Clarke enjoyed having Elliott up front (1 Viewer)

[AFCCOVENTRY]

Two-goal hero Leon Clarke lauded the team's effort's against the Blades...

Coventry City striker Leon Clarke has thanked the team after his brace secured a 2-1 win at Sheffield United.

The forward, who signed for City in the January transfer window from Charlton Athletic, made it five goals in six games for the club with a brace against the Blades.

His late winner in the 87th minute put City just one point off the play-offs and Clarke praised the team for an 'incredible performance'.

The City striker said: "It was a great night for the club because it is always a difficult place to come and we have come away with a great victory.

"The team was brilliant. They just created so many chances which makes it so enjoyable for me to play football. I think the first half was easily the best 45 minutes I have been involved with this season.

"We outplayed them all over the park. The intensity was incredible and we deserved to be further ahead really. To get the winner in front of our supporters was fantastic as well because they sang throughout and kept behind the team.

"When they scored, we all heard them get straight back behind us and that is really important. They just topped off what has been a great night for the club."

City boss Mark Robins switched to a 4-4-2 system for the Blades clash with Stephen Elliott joining Clarke in attack. Clarke revealed after the match that it was enjoyable to have Elliott join him up front.

He added: "With the squad we have, the manager has a lot of options in midfield. The game we play is very flexible and that definitely showed in the first half.

"Our movement throughout the midfield was brilliant but it was nice to have Stephen Elliott up top with me today.

"He puts in a lot of work so it makes playing with him very easy and he provided me with a great assist which was nice. It worked well today and he is always looking for me because that is his experience showing through.

"It was a great night and to go into the huge game on Tuesday on the back of this win is a definite bonus."

 

---

[dongonzalos]

Sky Blue Taylor, was this two up front?

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Sky Blue Taylor, was this two up front?

Yeah it was, we were shit in the 2nd half...

1st half we were hoofing it, less opportunities created etc. etc. we'll be back to 1 upfront next game.

I was there.

 

[dongonzalos]

Why do you think he turned to two up top for arguably the most important game of the season?

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Why do you think he turned to two up top for arguably the most important game of the season?

... I was waiting for this question

Missing Bailey, our best CM, Elliott would've started v PNE had he not had a dead leg (on his own or 4-4-2 I wouldn't know) and because Clarke scored v PNE, it's unfair to drop either, so, given our best CM was out, CT4 prob still not 100%, Fleck in a 4-4-2, no, Sheff back, it was quite logical to play 4-4-2, although I disagree with us playing it.

 

[SkyBlue_Bear83]

Yeah it was, we were shit in the 2nd half...

1st half we were hoofing it, less opportunities created etc. etc. we'll be back to 1 upfront next game.

I was there.

1st half was probably one of the best 45 minutes of the season with 2 playing up top

 

[woody11462]

As a former Sheff Wed player I bet he enjoyed them two goals today a bit extra. He was brought in to replace a certain David McG and he is scoring goals at the moment. Long may it continue. He is a different type of player and may not offer the same options as an out ball from defence early in the move but in the box, he's doing his job.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

1st half was probably one of the best 45 minutes of the season with 2 playing up top

No, I disagree, we were good in possession at times, we did hoof it a lot, however, we didn't create the quality chances you'd expect, imo.

I also think their tactics helped massively to us being able to take control, they were poor, they are poor.

2nd half we completely abandoned our principles and haing 2 up top, especially as neither Clarke or Elliott was winning anything in the air, we couldn't 'play' or go direct, truly frustrating.

We played excellent after our 2nd.

 

[dongonzalos]

... I was waiting for this question

Missing Bailey, our best CM, Elliott would've started v PNE had he not had a dead leg (on his own or 4-4-2 I wouldn't know) and because Clarke scored v PNE, it's unfair to drop either, so, given our best CM was out, CT4 prob still not 100%, Fleck in a 4-4-2, no, Sheff back, it was quite logical to play 4-4-2, although I disagree with us playing it.

