Interesting feature of last 2 matches

[Jammy T]

We have looked much better and much more solid with 2 banks of 4 in defence and midfield

 

Throws a lot of opinions about we need to play 5 in midfield into the waste paper bin does it not?

[TheBigO]

We have looked much better and much more solid with 2 banks of 4 in defence and midfield

 

Throws a lot of opinions about we need to play 5 in midfield into the waste paper bin does it not?

 

Wasn't there yesterday mate, was last Sun. I dont think our shape is as straight forward as that. I think Csabs intentionally plays a formation that can be adapted to suit the game

 

Can easily be 451, 433, 442, 4141.... etc.

 

If you meant after the sendings off, then yeh, prob was 2 banks of 4, so add an extra CF and boab's yer step-da!

 

I think the most interesting thing will be if and when Tullberg is fit. I think then we'll see Csaba's own style more clearly

[Jammy T]

Wasn't there yesterday mate, was last Sun. I dont think our shape is as straight forward as that. I think Csabs intentionally plays a formation that can be adapted to suit the game

 

Can easily be 451, 433, 442, 4141.... etc.

 

If you meant after the sendings off, then yeh, prob was 2 banks of 4, so add an extra CF and boab's yer step-da!

 

I think the most interesting thing will be if and when Tullberg is fit. I think then we'll see Csaba's own style more clearly

 

I meant when we went down to 10 men both games, and were forced into that more traditional formation.

 

Also we are now without a goal conceded in 130 minutes or so, our longest continual period of clean sheets - none of which with Zaliukas on the pitch.

 

None of this is a coincidence in my opinion

[N User]

from what they were saying on Hearts world after the sending off we were playing a 4-3-1-1 with Driver playing further forward than the other 3 midfielders.

[Jammy T]

from what they were saying on Hearts world after the sending off we were playing a 4-3-1-1 with Driver playing further forward than the other 3 midfielders.

 

and yet we still did better than with a 5 in midfield...

 

Doesnt change the fact that we play better and are more solid when we are not playing the comittee preferred 4-5-1

[sked21]

It isn't 4-5-1 we have been playing. More of a 4-4-1-1. But would agree we have looked quite solid. I just felt we weren't going to concede yesterday. Karipidis comes into centre back and Jonsson back to right back would do nicely for Wednesday.

 

I reckon Aguiar should drop into replace Stewart and I think Csaba will play Obua behind Nade.

 

But on my point of the 4-4-1-1. We are missing two fundamental players for this formation. A second striker who will create and can score. Aguiar has played well but I just can't see him scoring may. And a striker who can score. I have been very impressed with Nade over the last couple of games but he he likes to drift out wide and drop deep.

 

Come to think of it I would consider having Nade as the "second striker" with maybe Tullberg up front and see what that is like.

 

What was the thread about again?

[Charlie-Brown]

I think what Jammy_T is saying but not realising is that is nothing to do with formations or selection commitee's etc but rather we have played over 90 minutes with 10 men in the last 2 matches and our payers have shown great strength of character in those periods something which they had been criticised as previously lacking.

[Mr Romanov Saviour of HMFC]

One thing I noticed is we haven't conceded a goal when the Lithuanian Franz Beckenbauer hasn't been on the pitch.

[Jammy T]

I think what Jammy_T is saying but not realising is that is nothing to do with formations or selection commitee's etc but rather we have played over 90 minutes with 10 men in the last 2 matches and our payers have shown great strength of character in those periods something which they had been criticised as previously lacking.

 

No what i am saying is that we have looked better and more solid

 

1. without 5 in midfield (or a 4 and a 1, however it is twisted)

2. without Zaliukas in the team

 

The formations once down to 10 men have looked better and coped better in both games.

 

Not an opinion simply facts

 

Its like I was saying at the start of the season. Factually with Zaliukas in the team we are worse defensively, and without him in the team we have more clean sheets.

 

Not an opinion simply facts

 

Of course this will not suit the agenda of some so they will therefore try and reinterpret these facts as opinion and further filter it through their own mouths / typings by way of trying to undermine them.

 

Interestingly we are also doing better when the chips are down without any Kaunas players in the team.

[Jammy T]

One thing I noticed is we haven't conceded a goal when the Lithuanian Franz Beckenbauer hasn't been on the pitch.

 

Its funny, I noticed LAST season that we had more clean sheets without him in the team too....

[Charlie-Brown]

How is it possible to continue to play 5 in midfield after having a man sent off?

 

Miko played the whole second half last week after he replaced Chesney earlier in the game.

 

The commitee got their team selection, tactics & substitutions spot on yesterday - well done the players, well done the commitee - isn't it great when we all win together!

[Jammy T]

How is it possible to continue to play 5 in midfield after having a man sent off?

 

!

