The "Two Up" Conundrum

[a1canary 0]

It seems generally understood that the downside risk of playing with two up concerns the potential of being overrun in midfield by a team playing with 5 in the middle.

There were some interesting discussion about this one the radio and motd this weekend in reference to Liverpool''s game with Villa and Man City as well. They were giving big credit to Rodgers for switching to a 3 man defence to allow them to play 5 in the middle and two up after they had fallen two goals down. Up to that point they were playing 4-3-3 with Suarez Sturridge and Coutinho but as we have found ourselves in recent games, 4-3-3 is very often a misleading description of that formation as it often turns out much more like 451. The first Fulham cup game was a good example with Elmander and Murphy trying provide width and leaving the man in the middle as isolated and unsupported as ever. Hence at half time at Anfield at the weekend, Coutinho came off for Lucas and they went 352. Oh for that kind of bold and decisive change in our games!

The other discussion was in reference to Man City and how Pellegrini likes to play a English style 4-4-2 and that with the talent he has at his disposal he can afford to and be a bit more open when they know they will score 3 or 4 goals every game or most games at home at least. All of which adds further puzzlement to our game at Goodison recently when Cautious Chris went with a 442 and the opposition manager suggested that this was very "brave".

The other obvious recent proponent of 442 are Spurs under Sherwood and it was interesting to note how against Swansea they were indeed completely overrun in the opening phase of the game with Shelvey - i.e. Hoolahan/Howson running the show. But they didn''t capitalise and a two darts down the wing and quality crosses later, Spurs were 2-0 up.

All of which is fascinating food for thought for how we might play.  Three at the back to allow for two up and a 5 man midfield is something we tried a few times under Lambert with limited if any success but it could be something we could have more success with now that we are more defensively minded anyway, with Russ and Olsson the advanced wingbacks either side of a Snoddy, Fer, Tettey centre 3. Not something i expect but if we are going to go with 442, seeing as how we aren''t Man City, is it too much of a gamble to do away from home? I don''t know the answer, and neither do we it seems, but since we do have two expensively assembled new strikers i can see why we might persevere with the Sherwood approach. Maybe it''ll come good? Thoughts?

 

[Canary On The Wire 0]

It''s not a conundrum.Steve Bruce has the right idea. 3-5-2 with a ''bombing'' wing back approach is the best way for a team without world class midfielders to play two up front if necessary. I don''t advocate it as I don''t think we should play two up front, I think we should set up in a 4-1-4-1 and create overloads down the flanks to get us to the byline to cut back for diagonal runs from Ricky.If we did, though, 3-5-2 is the way forward. We don''t have a wing back pacy or positionally sound enough to play RWB though.Hull''s 3-5-2 would have seen us off on Saturday if they didn''t lose Chester to injury IMO.

[Hannibal II 0]

Unless your a Man city or Chelsea with a world class squad you can''t just turn up to a game and play the same 11 as the week before. The modern game is very much a horses for courses affair. At home expectations are raised and fans demand a more attacking approach so you would hope against teams outside the top 6 you would deploy two forwards. The away games and against the top 6 its the norm to not have as much possession so playing the extra man in midfield to counter act this is very much the done thing.

Our club has dedicated scouts who build detailed reports on up coming opposition that gives the manager every possible sat he could wish for. There is no set solution to which team we should play but what we should be doing is being pro active in our tactical thoughts of how best to negate the opposition. Sometimes that mean playing with two and pressing high sometimes it means with 5 in the middle and playing on the counter both have their pro''s and cons. Personally i am old school and i like to see 2 up front but most of the best teams seem to be looking at the Barcelona style of 6 stylish inter changeable players who can play anywhere in the final two thirds of the pitch. As long as you get a good performance out of the formation and or a result the job is done.

[a1canary 0]

[quote user="Canary On The Wire"]

Hull''s 3-5-2 would have seen us off on Saturday if they didn''t lose Chester to injury IMO.[/quote]

Did they switch formation when Chester went off then? To what?

[chrisr1606 4]

The 4-4-2 we played Saturday wasn''t a traditional one like Spurs are now playing under Sherwood.  Gutierrez isn''t a ''chalk on the boots'' type like Huckerby for example, he often came inside to support Johnson and Fer, so much so there were a couple of times he came inside so much he was on the right wing with Snoddy!

[Aggy 752]

Are Olsson and Martin/Whittaker good enough to make a 3-5-2 work? If those two aren''t providing quality from the wings, then the front two are going to be extremely isolated.

You still need the central midfield to be fairly compact, otherwise you just get overrun there anyway. You''ve got RVW and Hooper up top, and Snoddy and Fer supporting - although one of those central midfielders will probably not get caught too high up the pitch. So the full backs need to give you something there. I don''t think ours are good enough to do that. Maybe Olsson is but certainly not down the right.

