|
Post by Gary Hackett on Jan 12, 2021 22:32:46 GMT
Who would your front three be and who would your midfield be? I still can't see that we have the players to make it work, it needs legs in the middle for me and they either aren't fit or in most cases don't have the legs anyway. As it currently stands with injuries? Allen....Cousins....Clucas Brown..Powell...Rabbi Rabbi and Brown aren't the answer and Powell is a no.10 or nothing at all.
|
|
|
Post by mickstupp on Jan 12, 2021 22:36:01 GMT
As it currently stands with injuries? Allen....Cousins....Clucas Brown..Powell...Rabbi Rabbi and Brown aren't the answer and Powell is a no.10 or nothing at all. You can pick holes in any forward line we have at the moment regardless of the system.
|
|
|
Post by bgreen13 on Jan 12, 2021 22:40:51 GMT
We've signed a good YOUNG player in a position that we needed yet we're now deflecting to put yet another negative slant in it.
|
|
|
Post by FullerMagic on Jan 12, 2021 22:52:00 GMT
www.lutontoday.co.uk/sport/football/luton-town/hatters-chief-frustrated-norrington-davies-cuts-luton-loan-short-head-stoke-3094121“It’s a very difficult one as first of all I want to thank Sheffield United and Chris (Wilder) for trusting us with him, but these things happen, that’s what happens with loans.
“You're always at the mercy of someone else when you take a loan, you’re not in control of that player and that’s what we don’t like.
“We only take loans in exceptional circumstances and we felt that these two (Norrington-Davies and Kiernan Dewsbury-Hall) were really worth doing as they're fantastic players and really did improve us, but we’re at the beck and call of someone else really.
“Rhys was in a wonderful place and that's the frustrating thing.
“You think ‘why do people go out on loan?’ One to get experience, two if they go to the right club, they get educated, they improve, and then they come back to the parent club fold a better asset, a better player and more ready for the first team.
“The rate that Rhys was developing was phenomenal here and still learning, because he’s got a lot to learn.
“So it's disappointing, but some things are out of your hands and some things are not purely the parent club’s choice as well.
“There's no point now crying about it, we move on as we’re not a one man team.
“We’re not going to suddenly be polar opposite to what we normally are because we lost Rhys Norrington-Davies, we’ve enhanced his career no end, so let's not forget that, but we move on.”
Speaking to the Potters website, Norrington-Davies said of his decision to leave Luton and join Stoke: "I’ve got big ambitions – I want to become a Premier League player and I feel like this is a stepping stone from where I was.
"I don’t mean any disrespect to Luton whatsoever because they are a great club but I just feel this is the best move for me at this time, coming into this system of 4-3-3."
Reacting to the comments, Jones said: “He’s playing in a 4-3-3 here, he’s developing, he gets worked, he’s educated, if he wanted to go to Stoke, that’s his choice.
“Without being disrespectful, the boy has gone through the roof here, in terms of his education, so if he thinks it's going to be better development there, then that’s certainly his choice.
“I’ve made similar choices and whether they were right or wrong, I can't cane him for it.
“Whatever system he prefers to play in, he was playing here, he's played as a left back or a wing back for us here and done very well for us, and we've done very well for him.
“I’m not too sure on the logic of that, I haven't read the story, but we wish him well.
“We knew there's always that threat when you take a loan signing as well, and that's why we don't like it.
“He’s done well for us, we've done well for him, so let's shake hands, move on, and go on to the next one.”
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Jan 12, 2021 22:54:42 GMT
www.lutontoday.co.uk/sport/football/luton-town/hatters-chief-frustrated-norrington-davies-cuts-luton-loan-short-head-stoke-3094121“It’s a very difficult one as first of all I want to thank Sheffield United and Chris (Wilder) for trusting us with him, but these things happen, that’s what happens with loans.
“You're always at the mercy of someone else when you take a loan, you’re not in control of that player and that’s what we don’t like.
“We only take loans in exceptional circumstances and we felt that these two (Norrington-Davies and Kiernan Dewsbury-Hall) were really worth doing as they're fantastic players and really did improve us, but we’re at the beck and call of someone else really.
