Bovril 219 Posted September 18, 2021 (edited) After losing Buendia, Farke seems to be caught between wanting to be a possession based side (his natural preference) and a counter-attacking side (pacy wide players Rashica and Tzolis to replace the creativity of Buendia). Along with a change to 4-3-3 this may have actually worked in the Championship, but we cannot play three in midfield in the Premier League, especially given our central midfielders to choose from. Today's game was lost in the centre of the park, Watford simply out-worked/out-muscled/out-pressed us in the middle of the park, which then led to further problems at the back. The trouble is, the formation we need to switch to, 5-3-2/3-5-2 (see possible team below) means losing the core principles that Farke likes and has worked for him in the Championship, i.e. the link up between players like Cantwell and Pukki. We simply have to almost start all over again in the EPL and keep it tight in the middle and the back and stay in games. Whether or not Farke sees or rather willing to adapt to this may well just keep him with a job. Forget the 4-year contract signed, this weekend was the first real signs of real creaking. The bizarre pre-match conference almost calling out fans and the performance at Watford has opened up a divide between Farke and the fans for the first time. Krul Aarons Omo Kabak Gibson Dimi Mclean Normann Lees-Melou Sargent Rashica Edited September 18, 2021 by Bovril 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 3,853 Posted September 18, 2021 I would certainly be tempted to go to a back three. The defence looked in difficulty every time Watford attacked today, so an extra body in there may provide more protection and less panic. Also, neither of our left backs look good defensively and Aarons would suit being a wing back, so a 3-4-3 would probably be my preferred choice moving forward. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jim Smith 2,339 Posted September 18, 2021 We need to go back to 4-2-3-1, play two holding midfielders and keep the ball better. As soon as the game gets stretched we cannot defend. I don’t know why he has adopted a system that doesn’t really suit any of our best players. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Great Mass Debater 1,092 Posted September 18, 2021 I agree. I dont think 4-3-3 works. Defence needs more protection. Attacking full-backs and high line leaves us exposed far too often. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Van wink 2,994 Posted September 18, 2021 Couldn't see what style of play we were trying to play today, didnt seem to be any pattern and players looking unsure. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr Greenthumb 750 Posted September 18, 2021 10 minutes ago, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said: I would certainly be tempted to go to a back three. The defence looked in difficulty every time Watford attacked today, so an extra body in there may provide more protection and less panic. Also, neither of our left backs look good defensively and Aarons would suit being a wing back, so a 3-4-3 would probably be my preferred choice moving forward. We were 3 on 1 for the first goal, we don’t need more defenders, we just need capable defenders and a shape 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
keelansgrandad 6,679 Posted September 18, 2021 4-3-3 makes us so narrow and exposes the full backs. At least 4-2-3-1 gave us width. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 3,853 Posted September 18, 2021 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Jim Smith said: We need to go back to 4-2-3-1, play two holding midfielders and keep the ball better. As soon as the game gets stretched we cannot defend. I don’t know why he has adopted a system that doesn’t really suit any of our best players. Would a 4-2-3-1 suit our current squad any more than 4-3-3? I'm not so sure. It would leave our defence in the same situation whilst taking out one of the players protecting them. Personally, if we're keeping a back four, then I'd stick with 4-3-3. But I feel the system that suits our players best right now is a back three. Whether that's 3-4-3 or 3-5-2 is up for debate, but I'm sure our defenders would be more comfortable in a back three with wing backs. Edited September 18, 2021 by Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Petriix 2,853 Posted September 18, 2021 8 minutes ago, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said: Would a 4-2-3-1 suit our current squad any more than 4-3-3? I'm not so sure. It would leave our defence in the same situation whilst taking out one of the players protecting them. Personally, if we're keeping a back four, then I'd stick with 4-3-3. But I feel the system that suits our players best right now is a back three. Whether that's 3-4-3 or 3-5-2 is up for debate, but I'm sure our defenders would be more comfortable in a back three with wing backs. You seem to fundamentally misunderstand the difference between the 4-3-3 and the 4-2-3-1. In the former, the wide AMs play a much more advanced role leaving the FBs more exposed with the defensive cover coming from the CM on whichever side the attack is on. In the latter, the wide AMs must play deeper so as to provide the defensive cover to the FBs; the more vertical midfield then has a dedicated CDM who can drop between the CBs (allowing them to defend wider where necessary) or provide cover in the wide areas. In the 4-3-3 most of our attacks will come in wide areas, hence the tendency to cross the ball, which really isn't Pukki's strength. In the 4-2-3-1 we have an extra central attacker so are more likely to be able to create incisive balls through the middle on the floor which is how we tend to score our goals (or tended, when we actually used to score). