Jump to content
Iwans Big Toe

I don't know, but is it as simple as this

Recommended Posts

Now I never played at a level higher than Anglian Combination, nor have I ever managed a team, so I do not claim to be a tactical genius when it comes to football. However, having a sports degree, coaching badges and game experience at the aforementioned level, I think I may be a little more qualified than the (majority of) posters who are going to **** **** my suggestion for daring to criticise anything Norwich City (you know who you are).

I'm wondering though, after looking at and analyzing the picture of Chelsea's 4th goal that Jim Smith posted in a separate thread, if fixing our defensive problems could be as simple as not having our full backs bomb forwards and playing two holding midfielders?

5 of Chelsea's goals were as a result of our either fullbacks being out of position, no defensive midfielder closing down the opposition or both. I know we do not have many, if any, holding midfielders and our full backs are all predispositioned to charge forwards like headless chickens. But I think that maybe, if we could be a little more Hughtonesque (I feel dirty for saying that and am now going to take a shower), we would become more difficult to breakdown. After all it's not like we would create less chances by playing the Hughton way at the minute is it?

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A reasonable enough summary, I'd say. I would think two more defensive midfielders would free up one full back to go on a surge to create an overlap with a winger or wide playmaker, especially if your number 10 has a pretty good engine too to get up and back. The crux lies in the turnover and how we progress the ball through the midfield. Gilmour was brought in as he was considered excellent in possession and could take the ball in tight spaces and play through the thirds from relatively deep-lying positions - think Pirloesque.

The problem was that the rest of our midfield wasn't quite dynamic enough to support that although Lees-Melou was clearly signed with the aim of adding more of that, and with two wingers/wide playmakers out wide, we were horribly vulnerable down the middle. To make matters worse, Giannoulis and Aarons tended to both bomb on hard, so the centre-halves also had issues!

Shame Byram's not right. I really would have preferred him playing, strangely enough.

The concern with two defensive midfielders could be an inability to play out to get the attacking four into play. Manchester United's showings with combinations of Fred and McTominay, or indeed Matic in there together aren't always great as the same problem does crop up a bit, even with a gem in Bruno Fernandez. That said, Normann looks like he's got some good passes in his locker and Sorensen really should get a try. He did look like he could break out with the ball as well, but not necessarily hit incisive balls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Iwans Big Toe said:

Now I never played at a level higher than Anglian Combination, nor have I ever managed a team, so I do not claim to be a tactical genius when it comes to football. However, having a sports degree, coaching badges and game experience at the aforementioned level, I think I may be a little more qualified than the (majority of) posters who are going to **** **** my suggestion for daring to criticise anything Norwich City (you know who you are).

I'm wondering though, after looking at and analyzing the picture of Chelsea's 4th goal that Jim Smith posted in a separate thread, if fixing our defensive problems could be as simple as not having our full backs bomb forwards and playing two holding midfielders?

5 of Chelsea's goals were as a result of our either fullbacks being out of position, no defensive midfielder closing down the opposition or both. I know we do not have many, if any, holding midfielders and our full backs are all predispositioned to charge forwards like headless chickens. But I think that maybe, if we could be a little more Hughtonesque (I feel dirty for saying that and am now going to take a shower), we would become more difficult to breakdown. After all it's not like we would create less chances by playing the Hughton way at the minute is it?

 

 

I agree. The 4-2-3-1 with two disciplined holding midfielders is the way to go in my view. Still gives us more attacking players/threat than the current formation. The full backs can still get forward at times. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Iwans Big Toe said:

The problem is, do we have 2 disciplined holding midfielders?

 

 

What about Kabak? Has he ever played further forward. He's shown a few decent runs with the ball in recent games and a flexibility beyond strict central defensiveness.

What is Sorensen's future?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep. I really think it's that simple. The goals we're conceding are all coming from a lack of positional discipline in midfield. I'd argue that the fullbacks would also be better supported by having wide midfielders in front of them.

Separating the number 10 role from the holding midfielders would make their jobs easier. At the moment they're too readily vacating the space in front of the defence.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree, but surely by playing two holding players we play two attacking wingers-inside forwards and an attacking number 10. This links the play to our forward and enables the back four to stay in shape.

Pretty much the 4-2-3-1 but more disciplined?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Agree, but surely by playing two holding players we play two attacking wingers-inside forwards and an attacking number 10. This links the play to our forward and enables the back four to stay in shape.

Pretty much the 4-2-3-1 but more disciplined?

