Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
cambridgeshire canary

Cantwell ready for Brighton

Recommended Posts

I do hope todd is ready to come back into the squad. If this is the case we have to got 4 2 3 1 for me and  accommodate him.

            Krul

Aarons Hanley AO lets go Giannoulis 

Normann PLM

Tzolis Cantwell Sargent

              Pukki

  

Edited by Ward 3
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we go for the 3-5-2 again I'd be happy to see Cantwell in as part of the two up front which would allow him to be almost a floating number 10

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, birchfest said:

If we go for the 3-5-2 again I'd be happy to see Cantwell in as part of the two up front which would allow him to be almost a floating number 10

Yep, think that makes more sense to be honest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good news- I'd like to see him come in for one of McLean/PLM to offer more support to Sargent and Pukki if we stick with the back 3 formation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Google Bot said:

Great to see him back.

Anyone know who the Asian guy is?  Never seen him before, have we increased our staff in the international break?   Maybe it's related to this? https://www.canaries.co.uk/content/apply-for-the-coach-inclusion-and-diversity-scheme

It could be the new finance apprentice? He looks around 16/17.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Greavsy said:

Looking at the initials on his jacket it can only be one person. 

@Van wink😉 

I was wondering where that jacket had gone!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, birchfest said:

If we go for the 3-5-2 again I'd be happy to see Cantwell in as part of the two up front which would allow him to be almost a floating number 10

If we go 3-5-2 again then we won't score...again.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, cambridgeshire canary said:

I'm looking forward to the new haircut reveal

244740206_6291132930959962_2956455253178

Not too interested in the hair, will be good to get him back though, a pleasure to watch when giving his best,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Petriix said:

If we go 3-5-2 again then we won't score...again.

3-5-2 is not a defensive formation inherently. When played well it provides width, solidity in the middle and the potential to transition quickly.

Giannoulis is probably built for a wingback role, Aarons could well thrive in it. 

A 4-2-3-1 is not the only way to score.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 1902 said:

3-5-2 is not a defensive formation inherently. When played well it provides width, solidity in the middle and the potential to transition quickly.

Giannoulis is probably built for a wingback role, Aarons could well thrive in it. 

A 4-2-3-1 is not the only way to score.

Remind me how many league goals we've scored since abandoning the system which gave us the most successful league campaign in the club's history? Or perhaps you'd prefer to measure it in league points?

A 3-5-2 is highly defensive when it means you're lining up with none of the attacking midfielders whose position has been integral to the dynamic attacking transitions integral to our most recent success.

We've gone from Cantwell, Dowell and Buendia behind Pukki to having just Sargent up with him. Maybe I missed our flurry of chances against Everton and Burnley? Perhaps their respective keepers made a string of incredible saves to deny us while I was sneezing?

We've won every game this season where we've stuck with the tried and tested 4-2-3-1. Unfortunately that's zero for both. Every time we play 3 in central midfield we look totally devoid of ideas.

Width is really not out strength. Pukki rarely scores from crosses. And the suggestion that we could transition quickly is a joke: against Burnley we resorted to hoofing it long because the front 2 were so isolated.

Even with the 4-3-3, Pukki was isolated. The two wide attacking midfielders had little joy without a number 10 to give them an option to pass inside so our attacks went into the channels and mostly resulted in aimless crosses.

I'd love to be wrong, but I can't see past another loss on Saturday unless we get our best players on the pitch. 3-5-2 is just an admission of defeat; as if to say that we know we're not good enough to compete on even terms so we'll go backs-to-the-wall and hope to get lucky. Fair enough against Man City, but totally demoralising against the teams we should be competing with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Petriix said:

Remind me how many league goals we've scored since abandoning the system which gave us the most successful league campaign in the club's history? Or perhaps you'd prefer to measure it in league points?

A 3-5-2 is highly defensive when it means you're lining up with none of the attacking midfielders whose position has been integral to the dynamic attacking transitions integral to our most recent success.

We've gone from Cantwell, Dowell and Buendia behind Pukki to having just Sargent up with him. Maybe I missed our flurry of chances against Everton and Burnley? Perhaps their respective keepers made a string of incredible saves to deny us while I was sneezing?

