Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
The Great Mass Debater

The two up front debate

Recommended Posts

Done to death I know, but one of the most consistent things about Hughton''s reign has been the isolation of the centre-forward. Be it Grant Holt or whoever. It was less of a problem under Lambert because we were able to support the front man by piling forward in numbers (hence why our defence was so leaky.  We have never solved the isolated front man problem. For a while the solution seemed to be Quaglliarella, but we all know how that panned out.

When thw two up front option has been discussed, we have always been faced with the same old rhetoric - noone plays 2 up front anymore, its been confined to the football archives, and then people cite other teams such as Man Utd or Arsenal who play that system.

We''ve tried to play one up front, but we just dont seem to be able to support the front man.

The question I ask is this - can we compare ourselves to the Utds etc, who have the players to make that system work. One up front is about having midfielders who can support the attack, wingers who can suddenly become part of the front 3.  Is the issue simply that we are not good enough (or dont have good enough players) to make that system effective?  If the answer to that is yes, then maybe the striker does need an ''old-fashioned'' partner in order to provide support or create space. We''ve seen Elmander and RvW on the pitch together, but it has always been with one striker playing as a link man.

If we''re not good enough to make a system effective (and the peristent isolation of the striker suggests this), then perhaps we should find a new system.

I know 4-4-2 offends the new gods and is seen as an act of herecy, but... when Tettey came off and Hoolahan came on, part of me wondered whether it should have been Becchio, and whether that would have been more effective. Are we too frightened of looking uncouth or unsophisticated?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with two up front is where on the pitch you remove a player from. Going to a 2 man midfield nearly always means surrendering possesion of the ball in the centre of the pitch as the opposing team will overload that area. If you are constantly losing the ball in the middle third it doesn''t matter how many strikers you have, they won''t see the ball. This can be negated by having big strikers who can win long balls up field, bypassing the middle third. Against Southampton Norwich effectively played 4-4-2 as Elmander rarely dropped very deep, but it could work out as Southampton also went 4-4-2 with Lambert and Osvaldo both upfront, on that day Fer and Johnson got the better of Wanyama and Schnderlin - however against Tottenham when Hughton also used the same system saw the world class midfield of Tottenham have completely dominace over the game.

 

Strikers tend to be the players who contribute least to the overal game - they won''t touch the ball as often as other players and time in possession is generally minimal, having two of them on the pitch means more work for the rest of the team. This is of course unless you ask one of the strikers to drop deeper to be more involved - Norwich have tried that and it didn''t really work out.

 

There is a growing trend of managers wanting to play 3 at the back, which allows a team to keep a 3 man midfield and still play two strikers - it is an incredibly hard formation to pull off though with the 3 center backs needing to all be excellent positionally and it is easier for opposing teams to isolate defenders and create overloads. Changes to the offside rules adding ''phases of play'' effectively killed off the sweeper as teams looked to push higher up the pitch to exploit strikers taking advantage of less strick rules and with a general move to a less physical game tackling in the box is an incredibly risky pursuit.

 

Norwich''s recent move to a 4-3-3 has seen more control in the centre of the pitch, and some wonderful performances from Fer, Howson and Tettey and RvW has been involved more in the Stoke and Chelsea game as Pilkington and Snodgrass could get closer to him - I personally think this formation is worth sticking with as games against Chelsea and Arsenal were never likely to heed good results (but both have seen good performances). One of RvW''s greatest strengths at his previous clubs is his ability to bring other players into the game, a role which is now as important for strikers playing alone up front as purely scoring goals - I wouldn''t care if Ricky only manged 5 or 6 goals this season if his movement and talent allowed Howson, Pilkington et al to provide more goals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I get your points, Man U have Rooney as the ''5th midfielder'' Arsenal have Ozil.

Both are capable of scoring and bringing assists for the striker and other midfielders. Our options haven''t shown to be capable.

Here they are:

Wes: Clever but a luxury and due to us being at a higher level, the negatives now outweigh the positives. He is like a poor mans Ozil, he basically did what Ozil does in the premiership, but in the championship and league 1.

Elmander: Theoretically bought in as ''the solution'' I still think he''s our best chance of 2 up top working, but he needs to get going sooner rather than later. We know what he''s capable of and could ease the pressure off the defence if his hold up play can work. The likes of RVW, Hooper and co need him to start playing better.