442 is hard. When you''ve got players like Yaya Toure and Fernandinho, you can make it work. We (and most other teams in the division) struggle with it nowadays. You mention Spurs and mention quality crossing, but if you can produce quality crosses with a 4 man midfield, why not with a 5 man midfield? You''ve still got two wingers. And a quality cross with one man in the box is going to be more effective than a poor cross with two in the box.

And that''s where one of our biggest problems lies in my opinion - the quality of the balls into the box. It doesn''t matter who you''ve got up front if the supply is naff. Compare that to a few seasons ago, we were putting good balls in and Holt was scoring for fun. Was Holt better than RVW or Hooper? I don''t think so. Was he getting better service? I would say probably yes!

I read an article on here the other day which questioned the whole idea of "formations" nowadays. And, to an extent, I agree. It''s about quality in the final third far more than what formation you''re playing. If you''ve got 2 quality strikers with two quality wingers, you can be a threat. If you''ve got one quality striker with two quality wingers and one or two quality creative midfielders behind them, you can be a threat. Unfortunately, we have lacked quality and creativity regardless of what formation we''re playing.

[Canary On The Wire 0]

They went 4-4-2:McGregorElmohamady Davies Bruce FigueroaLivermore Huddlestone Koren Rosenior (RM and LM, not wingers, narrow midfield)Jelavic Sagbo

But Snoddy systematically destroyed Figueroa, so Rosenior ended up dropping back and they sat as a 5-3-2 for the rest of the game with the wing backs sitting as full backs in order to keep plenty of men behind the ball.

[Aggy 752]

Actually, I''d like to change a sentence in there.

I''m not so sure we were putting better balls in a few seasons ago. We were probably just putting more in. Playing the percentages - you put 10 crosses in per game, striker maybe gets 2 chances. You put 25 crosses in per games, striker gets 4 or 5 chances.

I think that''s far less to do with the system than it is to do with the mentality/philosophy/game plan whatever they call it nowadays. Lambert''s idea was to get the ball into the box as soon as possible and hit Holt. You look at a Martinez or Rodgers side and they are more patient in the build up, but they still have a plan which they stick to. I don''t think we have.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

I reckon we could go three at the back with Martin/Bassong/Turner using Jonas and Olsson as wing backs and Tettey, Fer and Howson completing the midfield. But I don''t think it''s a system that plays top the strength of our squad. With Hooper and RVW up front there''d be no place for Snoddy, Redmond or Pilks.

 

 

[Canary On The Wire 0]

That''s a big reason why I''m no advocate of us using it Nutty.Unless we were really bold about it, and sold all three, using the money to buy classier wing backs and add dynamism to the middle of the park.But that would take a close season and a manager with serious balls.Hughton hopefully won''t have the close season, and he definitely doesn''t have serious balls.

[Fergodsake 0]

The style of cross was different though, we scored a lot of goals from cutbacks inside the area 2 years ago. Those tend to be high percentage in terms of goals because the chances created are often near enough tap ins. I think the problem is partially the link up between the front three and the speed at which we break. Watching Villa Liverpool I was struck by the quality of the understanding between Weimann, Benteke and Agbonlahor and the speed at which they attacked Liverpool. The reality is that there is a disconnect between the Norwich wingers and the lone striker when we go 4-5-1, this is particularly odd when we play inverted wingers as the assumption must be that we intend to let those wingers cut inside and work as if in a 4-3-3. All in all, watch Villa attack on a good day, or Southampton most days and you see a far less rigid system based on mutual understanding and shared vision, this just doesnt exist at Norwich, and im not sure that is an issue of formation tbh. Just my interpretation, I hope it doesnt come across as complete b0ll0cks.

[tom cavendish 0]

The question should be:Should the team play with 2 strikers or 1 striker and a forward-midfielder?When Norwich have tried to play 1 striker then the central midfielders have failed to get forward enough to support him and he becomes outnumbered by defenders. The lone striker then goes deep or wide looking to get the ball and we have no goal threat.I think that a lot of people seem to forget that when selecting 2 strikers, one or both will often drop back into midfield when required. Hooper is great at doing that. Norwich play with wingers so it is better that they have 2 strikers to aim crosses for rather than just 1.

[Aggy 752]

I would agree fergodsake. That''s the "philosophy" point I was making above. Lambert when here had a clear plan - get the ball forward and hit Holt quickly. We had decent wingers, so he used them, we put in a lot of crosses (yes, usually cutting back inside) and we scored. But it was far more about the speed we attacked with and the idea of putting the ball into the box as often as possible to try and create as many chances as possible.

That''s just one "philosophy" of football. Some prefer a slower Spain-like build up and can make that work by using highly technical players who can retain possession.