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 3,853 Posted September 18, 2021 5 minutes ago, Petriix said: You seem to fundamentally misunderstand the difference between the 4-3-3 and the 4-2-3-1. In the former, the wide AMs play a much more advanced role leaving the FBs more exposed with the defensive cover coming from the CM on whichever side the attack is on. In the latter, the wide AMs must play deeper so as to provide the defensive cover to the FBs; the more vertical midfield then has a dedicated CDM who can drop between the CBs (allowing them to defend wider where necessary) or provide cover in the wide areas. In the 4-3-3 most of our attacks will come in wide areas, hence the tendency to cross the ball, which really isn't Pukki's strength. In the 4-2-3-1 we have an extra central attacker so are more likely to be able to create incisive balls through the middle on the floor which is how we tend to score our goals (or tended, when we actually used to score). Ultimately, all formations have the same amount of players so in making subtle changes you're robbing Peter to pay Paul, but I don't think the full backs are necessarily any more exposed in a 4-3-3. It's natural that the wingers will provide slightly less cover (but not necessarily, it also depends on the instructions given by the coach) however the extra man in midfield allows the wider central midfielder to provide more cover to them, which balances itself out. I still feel the best solution would be to slightly reduce the defensive responsibility on the full backs themselves by going with a back three. And whilst I see your point in the first paragraph, I don't really agree with your second paragraph though, as plenty of teams throughout history have used a 4-3-3 without relying on crosses, with Barcelona and the Spanish national teams being the most obvious examples. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Creedence Clearwater Couto 1,297 Posted September 18, 2021 (edited) Gunn Aarons Kabak Gibson Gianoullis Normann Lees-Melou Rashica Mclean Tzolis Pukki A better side than the one started today. Edited September 18, 2021 by Creedence Clearwater Couto Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Worthy Nigelton 1,063 Posted September 18, 2021 This system is a really poor fit for us. Our weakest areas are in the centre of midfield and our best areas are wingers and attacking midfielders. This system robs us of our strengths and plays more of our worst players. It needs to be scrapped and never seen again. I'd be happy with 4231 or 352, but please never, ever, ever 433 again unless we have a massive change in personnel. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Worthy Nigelton 1,063 Posted September 18, 2021 *343 not 352 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Baracouda 47 Posted September 18, 2021 (edited) 42 minutes ago, Petriix said: You seem to fundamentally misunderstand the difference between the 4-3-3 and the 4-2-3-1. In the former, the wide AMs play a much more advanced role leaving the FBs more exposed with the defensive cover coming from the CM on whichever side the attack is on. In the latter, the wide AMs must play deeper so as to provide the defensive cover to the FBs; the more vertical midfield then has a dedicated CDM who can drop between the CBs (allowing them to defend wider where necessary) or provide cover in the wide areas. In the 4-3-3 most of our attacks will come in wide areas, hence the tendency to cross the ball, which really isn't Pukki's strength. In the 4-2-3-1 we have an extra central attacker so are more likely to be able to create incisive balls through the middle on the floor which is how we tend to score our goals (or tended, when we actually used to score). the differences between the two are very small relatively both are based on possession. We try and play like we are liverpool, man city. I.e the best team on the pitch. Fullbacks getting forward and attacking. (The 2 DM's or 3 CM's doesn't change that. neither a 4231 or a 433 has wide attacking players meant for defending for large periods. ) Inevitably, we don't keep control of the ball in attack and we get exposed defensively from overly committing players forward. The paradox, of pushing players forward to support an attack based on passing and possession. Has yielded 2 goals. But players losing the ball from possession and leaving defence exposed has lead to more goals for the opposition. Not sure any of our forwards, are good enough to play as a single striker (with 2 wide forwards). 4231 or 433, those wide forwards score alot of goals. I don't believe Cantwell, Rashica will get 10 goals (each) from outwide positions if they played every game. No CM seems like he's going to be scoring alot. That leaves the central striker to score alot. Think its better to play 2 strikers through the middle and then work out whether that's a 532 / 352 or a 442. I am fairly sure, that if Farke was managing a top side his formation and tactics would work in the premier league and he would be challenging for the title. I am not sure Pep or Klopp could get us to win enough games trying to pass and breakdown sides. Edited September 18, 2021 by Baracouda Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shruk4 60 Posted September 18, 2021 idk why not go for a 4-4-2, clearly Sargeant and Pukki together are a potent threat, rest of the team can stay compact and park the bus we can just pray that Sargeant and Pukki come up with something while we keep a clean sheer every other match Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rock The Boat 1,332 Posted September 18, 2021 1 hour ago, Bovril said: After losing Buendia, Farke seems to be caught between wanting to be a possession based side (his natural preference) and a counter-attacking side (pacy wide players Rashica and Tzolis to replace the creativity of Buendia). Along with a change to 4-3-3 this may have actually worked in the Championship, but we cannot play three in midfield in the Premier League, especially given our central midfielders to choose from. Today's game was lost in the centre of the park, Watford simply out-worked/out-muscled/out-pressed us in the middle of the park, which then led to further problems at the back. The trouble is, the formation we need to switch to, 5-3-2/3-5-2 (see possible team below) means losing the core principles that Farke likes and has worked for him in the Championship, i.e. the link up between players like Cantwell and Pukki. We simply have to almost start all over again in the EPL and keep it tight in the middle and the back and stay in games. Whether or not Farke sees or rather willing to adapt to this may well just keep him with a job. Forget the 4-year contract signed, this weekend was the first real signs of real creaking. The bizarre pre-match conference almost calling out fans and the performance at Watford has opened up a divide between Farke and the fans for the first time. Krul Aarons Omo Kabak Gibson Dimi Mclean Normann Lees-Melou Sargent Rashica I agree with everything you said. I would make only one change to your starting lineup and bring Idah in for Rashica. Play two strong lads up front and the midfield would be encouraged to play early balls into the front two. But, as you say, this isn't farke's preferred method of play. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites