Brief Synopsis Northampton

[Cobi Budge]

I recognize Mayor's value just find him frustrating. He obviously has the ability. But why can he not deliver when he gets in to the box? Does he get a mental block or something? Anyway he aint as good as Cobi suggests. Sounds like a bit of 'man love' going on there.

I just think he's the best technical player we've had since Hourihane. Accept that may be controversial, just my opinion. I know he was a fair bit younger but I remember plenty of people on here saying that he didn't have what it took to play in the championship, let alone the Prem as he is now.

 

[signalspast]

I think Mayor's lack of goals is the way he scores goals, both his goals for us have been to cut inside and fire away a right foot shot, in fact most of his attempts at scoring are exactly that.
He's not going to score a two yard tap in or a far post header. Once the opposition push him wider onto his left foot the goal scoring opportunity is gone.

His real worth to the team is assisting the assister! Drawing opposition players in, picking a pass to leave Cooper etc free to provide a cross or lay off for a goal.

One of the reasons I have been advocating him being tried on the right hand side in Grants place.

I would be reluctant to switch him away from his partnership with Cooper on the left. Whether Mayor scores or not , many of our goals come from the left hand side, and as Posty points out, Mayor often is the player who gets the ball to Cooper who makes the assist.

Yes agreed and I also agree with Grant's statistics making it difficult to do but when I have suggested it it has been in the cup games as an experiment with Reeves going into coopers place as he started his career as a left back. Just feel it night make us more defensively sound on the left hand side and with mayor being in the right we would have more balance in attack.
However who am I to think it we are mirroring last seasons start and are up in the playoff positions. Glad I am not the manager

 

[buck197]

I think David Norris’s career, enthusiasm and end product sinks DM without trace, no comparison at all. DM is a good player but needs some more end product, I’m mighty glad we have him. Some posters have to big him up above his level but for what reason, I’m not sure.

 

[Knibbsworth]

I think David Norris’s career, enthusiasm and end product sinks DM without trace, no comparison at all. DM is a good player but needs some more end product, I’m mighty glad we have him. Some posters have to big him up above his level but for what reason, I’m not sure.

Because like Carey or Akos Mayor is mercurial, a matchwinner, a joy to watch, a player that is worth the entry fee and is remembered 20 years down the line when his teammates most likely won't be.

 

[Shoenice]

Getting boring now guys

And your posts about tweaking formation to some 3-4-5-2-4-5-3-2 are riveting :think:

I don’t harp on about the same thing time and time again. This mayor good/bad has been done.

Weapon

You do actually.

You bring it up virtually every single game. What do you even know about your ridiculous 3-4-4-2-3-4-2 formation or whatever it is that you always suggest? As though you sit with a whiteboard and mark out how this grand plan works. Absolutely fanciful, fantasy league thinking. I'd expect that from a 12 year old. And I'm a weapon. Look in the mirror.

Yeah I agree your 3-4-4-2-3-4-2 is a little fanciful, fantasy league thinking.

My proposal was 4-3-3 or a 3-1-4-1-1. Really not that difficult to understand but you stick to your 22 man team proposal :crazy:

And yes, you certainly are a weapon. Of great calibre in-fact.

Enjoy your evening.

3-1-4-1-1. Genuine question - what makes you think that? That it's better than what we have now? I mean, 3-1-4-1-1 is very specific, so specific, where do you even get the idea from? Unless you are involved in football and have taken coaching badges and whatever else, then with all due respect, I sincerely doubt you have any real understanding of what you are actually saying. There's very little substance behind your weekly formation comments. Unless you are in football yourself, what do you even know about that formation beyond some fanciful idea of what it may look like in your head? So yes, it is hard to understand.

 

[Balham Green]

Getting boring now guys

And your posts about tweaking formation to some 3-4-5-2-4-5-3-2 are riveting :think:

I don’t harp on about the same thing time and time again. This mayor good/bad has been done.

Weapon

You do actually.

You bring it up virtually every single game. What do you even know about your ridiculous 3-4-4-2-3-4-2 formation or whatever it is that you always suggest? As though you sit with a whiteboard and mark out how this grand plan works. Absolutely fanciful, fantasy league thinking. I'd expect that from a 12 year old. And I'm a weapon. Look in the mirror.

Yeah I agree your 3-4-4-2-3-4-2 is a little fanciful, fantasy league thinking.

My proposal was 4-3-3 or a 3-1-4-1-1. Really not that difficult to understand but you stick to your 22 man team proposal :crazy:

And yes, you certainly are a weapon. Of great calibre in-fact.

Enjoy your evening.

3-1-4-1-1. Genuine question - what makes you think that? That it's better than what we have now? I mean, 3-1-4-1-1 is very specific, so specific, where do you even get the idea from? Unless you are involved in football and have taken coaching badges and whatever else, then with all due respect, I sincerely doubt you have any real understanding of what you are actually saying. There's very little substance behind your weekly formation comments. Unless you are in football yourself, what do you even know about that formation beyond some fanciful idea of what it may look like in your head? So yes, it is hard to understand.

Doesn't sound particularly 'fanciful' to me. In fact its not far from what we are actually playing. 1 anchor man in front of back 3. Then 4 players who are in effect Midfielders(2 wide). So rather than 2 up front its 1 off 1 which often happens in practice anyway. You dont need coaching badges to get that. As we heard on Saturday with Sean McCartney ex professionals are not necessarily that knowledgeable anyway.

 

[Quintrell Green]

Would have thought a lot depends on whether the so call ex-pro, now possible coach, has taken his FA coaching badges at the St George's Centre near Burton. You then have the question as to whether that person can translate knowledge gained into actual delivery successfully to a diverse group of individuals.

 

[davie nine]

Balham Green,
Is Sean Paul’s brother?

 

[WoodsyGreen]

Doesn't sound particularly 'fanciful' to me. In fact its not far from what we are actually playing. 1 anchor man in front of back 3. Then 4 players who are in effect Midfielders(2 wide). So rather than 2 up front its 1 off 1 which often happens in practice anyway. You dont need coaching badges to get that. As we heard on Saturday with Sean McCartney ex professionals are not necessarily that knowledgeable anyway.

I have a few coaching badges (up to Uefa B) if that makes any difference to this debate, and I agree that 3-1-4-1-1 is very close to what we're playing now - just with Danny Mayor as a traditional No.10 in behind a single striker (I think that's what Tugboat has been advocating anyway).

Personally I don't think RL would go for it because DM is the team's ball carrier from deep. Without him picking the ball up from the CBs or DM and getting us up the pitch, we'd be relying on the two WBs to do it. If I was an oppo coach I would push my own WBs or FBs up against Argyle's, which would force us to go long in an effort to get Mayor involved in the game.

If we had two Danny Mayors then this formation would be worth a go. Unfortunately - and despite what some on here might believe - players like Danny Mayor don't grow on trees. That's why Keith Curle was so glowing in his praise of him - he would love a player who could transition defensive possession into attacking possession in a single dribble. They really are a rarity in the lower leagues.

 

[Tugboat]

Doesn't sound particularly 'fanciful' to me. In fact its not far from what we are actually playing. 1 anchor man in front of back 3. Then 4 players who are in effect Midfielders(2 wide). So rather than 2 up front its 1 off 1 which often happens in practice anyway. You dont need coaching badges to get that. As we heard on Saturday with Sean McCartney ex professionals are not necessarily that knowledgeable anyway.

I have a few coaching badges (up to Uefa B) if that makes any difference to this debate, and I agree that 3-1-4-1-1 is very close to what we're playing now - just with Danny Mayor as a traditional No.10 in behind a single striker (I think that's what Tugboat has been advocating anyway).

Personally I don't think RL would go for it because DM is the team's ball carrier from deep. Without him picking the ball up from the CBs or DM and getting us up the pitch, we'd be relying on the two WBs to do it. If I was an oppo coach I would push my own WBs or FBs up against Argyle's, which would force us to go long in an effort to get Mayor involved in the game.

If we had two Danny Mayors then this formation would be worth a go. Unfortunately - and despite what some on here might believe - players like Danny Mayor don't grow on trees. That's why Keith Curle was so glowing in his praise of him - he would love a player who could transition defensive possession into attacking possession in a single dribble. They really are a rarity in the lower leagues.