So now we have a great result with it away to a team better than Preston ( one up front) you would say don't stick with it and deploy bailey over Jennings, if Bailey us 100% ?

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

So now we have a great result with it away to a team better than Preston ( one up front) you would say don't stick with it and deploy bailey over Jennings, if Bailey us 100% ?

We drew to PNE, with 1 upfront, but, I recall, us beating Donny 4-1 away (1 upfront) and guess what formation we've lost with the most... Any guesses? Yep, 4-4-2!

Don't hand pick games like that with me.

If Bailey is 100% I'd stick eight he usual midfield, the same 5 that got us to the position we are... Sheff wasn't great today (by that I mean poor) so I'd perhaps start someone else.

If the system isn't broke, don't fix it.

I don't think Elliott done enough to convince MR to carry on 4-4-2, he got an assist, fair play, but didn't score, what we need now, a goal scorer.

 

[SkyBlue_Bear83]

No, I disagree, we were good in possession at times, we did hoof it a lot, however, we didn't create the quality chances you'd expect, imo.

I also think their tactics helped massively to us being able to take control, they were poor, they are poor.

2nd half we completely abandoned our principles and haing 2 up top, especially as neither Clarke or Elliott was winning anything in the air, we couldn't 'play' or go direct, truly frustrating.

We played excellent after our 2nd.

Well robins disagrees with you

"The first half performance was as close to what I am looking for as you can get. We did everything right, it was brilliant. In the second half, I think we lost a little bit of direction.

It's funny you say we played brilliant after our second, that was for what 7-8 minutes when Sheffield were throwing bodies forward looking for a goal

I'm not saying we should play 442 every game but it is an option that we can play to good effect if we need to or the situation calls for it

The stubbornness of some people on this forum is frightening, your opinion an views are blinkered by the fact you don't want to be wrong

 

[dongonzalos]

That's all you needed to say

 

[SkyBlue_Bear83]

We drew to PNE, with 1 upfront, but, I recall, us beating Donny 4-1 away (1 upfront) and guess what formation we've lost with the most... Any guesses? Yep, 4-4-2!

Don't hand pick games like that with me.

If Bailey is 100% I'd stick eight he usual midfield, the same 5 that got us to the position we are... Sheff wasn't great today (by that I mean poor) so I'd perhaps start someone else.

If the system isn't broke, don't fix it.

I don't think Elliott done enough to convince MR to carry on 4-4-2, he got an assist, fair play, but didn't score, what we need now, a goal scorer.

Haha so Elliott didn't score in this game but had 3 goals in about 180 mins before today so now he is shit again

Fits your I don't rate Elliott agenda, you need to get your head out of your own arse and accept that everything you say is not always correct

 

[dongonzalos]

We drew to PNE, with 1 upfront, but, I recall, us beating Donny 4-1 away (1 upfront) and guess what formation we've lost with the most... Any guesses? Yep, 4-4-2!

Don't hand pick games like that with me.

If Bailey is 100% I'd stick eight he usual midfield, the same 5 that got us to the position we are... Sheff wasn't great today (by that I mean poor) so I'd perhaps start someone else.

If the system isn't broke, don't fix it.

I don't think Elliott done enough to convince MR to carry on 4-4-2, he got an assist, fair play, but didn't score, what we need now, a goal scorer.

Can you think of any times where the system was broke.

At any point this season have we dominated teams created more chances and drew or lost, especially at home.

What is missing if you are creating more chances than the opposition but drawing or losing......

My guess would be its not two defensive midfielders ......

 

[Deleted member 4439]

Following on from Clarkes' praise for the supporters, this from the SUFC footy board

"Credit to Coventry who brought a surprisingly good number (1,500-2,000) on a Friday night and they were one of the loudest set of fans down here and really got behind their side."

http://boards.footymad.net/forum.php?tno=463&fid=221&sty=2&act=1&mid=2113302066

Well done all (and me...)

