Flawed 4-3-3

[Capt. Pants 4,225]

I actually think we need to be in the market for another DM now. There's no getting away from the fact Sorensen is not suited for that role and Hayden won't figure anytime soon.

We're not as cohesive going forward, Pukki is on a lull, Sargent is hopeless and I'm not sure what Hugill's role is anymore, the point being we don't look like outscoring the opposition regardless of our errors.

A DM is key and we still don't have one.

[Petriix 2,834]

33 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Wigan had two serious attempts at goal, both the result of very poor individual errors by players that wouldn't have started if we had a fully fit squad available. City had over twenty attempts at goal and around 70% possession. To describe that as evidence of a "shambolic" set up really is quite ridiculous.  Yesterday was evidence of a big step up in quality over last week's performance. Of course there is more to come in in sharpening up the clinical edge, but personally I saw plenty about which to be encouraged. I saw none of the "hoof ball" that some on here have falsely accused Smith of being an advocate, but saw several of the through balls upon which Pukki typically thrives. But for the underside of the bar, several shots a few inches off target, and an appalling ref incapable of understanding the rules of the game, this could have been a very comfortable win. Perhaps it would be wise to reserve judgement until we are a few more games into the season.

I take your point. There were some good passages of play although a lack of cutting edge. However, football is not decided by the general balance of play but by the individual moments where something goes right or wrong.

Our midfield was shambolic because it lacked a reliable shape and positional discipline during key transitions... 

I've written at length about how (in the 4-3-3) the wide attackers are less able to provide defensive cover to the fullbacks and the central midfielders have to defend wider. Yesterday we saw the issues of failing to create passing options for the back 4 and failing to provide suitable cover in the central area.

You're going to give the ball away at times. You shouldn't be so horribly exposed when you do. It's a tactical deficiency, not just a series of individual errors.

People blaming Gibson and Sorensen are missing the point. Players make errors when they don't have adequate support around them. You need your midfield to come looking for the ball in pockets of space.

[horsefly 4,297]

14 minutes ago, Petriix said:

I take your point. There were some good passages of play although a lack of cutting edge. However, football is not decided by the general balance of play but by the individual moments where something goes right or wrong.

Our midfield was shambolic because it lacked a reliable shape and positional discipline during key transitions... 

I've written at length about how (in the 4-3-3) the wide attackers are less able to provide defensive cover to the fullbacks and the central midfielders have to defend wider. Yesterday we saw the issues of failing to create passing options for the back 4 and failing to provide suitable cover in the central area.

You're going to give the ball away at times. You shouldn't be so horribly exposed when you do. It's a tactical deficiency, not just a series of individual errors.

People blaming Gibson and Sorensen are missing the point. Players make errors when they don't have adequate support around them. You need your midfield to come looking for the ball in pockets of space.

Absolutely there should have been adequate cover in that instance, but discrete examples of shambolic performance don't merit describing the whole midfield as shambolic. When Gerrard made his shambolic error that cost Liverpool the PL title did that render the whole midfield as "shambolic" because nobody covered his error? Further, it is impossible to cover for the possibility of every error. When Sorensen was caught with the ball yesterday, should there have been a player behind him to cover for his error? Obviously not, unless we intend to spend an entire game camped in front of our own penalty box and never risk going on the attack. I'm not interested in pillorying Sorensen or Gibson for their errors, but to suggest that people blaming them are missing the point is itself missing the point. There is no option other than to expect players to take responsibility for their own decisions and performance. Both Sorensen and Gibson had other decisions they could have made, so they have to take responsibility for the mistakes they made. But please, let's not persecute them for their errors, I'm sure both these very honourable and decent men have managed to beat themselves up more than enough to satisfy those who want them to suffer for their sins. However, let's also not fall into the trap of suggesting that those errors are evidence of a "shambolic midfield", the evidence of yesterday shows nothing of the sort. Undoubtedly there are aspects of it that can be improved (there always are), but "shambolic" it most certainly wasn't.