 

Exactly

 

You're a bit slow on the uptake today, well moreso than normal

[Charlie-Brown]

Exactly

 

You're a bit slow on the uptake today, well moreso than normal

 

Was 5 in midfield a problem yesterday when we still had 11 men on the pitch?

[Jammy T]

Was 5 in midfield a problem yesterday when we still had 11 men on the pitch?

 

Were we winning the game?

 

Did we win the game having been forced to change?

 

Its not difficult. I'm dealing with facts. You fail to acknowledge it cause it doesnt suit your agenda - fair enough.

[Charlie-Brown]

Were we winning the game?

 

Did we win the game having been forced to change?

 

Its not difficult. I'm dealing with facts. You fail to acknowledge it cause it doesnt suit your agenda - fair enough.

 

As I understand it once Stewart went off we went from a midfield 4 to a midfield 3 (Robbie, Aguiar & Ruben) with Driver in between the midfield 3 and Nade.

 

At the end of the day it was great win for the players, Csaba Laszlo, Hearts fans & Heart of Midlothian Football club.

[Jammy T]

As I understand it once Stewart went off we went from a midfield 4 to a midfield 3 (Robbie, Aguiar & Ruben) with Driver in between the midfield 3 and Nade.

 

.

 

Oh you mean actually more of a diamond formation. Neilson holding, Ruben left, Aguiar right and Driver at the Apex...

 

...so a well defined midfield 4?

 

Still we have done better, even with 10 men, when moving away from the starting formation which has served us so poorly for most of the season...not sure why you are so reluctant to concede this.

 

Next you'll be arguing that Zaliukas should be straight back in the team...

[Charlie-Brown]

Oh you mean actually more of a diamond formation. Neilson holding, Ruben left, Aguiar right and Driver at the Apex...

 

...so a well defined midfield 4?

 

Still we have done better, even with 10 men, when moving away from the starting formation which has served us so poorly for most of the season...not sure why you are so reluctant to concede this.

 

Next you'll be arguing that Zaliukas should be straight back in the team...

 

Maybe we should just start with 10 players on wednesday then?

[Jammy T]

Maybe we should just start with 10 players on wednesday then?

 

Or play 2 proper strikers in the knowledge now that an extra body floating around midfield (or indeed in the fringes of midfield) isnt needed for solidity to the Hearts team

[Charlie-Brown]

Tullberg & Mole started against Kilmarnock then got replaced by Makela & Ksanavicius.

[Only a Game]

Or play 2 proper strikers in the knowledge now that an extra body floating around midfield (or indeed in the fringes of midfield) isnt needed for solidity to the Hearts team

 

Great theory.

 

Unfortunately playing any two of the strikers we have at the club just now at the expense of a midfield player would be like starting with 10 men (as someone suggested earlier)

 

Our problems with the system the players are being asked to play is more with the quality of the player being asked to play it rather than a flaw in the system itself.

 

We cant play 4-4-2 at the moment because we dont have two strikers worthy of the description "striker" Suicidal IMO to take a body out of midfield and play the likes of Nade and Makela up front as a pair.

 

4-5-1 isnt working for us I agree. But any system you can name wouldnt work that well for us at the moment because of the poor quality we have in forward areas and I dont just mean strikers.

[Only a Game]

Or play 2 proper strikers in the knowledge now that an extra body floating around midfield (or indeed in the fringes of midfield) isnt needed for solidity to the Hearts team

 

At what stage of the Celtic game did we look solid ? Was it after Celtic realised they were so far in front of us in every department that they got the training kit out ?

[sked21]

I know I have commented on our tactics and how I reckon we should play I don't think it comes down to 4-4-2 or 4-5-1.

 

It comes down to who we play in the positions and how they are set up.

[Jammy T]

Just as a little aside - obviously Neilson doesnt have an agenda about twisting the reality of our formation.

 

Robbie Neilson on Csaba's tactics with 10 man against St Mirren

 

"We spoke about it at half-time and he was quite decisive about what he wanted, two banks of four in a 4-4-1 and he had a few plans for various situations."

 

So the basics were 2 banks of 4....

[Dr. Bapswent]

We have looked much better and much more solid with 2 banks of 4 in defence and midfield

 

Throws a lot of opinions about we need to play 5 in midfield into the waste paper bin does it not?

 

No it doesn't IMO.

 

To me it only shows that the team show the heart and fight needed when their back is against the wall and down to 10 men.

 

If they could show that with 5 in midfield, we would romp through the games no problem.

[Jammy T]

If they could show that with 5 in midfield, we would romp through the games no problem.

 

And isnt that precisely the problem and issue - they cant.

 

Maybe its down to the fact that players have a clearer grasp of what to do in a 4 man midfield?

[Dr. Bapswent]

And isnt that precisely the problem and issue - they cant.