The 4-2-3-1 we played last season was highly disciplined. There's this weird perception that it's some kind of all-out attack. But it's actually pretty close to a perfect balance between attack and defence when executed correctly.

Share this post


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

Agree, but surely by playing two holding players we play two attacking wingers-inside forwards and an attacking number 10. This links the play to our forward and enables the back four to stay in shape.

Pretty much the 4-2-3-1 but more disciplined?

Yep, a 4-2-3-1 playing a mix of Tzolis, Cantwell, Rashica and Plachtea with Dowell or Gilmour at 10 behind Pukki. It's got to be plenty more adventurous, and hopefully better defensively than our current 5-3-2.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We dont need attacking overlapping full backs. That is for teams that win games and dominate possession. Play flat back 4 with disciplined fullbacks, 2 CDMs and Gilmour, either behind or in front, and let Tzolis and Rashica provide our outlet, our width and our attacking threat. Todd number 10 and Pukki

Edited by The Great Mass Debater

Share this post


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

What about Kabak? Has he ever played further forward. He's shown a few decent runs with the ball in recent games and a flexibility beyond strict central defensiveness.

What is Sorensen's future?

I think its time to try Sorenson with Normann

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is when you see players slowly trotting back when we lose possession.  It doesn't matter what system you play when the opposition is bombing forwards and we sit and watch. 

Any team given time on the ball will damage you, it's really that simple for me. And no wonder how teams can attack us with their CBs on half way line.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Google Bot said:

The problem is when you see players slowly trotting back when we lose possession.  It doesn't matter what system you play when the opposition is bombing forwards and we sit and watch. 

Any team given time on the ball will damage you, it's really that simple for me. And no wonder how teams can attack us with their CBs on half way line.  

Although one of the reasons they are able to do that is because we offer no attacking threat for them to worry about with Pukki and Sargent as our only attacking players. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Google Bot said:

The problem is when you see players slowly trotting back when we lose possession.  It doesn't matter what system you play when the opposition is bombing forwards and we sit and watch. 

Any team given time on the ball will damage you, it's really that simple for me. And no wonder how teams can attack us with their CBs on half way line.  

Sadly I have to agree, inexcusable.

Share this post


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

Yep. I really think it's that simple. The goals we're conceding are all coming from a lack of positional discipline in midfield. I'd argue that the fullbacks would also be better supported by having wide midfielders in front of them.

Separating the number 10 role from the holding midfielders would make their jobs easier. At the moment they're too readily vacating the space in front of the defence.

I disagreed with you before Petriix, but I must admit I'm coming round to it. 

Edited by 1902
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Google Bot said:

The problem is when you see players slowly trotting back when we lose possession.  It doesn't matter what system you play when the opposition is bombing forwards and we sit and watch. 

Any team given time on the ball will damage you, it's really that simple for me. And no wonder how teams can attack us with their CBs on half way line.  

For me that's why you need your holding midfielders to, you know, hold. I'd much prefer to shift the emphasis onto the wide midfielders to be the ones who have to sprint back to defend, not least because they're the ones with the pace.

Edited by Petriix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Iwans Big Toe said:

The full backs have to learn to stay deeper though.

 

I guess the problem (if you can call it that) is the fullbacks have been our main attacking outlet under Farke - incredibly high up the pitch. 

I don't disagree that we could change that now to be more defensively solid - we never had naturally wide players apart from Onel for most of Farke's time here - he's now got multiple options which I guess should give us the option of making the fullbacks sit deeper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't disagree that the root cause was due to players being well out of position, and don't dispute the additional CDM being solid, Southgate's England have proven the system for most. But the point of having 3 CBS is that you rotate the back line to a back 4 to allow your wing-back to go forward without leaving space in behind. In theory it shouldn't be any less defensive but, should, play to the strengths of the full backs we have. 