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Haha so Elliott didn't score in this game but had 3 goals in about 180 mins before today so now he is shit again

Fits your I don't rate Elliott agenda, you need to get your head out of your own arse and accept that everything you say is not always correct

No one said anything about him being shit. I have to admit, I'm wrong on Elliott, he's been playing well, I'll hold my hands up, but, you have to select your best team, and I don't think he's in that XI.

He's going against someone who has also scored 3 in 180, also the top goal scorer in the league, I guess this is all an anti-Elliott conspiracy :facepalm: and MR prefers to play 1 striker.

 

[dongonzalos]

Following on from Clarkes' praise for the supporters, this from the SUFC footy board

"Credit to Coventry who brought a surprisingly good number (1,500-2,000) on a Friday night and they were one of the loudest set of fans down here and really got behind their side."

http://boards.footymad.net/forum.php?tno=463&fid=221&sty=2&act=1&mid=2113302066

Well done all (and me...)[/QUOTE

Fair play including you SBT ( even if you can't see the wood.....)

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Can you think of any times where the system was broke.

At any point this season have we dominated teams created more chances and drew or lost, especially at home.

What is missing if you are creating more chances than the opposition but drawing or losing......

My guess would be its not two defensive midfielders ......

The first 'bout' of 4-4-2 was broke, whilst, at the time, we won all of our games using 4-4-2, we lost too many to shit teams e.g. Scunny hence why we moved to 4-4-1-1.

As I have said, we have lost most of our games whilst using 4-4-2, this alone should close the argument.

We don't play 2 defensive midfielders, never have since Carlisle (H) really, we play a flat 4, with, usually, a CAM behind a striker. Of course you would've noticed this if you go to games, which by this, I'm unsure if you do.

My final point: we moved to 4-4-1-1, before we scored our 2nd, we played better and, we had 2 clear cut chances to finish the game off after Clarke's 2nd, more than we had the whole 2nd playing 4-4-2

 

[SkyBlue_Bear83]

No one said anything about him being shit. I have to admit, I'm wrong on Elliott, he's been playing well, I'll hold my hands up, but, you have to select your best team, and I don't think he's in that XI.

He's going against someone who has also scored 3 in 180, also the top goal scorer in the league, I guess this is all an anti-Elliott conspiracy :facepalm: and MR prefers to play 1 striker.

Yea but your using the fact he didn't score today as reasoning for dropping him despite him getting an assist an scoring other times he has been given a chance

I'm not saying he should definitely start next game but the fact you are using he didn't score today as reasoning to drop him is ridiculous
If he is dropped it won't be because he played badly or he didn't score last game. It will be because robins has sent out someone else who he feels will give us a better chance of winning the game, like he did today with going to 2 uptop (which worked)

 

[SkyBlue_Bear83]

The first 'bout' of 4-4-2 was broke, whilst, at the time, we won all of our games using 4-4-2, we lost too many to shit teams e.g. Scunny hence why we moved to 4-4-1-1.

As I have said, we have lost most of our games whilst using 4-4-2, this alone should close the argument.

We don't play 2 defensive midfielders, never have since Carlisle (H) really, we play a flat 4, with, usually, a CAM behind a striker. Of course you would've noticed this if you go to games, which by this, I'm unsure if you do.

My final point: we moved to 4-4-1-1, before we scored our 2nd, we played better and, we had 2 clear cut chances to finish the game off after Clarke's 2nd, more than we had the whole 2nd playing 4-4-2

Sheffield Utd were throwing bodies forward at the end looking for a goal so that doesn't say much

Facts are Robins thought it was a brilliant performance first half and we done everything right

 

[dongonzalos]

The first 'bout' of 4-4-2 was broke, whilst, at the time, we won all of our games using 4-4-2, we lost too many to shit teams e.g. Scunny hence why we moved to 4-4-1-1.

As I have said, we have lost most of our games whilst using 4-4-2, this alone should close the argument.