 

Maybe its down to the fact that players have a clearer grasp of what to do in a 4 man midfield?

 

Again, no.

 

When down to 10 men they may be more desperate to win tackles, harder into challenges, quicker to the ball because with 10 men they are on the back foot.

 

All qualities they should show with 11 players.

 

Other alternatives may be that having a passenger, such as MS in midfield detracts from their ability to function well, but again this is not a problem with having 5 players, but a problem with MS or whoever, not pulling their weight.

 

This is the real problem IMO, not the formation.

 

We play with 5 in mid, because the ability of any of those 5 is well above the ability of whoever our second striker might be. We play to our strength.

 

A 2 man strike force would mean we'd be playing an under strength team, and against most SPL opposition, thats suicide (at the moment).

 

With a better squad we can play different formations.

 

At the moment, we play 4-5-1, because it suits the squad best.

 

Getting that full squad to play to their potential is the issue, not the formation.

[Jammy T]

At the moment, we play 4-5-1, because it suits the squad best.

 

Getting that full squad to play to their potential is the issue, not the formation.

 

All of which suggests that it isnt playing to our strengths at all given our lack of wins.

 

As I have said previously - given our form - the theory that we are playing to our strengths should be tested by changing formation.

 

You cant say for definite that it wouldnt work - because it hasnt been given a decent chance

 

Equally how on earth could it be said we are playing to our strenghts if one of the midfield 5 has tended to be a passenger in games as you say??

 

It suggests that either people dont know their roles in that formation, or the fact that 4 decent midfielders and 1 passenger is better than 4 decent midfielders and 2 average strikers.

 

And what you cant deny about Mole is that he does a lot of running around the channels and what you cant deny about Nade is that he can be quite direct. The combination COULD work and it hasnt been tried.

 

Csaba spoke of flexibility at the start of the season. We should show it.

 

Do you genuinely think we would risk losing tonights game if we played 4-4-2 as opposed to 4-5-1?

[Dr. Bapswent]

All of which suggests that it isnt playing to our strengths at all given our lack of wins.

 

Not really, maybe we would get beaten harder if we didn't play this formation?

Its not possible to say with complete confidece.

 

As I have said previously - given our form - the theory that we are playing to our strengths should be tested by changing formation.

 

Yes, and Im assuming that in training Csaba has worked out that naythign other than a 4-5-1 would be weaker. Im not going to debate whether this is right or wrong, because its Csaba's job, and I don't think this i a debate about Csaba's abilities.

 

You cant say for definite that it wouldnt work - because it hasnt been given a decent chance

 

Equally how on earth could it be said we are playing to our strenghts if one of the midfield 5 has tended to be a passenger in games as you say??

becuase he is not playing up to his ability...and that the problem to solve...not the formation that is at fault.

 

It suggests that either people dont know their roles in that formation, or the fact that 4 decent midfielders and 1 passenger is better than 4 decent midfielders and 2 average strikers.

 

And what you cant deny about Mole is that he does a lot of running around the channels and what you cant deny about Nade is that he can be quite direct. The combination COULD work and it hasnt been tried.

 

Csaba spoke of flexibility at the start of the season. We should show it.

 

Do you genuinely think we would risk losing tonights game if we played 4-4-2 as opposed to 4-5-1?

 

Thats why i said most SPL opposition, because some 'lesser' teams would be less of a gamble to play against. But still a gamble, and if it doesn't pay off...the repercussions of losing to Hamilton are MUCH larger. Imagine this board if we lose?

 

Again Im assuming that Csaba is happier playing what he see's are our strongest formation and side available, even against weaker opposition with the aim of ensuring a more comfortable victory...not gamble and possibly lose.

 

Of course we could still lose with a 4-5-1, and Csaba will get hounded by those who say we should have tried 4-4-2. He is in a no win situation, dammed if he does, dammed if he doest.

 

So IMO, I think he is playing the strongest side, and this helps dictate the formation.

 

I would like to see a 4-4-2, but I think this required better players on the squad to make up for the weaknesses in others.

 

Im not against 4-4-2, far from it, I just think our team would be weaker, as it stands, if we tried this over our current formation considering our squad.

[Guest JamboRobbo]

Maybe we should just start with 10 players on wednesday then?

 

We'd certainly be better to start with 10 than play Zaliukas. I think the results when he wasn't on the park the last two games prove that point.

 

We didn't concede a single goal in 130 minutes without him.

[Charlie-Brown]

Neilson said the basic formation with only 10 men was 4-4-1 however he also said that when we had possession and attacking that csaba wanted it to be come 4-1-4 ..... you can only take Neilson's comments in the context of a 10 man team - in the attacking sense we were a man short in midfield in the second half on saturday as we'd normally be 4-2-3-1 (4-2-4)

[Jammy T]

Neilson said the basic formation with only 10 men was 4-4-1 however he also said that when we had possession and attacking that csaba wanted it to be come 4-1-4 ..... you can only take Neilson's comments in the context of a 10 man team - in the attacking sense we were a man short in midfield in the second half on saturday as we'd normally be 4-2-3-1 (4-2-4)

 

Spin merchant and a pedant....

