Carew's City Position Explained

Mind boggling.

So whats Heskey's excuse?

Another article full of negative vibes. Strange, don't usually see them on Vital Villa...

A little bizarre, but in Martin we trust :O)

you'll have to explain to me what is negative about Mike's article PBAVFC, nothing from what I can read, in fact it is positive to read why Carew was so deep as many of us were left baffled why he wasn't getting forward. To be fair his best position has to be where he terrorises the defenders because on his day the big man is a handful, but that article and quotes in E&S simply explain why he wasn't up front. NOTHING at all negative. Maybe comment on the article instead of implying things are negative and we'll then get your point of view mate, this negi/posi stuff is far too boring.

I suspect the logic for letting him dropa bit deeper is that city are physically a quite short side: any ariel challenges in midfield should've been carews without a doubt. Lescott aside, there's nobody in Citys side who'd be able to even challenge carew.

Still think its bizarre, but hey, MON is the boss! Reminds me of when Mourinho brought on Robert Huth as a sub, and played him as a striker to win the headers in the box at the front. Maybe worth a try, but IMO it didnt work. Many of us just wondered why Carew is so deep and not getting into scoring positions. Still, it would be good to see the game again in view of this knowledge and to judge then if it was successful or not. Personally I think after we got the lead we should have brought on NRC packed the midfield and taken Carew off. Its always easier to be wise after the event! At least MON was trying somethign new, more stupid was bringing Heskey on again on the wing. But thats off topic!

He won EVERY header he went for. But they were not getting to Gabby or any of the others. For that reason the City defence marked the other players and began giving him FREE headers!! It was completely ineffective after a while, and I must say a masterstroke of tactical management by Hughes. Most managers would have doubled up on him to stop headers being one - Hughes did the opposite!!!

would think City were very happy with him being deeper, it is up front where he is the danger, it was similar v Cardiff but at that stage he wasn't really jumping for the headers and got 'told off' by MON !

Deano - You've hit the nail on the head there. Its was a nice idea, but Hughes saw it and knew it was a losing battle. Rather than trying to stop him heading (which would be close to impossible considering the hobbit like team City have), they cut off his options to pass it to us. Carew did what he was asked (from whats been said here), there was nothing more he could do though. Someone else has already said though in hindsight its easier to say what should have been done

I think this is M'ON trying to prove a point . . . . . . . and failing miserably. He obviously knows the facts regarding our formation and how the 442 formation has failed us miserably over the last 18 months (4 wins in the 21 games he hs deployed that formation). He must also know that we have won 12 and lost just once whilst playing 433(451), out of the 16 times he has used that formation since the start of last season. So instead of doing the obvious (obvious to you and me that is) of playing that formation, he actually plays our centre forward out of position, so that he can 'prove' 442 actually works. Unfortunately against City we never had a shot on target from open play in the entire game and his plan backfired. It is now time for M'ON to accept that 442 for us doesn't work with the players we have. That is not to say 442 is no good, it just doesn't suit our personnel. Ashley Young is lost without a midfielder inside to work with. It is not a coincidence that his best performances this season are as part of a 433(451). 442 never worked when the '4' was Milner, Petrov, Barry and Young. It is not going to work by simply replacing Barry with another player. There is simply too much ground for the middle two to cover in between Young and Milner who hog the touchlines. I will go as far as to say, if we persist with 442 we will in the bottom 8 come May. If we use the personnel we have, to their greatest strength, we could finish in the top 3.

I was commenting on the article, I didn't realise only a certain type of comment was allowed, sorry. All I can do then is apologise that my opinion, that there is negi vibes in this article is totally wriong then Fear. I just felt the "get this" quote at the start sets the tone as another, lets all ridicule a MON decision, type of quote. I apologise, just the way I read the article. I'll be sure in future to keep any negi /posi vibes opinions to my self in future, don't want to be boring anybody now do I ; ).

I thought Carew looked bored and lethargic for the entire game...

If you want five men in midfield then why not put five midfielders in the team?..Not mon's way tho is it?...playing players outa position is tho...makes no sense and I do worry about our lack of creativity. I can see a lot of draws on the horizon as teams just come to VP and sit back..lets hope things improve

Was Heskey told to run around aimlessly not quite in midfield and not quite in attack too?

The mind boggles with MON it really does!!