to get picked for the PL games.
If you add in the fact that several of them are coming back from injuries...all you need is about 4 not performing, therefore not a full team effort...and Burton or Millwalls hungry for success lower Div players will have an easy task!
Click to expand...
Eddie in the OHEC today saying he’d still pick that team and that the individuals in the team were good enough to win the game ...
Well they played like individuals unfortunately.....
“ When else can I give those younger players the opportunity to
Play ? “

The third round of the FA Cup ....
 
ErikthViking said:
Given how long it can take for some players to fit in, Solanke should have more time to find his right place in the side.

But Ibe, sorry, no. He is undoubtedly talented, but just does not produce the goods.

I watched the Forest Green match from the Ted Shed. The number of times that Ibe was on the ball and simply ended up losing it. Remember this is to players from the fourth tier. No disrespect to the opposition, but there should be a bit of a gap between even the best players in League Two and Premier League.

I recall one incident about 25 yards out on the left. Ibe neatly beat one player, then a second, checked and turned, then had to beat the first opponent again before being easily robbed by the second opponent at the second attempt.

When Ibe started this little jinking episode, he had a clear run on goal after the first defender. Not only that, there were two Bournemouth players advancing through the centre and on the right in good positions.

Ibe had two choices at this point. He could either thunder in on goal or pass. He did neither. Instead, Ibe allowed two players to each challenge him twice before he lost it.

My patience has run out.

In the January transfer window, I will probably ask each day, 'Has he gone yet?'
Click to expand...

Sorry but I completely disagree when you’ve said “He is undoubtedly talented”.

I actually don’t think Ibe is that talented at all as a footballer. Yes he has a few good moments but he’s been pretty shocking for over 3 years and I think we only think he’s talented because he occasionally looks good on the eye and because he’s come for Liverpool.

Obviously would love our players to do well but this time next year after his contract has run out, I would be surprised if he was playing the Championship
 
Tinpot Club said:
As Solanke is perceived as a striker, when he plays the no. 10 role and doesn’t score he will get stick. There are lots of no. 10’s with very average goal scoring records who, because they are perceived as a midfielder, get nowhere near the same level of stick.

With Solanke, part of it is people having a better understanding of the role he plays. I can’t help thinking though, if we are going to play someone in that role, and if scoring goals isn’t a vital part of that role, why not play a specialist no. 10 rather a striker out of position?
Click to expand...
There are two types of 'number 10' roles. There is the old number 10 who plays in a 4-4-2 variation and the continental version who plays in a 4-3-3 variation, normally a 4-2-3-1.

As you know, we play the 4-4-2 or the 4-4-1-1 variation of the number 10. Also commonly known as the 'Second striker' or even the 'shadow striker'. These players are predominately strikers who try to drag opposition to create space for the number 9 to run into. They drop deep to receive the ball and play it forward to the number 9 playing off of the shoulder of the last man in defence. A good example of this role is Dennis Bergkamp. Also, players like Solanke have the added bonus of a physical presence to knock on for the striker to recieve.

The continental number 10 is a different type of player, more often an attacking midfielder. Usually smaller in stature as this role requires a player that is technically superior. Dropping deep playing inbetween the lines, moving the oppositions defensive midfielders out of position, preferably sliding pinpoint intricate passes from different angles for the inside forwards, or number 9 to run onto.

A good example of this is Coutinho at Inter. Even players like David Silva or De Bruyne have played this or a similar role in their careers at some stage.

My point is that Solanke is exactly the type of player to play in this position, David Brooks is more of the continental style number 10. He's technically superior to Solanke and to accommodate him in the number 10 role we would have to change formation to get the best out of him.

IMO 4-4-2 is when we are at our best, so I would like to keep it how it is. I look forward to Brooks coming back and tearing up that right hand side though.
 
Last edited:
CherriesOnTop said:
There are two types of 'number 10' roles. There is the old number 10 who plays in a 4-4-2 variation and the continental version who plays in a 4-3-3 variation, normally a 4-2-3-1.

As you know, we play the 4-4-2 or the 4-4-1-1 variation of the number 10. Also commonly known as the 'Second striker' or even the 'shadow striker'. These players are predominately strikers who try to drag opposition to create space for the number 9 to run into. They drop deep to receive the ball and play it forward to the number 9 playing off of the shoulder of the last man in defence. A good example of this role is Dennis Bergkamp. Also, players like Solanke have the added bonus of a physical presence to knock on for the striker to recieve.

The continental number 10 is a different type of player, more often an attacking midfielder. Usually smaller in stature as this role requires a player that is technically superior. Dropping deep playing inbetween the lines, moving the oppositions defensive midfielders out of position, preferably sliding pinpoint intricate passes from different angles for the inside forwards, or number 9 to run onto.

A good example of this is Coutinho at Inter. Even players like David Silva or De Bruyne have played this or a similar role in their careers at some stage.

My point is that Solanke is exactly the type of player to play in this position, David Brooks is more of the continental style number 10. He's technically superior to Solanke and to accommodate him in the number 10 role we would have to change formation to get the best out of him.

IMO 4-4-2 is when we are at our best, so I would like to keep it how it is. I look forward to Brooks coming back and tearing up that right hand side though.
Click to expand...

Absolutely fantastic description. But there is still a grey area.

Eddie’s variant of 4-4-2 as I refer to it is fluid and can be both a 4-4-1-1 or a 4-2-3-1.