 

Yeah, like a 4-4-2 means that whenever you attack you only have 2 players in forward positions

 

Or you never have more than 4 defenders in the box

 

Of course when you attack or defend you adjust how many players are on what area and take up what positions.

 

We are talking about a basic starting formation. Thats all we can ever talk about when talking about formations because they will always flucuate

 

So, I claim that we appear to have done better with 2 banks of 4 in the last couple of games, certainly from a defensive point of view, to be told:

 

1. it wasnt 2 banks of 4 - well thats been disproven from a basic formation point of view, thanks Robbie

 

2. it wasnt the formation it was the attitude. Fair enough, but the change in basic formation has coincided with a period of not conceding a goal, and winning within that basic formation, so its a little trite to suggest the formation had nothing to do with it.

 

Of course the fact that we had no Zaliukas for any of this period is an obvious and clear factor.

 

In addition the lack of any Kaunas player for the vast majority of this time lends itself to the argument that this helped also

 

The fact that for the majority of every other game we have started with 5 midfielders we have conceded goals is another element in favour of the formation argument - either that or our attitude and application hasnt been correct in the majority which should be a concern

 

[Charlie-Brown]

Jammy your whole argument is based on 2 halves where we only had 10 men, unless we sacrificed a defender or an attacker ie 351 or 450 of course midfield was a man down

[Jammy T]

Jammy your whole argument is based on 2 halves where we only had 10 men, unless we sacrificed a defender or an attacker ie 351 or 450 of course midfield was a man down

 

Yes - and far from being defensively exposed and leaky with goals (as we have been with this extra man in midfield all season) we didnt lose a goal

 

Now I accept a circle the wagons attitude will have helped, but I also think that the formation did too.

 

You dont need to agree with me but to deny any possibility that the 2 banks of 4 formation existed or had anything to do with the relative success is puerile to be honest.

 

I've made an observation. Its unusual to lose no goals in 2 games when down to 10 men and am wondering why? Yes I am disposed to a change in formation to 4-4-2, but all my argument does is use the facts to back up my claim that a 4 and a 4 is a good solid foundation within which to move forward.

 

I could just have said - see we are better without Zaliukas in defence (as I have been arguing all season), but that is just a helpful sideline argument

 

Its interesting to see that even where some semblance of facts are staring people in the face they would still do anything rather than depart from the status quo...

[Charlie-Brown]

They didnt lose a goal when stewart was on either, i think the 10 men has necessitated greater focus & effort from the remaining players

[Guest JamboRobbo]

They didnt lose a goal when stewart was on either, i think the 10 men has necessitated greater focus & effort from the remaining players

 

they did against Celtic.

 

We haven't conceded a goal in about 130 minutes, since bombscare Zaliukas was removed from our defence by the SFA. that is a fact you cannot deny.

[Guest JamboRobbo]

Its interesting to see that even where some semblance of facts are staring people in the face they would still do anything rather than depart from the status quo...

 

indeed. denying the truth even tho the facts are starting him in the face.

[Charlie-Brown]

We didn't concede any goals on saturday with Michael Stewart still on the pitch ie 11 men.

 

Teams with only 10 men quite often manage to get better than expected results as effort and focus is increased, in season 1991-92 we managed to win 7 games in which we had men sent off - does that mean that Jordans initial set up of 3-4-3 formation wasn't as good or that the players tried just as hard/harder with only ten men?

[Guest JamboRobbo]

We didn't concede any goals on saturday with Michael Stewart still on the pitch ie 11 men.

 

But again, crucially, no bombscare on the park.

[Charlie-Brown]

But again, crucially, no bombscare on the park.

 

No karipidis either...or no kingston....

[Guest JamboRobbo]

No karipidis either...or no kingston....

 

a) they're not our CH's.

 

but there was after Zaliukas got sent off last time.

 

Again, when bombscare was out, we had a run where we conceded less goals. Its happened whenever he's been out the team - so it ain't just coincidence.

[Charlie-Brown]

a) they're not our CH's.

 

but there was after Zaliukas got sent off last time.

 

Again, when bombscare was out, we had a run where we conceded less goals. Its happened whenever he's been out the team - so it ain't just coincidence.

 

What relevance is this? Goals can be conceded from anywhere in the park....since Zaliukas got sent off v celtic the other constant has been no Karipidis in centre midfield and also for 102 of the 156 minutes played we have had only ten men, the goals against ratio has also dropped since Kingston hasn't been playing - these are all facts.