“Rhys was in a wonderful place and that's the frustrating thing.
“You think ‘why do people go out on loan?’ One to get experience, two if they go to the right club, they get educated, they improve, and then they come back to the parent club fold a better asset, a better player and more ready for the first team.
“The rate that Rhys was developing was phenomenal here and still learning, because he’s got a lot to learn.
“So it's disappointing, but some things are out of your hands and some things are not purely the parent club’s choice as well.
“There's no point now crying about it, we move on as we’re not a one man team.
“We’re not going to suddenly be polar opposite to what we normally are because we lost Rhys Norrington-Davies, we’ve enhanced his career no end, so let's not forget that, but we move on.”
Speaking to the Potters website, Norrington-Davies said of his decision to leave Luton and join Stoke: "I’ve got big ambitions – I want to become a Premier League player and I feel like this is a stepping stone from where I was.
"I don’t mean any disrespect to Luton whatsoever because they are a great club but I just feel this is the best move for me at this time, coming into this system of 4-3-3."
Reacting to the comments, Jones said: “He’s playing in a 4-3-3 here, he’s developing, he gets worked, he’s educated, if he wanted to go to Stoke, that’s his choice.
“Without being disrespectful, the boy has gone through the roof here, in terms of his education, so if he thinks it's going to be better development there, then that’s certainly his choice.
“I’ve made similar choices and whether they were right or wrong, I can't cane him for it.
“Whatever system he prefers to play in, he was playing here, he's played as a left back or a wing back for us here and done very well for us, and we've done very well for him.
“I’m not too sure on the logic of that, I haven't read the story, but we wish him well.
“We knew there's always that threat when you take a loan signing as well, and that's why we don't like it.
“He’s done well for us, we've done well for him, so let's shake hands, move on, and go on to the next one.” His full interview is here mate
|
|
|
Post by Gary Hackett on Jan 12, 2021 22:55:21 GMT
www.lutontoday.co.uk/sport/football/luton-town/hatters-chief-frustrated-norrington-davies-cuts-luton-loan-short-head-stoke-3094121“It’s a very difficult one as first of all I want to thank Sheffield United and Chris (Wilder) for trusting us with him, but these things happen, that’s what happens with loans.
“You're always at the mercy of someone else when you take a loan, you’re not in control of that player and that’s what we don’t like.
“We only take loans in exceptional circumstances and we felt that these two (Norrington-Davies and Kiernan Dewsbury-Hall) were really worth doing as they're fantastic players and really did improve us, but we’re at the beck and call of someone else really.
“Rhys was in a wonderful place and that's the frustrating thing.
“You think ‘why do people go out on loan?’ One to get experience, two if they go to the right club, they get educated, they improve, and then they come back to the parent club fold a better asset, a better player and more ready for the first team.
“The rate that Rhys was developing was phenomenal here and still learning, because he’s got a lot to learn.
“So it's disappointing, but some things are out of your hands and some things are not purely the parent club’s choice as well.
“There's no point now crying about it, we move on as we’re not a one man team.
“We’re not going to suddenly be polar opposite to what we normally are because we lost Rhys Norrington-Davies, we’ve enhanced his career no end, so let's not forget that, but we move on.”
Speaking to the Potters website, Norrington-Davies said of his decision to leave Luton and join Stoke: "I’ve got big ambitions – I want to become a Premier League player and I feel like this is a stepping stone from where I was.
"I don’t mean any disrespect to Luton whatsoever because they are a great club but I just feel this is the best move for me at this time, coming into this system of 4-3-3."
Reacting to the comments, Jones said: “He’s playing in a 4-3-3 here, he’s developing, he gets worked, he’s educated, if he wanted to go to Stoke, that’s his choice.
“Without being disrespectful, the boy has gone through the roof here, in terms of his education, so if he thinks it's going to be better development there, then that’s certainly his choice.
“I’ve made similar choices and whether they were right or wrong, I can't cane him for it.
“Whatever system he prefers to play in, he was playing here, he's played as a left back or a wing back for us here and done very well for us, and we've done very well for him.