Communication is key and I see very little of it in our first team which is possibly a symptom of the new players coming in but also a lack of those characters. Farke can tell them what he wants but if no one is bossing it on the pitch, which they aren't, then it's going to fall apart. There were lots of experienced free-agents available this summer and in hindsight it doesn't fit the recruitment model but would have made a difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, The Great Mass Debater said:

We dont need attacking overlapping full backs. That is for teams that win games and dominate possession. Play flat back 4 with disciplined fullbacks, 2 CDMs and Gilmour, either behind or in front, and let Tzolis and Rashica provide our outlet, our width and our attacking threat. Todd number 10 and Pukki

There has got to be an either/or in there somewhere.Thats 11 outfield players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Chelsea set up should have been more compact with 5 defenders and 3 midfielders able to shield the defence, but we still looked wide open.   4231 as we know works, but if Farke wants to play 433, which seems to have been the original plan this season, the midfield three ought to be more defensive. At Chelsea, McLean and PLM were inneffective in the first half and a simple approach, which is what the op asked for, would be that a 433, or 4321 with defence minded players and the right attitude should work even better than a 4231 such as  - 

                                  Krul

          Aarons   Hanley   Kabak     Williams

            Sorensen  Normann  Giannoulis

                    Cantwell  Pukki  Tzolis

Giannoulis is excellent going forwards and can also cover well to help Williams. Sorensen has always looked composed and good on the ball and could help Aarons. Normann could be told to stay central. Stay compact, disciplined and try and hit opposition on the break. That seems simple enough.

  Sargent and Rashica need to be taken out of the team imo as they were both lax in tracking back, Cantwell would not be like that and Tzolis would at least give defenders something new to contend with and in the minutes he has played for us, has looked up for tracking back when needed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

The Chelsea set up should have been more compact with 5 defenders and 3 midfielders able to shield the defence, but we still looked wide open.   4231 as we know works, but if Farke wants to play 433, which seems to have been the original plan this season, the midfield three ought to be more defensive. At Chelsea, McLean and PLM were inneffective in the first half and a simple approach, which is what the op asked for, would be that a 433, or 4321 with defence minded players and the right attitude should work even better than a 4231 such as  - 

                                  Krul

          Aarons   Hanley   Kabak     Williams

            Sorensen  Normann  Giannoulis

                    Cantwell  Pukki  Tzolis

Giannoulis is excellent going forwards and can also cover well to help Williams. Sorensen has always looked composed and good on the ball and could help Aarons. Normann could be told to stay central. Stay compact, disciplined and try and hit opposition on the break. That seems simple enough.

  Sargent and Rashica need to be taken out of the team imo as they were both lax in tracking back, Cantwell would not be like that and Tzolis would at least give defenders something new to contend with and in the minutes he has played for us, has looked up for tracking back when needed. 

I am getting to the point now that I really couldn't care less what the formation is or whether we lose. I really don't want to be negative but cant see other than relegation as the outcome so am resigned to that - I just want to see us create chances and score some goals that we can all get behind to bolster our spirits and support the players and manager (whoever that is for as long as that is). We are always going to conceded because we aren't good enough defensively as a back 3 or 4 or got enough in midfield to break a decent attack down. But some pressing and chances please to give us something to smile about shouldn't be too much to ask should it?

Lets go down fighting and restore some pride in our great club

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

The Chelsea set up should have been more compact with 5 defenders and 3 midfielders able to shield the defence, but we still looked wide open.   4231 as we know works, but if Farke wants to play 433, which seems to have been the original plan this season, the midfield three ought to be more defensive. At Chelsea, McLean and PLM were inneffective in the first half and a simple approach, which is what the op asked for, would be that a 433, or 4321 with defence minded players and the right attitude should work even better than a 4231 such as  - 

                                  Krul

          Aarons   Hanley   Kabak     Williams

            Sorensen  Normann  Giannoulis

                    Cantwell  Pukki  Tzolis

Giannoulis is excellent going forwards and can also cover well to help Williams. Sorensen has always looked composed and good on the ball and could help Aarons. Normann could be told to stay central. Stay compact, disciplined and try and hit opposition on the break. That seems simple enough.

  Sargent and Rashica need to be taken out of the team imo as they were both lax in tracking back, Cantwell would not be like that and Tzolis would at least give defenders something new to contend with and in the minutes he has played for us, has looked up for tracking back when needed. 

Trouble is Lakey 4-3-3 doesn’t work either because we don’t have three quality midfielders who can be relied upon. McClean, Lees-Melou and Rupp just aren’t consistently good enough at this level. 
We can play a 4-2-3-1 as we have been for four seasons and by bringing back Cantwell who is the one player in our squad who proved himself premiership level last time we start to go back to a system our core players know, is better for this league and best chance at getting some results in my opinion.

We do have some very promising youngsters who we invested in, so now we need to see if they can deliver in a system which gives them the best chance.

