Jump to content
lake district canary

352? (Again) But what about.....

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

If we get Kabak, it gives us good options at the back to play 352.   But if we start doing that and we play Normann, who looks as if he will be a strong contender for first name on the teamsheet, it does make you wonder about our other midfielders. 

Could we see - 

                               Krul

                 Hanley Kabak Gibson

Aarons Normann Gilmour McLean Giannoulis

                    Rashica Pukki

with Tzolis Idah and Sargent as the attacking options up front. 

Where would that leave Dowell and Cantwell?

Edited by lake district canary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3-4-3

Krul

Hanley, Kabak, Gibson

Arrons, Normann, Gilmour, Gianoulis 

Rasicha, Pukki/Sargent, Tzolis/Cantwell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also depends on opposition, mine suggestion would be suicide against top 4 sides. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we go to a back three, I'd rather us play 3-4-2-1 instead of 3-5-2, which would allow for Cantwell and one of Tzolis or Rashica to play off the striker. It would, admittedly, leave us light potentially in midfield but we have to make sacrifices somewhere.

But once we get a new centre back in, that leaves us with a lot of very exciting options that can be taken on a match-by-match basis. Lots of good players will miss out on the squad each match, but at least it covers us in the event of an injury crisis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said:

If we go to a back three, I'd rather us play 3-4-2-1 instead of 3-5-2, which would allow for Cantwell and one of Tzolis or Rashica to play off the striker. It would, admittedly, leave us light potentially in midfield but we have to make sacrifices somewhere.

But once we get a new centre back in, that leaves us with a lot of very exciting options that can be taken on a match-by-match basis. Lots of good players will miss out on the squad each match, but at least it covers us in the event of an injury crisis.

Light in midfield.... in the premier league.... Norwich.

 

You are having a laugh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Much like playing 'two up top' doesn't guarantee more goals,

Playing 3 at the the back doesn't guarantee more defensive solidarity.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We now have something like 6 midfielders and that's excluding Dowell. I would be amazed if we only play 2 of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
50 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

If we get Kabak, it gives us good options at the back to play 352.   But if we start doing that and we play Normann, who looks as if he will be a strong contender for first name on the teamsheet, it does make you wonder about our other midfielders. 

Could we see - 

                               Krul

                 Hanley Kabak Gibson

Aarons Normann Gilmour Maclean Giannoulis

                    Rashica Pukki

with Tzolis Idah and Sargent as the attacking options up front. 

Where would that leave Dowell and Cantwell?

Errrrr

It's McLean - Main Discussion - Norwich City - The Pinkun Forums

On 25/08/2021 at 13:06, lake district canary said:

Not Maclean ❎, Mclean ❎, MacLean ❎, but McLean ☑️ 

You're welcome.

Edited by Hank shoots Skyler
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

How about 4-2-3-1?

Normann and one from McLean, Gilmour and PLM then Cantwell, Rashica and Tzolis or Dowell.

Edited by Petriix
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure where this obsession with 3 at the back comes from, we don't really have the players (neither Gibson or Hanley are fantastically mobile) and it leaves us light everywhere else on the pitch. I thought the whole point of the CDM is that he could sit in if the FB bomb forward. I suspect it remains 433, although we could revert back to 4231.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Petriix said:

How about 4-2-3-1?

Normann and one from McLean, Gilmour and PLM then Cantwell, Rashica and Tzolis or Dowell.

How about 5-3-4-3? It's so difficult to choose. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, lake district canary said:

If we get Kabak, it gives us good options at the back to play 352.   But if we start doing that and we play Normann, who looks as if he will be a strong contender for first name on the teamsheet, it does make you wonder about our other midfielders. 

Could we see - 

                               Krul

                 Hanley Kabak Gibson

Aarons Normann Gilmour McLean Giannoulis

                    Rashica Pukki

with Tzolis Idah and Sargent as the attacking options up front. 

Where would that leave Dowell and Cantwell?

Could someone post which players we have in each position please and in brackets DM or AM we have so many I'm getting lost. Thanks in advance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

 I'd like to see 5-4-3-2-1, then we'd really see a lift off.....

Takes the biscuit. 😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, BigFish said:

Not sure where this obsession with 3 at the back comes from, we don't really have the players (neither Gibson or Hanley are fantastically mobile) and it leaves us light everywhere else on the pitch. I thought the whole point of the CDM is that he could sit in if the FB bomb forward. I suspect it remains 433, although we could revert back to 4231.