We've won every game this season where we've stuck with the tried and tested 4-2-3-1. Unfortunately that's zero for both. Every time we play 3 in central midfield we look totally devoid of ideas.

Width is really not out strength. Pukki rarely scores from crosses. And the suggestion that we could transition quickly is a joke: against Burnley we resorted to hoofing it long because the front 2 were so isolated.

Even with the 4-3-3, Pukki was isolated. The two wide attacking midfielders had little joy without a number 10 to give them an option to pass inside so our attacks went into the channels and mostly resulted in aimless crosses.

I'd love to be wrong, but I can't see past another loss on Saturday unless we get our best players on the pitch. 3-5-2 is just an admission of defeat; as if to say that we know we're not good enough to compete on even terms so we'll go backs-to-the-wall and hope to get lucky. Fair enough against Man City, but totally demoralising against the teams we should be competing with.

But why do you think we were so successful in that formation last season?

The gap in quality between premier league and championship players means that championship squads lack the positional awareness, decision making, fitness and strength to maintain a high press for an entire 90 minutes against the players we had on the books last year.

Your chances of losing the ball playing out the back is far lower in that situation. The same goes for when you have the ball in the opposing half, premier league defenses are far more elastic, harass you for longer and as a result are more likely to catch you in possession or make an interception than their championship counterparts. 

When you do lose the ball, premier league sides attack faster, create far more overlaps and one and ones and make more chances pay. 

All in all this means that playing too many phases from defence through the midfield and around the box of an opposition just increases your chances of losing possession and conceding unless you have a significant advantage in quality.

Playing a system based on retaining posession for a long period of time and crafting chances when you are qualitively worse than those who you are playing against will lose you a lot of football matches, we saw that 2 years ago.

If we are going to stay in this league it will be by conceding less and taking a higher percentage of chances that we create, we are also highly unlikely to win by more than one very often. That's not going to happen playing like we did last year.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3-5-2 Worked wonders for Conte at Juventus.  Having Pirlo helped of course. 🙂

If Farke can establish a 3-5-2 that allows us to transition to 4-2-3-1 or one of it's variants, then I think it's a smart move. 

Edited by Google Bot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would love to see Cantwell back this weekend as I feel he could have a good impact for us, fingers crossed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Petriix said:

Remind me how many league goals we've scored since abandoning the system which gave us the most successful league campaign in the club's history? Or perhaps you'd prefer to measure it in league points?

A 3-5-2 is highly defensive when it means you're lining up with none of the attacking midfielders whose position has been integral to the dynamic attacking transitions integral to our most recent success.

We've gone from Cantwell, Dowell and Buendia behind Pukki to having just Sargent up with him. Maybe I missed our flurry of chances against Everton and Burnley? Perhaps their respective keepers made a string of incredible saves to deny us while I was sneezing?

We've won every game this season where we've stuck with the tried and tested 4-2-3-1. Unfortunately that's zero for both. Every time we play 3 in central midfield we look totally devoid of ideas.

Width is really not out strength. Pukki rarely scores from crosses. And the suggestion that we could transition quickly is a joke: against Burnley we resorted to hoofing it long because the front 2 were so isolated.

Even with the 4-3-3, Pukki was isolated. The two wide attacking midfielders had little joy without a number 10 to give them an option to pass inside so our attacks went into the channels and mostly resulted in aimless crosses.

I'd love to be wrong, but I can't see past another loss on Saturday unless we get our best players on the pitch. 3-5-2 is just an admission of defeat; as if to say that we know we're not good enough to compete on even terms so we'll go backs-to-the-wall and hope to get lucky. Fair enough against Man City, but totally demoralising against the teams we should be competing with.

Very good post. 

'3' 5 2 is ok for backs to the wall defending but we need points and desperately so. To do that we need to score goals funnily enough and to have players like Dowell (quickly discarded by Farke it seems), Cantwell, Rashica and Tzolis on the bench or not even in the match day squad can only end one way and it won't be staying up this season and that's a nailed on certainty.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, pete said:

Gilmour will play alongside Normann

Would be an interesting combination. Fair to say strength is not one of Gilmours best points so playing him alongside someone who is about that should make for a good mix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, 1902 said:

But why do you think we were so successful in that formation last season?