Our shape can either be fixed and rigid or it can change all the time, especially when we are flowing and clicking. The various rotations with overlapping full backs and wingers who drift inside and the centre midfield pairing giving us both options.

The key aspect is what works best for Callum and that’s a number 10 who fits more into your “shadow striker” mould.

But that could still work with either system.
 
CherriesOnTop said:
There are two types of 'number 10' roles. There is the old number 10 who plays in a 4-4-2 variation and the continental version who plays in a 4-3-3 variation, normally a 4-2-3-1.

As you know, we play the 4-4-2 or the 4-4-1-1 variation of the number 10. Also commonly known as the 'Second striker' or even the 'shadow striker'. These players are predominately strikers who try to drag opposition to create space for the number 9 to run into. They drop deep to receive the ball and play it forward to the number 9 playing off of the shoulder of the last man in defence. A good example of this role is Dennis Bergkamp. Also, players like Solanke have the added bonus of a physical presence to knock on for the striker to recieve.

The continental number 10 is a different type of player, more often an attacking midfielder. Usually smaller in stature as this role requires a player that is technically superior. Dropping deep playing inbetween the lines, moving the oppositions defensive midfielders out of position, preferably sliding pinpoint intricate passes from different angles for the inside forwards, or number 9 to run onto.

A good example of this is Coutinho at Inter. Even players like David Silva or De Bruyne have played this or a similar role in their careers at some stage.

My point is that Solanke is exactly the type of player to play in this position, David Brooks is more of the continental style number 10. He's technically superior to Solanke and to accommodate him in the number 10 role we would have to change formation to get the best out of him.

IMO 4-4-2 is when we are at our best, so I would like to keep it how it is. I look forward to Brooks coming back and tearing up that right hand side though.
Click to expand...
Don't disagree with this as also agree it is a great analysis of different no10 roles but wonder if we can evolve?

One option in continental style would be Billing and Lerma in midfield with Lewis Cook on the hole as that diminutive player with vision who can also go past a player at pace over 10-15 yards?
 
DJ said:
Absolutely fantastic description. But there is still a grey area.

Eddie’s variant of 4-4-2 as I refer to it is fluid and can be both a 4-4-1-1 or a 4-2-3-1.

Our shape can either be fixed and rigid or it can change all the time, especially when we are flowing and clicking. The various rotations with overlapping full backs and wingers who drift inside and the centre midfield pairing giving us both options.

The key aspect is what works best for Callum and that’s a number 10 who fits more into your “shadow striker” mould.

But that could still work with either system.
Click to expand...
We have the players to be able to play a rigid 4-2-3-1. The idea of that system is to play two defensive number 6 style midfielders, two inside forwards on either wing, a number 9 and a number 10 to play inbetween the lines. Full backs who like to overlap to create the lack of width that comes with playing inside forwards.

Billing Lerma
H.Wilson Brooks Fraser
Wilson

Now that to me looks good on paper but unfortunately football matches are won on grass, not paper.
 
Cherry Warrior said:
Don't disagree with this as also agree it is a great analysis of different no10 roles but wonder if we can evolve?

One option in continental style would be Billing and Lerma in midfield with Lewis Cook on the hole as that diminutive player with vision who can also go past a player at pace over 10-15 yards?
Click to expand...
Imo our best player for that position would be Brooks. Lewis cook, although is probably more than capable of playing there, I see him more of a deep lying playmaker. Similar to a Pirlo, Alonso ect. But clearly not at that level......yet
 
As fans we are probably always going to think our players are better than they actually are!...Liverpool aren’t stupid they got millions for players that they knew wouldn’t get near their squad in Smith, Ibe,and Solanke and for some reason we paid the ransom fees based on them being from Liverpool!
 
Red_till_im_ded said:
Got to be careful, might upset a few of the rose tints in here but Ibe isn't the player he was perceived to be. Liverpool saw it after they bought him from Wycombe and moved him on , for good money. Unfortunately when we move him on it won't be for good money. Hes had more than enough opportunity to prove he's good enough , he simply isn't a PL standard player.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure Ibe will develop into the player he could be, but saying that Liverpool saw it is absolute gubbins. They were happy to take the fee for Sterling expecting Ibe to step into that role. Ibe's year at Derby was my last year living there and he was tearing up trees, he ran Franno ragged and that's probably when Eddie put his eye on him
 
CherriesOnTop said:
Imo our best player for that position would be Brooks. Lewis cook, although is probably more than capable of playing there, I see him more of a deep lying playmaker. Similar to a Pirlo, Alonso ect. But clearly not at that level......yet
Click to expand...
Agree re Brooks. I mentioned on an earlier post he is our most natural no10, after that perhaps Stan. But was proposing LC could do no10 role if we went with alternative continental variant that was proposed.
 
Simon Francis said Burton ‘wanted it more’ after the game. That tends to suggest Cherries weren’t motivated or prepared to fight for a win. What’s even worse is that Eddie didn’t appear to know why we were so poor, which is worrying.
 
DodgerCherry said:
Simon Francis said Burton ‘wanted it more’ after the game. That tends to suggest Cherries weren’t motivated or prepared to fight for a win. What’s even worse is that Eddie didn’t appear to know why we were so poor, which is worrying.
Click to expand...
...or Eddie’s enthusiasm has got into the players?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

;