Are we really going to play 433 next year?

[BigFish 2,282]

I am just a little intrigued.

A common view is that Adams preference is for 433 and that is what we are going for next season. Some claimed that Hughton tried that last year but it seemed more like the Prem''s preferred 4231 that morphed into a defensive 451. Now this can be a rather dry and irrelevent topic until we start looking at the personnel we have, we might get or might leave.

The first thing I wonder is about our wide guys. Would these these be in the front three or the middle three. If front we suddenly have 9 players for 3 roles???? If middle is this going to leave the team light in the messy work/defending etc.

Secondly with the middle three, is there a holding midfielder (or two) or will all three be expected to cover? If Fer leaves that could leave us with a midfield of Howson, Tettey and Johnson - none too pretty and lacking in cover.

Back 4 is a back four so doesn''t reall concern me too much as what we have got can probably do ok at Champs level.

I assume Lafferty will play more often than not with two wide guys coming in from the flanks so don''t really see a place for Hooper as that is not his thing. Although if we changed to 442 he could fit in as a classic big guy/little guy strike force but this looks terribly old fashioned. No place for Becchio and Wes either. RvW could possibly play coming in from wide but would he do it better than Grabban, Redmond, Bennett and possibly Wilson?

I don''t know the answer, and I don''t know how it will pan out. I''m just interested in what you all think?

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 2,424]

Impossible know how Adams will play, and I guess we''ll only start to get an impression in the last two home friendlies against Nice and Celta Vigo.

 

He showed a few different formations in the Premier League, but in pretty much all his games Norwich were the smaller team looking to hit on the break. In Championship Norwich will need to play on the front foot so will need to alter these tactics - also having his own players in will also change the options open to him.

 

Looking at the U18s he played a counter attack, fast 4-3-3 (which I suspect where the talk is coming from), but he built that team around the players available and with the Murphys and Morris that system fit perfectly. If that means he is building a 4-3-3 team for next season it is hard to know.

 

In a 4-3-3 the wide players are in the front three, looking at current personal I would thing it would be something like "Redmond-Lafferty-Grabban" (before people moan about Redmond on the left, he has said he prefers that side as it allows him to cut inside). Wenger has used a 4-3-3 at Arsenal for a long time now, so think of "Podolski - Giroud - Walcott" as an example. A 4-3-3 midfield is usually one defensive midfielder and two more attacking players (although some play with 2 more defensive players and one attacking, but that slips more in 4-2-3-1 territory.

 

I think Norwich will play a selection of different formations, players will sit back against Norwich so at times a 4-4-2 will be appropriate to apply more pressure, Lafferty +1 will allow the big man, little man formation you mention. I think a large part of the reason McNally et al like Adams is he showed flexibility in his systems in the 5 games, and made changes mid game that were effective (think the Liverpool come back, or Chelsea where he suddenly went all continental with a false 9).

 

Interesting to see what he does, and I personally think he isn''t as ''green'' as many assume. He seems to have a good array of old school organisation with more modern formations and flexibility.

 

Could all be a diasaster of course and he is just buying whoever is available without a clear plan and will suddenly realise he''s messed up when Norwich get thumped 7-1 opening day of the season.

[PurpleCanary 6,386]

New regimes, if they have any sense, tend to learn from the mistakes of the previous lot (although sometimes this can mean simply doing the polar opposite without it necessarily being the right option). Hughton''s tactical inflexibility was a factor in our poor performance last season. Any new NCFC manager, if they had the sense and the finances, would try to build a squad that could play various tactical formations. From game to game and within a game. Very early days but that looks to me like what is happening here. As I understand it even the two signings can operate in different positions. Lafferty (and I have seen him do this) can play wide-left as well as being a central target-man. Grabban supposedly can play alongside another striker or by himself. Wilson (if signed) can also be a winger. Giving Russell Martin the Number 5 shirt might be a sign that Adams will occasionally opt for three central defenders and wing-backs. And so on. Last season opposition managers knew how we would start a game, and pretty much how we would carry on. If Adams has half a brain he will want us to be less predicatable.

[Move Klose 303]

I think he will play a front 3 consisting of Redmond on the left, grabban on the right then another through the middle, hooper if hes still here. Then 3 in the centre of midfield.

[simmo_2 6]

If we play like most are saying in this post we will struggle next season.

Why would we sign a 6ft + centre forward and then play a winger so he could cut in on his preferred foot-Crazy.

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 2,424]

[quote user="simmo_2"]If we play like most are saying in this post we will struggle next season. Why would we sign a 6ft + centre forward and then play a winger so he could cut in on his preferred foot-Crazy.[/quote]

Because it then creates space for the full back to overlap and hit a cross into the box - where there are now more players because the winger has moved inside.

 

Very little point hitting crosses into the box when there is only one striker in there - 6ft or not. The reason there were issues with it last season with Snoddy is he did the same bloody move everytime, you want the winger to be able to go either way - which Redmond can do.

[Dubai Mark 0]

Impossible to guess, so we will have to wait until we see the side play, and will only really know when the side take the field for the first league game of the season.