“I’m not too sure on the logic of that, I haven't read the story, but we wish him well.
“We knew there's always that threat when you take a loan signing as well, and that's why we don't like it.
“He’s done well for us, we've done well for him, so let's shake hands, move on, and go on to the next one.” He's such an arse isn't he. If Jones says he's a good player I'd think the opposite.
|
|
|
Post by boskampsflaps on Jan 12, 2021 22:55:25 GMT
See to me that just looks awful, if you're thinking more a 5-1 its okay but two of your front three aren't suited imo and with Allen in the mid three we'll get over run/pushed back too easily to cover him. Each to their own but that looks like a lot of square pegs in round holes to me. And how would those issues in the front three be any different in a 4231? More support for the front man and better cover for the defence. We have wingers rather than wide forwards so thats one way, and I wouldn't play Allen (I know I know) unless Powell was the striker, 4-3-3 with the wrong players just ends up being 4-5-1 with the striker stuck up doing nothing on his own, at least with the 4-2-3-1 he may have a bit more support with the number 10. But if we did use 4-2-3-1 I'd have them under instruction to get the ball out wide as much as possible and get the crosses in to the front man, probably Vokes, until we get someone in thats more than a head on a stick. And the lack of legs in the middle isn't such a problem in the 4-2-3-1 either along with it having dedicated cover for the back four. Thats just how I see it anyway, the way some go on on here if you don't toe the party line in everyway you're some negative hater that wants the manager sacked.
|
|
|
Post by boskampsflaps on Jan 12, 2021 22:57:39 GMT
Rabbi and Brown aren't the answer and Powell is a no.10 or nothing at all. You can pick holes in any forward line we have at the moment regardless of the system. But would it not be better to have them in their proper positions to give them a chance rather than playing in one they aren't all that comfortable with? We have plyers that fit into a 2-3-1 they may not be great but forcing them into positions that aren't one's they know is just going to make it harder for them.
|
|
|
Post by boskampsflaps on Jan 12, 2021 22:59:19 GMT
"I don’t mean any disrespect to Luton whatsoever because they are a great club but I just feel this is the best move for me at this time, coming into this system of 4-3-3." I'm guessing he hasn't seen us recently then
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Jan 12, 2021 23:06:55 GMT
What’s the deal with loans now. Can we get anymore in? Maximum 5 in a match day squad: The EFL’s list of regulations say that a club can name a maximum of five loan players on a team sheet for any individual match.
This will drop down to four players if one of the players named is an emergency loan goalkeeper.
Loans can last for either a full season or half a season.
Recall clauses for a loan’s early termination can only take place in a full season loan and can only be activated during the winter transfer window.
|
|
|
Post by datguy on Jan 12, 2021 23:22:57 GMT
Finally using the loan market as it should be used. Gone are the days of the Sheff Utd attacking midfielder who was in his mid 30s and Cuco Martina (bless him), replaced with RND and Matondo. Much better.