Exactly that Woodsy.

If a mayor or cooper was playing in the hole that could offer a bit more potency centrally which in turn could open up space for the wingbacks.

All opinions by the way, before mr/mrs anger asks to see my coaching badges again.

 

[Shoenice]

Doesn't sound particularly 'fanciful' to me. In fact its not far from what we are actually playing. 1 anchor man in front of back 3. Then 4 players who are in effect Midfielders(2 wide). So rather than 2 up front its 1 off 1 which often happens in practice anyway. You dont need coaching badges to get that. As we heard on Saturday with Sean McCartney ex professionals are not necessarily that knowledgeable anyway.

I have a few coaching badges (up to Uefa B) if that makes any difference to this debate, and I agree that 3-1-4-1-1 is very close to what we're playing now - just with Danny Mayor as a traditional No.10 in behind a single striker (I think that's what Tugboat has been advocating anyway).

Personally I don't think RL would go for it because DM is the team's ball carrier from deep. Without him picking the ball up from the CBs or DM and getting us up the pitch, we'd be relying on the two WBs to do it. If I was an oppo coach I would push my own WBs or FBs up against Argyle's, which would force us to go long in an effort to get Mayor involved in the game.

If we had two Danny Mayors then this formation would be worth a go. Unfortunately - and despite what some on here might believe - players like Danny Mayor don't grow on trees. That's why Keith Curle was so glowing in his praise of him - he would love a player who could transition defensive possession into attacking possession in a single dribble. They really are a rarity in the lower leagues.

Exactly that Woodsy.

If a mayor or cooper was playing in the hole that could offer a bit more potency centrally which in turn could open up space for the wingbacks.

All opinions by the way, before mr/mrs anger asks to see my coaching badges again.

Ye ye, sure. You're so clued up on how these teams shape up in these formations, I'm surprised Pep isn't calling you up for some tactical advice. Again, I don't believe you know what you are even talking about. Read your posts before and you are a typical fickle football fan. And angry? Maybe you need to read back your 1st post.

 

[Shoenice]

I don’t harp on about the same thing time and time again. This mayor good/bad has been done.

Weapon[/quote]

You do actually.

You bring it up virtually every single game. What do you even know about your ridiculous 3-4-4-2-3-4-2 formation or whatever it is that you always suggest? As though you sit with a whiteboard and mark out how this grand plan works. Absolutely fanciful, fantasy league thinking. I'd expect that from a 12 year old. And I'm a weapon. Look in the mirror.[/quote]

Yeah I agree your 3-4-4-2-3-4-2 is a little fanciful, fantasy league thinking.

My proposal was 4-3-3 or a 3-1-4-1-1. Really not that difficult to understand but you stick to your 22 man team proposal :crazy:

And yes, you certainly are a weapon. Of great calibre in-fact.

Enjoy your evening.[/quote]

3-1-4-1-1. Genuine question - what makes you think that? That it's better than what we have now? I mean, 3-1-4-1-1 is very specific, so specific, where do you even get the idea from? Unless you are involved in football and have taken coaching badges and whatever else, then with all due respect, I sincerely doubt you have any real understanding of what you are actually saying. There's very little substance behind your weekly formation comments. Unless you are in football yourself, what do you even know about that formation beyond some fanciful idea of what it may look like in your head? So yes, it is hard to understand.[/quote]

Doesn't sound particularly 'fanciful' to me. In fact its not far from what we are actually playing. 1 anchor man in front of back 3. Then 4 players who are in effect Midfielders(2 wide). So rather than 2 up front its 1 off 1 which often happens in practice anyway. You dont need coaching badges to get that. As we heard on Saturday with Sean McCartney ex professionals are not necessarily that knowledgeable anyway.[/quote]

Never said all ex-pros are knowledgable either. What I was implying was, could Tugboat explain what that 3-1-4-1-1 means when we are on the ball? Off the ball? Could he explain how the team operates in both phases? Does the back line press high? Do the midfield sit tight to the backline and create a lack of space between the lines? What is the role of the wing back? Which player tucks in when the opposition have the ball? I could pull up 20 questions without even thinking - and he has no clue about any of those things. It just sounds good to him. I just think it is incredibly fickle of football supporters to go 'oh well we play 3-5-2 but I think we should go for 3-1-4-1-1'. Like what do you even know?