Personally I am a huge fan of 3-5-2, but that probably wont happen.

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 2,424]

[quote user="Dubai Mark"]Impossible to guess, so we will have to wait until we see the side play, and will only really know when the side take the field for the first league game of the season. Personally I am a huge fan of 3-5-2, but that probably wont happen.[/quote]

 

Wouldn''t seem to play to the strength in the wings Norwich have. Pilkington, Redmond, the Murphys would find there is no position for them in that team. Would also mean brining in at least 2 CBs and probably a couple of CMs too.

 

 

3 at the back is starting to have the predicted come back at this World Cup though - will be interesting to see if domestic clubs start to follow suit.

[simmo_2 6]

[quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"]

[quote user="simmo_2"]If we play like most are saying in this post we will struggle next season. Why would we sign a 6ft + centre forward and then play a winger so he could cut in on his preferred foot-Crazy.[/quote]

Because it then creates space for the full back to overlap and hit a cross into the box - where there are now more players because the winger has moved inside.

 

Very little point hitting crosses into the box when there is only one striker in there - 6ft or not. The reason there were issues with it last season with Snoddy is he did the same bloody move everytime, you want the winger to be able to go either way - which Redmond can do.

[/quote]I agree that Russel Martin was pants behind Snoddy last season. Redmond seems to want to get on his right all the time and I cant remember Olsson setting up many goals last season. From 2-0 down against Watford Redmond played on the right wing and must have put in 15 crosses in 45 minutes the fullback was legless and set up winner. Was you there?

[PKC 0]

I quite like the idea of using wing backs and with what we have at the moment we could do this

Elliott Bennett on the Right and Olsson on the left. If you are using this system you need cenre backs who are comfortable on the ball and Martin could well be an advantage here.

As purple says though we do need to be flexible and not stick dogmatically to one formation.

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 2,424]

[quote user="simmo_2"][quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"]

[quote user="simmo_2"]If we play like most are saying in this post we will struggle next season. Why would we sign a 6ft + centre forward and then play a winger so he could cut in on his preferred foot-Crazy.[/quote]

Because it then creates space for the full back to overlap and hit a cross into the box - where there are now more players because the winger has moved inside.

 

Very little point hitting crosses into the box when there is only one striker in there - 6ft or not. The reason there were issues with it last season with Snoddy is he did the same bloody move everytime, you want the winger to be able to go either way - which Redmond can do.

[/quote]I agree that Russel Martin was pants behind Snoddy last season. Redmond seems to want to get on his right all the time and I cant remember Olsson setting up many goals last season. From 2-0 down against Watford Redmond played on the right wing and must have put in 15 crosses in 45 minutes the fullback was legless and set up winner. Was you there?[/quote]

 

I''m not saying it worked particualry well last season - obviously it didn''t.

 

But the theory of an inverted winger is to create space for the full back on the wing as well as getting an extra body into the box, by coming inside the winger draws the full back along with him and pulls one of the centre backs towards him to block any potential shots, this is suppose to give the striker more space and more chance for the full back to hit him with a cross - it also allows the winger to try a shot if possible or draw a tackle in the box, which given the current version of the rules gives a good chance of a penalty. 4-3-3 doesn''t work particulary well if the wingers stay out wide - Arsenal use it with the two wide players coming in narrow between the full back and central defenders - if the wingers do stay wide there is often only the striker in the box with support from midfield further back.

 

Somehow Norwich managed to play with wingers coming inside, but still only have one player in the box. I think this is due to Hughton''s fairly rigid system which didn''t allow the full backs to get far enough forward, or the midfield to provide supporting runs, also as Snodgrass would usually come inside rather slowly it allowed opposition midfielders time to get back and cut him off, without the need for the defenders to come to him.

 

4-3-3 works much better when played at a very high pace - Bayern play a version where Robben and Ribery both cut inside, but because they do it at such quick pace (or did before Pep) it was much more effective. However, Man U tried a 4-2-3-1 with the wide players staying wide and hitting in lots of crosses and it was a disaster, RvP was often left isolated and the crosses were easy to defend. There are strengths and weaknesses to both systems, but when you have a player like Redmond who is so fast and so good at dribbling, but not great as crossing, it is a waste to not take advantage of his natural skills and have him cutting inside. As you said Redmond hit about 15 crosses in 45 mins, only one of which was effective, defending against average crossing is very easy for defenders, especially if they a big and tall (like many in the Championship) what they really hate is a small, nippy player running at them.

[BigFish 2,282]

[quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"][quote user="simmo_2"][quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"]

[quote user="simmo_2"]If we play like most are saying in this post we will struggle next season. Why would we sign a 6ft + centre forward and then play a winger so he could cut in on his preferred foot-Crazy.[/quote]

Because it then creates space for the full back to overlap and hit a cross into the box - where there are now more players because the winger has moved inside.

 

Very little point hitting crosses into the box when there is only one striker in there - 6ft or not. The reason there were issues with it last season with Snoddy is he did the same bloody move everytime, you want the winger to be able to go either way - which Redmond can do.