|
|
|
Post by mickstupp on Jan 12, 2021 23:36:02 GMT
And how would those issues in the front three be any different in a 4231? More support for the front man and better cover for the defence. We have wingers rather than wide forwards so thats one way, and I wouldn't play Allen (I know I know) unless Powell was the striker, 4-3-3 with the wrong players just ends up being 4-5-1 with the striker stuck up doing nothing on his own, at least with the 4-2-3-1 he may have a bit more support with the number 10. But if we did use 4-2-3-1 I'd have them under instruction to get the ball out wide as much as possible and get the crosses in to the front man, probably Vokes, until we get someone in thats more than a head on a stick. And the lack of legs in the middle isn't such a problem in the 4-2-3-1 either along with it having dedicated cover for the back four. Thats just how I see it anyway, the way some go on on here if you don't toe the party line in everyway you're some negative hater that wants the manager sacked. I think a 433 offers the front man more support. Both wide attackers should be alongside. Having the third man in midfield means less defensive responsibilities. Who are these wingers we have that you speak of? And Vokes? Really?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2021 23:51:51 GMT
More support for the front man and better cover for the defence. We have wingers rather than wide forwards so thats one way, and I wouldn't play Allen (I know I know) unless Powell was the striker, 4-3-3 with the wrong players just ends up being 4-5-1 with the striker stuck up doing nothing on his own, at least with the 4-2-3-1 he may have a bit more support with the number 10. But if we did use 4-2-3-1 I'd have them under instruction to get the ball out wide as much as possible and get the crosses in to the front man, probably Vokes, until we get someone in thats more than a head on a stick. And the lack of legs in the middle isn't such a problem in the 4-2-3-1 either along with it having dedicated cover for the back four. Thats just how I see it anyway, the way some go on on here if you don't toe the party line in everyway you're some negative hater that wants the manager sacked. I think a 433 offers the front man more support. Both wide attackers should be alongside. Having the third man in midfield means less defensive responsibilities. Who are these wingers we have that you speak of? And Vokes? Really? There were a few times earlier in the season where posters were saying we'd done well because we'd played 4231 and MON confirmed in interview that we'd played 433. Is one man's 4231 another man's 433? 😁😁
|
|
|
Post by dirtygary69 on Jan 12, 2021 23:51:54 GMT
www.lutontoday.co.uk/sport/football/luton-town/hatters-chief-frustrated-norrington-davies-cuts-luton-loan-short-head-stoke-3094121“It’s a very difficult one as first of all I want to thank Sheffield United and Chris (Wilder) for trusting us with him, but these things happen, that’s what happens with loans.
“You're always at the mercy of someone else when you take a loan, you’re not in control of that player and that’s what we don’t like.
“We only take loans in exceptional circumstances and we felt that these two (Norrington-Davies and Kiernan Dewsbury-Hall) were really worth doing as they're fantastic players and really did improve us, but we’re at the beck and call of someone else really.
“Rhys was in a wonderful place and that's the frustrating thing.
“You think ‘why do people go out on loan?’ One to get experience, two if they go to the right club, they get educated, they improve, and then they come back to the parent club fold a better asset, a better player and more ready for the first team.
“The rate that Rhys was developing was phenomenal here and still learning, because he’s got a lot to learn.
“So it's disappointing, but some things are out of your hands and some things are not purely the parent club’s choice as well.
“There's no point now crying about it, we move on as we’re not a one man team.
“We’re not going to suddenly be polar opposite to what we normally are because we lost Rhys Norrington-Davies, we’ve enhanced his career no end, so let's not forget that, but we move on.”
Speaking to the Potters website, Norrington-Davies said of his decision to leave Luton and join Stoke: "I’ve got big ambitions – I want to become a Premier League player and I feel like this is a stepping stone from where I was.
"I don’t mean any disrespect to Luton whatsoever because they are a great club but I just feel this is the best move for me at this time, coming into this system of 4-3-3."
Reacting to the comments, Jones said: “He’s playing in a 4-3-3 here, he’s developing, he gets worked, he’s educated, if he wanted to go to Stoke, that’s his choice.
“Without being disrespectful, the boy has gone through the roof here, in terms of his education, so if he thinks it's going to be better development there, then that’s certainly his choice.
“I’ve made similar choices and whether they were right or wrong, I can't cane him for it.
“Whatever system he prefers to play in, he was playing here, he's played as a left back or a wing back for us here and done very well for us, and we've done very well for him.
“I’m not too sure on the logic of that, I haven't read the story, but we wish him well.
“We knew there's always that threat when you take a loan signing as well, and that's why we don't like it.
“He’s done well for us, we've done well for him, so let's shake hands, move on, and go on to the next one.” He's such an arse isn't he. If Jones says he's a good player I'd think the opposite. Just reading that makes me breathe a huge sigh of relief that he’s not here any more. If he blew any more smoke up his own arse he’d give himself a lung condition.
|
|
|
Post by mickstupp on Jan 12, 2021 23:58:53 GMT
I think a 433 offers the front man more support. Both wide attackers should be alongside. Having the third man in midfield means less defensive responsibilities. Who are these wingers we have that you speak of? And Vokes? Really? There were a few times earlier in the season where posters were saying we'd done well because we'd played 4231 and MON confirmed in interview that we'd played 433. Is one man's 4231 another man's 433? 😁😁 Other than moving one man in midfield 5/10 yards further up the field it’s exactly the same isn’t it? Maybe I’m simplifying things....