All about opinions and mine is to go back to what we know and play the best available players in their positions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless of formation - if the players are not going to give 100% on the pitch, we won't win matches

Recruitment, & motivation within the NCFC squad appears to be pretty poor right now

Aarons & Giannoulis are not, and never will be Prem quality Full Backs (no where near physically strong  enough) - IMHO fantastic Wing Back potential in both of them

But to allow that WB potential to flourish - you need a strong and organised back 3, with a disciplined midfield that consistent of at least 1 (or even 2) decent quality D/M's

Webber did not buy players to allow that to happen for Farke

No idea if Farke spoke to Webber pre season about the need to play 352 or 532 within the first 6 or 10 matches - but our nett modest spend of cash & our loan players, are not a good fit again sadly this season (Mr Webber 😃 100% your fault

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excerpt from ‘Where did it all go wrong” thread on formation/set up/approach: 

A small follow up: it is not a wild stretch to imagine that we keep Buendia, he scores one great goal and creates one key assist and our world is different as highlighted above. 

Players love you again when they’re playing and doing well. Every sin, fight, punch, agent, headline is forgotten (Hoolahan?).

Imagine our back 4 (Aa-Ha-Gib-Gia) with a Skipp deep splitter, two defensive-minded players either side of him in a tight 3 (Normann on loan and PLM doesn’t seem a crazy stretch), then Buendia at 10 (negating his weaknesses, letting him play as a roaming fantasista, his defensive contribution an added bonus, his daft turnovers higher and less hurtful to us), plus 1 other midfielder in a sort of 4321, 451 or 4411 (dress it up how you like), it could be McLean (or even Cantwell)  though I’d say a diligent runner and free kick specialist (not a ‘great’ player, a functional one).

No buying lots of others, keeping Rupps and McLeans and Sorensons that can be utility. Saving money. Justifying the lack of ambition by stating that - eventually - we are formally looking at ground expansion. 

There you go. Nobody’s thrilled. We haven’t changed the world. We haven’t made crazy promises or spent crazy money. My feeling is that most fans would have expected that, gone with it and ridden it out. 

Now it looks like the Shakespearean fulcrum we feared. It looks more like an all-or-nothing strategy than it was supposed to be. It looks more cruelly like concrete system failure (which it didn’t have to be). It risks losing key parts that may not be to blame. Our risk assessment may have identified the wrong dangers I’m afraid.

Parma”

Apropos Dimi (and Gibson), how thrilled are you to be bought for the Premier 6 months previously, then immediately superseded? Surely those areas weren’t the desperate ones?

I will certainly accept @Petriix that some element of formation thinking must come in to squad building and planning. Whether we call it 4231 or whatever, I still don’t see that we have 1 holding midfielder, when we surely needed 2?…surely at least as much as replacements for Dimi and Gibson and £5m on out back up keeper (who I really like btw)?

Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the face, though we surely lacked some very obvious essential parts, plus we lost our key weapon (at this level) and the correlating loss with our half-weapon (Pukki). 

it doesn’t look very coherent now at all. As I suggested to @nutty nigelsone time back ‘what if the cost of selling Emi is losing Farke and Webber?’

It doesn’t look as outlandish a piece of foresight now as it might have done then…

Parma 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe Sorensen signed a new contract in the summer. He's definitely a holding player. We absolutely should have signed another.

I was absolutely fine with selling Buendia, weighed up against a significant war-chest with which we would certainly end up with a stronger team.

I'm still trying to figure it out. We must have spent a net £25m. On reflection that's pretty low. I was expecting double that. But it seems crazy to be able to spend that much and apparently have a significantly worse team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. The problem is fundamentally with Farke's playing philosophy. We might have moved players around but the core principals are still the same, the reason people think we've abandoned our style of play is because the opposition is stopping us playing it, if they gave us time and space even in a 532 we would be playing the same way as we were in the Championship last year. 

I'm bored of discussing the details of why but basically this style of football does not work in this league with the budget we have. Everyone in football can see it which is why teams play the way they do against us. The club is typically burying their heads in the sand though and hoping for a miracle instead of acting now. 

Thinking that Farke is going to turn this around implies that he hasn't been working hard or smart enough before or that he needs even more than the 4 years he's had to implement his style, it's beyond stupid that anyone would think that and buying him 2 DM's in January won't change that. He needs to be replaced and it should have happened yesterday. 

This is Hughton all over again, the club just never learns a damned thing and this is why we're perpetually doomed to keep going through agonizing periods like this because the higher ups at the club are either not brave enough to act or are just so deluded and insulated that they can never see what is so blatantly obvious to everyone else. 

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...