What''s our plan? Is it to keep possession and probe for the opening, playing a killer through ball only when the chance presents itself? Not really. Is it to attack quickly and chuck as many balls into the box as possible, hopefully getting on the end of a couple? Not really.

For me, you have a "plan/strategy/philosophy". Then you pick the formation based on the players who can get results from that philosophy. That''s why Guardiola sides often play with midfielders in defence, or with no striker up top, or can utilise a player like Lahm (one of the best exclusive wing backs in my lifetime) as a holding midfielder because he has got the technical attributes to pretty much play anywhere in a team playing in Guardiola''s style.

[Fergodsake 0]

Tom, thats fair enough and I can see what you are arguing, but if you have two strikers and wingers then you really need fullbacks who get forward to make sure balls get into the box. This doesnt happen enough at Norwich and means we rarely overload the wings or stretch defenses laterally.

[Fergodsake 0]

Yeah I agree Aggy,This thread will probably show us that there are many valid ways to skin a cat, but the problem is that we do none of them.

[a1canary 0]

[quote user="Fergodsake"]The style of cross was different though, we scored a lot of goals from cutbacks inside the area 2 years ago. Those tend to be high percentage in terms of goals because the chances created are often near enough tap ins. I think the problem is partially the link up between the front three and the speed at which we break. Watching Villa Liverpool I was struck by the quality of the understanding between Weimann, Benteke and Agbonlahor and the speed at which they attacked Liverpool. The reality is that there is a disconnect between the Norwich wingers and the lone striker when we go 4-5-1, this is particularly odd when we play inverted wingers as the assumption must be that we intend to let those wingers cut inside and work as if in a 4-3-3. All in all, watch Villa attack on a good day, or Southampton most days and you see a far less rigid system based on mutual understanding and shared vision, this just doesnt exist at Norwich, and im not sure that is an issue of formation tbh. Just my interpretation, I hope it doesnt come across as complete b0ll0cks.[/quote]

Not at all bo((ocks. I think everyone accepts that if your players perform to the best of their ability, it doesn''t matter what the formation is. But where the formation does matter is in matching players to roles in order to get the best out of them and play to strenghts wherever possible. Under Lambert, we played to the strengths of the attacking trio - Chris Martin, Hooly and Holt in L1 and others later. He is doing the same at Villa with the three you mention but the problem he has run in to is that the rest of the team - not least the defensive players, he hasn''t been able to get right.

We did ok last year because Holt and Hoolahan were still key players in the team and they did have that mutual understanding between them and this was augmented with Snods and Pilks. Our problem this season is that with Holt gone and big name signings coming in in his place and both getting injured at different times, Hoolahan falling out of favour, they just haven''t had the chance to grow as a team together. It looked like we were getting there with Howson very much stepping up to the plate and he the players around him developing that understanding. Then he gets injured and we start flapping around with the formations changing one week to the next. In hindsight, we should have gone back to building the team around Hoolahan again and i think it has been a big mistake not to bring him back in to the team after Howson got injured and play him as a central attacking midfield just as we did last year. I''ve no idea why CH didn''t do that when it''s what bought us the success that we had last year.

[Aggy 752]

"where the formation does matter is in matching players to roles in order to get the best out of them and play to strenghts wherever possible"

I would largely agree, although I think you have to limit it to picking a formation which suits your best couple of players. If you try to get every individual having different roles and ideas to suit their own game, then you become very unbalanced. If, however, you say, "right Holt is big and good in the box, and we''ve got a technically gifted player to slot in behind him, so let''s win the ball and get it up to those two as quickly as possible, let Hoolahan transition from defence to attack, and then hit Holt early and hope he puts one of the chances away", then everyone else fits into that plan - defender wins ball, quickly passes to Hoolahan or winger, put ball in box, Holt scores.

At the moment, I think Hughton has two problems.

Firstly, he doesn''t know exactly how to get the best out of his best players. Probably Hooper and Van Wolfswinkel looking at how often he tries to get them to play. But I don''t think he knows what they need to score goals. Will they be best attacking lots of crosses? Will they be best running in behind onto through balls or balls over the top? Will they be best playing with their backs to the goal, ball into feet and lay it off to a midfielder? Hughton doesn''t know what they need to get the best out of them, so we can''t come up with a strategy. The formation comes as a result of this - forwards will have most success from attacking lots of crosses? Play with two wingers. Forwards will play best running onto the ball? Probably play a narrow compact midfield which can sit deep, draw opponents on to us and then counter with a long ball over the top. Etc. etc.

Second problem is that he is too cautious to really pick a strategy which is built around two or three attacking players. Lambert''s defence was woeful here as well. Not just at Villa. Yet he succeeded here, and Villa are now 10th in the league, without a particularly brilliant squad. He sacrifices defensive stability because he thinks overall his side will be better off playing to his plan of attack. Is Hughton willing to sacrifice defensive stability for that? Possibly - recently we''ve seen 442 formations (although is that because of injury rather than tactics?), but he is then still let down by point 1.