[/quote]I agree that Russel Martin was pants behind Snoddy last season. Redmond seems to want to get on his right all the time and I cant remember Olsson setting up many goals last season. From 2-0 down against Watford Redmond played on the right wing and must have put in 15 crosses in 45 minutes the fullback was legless and set up winner. Was you there?[/quote]

 

I''m not saying it worked particualry well last season - obviously it didn''t.

 

But the theory of an inverted winger is to create space for the full back on the wing as well as getting an extra body into the box, by coming inside the winger draws the full back along with him and pulls one of the centre backs towards him to block any potential shots, this is suppose to give the striker more space and more chance for the full back to hit him with a cross - it also allows the winger to try a shot if possible or draw a tackle in the box, which given the current version of the rules gives a good chance of a penalty. 4-3-3 doesn''t work particulary well if the wingers stay out wide - Arsenal use it with the two wide players coming in narrow between the full back and central defenders - if the wingers do stay wide there is often only the striker in the box with support from midfield further back.

 

Somehow Norwich managed to play with wingers coming inside, but still only have one player in the box. I think this is due to Hughton''s fairly rigid system which didn''t allow the full backs to get far enough forward, or the midfield to provide supporting runs, also as Snodgrass would usually come inside rather slowly it allowed opposition midfielders time to get back and cut him off, without the need for the defenders to come to him.

 

4-3-3 works much better when played at a very high pace - Bayern play a version where Robben and Ribery both cut inside, but because they do it at such quick pace (or did before Pep) it was much more effective. However, Man U tried a 4-2-3-1 with the wide players staying wide and hitting in lots of crosses and it was a disaster, RvP was often left isolated and the crosses were easy to defend. There are strengths and weaknesses to both systems, but when you have a player like Redmond who is so fast and so good at dribbling, but not great as crossing, it is a waste to not take advantage of his natural skills and have him cutting inside. As you said Redmond hit about 15 crosses in 45 mins, only one of which was effective, defending against average crossing is very easy for defenders, especially if they a big and tall (like many in the Championship) what they really hate is a small, nippy player running at them.

[/quote]

The thing is what is being described here is not really "wingers" in the traditional sense and we should probably drop the term if we expect them to cut inside. The point about pace is very relevant as well. If we have fast wide players who can come inside and they both do it gives the opportunity to get 3v2 on the centre backs, particularly if the wide players are goal scorers - sounds like a description of Grabban, Wilson and as Parma Ham described on another post RvW''s perferred position. Italy showed against England how this frees up space for those behind to back up Bethnal''s point.

[simmo_2 6]

I guess Stanley Mathews would never have made a footballer in this day and age.

I just cant see why a wide man cant get one on one with the full back beat him and cross it to a incoming forward. A ball pulled back is so hard to defend and a nightmare for a goalkeeper.

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 2,424]

[quote user="simmo_2"]I guess Stanley Mathews would never have made a footballer in this day and age. I just cant see why a wide man cant get one on one with the full back beat him and cross it to a incoming forward. A ball pulled back is so hard to defend and a nightmare for a goalkeeper.[/quote]

 

More traditional wingers still have a place in football, of course they do - but teams need to have players getting into the box to get onto crosses. With two guys playing out wide and only one in the box it means the cross has to be pinpoint accurate, and on many occasions there isn''t any cross that will hit the striker as two centre backs will be able to cut off all the angles. I don''t think Redmond has the crossing ability to be able to reliably hit crosses into dangerous areas from the right flank, and every bad cross is a turn over of possession and gives the other team the opportunity to attack.

 

There are no ''right'' or ''wrong'' systems, its just about playing to individual and team strengths and creating as many opportunties, with the highest possibly of success as possible. Doesn''t matter how many crosses a team get into the box, if everyone of them is collected by the keeper or cleared away safely - same as it doesn''t matter how many times a player cuts in to shoot if every shot is off target.

[Phillip J Fry 0]

[quote user="simmo_2"]I guess Stanley Mathews would never have made a footballer in this day and age.

I just cant see why a wide man cant get one on one with the full back beat him and cross it to a incoming forward. A ball pulled back is so hard to defend and a nightmare for a goalkeeper.[/quote]

No he wouldn''t or,rather, not in the style that he played. The advent of pressing means that a player like Matthews, who needed a lot more time and space on the ball than a modern player, would''ve struggled. If you watch the old footage, you often see that Wingers (back in the day) had a bit more acceleration space than they would ever get now because pressing just wasn''t a thing, for a variety of reasons. Someone of Matthews obvious talent would''ve probably played football, but in a completely different manner to how he did.

As to your second point, a good inverted winger should be equally adept at mixing up his game and going around the outside of the full-back as well as cutting inside(Robben is a good example, he can quickly turn and run inside his full-back as well as run outside and around him). One of the  reasons you play inverted wingers (apart from their generally more complex movement) is that running outside the full-back and pulling the ball back dangerously is far easier to do on your weaker foot then attempt a shot or play a killer pass. Inverted winger offer, by and large, more variety in attacking play than traditional wingers.