The gap in quality between premier league and championship players means that championship squads lack the positional awareness, decision making, fitness and strength to maintain a high press for an entire 90 minutes against the players we had on the books last year.

Your chances of losing the ball playing out the back is far lower in that situation. The same goes for when you have the ball in the opposing half, premier league defenses are far more elastic, harass you for longer and as a result are more likely to catch you in possession or make an interception than their championship counterparts. 

When you do lose the ball, premier league sides attack faster, create far more overlaps and one and ones and make more chances pay. 

All in all this means that playing too many phases from defence through the midfield and around the box of an opposition just increases your chances of losing possession and conceding unless you have a significant advantage in quality.

Playing a system based on retaining posession for a long period of time and crafting chances when you are qualitively worse than those who you are playing against will lose you a lot of football matches, we saw that 2 years ago.

If we are going to stay in this league it will be by conceding less and taking a higher percentage of chances that we create, we are also highly unlikely to win by more than one very often. That's not going to happen playing like we did last year.

You're obviously not alone in your thinking. But, in my opinion (and demonstrated on the pitch) , the experiment with switching the formation has been an abject failure. It is, therefore, extremely frustrating that the successful system from last season hasn't once been attempted.

Teams who retain their philosophy on promotion have regularly comfortably survived in the Premier League. In fact it was us who bucked the trend two years ago and arguably more through bad luck than bad judgement (injuries, VAR, pandemic etc.). But we'd also made a significant change to the system last season to be tighter in midfield and it was highly successful.

I'm totally fine with being a bit more defensive against the top teams. 3-5-2 would have been totally appropriate against Liverpool and Man City. Leicester and Arsenal, however, were there for the taking but the 4-3-3 we played was woeful in both attack and defence because the midfield were all over the place. It was even worse against Watford.

With the 3 in midfield, the roles are convoluted. They're having to defend the wide areas which would normally be covered by the wide AMs (see Watford's first goal), they are supposed to be providing the attacking support and constantly being caught out of position (see just about all the other goals we've conceded). The 4-2-3-1 is much more positionally defined. The two CDMs have to be really disciplined and not get dragged too high or wide.

Ironically, the 4-2-3-1 can be really defensively solid: one CDM can drop between the CBs when necessary, allowing them to defend wider if the FB gets caught too high. The number 10 drops into the midfield line when out of possession and we end up with a solid 4-1-4-1 which is tough to break down. Then, when we win the ball, the 3 AMs and Pukki unload like a coiled spring with pace, creativity and incision.

Without the creative, attacking players on the pitch, our attacks are toothless. 4 attackers are exponentially harder to defend against that 3. Having a number 10  creates space for the other attackers. We've witnessed this every single league game this season. Two years ago we were creating chances every game. This year we don't look even close to being competitive. It's awful on the eye and it's embarrassing.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

You're obviously not alone in your thinking. But, in my opinion (and demonstrated on the pitch) , the experiment with switching the formation has been an abject failure. It is, therefore, extremely frustrating that the successful system from last season hasn't once been attempted.

Teams who retain their philosophy on promotion have regularly comfortably survived in the Premier League. In fact it was us who bucked the trend two years ago and arguably more through bad luck than bad judgement (injuries, VAR, pandemic etc.). But we'd also made a significant change to the system last season to be tighter in midfield and it was highly successful.

I'm totally fine with being a bit more defensive against the top teams. 3-5-2 would have been totally appropriate against Liverpool and Man City. Leicester and Arsenal, however, were there for the taking but the 4-3-3 we played was woeful in both attack and defence because the midfield were all over the place. It was even worse against Watford.

With the 3 in midfield, the roles are convoluted. They're having to defend the wide areas which would normally be covered by the wide AMs (see Watford's first goal), they are supposed to be providing the attacking support and constantly being caught out of position (see just about all the other goals we've conceded). The 4-2-3-1 is much more positionally defined. The two CDMs have to be really disciplined and not get dragged too high or wide.