[hogesar 9,657]

I dont think 4-3-3 is a problem, or perhaps moreso I don't think it will be a problem. Smith clearly wants us counter-pressing high up in the opposition half of the pitch. 

With the midfield he wants playing, I.e without Sorensen, that requires 3 high energy central midfielders.

If we succeed in winning the ball high up the pitch, there's naturally space centrally for us to expose and therefore much easier for us to create chances for Pukki.

[hogesar 9,657]

1 hour ago, Petriix said:

I take your point. There were some good passages of play although a lack of cutting edge. However, football is not decided by the general balance of play but by the individual moments where something goes right or wrong.

Our midfield was shambolic because it lacked a reliable shape and positional discipline during key transitions... 

I've written at length about how (in the 4-3-3) the wide attackers are less able to provide defensive cover to the fullbacks and the central midfielders have to defend wider. Yesterday we saw the issues of failing to create passing options for the back 4 and failing to provide suitable cover in the central area.

You're going to give the ball away at times. You shouldn't be so horribly exposed when you do. It's a tactical deficiency, not just a series of individual errors.

People blaming Gibson and Sorensen are missing the point. Players make errors when they don't have adequate support around them. You need your midfield to come looking for the ball in pockets of space.

Gibson had an option. He used it several times before, an over the top channel ball. When under pressure, its a sensible option and he took it many times before.

As for Sorensen, he was facing his own goal and had Aarons, Omobamidele and Krul to pass to for easy options.

[Petriix 2,834]

4 hours ago, horsefly said:

Absolutely there should have been adequate cover in that instance, but discrete examples of shambolic performance don't merit describing the whole midfield as shambolic. When Gerrard made his shambolic error that cost Liverpool the PL title did that render the whole midfield as "shambolic" because nobody covered his error? Further, it is impossible to cover for the possibility of every error. When Sorensen was caught with the ball yesterday, should there have been a player behind him to cover for his error? Obviously not, unless we intend to spend an entire game camped in front of our own penalty box and never risk going on the attack. I'm not interested in pillorying Sorensen or Gibson for their errors, but to suggest that people blaming them are missing the point is itself missing the point. There is no option other than to expect players to take responsibility for their own decisions and performance. Both Sorensen and Gibson had other decisions they could have made, so they have to take responsibility for the mistakes they made. But please, let's not persecute them for their errors, I'm sure both these very honourable and decent men have managed to beat themselves up more than enough to satisfy those who want them to suffer for their sins. However, let's also not fall into the trap of suggesting that those errors are evidence of a "shambolic midfield", the evidence of yesterday shows nothing of the sort. Undoubtedly there are aspects of it that can be improved (there always are), but "shambolic" it most certainly wasn't.

I'll stand by my observation that we constantly lacked positional discipline in midfield and it hurt us - particularly in possession. It hurt us once when we conceded the goal, but it also made it difficult for us to move the ball forwards.

Nunez (in particular) and McLean were guilty of taking up fairly passive positions rather than creating passing angles or pulling players out of position. Rashica stayed wide and only Cantwell really exploited the space between the lines.

In the opening minutes, Nunez showed a couple of excellent examples of offering for the ball in the central midfield; receiving it under pressure, taking a good first touch then passing it on. But then he vacated that area, drifting forward and wider and ultimately out of the game.

I think we would massively benefit from giving one more of a deep lying playmaker role and the other a marauding number 10.

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

21 hours ago, Petriix said:

4-3-3 itself is not the issue. When you've got 3 quality attackers who can make something happen, it's a great way of getting your weapons onto the pitch. The trouble is that Pukki is our only weapon, and he's mostly neutered by this system. 

But let's be clear: I'm not talking about having two CMs who sit back as a screen in front of the defence; I'm talking about playing a 6 and an 8 who stay relatively central and maintain positional discipline so that you have a solid spine to the team. Then having a dedicated central number 10 to spark the creativity in the attacking 3rd.