 

[Balham Green]

I don’t harp on about the same thing time and time again. This mayor good/bad has been done.

Weapon

You do actually.

You bring it up virtually every single game. What do you even know about your ridiculous 3-4-4-2-3-4-2 formation or whatever it is that you always suggest? As though you sit with a whiteboard and mark out how this grand plan works. Absolutely fanciful, fantasy league thinking. I'd expect that from a 12 year old. And I'm a weapon. Look in the mirror.[/quote]

Yeah I agree your 3-4-4-2-3-4-2 is a little fanciful, fantasy league thinking.

My proposal was 4-3-3 or a 3-1-4-1-1. Really not that difficult to understand but you stick to your 22 man team proposal :crazy:

And yes, you certainly are a weapon. Of great calibre in-fact.

Enjoy your evening.[/quote]

3-1-4-1-1. Genuine question - what makes you think that? That it's better than what we have now? I mean, 3-1-4-1-1 is very specific, so specific, where do you even get the idea from? Unless you are involved in football and have taken coaching badges and whatever else, then with all due respect, I sincerely doubt you have any real understanding of what you are actually saying. There's very little substance behind your weekly formation comments. Unless you are in football yourself, what do you even know about that formation beyond some fanciful idea of what it may look like in your head? So yes, it is hard to understand.[/quote]

Doesn't sound particularly 'fanciful' to me. In fact its not far from what we are actually playing. 1 anchor man in front of back 3. Then 4 players who are in effect Midfielders(2 wide). So rather than 2 up front its 1 off 1 which often happens in practice anyway. You dont need coaching badges to get that. As we heard on Saturday with Sean McCartney ex professionals are not necessarily that knowledgeable anyway.[/quote]

Never said all ex-pros are knowledgable either. What I was implying was, could Tugboat explain what that 3-1-4-1-1 means when we are on the ball? Off the ball? Could he explain how the team operates in both phases? Does the back line press high? Do the midfield sit tight to the backline and create a lack of space between the lines? What is the role of the wing back? Which player tucks in when the opposition have the ball? I could pull up 20 questions without even thinking - and he has no clue about any of those things. It just sounds good to him. I just think it is incredibly fickle of football supporters to go 'oh well we play 3-5-2 but I think we should go for 3-1-4-1-1'. Like what do you even know?[/quote]

What do you know? What makes you so knowledgeable?
'What is the role of the wing back?' Duuuh. Hardly University Challenge is it?

 

[demportdave]

Too much analysis of systems and formations which is largely irrelevant.

Lowe has very set ideas of how he wants the team to play and he should stick to his beliefs because he has had success playing this way.

The real issue here is why last night, we yet again turned in a pretty poor second half performance. What happens during the HT interval for us to come out and play so poorly. After competing really well in the first half, our midfield were out-fought and out-played which meant that our front 2 became spectators.

The penalty was a very poor decision but let's be honest, once the second half started it was only a matter of time before we conceded. It was a different game with one team totally dominant. Michael Appleton admitted to bollocking his players at HT to gee them up but we should have responded to that.

There are also concerns that during what was generally a good first half performance, we never actually created any scoring opportunities.

 

[davie nine]

Too much analysis of systems and formations which is largely irrelevant.

Lowe has very set ideas of how he wants the team to play and he should stick to his beliefs because he has had success playing this way.

The real issue here is why last night, we yet again turned in a pretty poor second half performance. What happens during the HT interval for us to come out and play so poorly. After competing really well in the first half, our midfield were out-fought and out-played which meant that our front 2 became spectators.

The penalty was a very poor decision but let's be honest, once the second half started it was only a matter of time before we conceded. It was a different game with one team totally dominant. Michael Appleton admitted to bollocking his players at HT to gee them up but we should have responded to that.

There are also concerns that during what was generally a good first half performance, we never actually created any scoring opportunities.

Wrong brief synopsis, Dave. You are obviously referring to last night’s game.