Ironically, the 4-2-3-1 can be really defensively solid: one CDM can drop between the CBs when necessary, allowing them to defend wider if the FB gets caught too high. The number 10 drops into the midfield line when out of possession and we end up with a solid 4-1-4-1 which is tough to break down. Then, when we win the ball, the 3 AMs and Pukki unload like a coiled spring with pace, creativity and incision.

Without the creative, attacking players on the pitch, our attacks are toothless. 4 attackers are exponentially harder to defend against that 3. Having a number 10  creates space for the other attackers. We've witnessed this every single league game this season. Two years ago we were creating chances every game. This year we don't look even close to being competitive. It's awful on the eye and it's embarrassing.

 

Literally could not agree with this anymore. Well written post.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Totally agree with Petriix - so far we've looked devoid of any creative play or unexpected moves! Let's be honest, we've been pretty dull. There's a Buendia-shaped hole for Cantwell to step into this season providing he wants it. Unlike the new recruits, he knows exactly how Pukki likes to be fed. Hopefully we'll see him make a creative impact tomorrow...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, 1902 said:

But why do you think we were so successful in that formation last season?

The gap in quality between premier league and championship players means that championship squads lack the positional awareness, decision making, fitness and strength to maintain a high press for an entire 90 minutes against the players we had on the books last year.

Your chances of losing the ball playing out the back is far lower in that situation. The same goes for when you have the ball in the opposing half, premier league defenses are far more elastic, harass you for longer and as a result are more likely to catch you in possession or make an interception than their championship counterparts. 

When you do lose the ball, premier league sides attack faster, create far more overlaps and one and ones and make more chances pay. 

All in all this means that playing too many phases from defence through the midfield and around the box of an opposition just increases your chances of losing possession and conceding unless you have a significant advantage in quality.

Playing a system based on retaining posession for a long period of time and crafting chances when you are qualitively worse than those who you are playing against will lose you a lot of football matches, we saw that 2 years ago.

If we are going to stay in this league it will be by conceding less and taking a higher percentage of chances that we create, we are also highly unlikely to win by more than one very often. That's not going to happen playing like we did last year.

The problem is that rather than just defending better (through work on the training ground) and playing with a proper defensive midfielder, which I am confident would have resolved many of the issues, we’ve resorted to packing the defence and midfield with extra players to try and stop conceding. It’s worked to a degree but it’s not the long term answer as we won’t win enough games. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Petriix said:

You're obviously not alone in your thinking. But, in my opinion (and demonstrated on the pitch) , the experiment with switching the formation has been an abject failure. It is, therefore, extremely frustrating that the successful system from last season hasn't once been attempted.

Teams who retain their philosophy on promotion have regularly comfortably survived in the Premier League. In fact it was us who bucked the trend two years ago and arguably more through bad luck than bad judgement (injuries, VAR, pandemic etc.). But we'd also made a significant change to the system last season to be tighter in midfield and it was highly successful.

I'm totally fine with being a bit more defensive against the top teams. 3-5-2 would have been totally appropriate against Liverpool and Man City. Leicester and Arsenal, however, were there for the taking but the 4-3-3 we played was woeful in both attack and defence because the midfield were all over the place. It was even worse against Watford.

With the 3 in midfield, the roles are convoluted. They're having to defend the wide areas which would normally be covered by the wide AMs (see Watford's first goal), they are supposed to be providing the attacking support and constantly being caught out of position (see just about all the other goals we've conceded). The 4-2-3-1 is much more positionally defined. The two CDMs have to be really disciplined and not get dragged too high or wide.

Ironically, the 4-2-3-1 can be really defensively solid: one CDM can drop between the CBs when necessary, allowing them to defend wider if the FB gets caught too high. The number 10 drops into the midfield line when out of possession and we end up with a solid 4-1-4-1 which is tough to break down. Then, when we win the ball, the 3 AMs and Pukki unload like a coiled spring with pace, creativity and incision.

Without the creative, attacking players on the pitch, our attacks are toothless. 4 attackers are exponentially harder to defend against that 3. Having a number 10  creates space for the other attackers. We've witnessed this every single league game this season. Two years ago we were creating chances every game. This year we don't look even close to being competitive. It's awful on the eye and it's embarrassing.