|
|
|
Post by Olgrligm on Jan 13, 2021 0:44:45 GMT
I think a 433 offers the front man more support. Both wide attackers should be alongside. Having the third man in midfield means less defensive responsibilities. Who are these wingers we have that you speak of? And Vokes? Really? There were a few times earlier in the season where posters were saying we'd done well because we'd played 4231 and MON confirmed in interview that we'd played 433. Is one man's 4231 another man's 433? 😁😁 A big heavy disclaimer here that I'm no expert, but... It's very subtle, to the point of being pedantic. Virtually everybody now plays 4-3-3 either with an attacking pyramid (one DM with two ahead, as we play) or a defensive pyramid (like the 2 with one ahead in a 4-2-3-1). The big difference is in the two wide players, who are much closer to actual forwards than wingers or inside forwards. Look how much tighter Campbell gets to Fletcher when playing wide in a 4-3-3 and how much less tracking back he does than, say, Arnie used to. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what you call it Terminology wise, I get the impression that in footballing circles, 4-2-3-1 is now something from the distant past like 4-4-2 or the WM formation. However, some posters like to use it to effectively distinguish between the different 4-3-3s for clarity.
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Jan 13, 2021 1:03:07 GMT
There were a few times earlier in the season where posters were saying we'd done well because we'd played 4231 and MON confirmed in interview that we'd played 433. Is one man's 4231 another man's 433? 😁😁 Other than moving one man in midfield 5/10 yards further up the field it’s exactly the same isn’t it? Maybe I’m simplifying things.... It completely changes the shape of the team, the skill set necessary of various players and the role of pretty much every non-defender. It’s way more fluid in attack and a bit more vulnerable defensively, which is why no one seems to play it any more in these days of mathematical, precautionary football. 4231 is guile and dynamism to 433’s... predictable wank stodge. Imo of course. And yeah I know Liverpool and all that, whaeva
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2021 1:37:08 GMT
Jones is fucking fuming isn't he. I'm happy for us to rob all their players, even if they're shit for us I honestly don't care it'd be worth it just to see him whine.
Rowett I have sympathy for, Jones I have almost none.
|
|
|
Post by telfordstokie on Jan 13, 2021 5:56:06 GMT
Sounds like the poor lad has spent the last few months constantly being told by Nathan he’s only improving as a player because he’s now working for a managerial genius. No wonder he’s packed his bags and got out of there.
|
|
|
Post by heworksardtho on Jan 13, 2021 9:12:27 GMT
There were a few times earlier in the season where posters were saying we'd done well because we'd played 4231 and MON confirmed in interview that we'd played 433. Is one man's 4231 another man's 433? 😁😁 A big heavy disclaimer here that I'm no expert, but... It's very subtle, to the point of being pedantic. Virtually everybody now plays 4-3-3 either with an attacking pyramid (one DM with two ahead, as we play) or a defensive pyramid (like the 2 with one ahead in a 4-2-3-1). The big difference is in the two wide players, who are much closer to actual forwards than wingers or inside forwards. Look how much tighter Campbell gets to Fletcher when playing wide in a 4-3-3 and how much less tracking back he does than, say, Arnie used to. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what you call it Terminology wise, I get the impression that in footballing circles, 4-2-3-1 is now something from the distant past like 4-4-2 or the WM formation. However, some posters like to use it to effectively distinguish between the different 4-3-3s for clarity. Who made you an expert 😇🤪😂
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Jan 13, 2021 9:20:58 GMT
And how would those issues in the front three be any different in a 4231? More support for the front man and better cover for the defence. We have wingers rather than wide forwards so thats one way, and I wouldn't play Allen (I know I know) unless Powell was the striker, 4-3-3 with the wrong players just ends up being 4-5-1 with the striker stuck up doing nothing on his own, at least with the 4-2-3-1 he may have a bit more support with the number 10. But if we did use 4-2-3-1 I'd have them under instruction to get the ball out wide as much as possible and get the crosses in to the front man, probably Vokes, until we get someone in thats more than a head on a stick. And the lack of legs in the middle isn't such a problem in the 4-2-3-1 either along with it having dedicated cover for the back four. Thats just how I see it anyway, the way some go on on here if you don't toe the party line in everyway you're some negative hater that wants the manager sacked. Matondo is right footed and has stated he prefers playing on the left and played on the left when he was brought on against Leicester so it looks like the plan is not to play him as a winger and we are going to go 433 with inside forwards/inverted wingers. There is also a telling comment on the Norrington-Davies thread about him wanting to play in a 433. I agree 433 tends to end up as 451 if you have wingers and leaves the central striker isolated (which is what happened under Rowett) but is less likely to happen with inside forwards/inverted wingers as their job is explicitly to be in and around the central striker. 