 

I wonder if 3 at the back is more of an in-game option if we find ourselves 2 up at The Library for example with 30 mins to go?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, BigFish said:

Not sure where this obsession with 3 at the back comes from, we don't really have the players (neither Gibson or Hanley are fantastically mobile) and it leaves us light everywhere else on the pitch. I thought the whole point of the CDM is that he could sit in if the FB bomb forward. I suspect it remains 433, although we could revert back to 4231.

 

Its to bolster midfield really. We can argue about Saturday's goals, but we lost the game in midfield. 

Clearly 4-3-3 leaves us so open. It has to be 4-2-3-1 if its not three at the back.

But remember, this league is so much harder as the last few years relegated teams have shown. 

So we have tried a different system so far but it looks worse than last year. I think we have to start looking at bolstering areas where we are vulnerable.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, BigFish said:

Not sure where this obsession with 3 at the back comes from, we don't really have the players (neither Gibson or Hanley are fantastically mobile) and it leaves us light everywhere else on the pitch. I thought the whole point of the CDM is that he could sit in if the FB bomb forward. I suspect it remains 433, although we could revert back to 4231.

 

Not sure why you think this, Hanley is one of the fastest at the club.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, LaUnionCanary said:

Not sure why you think this, Hanley is one of the fastest at the club.

Aye but he's got turning circle of a Boeing747 and looks like he has his feet in concrete when trying to clear a ball.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4-2-3-1 for me against the 'lesser' sides and then us playing 4,3,2,1 vs the top sides. 

Krul

Aarons Kabak Gibson Williams

Normann Gilmour

Rashica Lees Melou Tzolis

Pukki

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cantwell is a very good footballer with great dribbling and technique but I struggle to see how he fits into a relegation threatened side as he offers very little in the defensive side of his game. In the champs he was able to get away with this as we had so much of the ball higher up the pitch but in the prem he would flourish in a side in the top half rather than us.  I also think his best position is behind the striker as opposed to out wide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Yella Army said:

4-2-3-1 for me against the 'lesser' sides and then us playing 4,3,2,1 vs the top sides. 

Krul

Aarons Kabak Gibson Williams

Normann Gilmour

Rashica Lees Melou Tzolis

Pukki

I'd go with this and 4-2-3-1 for me provides more protection for back four, and leave three attacking midfielders behind Pukki, but I'd also switch between Pukki & Sargent. I'd go with

Krul

Aarons Kabak Gibson Williams

Normann Gilmour

Rashica Cantwell Tzolis

Pukki

Subs look strong: Mumba, Hanley, Giannoulis, PLM, Mclean, Idah, Sargent, Rupp, Omo, Gunn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if we not used 3 CB system this mean Zimbo is 4 5 choice and must gone until tomorrow.

same time with 352 Cantwell is useless probably also Tzolis ...

How many loan players is possible !? 

we never have more balanced and potential squad as now but big problem is no time to gel 11 12 new players when season already start and we are on 13 games loosing run at this level...

If we keep place this seasons seems exiting times ahead with this group with long term contracts most of them.

OTBC

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, keelansgrandad said:

Its to bolster midfield really. We can argue about Saturday's goals, but we lost the game in midfield. 

Clearly 4-3-3 leaves us so open. It has to be 4-2-3-1 if its not three at the back.

But remember, this league is so much harder as the last few years relegated teams have shown. 

So we have tried a different system so far but it looks worse than last year. I think we have to start looking at bolstering areas where we are vulnerable.

Depends if Gilmour plays, which I assume he will, as he likes to sit deep, so maybe we end up with 4321 instead?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BigFish said:

Depends if Gilmour plays, which I assume he will, as he likes to sit deep, so maybe we end up with 4321 instead?

 

I'm not sure that is right about Gilmour. I think he likes to pass from what I have seen of him in a positive Chelsea team and he is more likely to want to beat defences from further up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

I'm not sure that is right about Gilmour. I think he likes to pass from what I have seen of him in a positive Chelsea team and he is more likely to want to beat defences from further up.

To tell the truth KG, I think we might actually agreeing eg a back four, two midfielders to do the dirty work (Normann, McLean say), Gilmour, two wide attackers and a striker?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, BigFish said:

To tell the truth KG, I think we might actually agreeing eg a back four, two midfielders to do the dirty work (Normann, McLean say), Gilmour, two wide attackers and a striker?

I would go with that. 

That is going to leave some unhappy players. That will be another tough job. Keeping those not playing happy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Krul

Hanley

Normann - McLean

Aarons - Gilmour - Lees-Melou - Tzolis

Rashica - Cantwell

Pukki

 

We should clearly just play more midfielders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...