Boothroyd wasn't just sacked because of the style of football. Results were also appalling. I really don't get this idea that passing football=ineffectual, long ball=good results! If you look at the top end of all the leagues and the teams that have been promoted from ours in recent seasons, you will indeed find that the opposite is more likely, if anything.
I actually think our results-and certainly goals against column-would be much worse if we were playing a long-ball game. Whilst we have the ball, the opposition can't score. A long ball is a lottery, a simple pass to a man in your team is logical and guarantees retained possession. I am sick to death of seeing City teams over the years who gave the ball straight to the opposition with meaningless forwards punts and wafts. Most teams we play against do this every game-at the Ricoh, usually resulting in jeers of derision! We very rarely do that anymore.
The other evidence I have for results being better under this style than hoofball is a phrase Thorn uses in most post-match interviews; "..the players buy into what we are trying to do". That is, learning how to play this style effectively. How bad would team spirit be if the players weren't enjoying the opportunity to play proper football? And do you really think these youngsters would look anywhere near so good, or be growing so much as players that they are interesting top-flight sides, if they were playing under Aidy Boothroyd and his rigid, inhibiting, stone-age tactics? Never mind that most still wouldn't be allowed in the senior dressing room yet, as they haven't played enough games under his pathetic rule!
Sammy alluded to our problem today post-match when he spoke about of final-ball; we either leave it too late, don't anticipate it quickly enough (eg today), or sometimes play it too soon. A lot of that is having so many youngsters, a lot is down to the front-two.
An aspect we've been sadly lacking is movement off-the-ball. Cody has gradually started to show glimpses as he gains fitness, and clearly likes to hang "off the shoulder" of the defender. He's obviously not in the King class, but at least pulls some men out of position and gives us an alternative to Lukas as a target. The midfielder who transforms us in this regard when confident and on form is Bigirimana; the first half display against Burnley and the second at Leeds are the first times he's played his natural game, and his constant darting into space and dropping into pockets should be a lesson to some of his more senior colleagues. Lets hope he can give that our side on his return alongside an improving Cody and a slightly resurgent Sammy, because McSheffrey has simply stopped doing something that was previously his strongest asset in the "hole" role.
As for 442... WE DON'T HAVE ANY WINGERS. Bell was originally a CM and has no pace; that's where Baker sees his natural position being, he drifts inside if out wide, and he can't cross; and McSheffrey can't defend, has no stamina and has no pace. Bell and Baker are always cutting onto their wrong foot if played wide-left. We can't play our full-backs there as we only have 2 and one's just got injured. The reason Thorn switched to our present formation was due to a plethora of CM's and no wide men. In simple terms, now:
Can Play 4 CM Roles (including hole)
Sammy
Gael
Connor
Bell
Baker
McSheffrey
Deegan
Can Play Wide (badly)
Baker
Bell
McSheffrey
ROD
Clearly, the former offers us far more options, allows us to balance ingredients depending on the type of player for a given situation, has been the ONLY option with McSheffrey and Baker injured, and is the only formation available that allows us to maintain even a semblance of competition for places in the first team. Is Thorn going to be given the money to go out and sign a couple of pacy wide-men, even someone like Ryan Hall from L2? No he is not.