In my opinion, he needs to figure out how to get the best out of his best players, and then be brave and play towards an aggressive strategy which will achieve that. Not necessarily gung ho attack, but aggressive in that we have a plan to score goals, and everything is geared towards that plan. But given how close the league is at the moment, I understand why he would be hesitant about giving up his compact defensive ''security''.

[Fergodsake 0]

I think to Hughtons credit he was beginning to find a midfield formula with Howson, Fer and Tettey in the central midfield and then Hooper dropping back to link up and playing it back into oncoming runners. That seemed to be the strategy against Cardiff and Sunderland and frankly I was shocked we only got a goalless draw and a 1-0 win. The problem comes when that midfield trio is broken and in that you can see what the issue of squad depth, BJ I suppose can fulfill the role that Tettey plays to a degree despite his weak passing game but we have no obvious replacement for Howson or Fer in terms of all round ability in the centre of the park. Fox isnt good enough in my opinion, Hoolahan who I like a lot unfortunately doesnt work well as part of a trio whose job it is to control the centre of the park. I just feel we need two more players for that central midfield area that can do most things quite well as opposed to the limited options when the 3 most versatile midfielders are not available.Yeah, for all the problems going forwards, I have to try not to forget the times that I saw abysmal defending under Lambert. I never really felt that was just because we got numbers forward, though admittedly that was part of it. It was also because he really couldn''t coach a back line at all, some of the positioning of Centre backs under Lambert is almost laughable. Still the man really knew how to get a team to tick going forwards.

[tom cavendish 0]

[quote user="Fergodsake"]I think to Hughtons credit he was beginning to find a midfield formula with Howson, Fer and Tettey in the central midfield and then Hooper dropping back to link up and playing it back into oncoming runners. [/quote]The problem with that was that Howson wasn''t getting forward in the box to support Hooper (who was up front on his own). Howson wasn''t even creating any chances for Hooper. This resulted in Hooper having to go deep to get the ball. The team was being left without a striker at times.What we should have had is for Howson for play much further forward (in the Wes position) and create chances. Considering that we play with 2 wingers, the best way forward is going to be to play 2 strikers with one or both going deep to help the midfield as and when required. Hooper is good at doing that.Elmander isn''t worth bothering with as he''ll never be a regular goalscorer nor does he create good chances, nor is he a midfielder. I would rather that Becchio was given a chance because at least he had a very good goalscoring record and his positional sense is superb.

[peateabee 0]

great discussion topic.

I think this is one of the biggest dilemmas at the club at the moment - knowing what the best balance for the team is using the players we have got. And as you point out this usually comes down to the question of do you want one or two strikers playing.

If you do want two strikers the obvious fit with the players we have got is some sort of variation on a 4-4-2 as we have seen. We have strength and depth on the wings compared to the rest of our squad, and this system uses them well. Another alternative is the increasingly popular 3-5-2 wing back system, but as others have mentioned you have to sacrifice those wide players, getting your width from wing backs instead. And whilst Olsson, Whitaker and Gutierrez could do a decent job there, I think not using Snodgrass, Pilkington, Redmond and even Murphy properly would not be using the squads full potential and we would miss out on a lot of the little ''xfactor'' that we have.

I think probably the most balanced formation for us, as others have also said, is a 4-1-4-1, or variation. (You can argue about players, but for demonstration purposes something along the lines of...)

Ruddy

Martin Bennett Bassong Olsson

Tettey

Redmond Fer Hoolahan Pilkington

Van Wolfswinkel

This really should have enough solidity while also having plenty attacking options and avenues of creation behind a single striker that could be rotated. The downside - you end up leaving one of Hooper/Van Wolfswinkel out and by doing that arguably on the extra goalscoring potential and cutting edge that should bring.

So I think there really is a dilemma when it comes to selecting a team from our current squad as it seems there isn''t exactly just one formation that suits it. I wonder if an ideal formation was held in mind as it was being created? However this problem can also provide a benefit - being that we should be able to adapt to different ways of playing, and different tactics - But this policy has it''s own troubles as well.

On a side note do you know if any team has ever played/had any success with a 3-2-3-2? I imagine not - (although maybe way back when) but for example...

Ruddy

Martin Bennett Bassong

Tettey Fer

Snodgrass Hoolahan Pilkington

Van Wolfswinkel Hooper

In a way you could just play it as a variation on a 3-5-2, but you would keep two defensive midfielders who shield the back three and then get your width from wingers instead of wing-backs. I don''t believe i''ve ever seen it - but would be interested to know if it could ever work in reality. Bizarrely It kind of fits our squad.