433 also changes the role of the central striker - playing with you back to goal and being the main goal threat is no longer so important - it's more about interplay with the wider forwards and sometimes not even being the furthest player up the pitch. Fletcher would be my first choice but in his absence I can see Powell in that role. I've got a suspicion we'll start 532 on Saturday and move to 433 as the new players bed in over the next few weeks but we'll see.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Jan 13, 2021 9:27:42 GMT
Jones is fucking fuming isn't he. I'm happy for us to rob all their players, even if they're shit for us I honestly don't care it'd be worth it just to see him whine. Rowett I have sympathy for, Jones I have almost none. Neither deserve any sympathy.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Jan 13, 2021 9:31:15 GMT
There were a few times earlier in the season where posters were saying we'd done well because we'd played 4231 and MON confirmed in interview that we'd played 433. Is one man's 4231 another man's 433? 😁😁 Other than moving one man in midfield 5/10 yards further up the field it’s exactly the same isn’t it? Maybe I’m simplifying things.... That '5/10 yards' makes an enormous difference though. It depends heavily on personnel but play a proper no 10 behind a striker and get your wide players close to them and you've got a formidable front line and a good foundation behind it. Play a 4-3-3 without that and you've got stodgy Rowettball that isolates your striker and is bereft of creativity.
|
|
|
Post by mickstupp on Jan 13, 2021 9:47:54 GMT
Other than moving one man in midfield 5/10 yards further up the field it’s exactly the same isn’t it? Maybe I’m simplifying things.... That '5/10 yards' makes an enormous difference though. It depends heavily on personnel but play a proper no 10 behind a striker and get your wide players close to them and you've got a formidable front line and a good foundation behind it. Play a 4-3-3 without that and you've got stodgy Rowettball that isolates your striker and is bereft of creativity. If the three in midfield carry out their roles correctly there is no reason why the striker should be isolated. It’s also depends on the main strikers ability to hold the ball up. Just because it didn’t work with a trio of Ince, McClean, and Afobe it doesn’t mean it can’t work with, say Campbell, Fletcher and Doughty.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Jan 13, 2021 9:53:37 GMT
That '5/10 yards' makes an enormous difference though. It depends heavily on personnel but play a proper no 10 behind a striker and get your wide players close to them and you've got a formidable front line and a good foundation behind it. Play a 4-3-3 without that and you've got stodgy Rowettball that isolates your striker and is bereft of creativity. If the three in midfield carry out their roles correctly there is no reason why the striker should be isolated. It’s also depends on the main strikers ability to hold the ball up. Just because it didn’t work with a trio of Ince, McClean, and Afobe it doesn’t mean it can’t work with, say Campbell, Fletcher and Doughty. Oh I agree about the front three and about the striker holding the ball up, but you need the right mix in midfield too. It can work if you've got a creative type and a carrier type - Hughes found it with Whelan/Nzonzi/Adam towards the end of 14/15 after Bojan's injury. You can't just push a number 10 like a Bojan or Powell back and expect them to perform the same because they're 'only 5/10 yards back' though - they need to be closer to the striker with some freedom. Equally, you can't play a stodgy midfield trio of DMs or scrappers and expect the front three to make it work on their own.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Jan 13, 2021 10:02:53 GMT
That '5/10 yards' makes an enormous difference though. It depends heavily on personnel but play a proper no 10 behind a striker and get your wide players close to them and you've got a formidable front line and a good foundation behind it. Play a 4-3-3 without that and you've got stodgy Rowettball that isolates your striker and is bereft of creativity. If the three in midfield carry out their roles correctly there is no reason why the striker should be isolated. It’s also depends on the main strikers ability to hold the ball up. Just because it didn’t work with a trio of Ince, McClean, and Afobe it doesn’t mean it can’t work with, say Campbell, Fletcher and Doughty. That's how I see it. The problem with Rowett's 433 was that Ince and McClean were played as wingers and the central striker was left isolated. When O'Neill has played 433 he's used inside forwards/inverted wingers and that certainly looks like the role Matondo was brought in to play. I didn't like Rowett's version of 433 but I really don't think that is what O'Neill has in mind but we'll find out in the next few weeks as to the plan for the second half of the season.