 

Fair enough. I disagree that we can transition as you envisage at this level, I'm also not sure we will keep looking toothless playing as a 3-5-2, especially if one of the box to box midfielders is dropped for Cantwell. 

However tbh, it's going to be something we might not know for a few weeks or perhaps ever (if Farke either drops 3-5-2 completely or never returns to 4-2-3-1). 

Let's just hope that there's a turnaround, regardless of how it's done.

Share this post


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

You're obviously not alone in your thinking. But, in my opinion (and demonstrated on the pitch) , the experiment with switching the formation has been an abject failure. It is, therefore, extremely frustrating that the successful system from last season hasn't once been attempted.

Teams who retain their philosophy on promotion have regularly comfortably survived in the Premier League. In fact it was us who bucked the trend two years ago and arguably more through bad luck than bad judgement (injuries, VAR, pandemic etc.). But we'd also made a significant change to the system last season to be tighter in midfield and it was highly successful.

I'm totally fine with being a bit more defensive against the top teams. 3-5-2 would have been totally appropriate against Liverpool and Man City. Leicester and Arsenal, however, were there for the taking but the 4-3-3 we played was woeful in both attack and defence because the midfield were all over the place. It was even worse against Watford.

With the 3 in midfield, the roles are convoluted. They're having to defend the wide areas which would normally be covered by the wide AMs (see Watford's first goal), they are supposed to be providing the attacking support and constantly being caught out of position (see just about all the other goals we've conceded). The 4-2-3-1 is much more positionally defined. The two CDMs have to be really disciplined and not get dragged too high or wide.

Ironically, the 4-2-3-1 can be really defensively solid: one CDM can drop between the CBs when necessary, allowing them to defend wider if the FB gets caught too high. The number 10 drops into the midfield line when out of possession and we end up with a solid 4-1-4-1 which is tough to break down. Then, when we win the ball, the 3 AMs and Pukki unload like a coiled spring with pace, creativity and incision.

Without the creative, attacking players on the pitch, our attacks are toothless. 4 attackers are exponentially harder to defend against that 3. Having a number 10  creates space for the other attackers. We've witnessed this every single league game this season. Two years ago we were creating chances every game. This year we don't look even close to being competitive. It's awful on the eye and it's embarrassing.

 

I don’t have a problem with the three at the back necessarily if the midfield 3 has more variety and we have a bit of pace up there. At least 2 from Gilmour, Cantwell, Tzolis and Rashica need to be starting. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

The problem is that rather than just defending better (through work on the training ground) and playing with a proper defensive midfielder, which I am confident would have resolved many of the issues, we’ve resorted to packing the defence and midfield with extra players to try and stop conceding. It’s worked to a degree but it’s not the long term answer as we won’t win enough games. 

I agree that's what happened against Everton, that was less than ideal, but that's because the wingbacks didn't play as wingbacks, they got trapped far too deep. 

Against Burnley, especially second half Giannoulis and Aarons got forwards more, that's when you start to see some more attacking potential. 

My feeling is that Sargent isn't actually adding that much at the moment, not for lack of effort but he doesn't seem to be able to link up with Pukki, I also am not sure you can play McLean, PLM and Normann as your central three, we need another slightly more dynamic presence. Personally I'd drop McLean and bring in Cantwell or Gilmour.

I do agree on the DM, but Im not sure we could have found an out and out defensive midfielder good enough unfortunately, I think that died with Skipp and that has changed a lot of things. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

I don’t have a problem with the three at the back necessarily if the midfield 3 has more variety and we have a bit of pace up there. At least 2 from Gilmour, Cantwell, Tzolis and Rashica need to be starting. 

Hahaha, beat me to it by a second. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, 1902 said:

Hahaha, beat me to it by a second. 

Sounds like we are agreed then. If we play the 3-5-2 then it needs to be Gilmour or Todd for one of PLM or Kenny and Tzolis/Rashica/Todd for Sargent?

I fear we will see the same team as Burnley. I will not be happy if so. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Sounds like we are agreed then. If we play the 3-5-2 then it needs to be Gilmour or Todd for one of PLM or Kenny and Tzolis/Rashica/Todd for Sargent?

I fear we will see the same team as Burnley. I will not be happy if so. 

This is exactly my feeling.

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
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...