We don't play 2 defensive midfielders, never have since Carlisle (H) really, we play a flat 4, with, usually, a CAM behind a striker. Of course you would've noticed this if you go to games, which by this, I'm unsure if you do.

My final point: we moved to 4-4-1-1, before we scored our 2nd, we played better and, we had 2 clear cut chances to finish the game off after Clarke's 2nd, more than we had the whole 2nd playing 4-4-2

Do you like stats?

Try reading them, you point ends there really.....

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Well robins disagrees with you

"The first half performance was as close to what I am looking for as you can get. We did everything right, it was brilliant. In the second half, I think we lost a little bit of direction.

It's funny you say we played brilliant after our second, that was for what 7-8 minutes when Sheffield were throwing bodies forward looking for a goal

I'm not saying we should play 442 every game but it is an option that we can play to good effect if we need to or the situation calls for it

The stubbornness of some people on this forum is frightening, your opinion an views are blinkered by the fact you don't want to be wrong

I missed this one

I still don't feel we created enough chances in the 1st half, ones that were clear-cut anyway, I think anyone who went could vouch for that.

I took that into consideration, but we played better with the passing etc.

Of course, but, the large majority of games + situations, I can't see why we'd play 4-4-2, it's backward, Robins' said himself he doesn't want to play it (look for the exact quote, I cba), so Robins' agrees with me on the general idea.

I think 4-4-1-1 should be 1st choice formation, I think 4-4-2 could be an option in the event of injuries/suspension and desperation, but overall, we're changing the way we play by changing formation, in our 'system' the middle man is important, take him out, you get some problems playing the usual way. 4-3-3 is another option, a 'real' 4-2-3-1 could also be an option.

I'm not blinkered at all, I have facts on my side; we've lost more playing 4-4-2.

On that note, I rest my case.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Do you like stats?

Try reading them, you point ends there really.....

What stats end my point?

Last time I checked, the only home game we've lost NOT playing 4-4-2 was MR's 1st game as manager. As we know, we were very hit and miss at home.

 

[dongonzalos]

What stats end my point?

Last time I checked, the only home game we've lost NOT playing 4-4-2 was MR's 1st game as manager. As we know, we were very hit and miss at home.

Chances created. how many, when and formation played at the time. For tonight.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Yea but your using the fact he didn't score today as reasoning for dropping him despite him getting an assist an scoring other times he has been given a chance

I'm not saying he should definitely start next game but the fact you are using he didn't score today as reasoning to drop him is ridiculous
If he is dropped it won't be because he played badly or he didn't score last game. It will be because robins has sent out someone else who he feels will give us a better chance of winning the game, like he did today with going to 2 uptop (which worked)

Question:

Assuming we play 1 upfront, which I think we will v Crewe and Yeovil, who would YOU choose to play upfront, Leon Clarke or Stephen Elliott? I'd choose Clarke, on the basis he is the leagues' top goalscorer, and has scored more goals than Elliott already, despite only joining on Jan 1st.

That's what it boils down to me. Choosing between the 2, is that 'anti-Elliott'!?

 

[SkyBlue_Bear83]

I missed this one

I still don't feel we created enough chances in the 1st half, ones that were clear-cut anyway, I think anyone who went could vouch for that.

I took that into consideration, but we played better with the passing etc.

Of course, but, the large majority of games + situations, I can't see why we'd play 4-4-2, it's backward, Robins' said himself he doesn't want to play it (look for the exact quote, I cba), so Robins' agrees with me on the general idea.

I think 4-4-1-1 should be 1st choice formation, I think 4-4-2 could be an option in the event of injuries/suspension and desperation, but overall, we're changing the way we play by changing formation, in our 'system' the middle man is important, take him out, you get some problems playing the usual way. 4-3-3 is another option, a 'real' 4-2-3-1 could also be an option.

I'm not blinkered at all, I have facts on my side; we've lost more playing 4-4-2.

