Search the Community

I've made my feelings clear about wanting to play the 4-2-3-1, but let's take a look at why the 4-3-3 is failing. They're pretty similar systems - both effectively 4-5-1 so what's the big deal and why does it matter? It all comes down to the roles in midfield both when we have the ball and when we defend, and in particular how we deal with the transitions between the two. Our offensive transitions have been the source of many of our goals in our two Championship successes and our defensive transitions have proved our downfall on countless occasions in the Premier League. Our defenders are the ones who look exposed when the final ball comes in, but they have to be protected by the midfield. Right now (as well as looking pretty toothless in attack) the midfield are simply not providing the cover for the defence. That means covering the wide areas when the opposition double up on one fullback, and tracking the runs from midfield into the box. Two jobs that they're failing to do. In the 4-3-3 the two wide AMs are the focal point of our attacks. They pick up the ball in wide areas, drive into the channels and whip the ball into the box for the striker and anyone who bursts forward from midfield to attack. Crosses from wide areas are not Pukki's strength and we don't have a great deal of aerial ability in the midfield so it's a baffling strategy in this team. For the system to work to our strengths, the AMs would need to work narrower and look to play more intricate football on the floor. This doesn't seem to be Rashica's strength although, to his credit, Sargent seems to have some versatility in this regard. Defensively, the 4-3-3 is deficient in wide areas. Because the AMs are the attacking outlet, they are often far too high up the pitch when we lose the ball to be able to provide defensive cover to the fullbacks. That means the CMs need to be very disciplined and read the danger in those wide areas. They obviously have a hugely important role in the central areas to stop us getting overrun and they need to read the game exceptionally well to figure out where the overloads are and close them off. They aren't doing this consistently enough. When we build up from the back, we need our CMs to be the creative part of our team. They have to receive the ball in tight areas under pressure and quickly move it on to the attacking players so that they can use their movement to cut through the opposition. With the AMs already high, there is an emphasis in the 4-3-3 on pinging the ball out into the channels, often where the fullbacks will be overlapping and in space. Again this tends to result in crosses into the box rather than keeping the ball on the floor which has been so much more effective for us. This brings us on to Gilmour. As far as I can tell, he's supposed to be highly creative, have excellent vision and be able to pick out passes to open up the opposition. He's actually not terrible at this although he seems a little hesitant to turn if he's facing his own goal and he isn't quite finding the pockets of space from which to create openings, but at least he's trying. However, he is failing to show the positional discipline when we lose the ball. Whether it's a lack of pace or a lack of awareness is unclear but he is not providing cover and he's not tracking runners from midfield. He doesn't seem to understand the concept of a tactical foul where it would stop a breakaway. I just don't think we can carry a player like this while he learns his job. Not that McLean or Normann were particularly effective defensively either. Normann inexplicably failed at either pressing the ball or tracking the runner from midfield who, ultimately, ran in behind him unchallenged and cut the ball back for the goal. And Kenny gave the ball away horribly for the third. The three of them as a group left the defence exposed. So, why would a 4-2-3-1 be any different, isn't there one less defensive player? Well, yes there is one less CM for the addition of a number 10, but that's only part of the story. The two CMs in the system we played last season were both much more tactically disciplined, acting as a double pivot of two CDMs. Their defensive discipline gave license to the number 10 to stay further forward and create a problem for the opposition midfield: if they left him then he would draw the defenders creating space for Pukki - a tactic we exploited countless times - and if they track him then it creates space for the CMs to move into. It also allows the fullbacks to get forward while one CDM drops between the CBs and the other covers any gaps left by the marauding Aarons. And, in the 4-2-3-1, the wide AMs play a little deeper and have a greater responsibility to track back and defend. That's ok though, because the number 10 is the outlet in central areas so the wide players can look to play throughballs from deep rather than having to attack the channels; the former being our biggest strength.