|
|
|
Post by mickstupp on Jan 13, 2021 10:05:20 GMT
If the three in midfield carry out their roles correctly there is no reason why the striker should be isolated. It’s also depends on the main strikers ability to hold the ball up. Just because it didn’t work with a trio of Ince, McClean, and Afobe it doesn’t mean it can’t work with, say Campbell, Fletcher and Doughty. Oh I agree about the front three and about the striker holding the ball up, but you need the right mix in midfield too. It can work if you've got a creative type and a carrier type - Hughes found it with Whelan/Nzonzi/Adam towards the end of 14/15 after Bojan's injury. You can't just push a number 10 like a Bojan or Powell back and expect them to perform the same because they're 'only 5/10 yards back' though - they need to be closer to the striker with some freedom. Equally, you can't play a stodgy midfield trio of DMs or scrappers and expect the front three to make it work on their own. What tends to happen in this case is if one of the three midfielders plays in a more advanced role (“a number 10”), the two wide forwards end up having to drop slightly deeper to accommodate. So we gain one midfielder further forward, but lose two forward players who then have to play a bit deeper. To me, that’s a tactical trade off that weakens us in an attacking sense.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Jan 13, 2021 10:28:11 GMT
Oh I agree about the front three and about the striker holding the ball up, but you need the right mix in midfield too. It can work if you've got a creative type and a carrier type - Hughes found it with Whelan/Nzonzi/Adam towards the end of 14/15 after Bojan's injury. You can't just push a number 10 like a Bojan or Powell back and expect them to perform the same because they're 'only 5/10 yards back' though - they need to be closer to the striker with some freedom. Equally, you can't play a stodgy midfield trio of DMs or scrappers and expect the front three to make it work on their own. What tends to happen in this case is if one of the three midfielders plays in a more advanced role (“a number 10”), the two wide forwards end up having to drop slightly deeper to accommodate. So we gain one midfielder further forward, but lose two forward players who then have to play a bit deeper. To me, that’s a tactical trade off that weakens us in an attacking sense. That really didn't happen when the system was at its best under Hughes nor when it was working well under O'Neill.
|
|
|
Post by mickstupp on Jan 13, 2021 10:31:11 GMT
What tends to happen in this case is if one of the three midfielders plays in a more advanced role (“a number 10”), the two wide forwards end up having to drop slightly deeper to accommodate. So we gain one midfielder further forward, but lose two forward players who then have to play a bit deeper. To me, that’s a tactical trade off that weakens us in an attacking sense. That really didn't happen when the system was at its best under Hughes nor when it was working well under O'Neill. We’ve never played 4231 under O’Neill. He told us himself that it was a 433.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Jan 13, 2021 10:33:08 GMT
That really didn't happen when the system was at its best under Hughes nor when it was working well under O'Neill. We’ve never played 4231 under O’Neill. He told us himself that it was a 433. Whatever he told us, Powell wasn't playing as a number 8 when we were smashing teams at the back end of last season. He was constantly in the final third and close to the striker. Maybe he wasn't instructed to, I don't know, but he wasn't playing in a deep midfield role, he was in an advanced role.
|
|