lake district canary 4,520 Posted August 30, 2021 (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 August 30, 2021 by lake district canary Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ken Hairy 3,682 Posted August 30, 2021 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
Ken Hairy 3,682 Posted August 30, 2021 Also depends on opposition, mine suggestion would be suicide against top 4 sides. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 3,703 Posted August 30, 2021 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
1902 1,167 Posted August 30, 2021 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
CDMullins 435 Posted August 30, 2021 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
Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 3,703 Posted August 30, 2021 2 minutes ago, CDMullins said: Much like playing 'two up top' doesn't guarantee more goals, Playing 3 at the the back doesn't guarantee more defensive solidarity. It doesn't, but it may suit our players better. It would certainly benefit Aarons and Giannoulis. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Newtopia 513 Posted August 30, 2021 We do not have enough centre backs...... 2 injuries and we are scuppered. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Capt. Pants 4,092 Posted August 30, 2021 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
Hank shoots Skyler 2,094 Posted August 30, 2021 (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 August 30, 2021 by Hank shoots Skyler 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Petriix 2,821 Posted August 30, 2021 (edited) How about 4-2-3-1? Normann and one from McLean, Gilmour and PLM then Cantwell, Rashica and Tzolis or Dowell. Edited August 30, 2021 by Petriix 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BigFish 1,975 Posted August 30, 2021 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
Fuzzar 1,701 Posted August 30, 2021 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
Mullet 293 Posted August 30, 2021 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
lake district canary 4,520 Posted August 30, 2021 13 minutes ago, Fuzzar said: How about 5-3-4-3? It's so difficult to choose. I'd like to see 5-4-3-2-1, then we'd really see a lift off..... 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheGunnShow 5,808 Posted August 30, 2021 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
Canary Jedi 570 Posted August 30, 2021 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
keelansgrandad 6,679 Posted August 30, 2021 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. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LaUnionCanary 80 Posted August 30, 2021 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. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CDMullins 435 Posted August 30, 2021 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. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Yella Army 57 Posted August 30, 2021 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
Yella Army 57 Posted August 30, 2021 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
Samwam27 517 Posted August 30, 2021 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
Boris 56 Posted August 30, 2021 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
BigFish 1,975 Posted August 30, 2021 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
keelansgrandad 6,679 Posted August 30, 2021 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
BigFish 1,975 Posted August 30, 2021 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
keelansgrandad 6,679 Posted August 30, 2021 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
KeiranShikari 1,354 Posted August 30, 2021 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
cambridgeshire canary 6,516 Posted August 30, 2021 How's about something a little like this? 🤔 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites