Here's a theory PtII: 4-2-3-1's days are numbered

[Terminally Yellow 2,486]

Connor Southwell's article on City's midfield refresh (again, well worth the price of subscription to PinkUn+ or signing up for the trial if you haven't already) speaks a little about how the three signings so far, once up to speed, might replace Sorenson and McLean in the side. 

I wonder, in fact, if it might even spell the end for the 4-2-3-1.

Against Cardiff, the link up play between midfield and attack remained woefully inadequate, with really only Cantwell offering anything that resembled any sort of threat. 

We know as well that Smith wanted athleticism. He wanted players who could run all day, and all three of our new players are said to offer that.

So with that in mind, what if the idea isn't to put these players into a 4-2-3-1, but rather a more radical shift to a 4-3-3?

Wouldn't a front three of;

Cantwell - Pukki - Dowell

With a supportive midfield of;

 Sara - Hayden - Nunez 

Offer more athleticism, more creativity, more goal threat and a greater playing style? I can see Dowell and Cantwell dropping into the central channels to play the passes into Pukki, much like Cantwell and Emi did, with Nunez and Sara working wider to support Aarons and Dimi as they get forward to offer the width. Sara and Nunez would be expected to work hard and track back to contribute to defensive plays. 

I can see it happening, particularly given how inept we looked this Saturday gone.

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 3,892]

I think these signings have been made with view to a 4-3-3, yes. I'm not completely comfortable with both Dowell and Cantwell supporting Pukki though, because there seems to be a lack of pace and physicality in the front three with both of them.

[cambridgeshire canary 6,854]

Would ilke to see us try out 4-4-1-1 myself

[Greavsy 2,474]

9 minutes ago, cambridgeshire canary said:

Would ilke to see us, on a stream, try out 4-4-1-1 myself

Fixed that for you!

[cambridgeshire canary 6,854]

3 minutes ago, Greavsy said:

Fixed that for you!

Do you really have to try and derail every thread I make a post on by posting about me? I mean, it is charming but at least take me out for a nice meal fist

[Greavsy 2,474]

Still waiting for you to answer the question, as I answered yours. As I said before fairs fair!

, 

[Terminally Yellow 2,486]

Greavsy and Cambridge, sitting in a tree....

[Greavsy 2,474]

2 minutes ago, Terminally Yellow said:

Greavsy and Cambridge, sitting in a tree....

In his dreams. We all know he doesn't leave his bedroom! 

[cambridgeshire canary 6,854]

Oh, and just so you know I like a nice Indian!

[kirku 1,339]

Yes, a change to 4-3-3 seems very likely - once all the new signings are fit

[priceyrice 124]

I suspect we will look to a 4 3 3 with a view to next time we're in the Premier league. It was clear at the start of last season that Farke wanted to transition to this formation but failed since we didn't have the quality or athleticism in central mid to make it work. 

[Greavsy 2,474]

5 minutes ago, cambridgeshire canary said:

Oh, and just so you know I like a nice Indian!

Next home game you attend, id happily buy you an Indian. 

Let me know when.

I'll wait. 

[astro 372]

2 minutes ago, Greavsy said:

Next home game you attend, id happily buy you an Indian. 

Let me know when.

I'll wait. 

Even a vindaloo can’t stay hot that long 😳

[Barham Blitz 664]

37 minutes ago, Terminally Yellow said:

Connor Southwell's article on City's midfield refresh (again, well worth the price of subscription to PinkUn+ or signing up for the trial if you haven't already) speaks a little about how the three signings so far, once up to speed, might replace Sorenson and McLean in the side. 

I wonder, in fact, if it might even spell the end for the 4-2-3-1.

Against Cardiff, the link up play between midfield and attack remained woefully inadequate, with really only Cantwell offering anything that resembled any sort of threat. 

We know as well that Smith wanted athleticism. He wanted players who could run all day, and all three of our new players are said to offer that.

So with that in mind, what if the idea isn't to put these players into a 4-2-3-1, but rather a more radical shift to a 4-3-3?

Wouldn't a front three of;

Cantwell - Pukki - Dowell

With a supportive midfield of;

 Sara - Hayden - Nunez 

Offer more athleticism, more creativity, more goal threat and a greater playing style? I can see Dowell and Cantwell dropping into the central channels to play the passes into Pukki, much like Cantwell and Emi did, with Nunez and Sara working wider to support Aarons and Dimi as they get forward to offer the width. Sara and Nunez would be expected to work hard and track back to contribute to defensive plays. 

I can see it happening, particularly given how inept we looked this Saturday gone.

Completely agree with your observations in general, and the logical assumption would see him as part of that midfield 3 in a McGinn style role but just a thought based on the admittedly patchy evidence of the Nunez YouTube highlights reel ...

As a relatively slight 5'8" tricky player with good feet, an eye for a goal and more importantly an eye for a slipped pass, combined with a good engine a bit of pace and excellent ball retention there appear (dare I say it) to be a few similarities with a former player of ours currently playing his trade in Birmingham. 

Whilst it appears that he has mainly played centrally he has also played wider and even at full back.  The highlights (admittedly almost by definition) show him receiving the ball higher up the pitch - generally in a wider 3/4 type position -and cutting in or running beyond a defence with a give and go.  I don't think it would be too much of a stretch for him to offer a more athletic (than Cantwell or Dowell) Emi style option in a 4-2-3-1 as well.

[Newtopia 520]

I think we have been trying to switch to 4 3 3 for 18 months or more.  I am sure Hugill was seen as a front man who could thrive on crosses, supplied by two wingers.  
 

the problem is recruitment, and when we tried it, we simply did not get the results expected.  We then reverted back to 4 2 3 1, but the squad was not set up to give adequate depth.

[Hank shoots Skyler 2,094]

2 hours ago, Greavsy said:

In his dreams. We all know he doesn't leave his bedroom! 

Considering you still manage to respond to most of his posts within minutes I imagine CC’s bedroom time is actually very similar to your own.

Although in CC’s favour at least he posts about Norwich, rather than needless sniping in thread after thread 😴

[Petriix 2,855]

It was pretty hilarious reading about how Dean Smith wants us to start feeding Pukki. It's almost as if he hasn't been the manager for the last 8 months, failing to get his team to do so for that whole period. 

I'm pretty sure we're lining up for a 4-3-3. I'm looking forward to lots of exciting balls into the channels for Rashica and Sargent to chase with the occasional cross for Pukki to watch sailing into the keeper's hands.

[canarybubbles 1,953]

I get the feeling we've been trying to move towards 4-3-3 for a season, but it always hits the problem that it doesn't suit our best player and effectively takes him out of the game. 

I think we need to bite the bullet and either drop/sell Pukki or abandon the move towards 4-3-3. Until we make that firm decision, I think our formations will continue to have all the structure of a bowl of spaghetti.

Personally, I'd hate to lose a very good player, Pukki, especially if it's only to facilitate the work of a very mediocre manager. Better to kick out the manager and get a new one in who is capable of a more sophisticated style. But that's just my opinion and I know others disagree with me.

[GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary 1,816]

We really should be playing with a no.10 in this league and impose ourselves on the opposition in this league

I'd favour

                  Pukki

Cantwell    Dowell   Rashica

          Sara       Hayden

I'd hope Sara/Hayden can cover enough ground between them 

I'd fear with playing them with McLean/Nunez in a midfield 3, we just wouldnt have enough goals in the team

[Petriix 2,855]

31 minutes ago, GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary said:

We really should be playing with a no.10 in this league and impose ourselves on the opposition in this league

I'd favour

                  Pukki

Cantwell    Dowell   Rashica

          Sara       Hayden

I'd hope Sara/Hayden can cover enough ground between them 

I'd fear with playing them with McLean/Nunez in a midfield 3, we just wouldnt have enough goals in the team

Replace Rashica with just about any other player in our squad and I'd be happy with that. I doubt he is suddenly going to learn how to pass the ball at this point. 

[Capt. Pants 4,323]

Tough on Dowell unless he is moved out to the wing, as I cannot see him getting in ahead of Sara and Nunez or Cantwell in the no. 10 position. 

[Jason Shackell’s Limp Tack 81]

11 hours ago, cambridgeshire canary said:

Do you really have to try and derail every thread I make a post on by posting about me? I mean, it is charming but at least take me out for a nice meal fist

Yes Greavsy's burning obsession with you is tedious to say the least.

[Petriix 2,855]

2 hours ago, Capt. Pants said:

Tough on Dowell unless he is moved out to the wing, as I cannot see him getting in ahead of Sara and Nunez or Cantwell in the no. 10 position. 

Are Cantwell or Sara actually a number 10s? Todd has mostly played as a wide AM (albeit fairly narrow and pretty dynamic) while Sara is supposedly more of an 8.

Dowell was excellent at number 10 once he got into the team in 20/21, particularly from set pieces and his general link up play. It's one of the bigger disappointments under Dean Smith that Dowell hasn't played more, especially in that central role.

I still think there's milage in sticking our 3 most creative players in behind Pukki, supported by a strong double pivot in midfield. Until the new signings are ready, that would be Cantwell, Dowell and Sinani.

In any case it's a moot point because we're likely switching to a 4-3-3. In itself that need not be a problem. But the flaws with its implementation have been glaring.

My main issue with our attempts at 4-3-3 last season were defensively: the wingers were high up and comparatively wide vs Farke's 4-2-3-1 meaning there were big spaces to exploit behind them.

Those spaces needed to be covered by central midfield. However, our 3 CMs were stuck in the paradox of trying to a) support the attack in place of a dedicated number 10; b) provide a solid defensive pivot in the centre; and c) cover the wide areas when the wingers attacked.

What regularly happened was teams would exploit the wide areas with fast and skillful wide attackers 1 vs 1 with our fullbacks. Our deepest midfielder would be drawn to the side of the attack leaving space in the centre and opposite wing unguarded. Ultimately we consistently failed to track runs from midfield and the opposite fullback, often leaving someone completely unmarked for a tap in.

Meanwhile, in attack we were pretty impotent. The midfield running around fighting fires meant there wasn't a clear pattern to our attacking play. We hit the channels because we lacked a central number 10, but our wide players lacked the ability to create anything on their own, or indeed to finish off our attacking moves (or even pass the ball into an empty net).

Pukki was isolated and rarely fed decent passes to match his movement. While Normann did produce a few decent through balls, his attacking skills were hard to unleash because he was given so much defensive responsibility; when he did get forward, he lacked the discipline/desire/fitness to adequately track back.

Essentially we went from having 4 attackers to 3. That's fine if they're all 'weapons' but Rashica and Sargent were not, and Cantwell didn't adapt to the changing system at all. Dowell lacked the pace to play in the wide areas and we, collectively, didn't pose much threat.

The knock on effect of our limp attack was to invite teams to commit more players forwards. This put more pressure on our midfield and exacerbated the previously mentioned deficiencies. A viscous circle of negativity that basically ended up in surrender more often than not.

Farke's 4-2-3-1 had defensive deficiencies too, especially earlier in his tenure. When the attacking midfield triumvirate were too ill-disciplined in defensive transitions and the fullbacks got ahead of the ball, we often left gaping holes for teams to counterattack into.

However these were largely resolved with the Skipp role providing the disciplined anchor alongside a second midfield pivot while the wide AMs were given very specific defensive duties which they performed very effectively.

The more I reflect, the more criminal it seems that we didn't give the refined Farkeball system a go in the Premier League. After the summer transfer window we simply didn't have the right balance to even try it.

Now we seem pretty committed to the 4-3-3 or at least a new version of the 4-2-3-1 with the higher, wider attackers. Maybe the new signings will be able to pull it off without a repeat of the previous failures. More athleticism in midfield will help for sure. But I fear for any system dependent on Rashica and/or Sargent to create and score goals.

[BigFish 1,988]

20 minutes ago, Petriix said:

Are Cantwell or Sara actually a number 10s?

I still think there's milage in sticking our 3 most creative players in behind Pukki, supported by a strong double pivot in midfield. Until the new signings are ready, that would be Cantwell, Dowell and Sinani.

My main issue with our attempts at 4-3-3 last season were defensively: the wingers were high up and comparatively wide vs Farke's 4-2-3-1 meaning there were big spaces to exploit behind them.

Those spaces needed to be covered by central midfield. However, our 3 CMs were stuck in the paradox of trying to a) support the attack in place of a dedicated number 10; b) provide a solid defensive pivot in the centre; and c) cover the wide areas when the wingers attacked.

What regularly happened was teams would exploit the wide areas with fast and skillful wide attackers 1 vs 1 with our fullbacks. Our deepest midfielder would be drawn to the side of the attack leaving space in the centre and opposite wing unguarded. Ultimately we consistently failed to track runs from midfield and the opposite fullback, often leaving someone completely unmarked for a tap in.

The knock on effect of our limp attack was to invite teams to commit more players forwards. This put more pressure on our midfield and exacerbated the previously mentioned deficiencies. A viscous circle of negativity that basically ended up in surrender more often than not.

However these were largely resolved with the Skipp role providing the disciplined anchor alongside a second midfield pivot while the wide AMs were given very specific defensive duties which they performed very effectively.

The more I reflect, the more criminal it seems that we didn't give the refined Farkeball system a go in the Premier League. After the summer transfer window we simply didn't have the right balance to even try it.

I always thought I was in fundamental disagreement with you @Petriix, but find I agree more and more these days. Dowell is probably the only 10 at a the club, so it is a real shame that we have had to start without him. In the Chumps the lower standard probably means we could get away with putting an atacking three behind Pukki. Our weakness in wide areas was/is obvious, and not only down to the midfield but also the fullbacks bombing on which left us sometime in a 2251. Ok, in the Chumps, but madness in the Prem. But is was Skipp's decipline that made this work when he was here, and was missed when he wasn't.

[Robert N. LiM 4,649]

1 hour ago, Petriix said:

I still think there's milage in sticking our 3 most creative players in behind Pukki, supported by a strong double pivot in midfield. Until the new signings are ready, that would be Cantwell, Dowell and Sinani.

 

Yes. This.

The whole post is excellent.

[Petriix 2,855]

8 minutes ago, BigFish said:

I always thought I was in fundamental disagreement with you @Petriix, but find I agree more and more these days. Dowell is probably the only 10 at a the club, so it is a real shame that we have had to start without him. In the Chumps the lower standard probably means we could get away with putting an atacking three behind Pukki. Our weakness in wide areas was/is obvious, and not only down to the midfield but also the fullbacks bombing on which left us sometime in a 2251. Ok, in the Chumps, but madness in the Prem. But is was Skipp's decipline that made this work when he was here, and was missed when he wasn't.

The thing is, in the modern game, many teams play with the fullbacks (or wingbacks) providing the wide attacking threat. The number of goals and assists we conceded to opposition fullbacks last year is testament to that. It's how you fill in the gaps that makes or breaks it.

I recall the crazy game against Newcastle under Alex Neil where we kept losing possession with both our fullbacks ahead of the ball or when Ivo Pinto lost the ball on the right wing when supposedly playing at left fullback as some classic examples of getting it really wrong.

But, with a Skipp to drop between the centre backs (allowing one to go wide and cover the absent fullback area) and a second CDM to hold the midfield shape, the risks are minimised. As to whether that's entirely down to the individual player, or if we could have brought in someone else to do that role remains unknown. 

There really isn't so much difference between the 4-3-3 and the 4-2-3-1 and, if decent midfielders can interchange with sufficient awareness and discipline, the problems can be overcome.

I would just argue that we've never had midfielders with the right attributes to pull it off. The more defined roles (of a deep lying 6 who can read the game and snuff out the danger alongside a disciplined, box-to-box 8 who supports in attack and defence and a dedicated number 10 to provide the central attacking fulcrum) just give a bit more structure to it so that everyone knows their job at any given time.

We saw last season how much our midfield 3 struggled to control games and often looked totally shambolic trying to cover the whole pitch.

On the other hand, Farke's dynamic attacking midfield trio would also get caught out of position often, which caused its own problems. However, it's easier (in my mind at least) to recover from your number 10 being out of position than say your 6 or 8. We often see Pukki chasing back when one of the AMs goes AWOL but I don't think he can do the same for the CMs.

Thanks for the vote of confidence by the way. As to being right or wrong: it's mostly talking about hypothetical situations which didn't happen or may or may not happen in the future. My assertion that our refined Farkeball of 20/21 would have been successful in 21/22 is no more valid than the claim that Farkeball could never work with our budget in the Premier League.

All I can say is that we put all our eggs in the basket of change and it didn't go so well. Not yet at least. 

[Worthy Nigelton 1,084]

I see it more as a 451 than a 433. Cantwell/Dowell/Rashica aren't really strikers. At best it's a 4321.