It's more about passing through the thirds and creating space for our attacking players to exploit. Then it's about having a degree of cover when we lose the ball.

With McLean and Nunez roaming, we totally lose shape. A massive part of why we saw Gibson and Sorensen lose the ball in bad areas is the lack of options for passing into midfield.

Cantwell was the one ray of light, playing more as a 10 as the game went on, dropping into pockets of space and picking up the ball. But he only really had Pukki looking for the ball in front of him.

Maybe if we had a bit more quality than Rashica and Sargent then we would pose an attacking threat.

I don't follow football tactics, and I get to see very little football anyway, so these numbers confuse me. What I thought the point of our midfield transfer strategy this summer, based on the triple incomings, was this.

That Hayden would be the Skipp replacement, covering in front of the back four and rarely going forward. That when we were out of possession Sara would in effect play alongside Hayden, giving plenty of cover. But in possession would turn into, a box to box water-carrier midfielder. And that Nunez would generally play further up the field, especially when we are in possession, and be the closest thing we will have to a Buendia replacement, probing the opposition defence and providing sneaky little passes for Pukki to latch onto.

If that is roughly right then Hayden is a 6, Sara an 8 and Nunez a 10? Given that in the real world, upon contact with the enemy, it is never as fixed as that.
 

[Creedence Clearwater Couto 1,271]

15 hours ago, Newtopia said:

If we go 4 3 3, surely our front 6 should be

Nunez Hayden Sara

Cantwell Pukki Rashica

That is a pretty strong trio in the centre. I am nervous about the top three, and how committed they are especially if we do not pick up form.  Kenny will be good cover for all three midfield positions.  

On paper. 
 

I fear we’ll not see a fully fit Hayden for weeks yet, if at all, and Nunez and Sara really are unknown quantities due to the adjustment required. 
 

Let’s hope your right. But there’s a lot going against it. 

[Petriix 2,834]

1 hour ago, PurpleCanary said:

I don't follow football tactics, and I get to see very little football anyway, so these numbers confuse me. What I thought the point of our midfield transfer strategy this summer, based on the triple incomings, was this.

That Hayden would be the Skipp replacement, covering in front of the back four and rarely going forward. That when we were out of possession Sara would in effect play alongside Hayden, giving plenty of cover. But in possession would turn into, a box to box water-carrier midfielder. And that Nunez would generally play further up the field, especially when we are in possession, and be the closest thing we will have to a Buendia replacement, probing the opposition defence and providing sneaky little passes for Pukki to latch onto.

If that is roughly right then Hayden is a 6, Sara an 8 and Nunez a 10? Given that in the real world, upon contact with the enemy, it is never as fixed as that.
 

Yes, that's exactly my hope. And I can see it working. Unfortunately what I saw yesterday was Sorensen as a lone defensive midfielder with decreasing options in front of him.

I really wanted to see McLean and Nunez consistently (one or other) dropping into the central space, looking for the ball or pulling the opposition players about and creating space behind.

What I saw instead was both Nunez and McLean pushing forward or just remaining pretty static in amongst the midfield line and failing to link the defence to the attack, which is surely their job. 

[horsefly 4,297]

4 hours ago, Petriix said:

I'll stand by my observation that we constantly lacked positional discipline in midfield and it hurt us - particularly in possession. It hurt us once when we conceded the goal, but it also made it difficult for us to move the ball forwards.

Nunez (in particular) and McLean were guilty of taking up fairly passive positions rather than creating passing angles or pulling players out of position. Rashica stayed wide and only Cantwell really exploited the space between the lines.

In the opening minutes, Nunez showed a couple of excellent examples of offering for the ball in the central midfield; receiving it under pressure, taking a good first touch then passing it on. But then he vacated that area, drifting forward and wider and ultimately out of the game.

I think we would massively benefit from giving one more of a deep lying playmaker role and the other a marauding number 10.

22 attempts at goal doesn't suggest a difficulty in moving the ball forwards from midfield. Clearly I must have been watching a different game.