On that note, I rest my case.

No you are blinkered, it is fair to say in general you prefer 1 up top over 2. Nothing wrong with that

But you have to give it credit where credits due, we were brilliant first half with 442

Arguing that we were better for a 8 minute period when Sheffield were pouring men forward for a goal compared to a whole half playing at a good standard just makes you look desperate an clutching to straws

 

[SkyBlue_Bear83]

Question:

Assuming we play 1 upfront, which I think we will v Crewe and Yeovil, who would YOU choose to play upfront, Leon Clarke or Stephen Elliott? I'd choose Clarke, on the basis he is the leagues' top goalscorer, and has scored more goals than Elliott already, despite only joining on Jan 1st.

That's what it boils down to me. Choosing between the 2, is that 'anti-Elliott'!?

No that is not but saying he should be dropped because he didn't score today is

 

[dongonzalos]

Question:

Assuming we play 1 upfront, which I think we will v Crewe and Yeovil, who would YOU choose to play upfront, Leon Clarke or Stephen Elliott? I'd choose Clarke, on the basis he is the leagues' top goalscorer, and has scored more goals than Elliott already, despite only joining on Jan 1st.

That's what it boils down to me. Choosing between the 2, is that 'anti-Elliott'!?

No it's anti playing two up from in a game in which we will have most possession. We will create the most chances. If we don't score we will match our most popular home result.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

No that is not but saying he should be dropped because he didn't score today is

I never said he should be dropped because he didn't score, I'm saying when Bailey comes back, he's obviously going to start, and we'll probably play 4-4-1-1 so, if we play 1 upfront, who do you play!? Elliott, no goal last game, or, Clarke, 3 goals in last 2?

Btw, you may have conveniently missed this, but I was saying Elliott should start v PNE.

 

[SkyBlue_Bear83]

Btw, you may have conveniently missed this, but I was saying Elliott should start v PNE.

I interpreted that as a cunning plan to make you look not anti Elliot which in turn confirmed you are anti Elliott

Hmmm....perhaps I'm giving you to much credit an overestimating your deviousness

 

[skablue]

SB-Taylor can you provide a list of games where we have played 4-4-2

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

I interpreted that as a cunning plan to make you look not anti Elliot which in turn confirmed you are anti Elliott

Hmmm....perhaps I'm giving you to much credit an overestimating your deviousness

You are overestimating my deviousness.

For me, it's a straight choice between 2 players, Clarke or Elliott, for me, Clarke wins, well, Clarke wins v any other L1 striker bar Donaldson, so who do choose.

On the same token, am I anti-Ball because I (don't rate him) think he shouldn't start ahead of Clarke? Am I also anti-Clarke because I said if we keep McG, I wouldn't start Clarke, I'd keep 1 striker?

Straight choices for me.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

SB-Taylor can you provide a list of games where we have played 4-4-2

I've done this on another thread ages ago.

Specify what you mean exactly, do you mean either: games where we've started with 4-4-2 and finished 4-4-2 OR games where we've started 4-4-1-1 then moved to 4-4-2?

 

[SkyBlue_Bear83]

You are overestimating my deviousness.

For me, it's a straight choice between 2 players, Clarke or Elliott, for me, Clarke wins, well, Clarke wins v any other L1 striker bar Donaldson, so who do choose.

On the same token, am I anti-Ball because I (don't rate him) think he shouldn't start ahead of Clarke? Am I also anti-Clarke because I said if we keep McG, I wouldn't start Clarke, I'd keep 1 striker?

Straight choices for me.

Well if ball came in and did well and you said after every game, well he's done we'll today but I don't really rate him and then after 1 game where he hasn't scored you say right he should be dropped now because he hasnt scored this game then yes I would say you are anti ball

If you say he should be dropped because he doesn't fit into your preferred system of play then that is slightly less anti

 

[Constance Markievicz]

Sky Blue Taylor needs to stop playing Football Manager

Cov were brilliant first half