Howson: 4 goals in 10 games and looking pretty sharp. Still question marks over whether he can stand the premiership battle and not really much of an aerial threat so means the defence tends to get overworked. Good stamina though.

Hooper: Why not just give him and RVW a go hey? 2X9.5 as Rodgers would say! It works for Liverpool, but do Hoops and RVW have the all round game that the new SAS have? Untested but whilst Hooper looks like he''d handle it, i don''t think RVW would.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How about removing one of the wingers? Put Redmond in from the start, RvW and Hooper, and the 3 man midfield of Tettey, Fer and Howson. Worth a try against Cardiff?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Jimmy Smith"]I get your points, Man U have Rooney as the ''5th midfielder'' Arsenal have Ozil. Both are capable of scoring and bringing assists for the striker and other midfielders. Our options haven''t shown to be capable. Here they are: Wes: Clever but a luxury and due to us being at a higher level, the negatives now outweigh the positives. He is like a poor mans Ozil, he basically did what Ozil does in the premiership, but in the championship and league 1. Elmander: Theoretically bought in as ''the solution'' I still think he''s our best chance of 2 up top working, but he needs to get going sooner rather than later. We know what he''s capable of and could ease the pressure off the defence if his hold up play can work. The likes of RVW, Hooper and co need him to start playing better. Howson: 4 goals in 10 games and looking pretty sharp. Still question marks over whether he can stand the premiership battle and not really much of an aerial threat so means the defence tends to get overworked. Good stamina though. Hooper: Why not just give him and RVW a go hey? 2X9.5 as Rodgers would say! It works for Liverpool, but do Hoops and RVW have the all round game that the new SAS have? Untested but whilst Hooper looks like he''d handle it, i don''t think RVW would.[/quote]

 

Liverpool play with a back three, so Lucas, Gerrard and Moses can play behind Sturridge and Suarez to avoid the midfield overload.

 

The solution for Norwich is the current one being employed - don''t play a ''Number 10'' but have two ''Number 8''s in Fer and Howson - both have defensive roles but both are allowed to go forward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Or we could play with three 7.75''s with a false number 6 dropping off the two holding 4''s.

 

Grant holt used to like a 3.14 which is why he always looked like his BMI was 2 high.

 

The best two up front I''ve ever seen was probably my first wife but she was transferred when I foung out someone else was playing in the hole and scoring more frequently that I was!

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="TCCANARY"]

 

Or we could play with three 7.75''s with a false number 6 dropping off the two holding 4''s.

 

Grant holt used to like a 3.14 which is why he always looked like his BMI was 2 high.

 

The best two up front I''ve ever seen was probably my first wife but she was transferred when I foung out someone else was playing in the hole and scoring more frequently that I was!

 

 

 

 

[/quote]

Post of the day for me. Made me LOL. Far more entertaining than all the banal Hughton-out drivel on here these days.

Thanks, mate. :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="TCCANARY"]

 

Or we could play with three 7.75''s with a false number 6 dropping off the two holding 4''s.

 

Grant holt used to like a 3.14 which is why he always looked like his BMI was 2 high.

 

The best two up front I''ve ever seen was probably my first wife but she was transferred when I foung out someone else was playing in the hole and scoring more frequently that I was!

 

 

 

 

[/quote][:D]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="CanaryNewbee"]Why not try what West ham did and overload the midfield with 6 and 4 defenders and NO strikers.[/quote]

 

Id mooted the same in a different thread. Whilst I think the lack of a recognised striker is rather unambitious (like the Scotland formation that time) unless you are Barcelona and you are playing a different ball game, I think in terms of formation this might not be too bad an idea. Holt, RvW and Hooper all uninvolved generally. Whilst the comments about other teams strikers also being uninvolved ie RvP are very valid, I wonder if playing the striker in a 4-6-0 might be more effective. No they arent centre mids, but if they are not in the game, we play with 10 men. Better to play with 11? For instance have Fer central, Tettey behind and then Howson and striker slightly in front, rather than a massive gap between striker and midfield. Might this also allow the midfield to not have to sit so deep and even allow us to play a higher defensive line?

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...