|
Post by mickstupp on Jan 13, 2021 10:36:49 GMT
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. There is nothing to stop midfield players getting forward in a 433. I’m not sure about “smashing” teams either. For every good win we had it was offset by an absolute shocker. We were smashed as often as we were the smashers!
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Jan 13, 2021 10:38:47 GMT
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. There is nothing to stop midfield players getting forward in a 433. I’m not sure about “smashing” teams either. For every good win we had it was offset by an absolute shocker. We were smashed as often as we were the smashers! In the context of what had come before it, it was an enormous improvement. There's nothing to stop them getting forward no but you've got to get the personnel right. It's silly to suggest a number 10 should be as effective as a number 8, it's a different role. Equally if you're picking three cloggers there that's not going to work either. Out of interest, when you say we lost an attacking threat out wide when we played a number 10, when specifically were you thinking of? Which wide players were neutered?
|
|
|
Post by mickstupp on Jan 13, 2021 10:40:18 GMT
There is nothing to stop midfield players getting forward in a 433. I’m not sure about “smashing” teams either. For every good win we had it was offset by an absolute shocker. We were smashed as often as we were the smashers! In the context of what had come before it, it was an enormous improvement. Out of interest, when you say we lost an attacking threat out wide when we played a number 10, when specifically were you thinking of? Which wide players were neutered? The one that springs to mind immediately is Ince. 40 appearances, three goals and two assists.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Jan 13, 2021 10:43:44 GMT
In the context of what had come before it, it was an enormous improvement. Out of interest, when you say we lost an attacking threat out wide when we played a number 10, when specifically were you thinking of? Which wide players were neutered? The one that springs to mind immediately is Ince. 40 appearances, three goals and two assists. How many times have we played 4-2-3-1 with Ince in the side? Under Rowett, when he was effective, we played 4-3-3, under Jones he was at the tip of the diamond more often than not?
|
|
|
Post by ethers26 on Jan 13, 2021 10:45:59 GMT
Admin
Can we rename this thread to '433 or 4231?' please?
|
|
|
Post by boskampsflaps on Jan 13, 2021 10:47:36 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? In a MON side they aren't often along side though and thats my biggist problem with it really, he's defencive by nature and in a MON 4-3-3 they're further back than they need to be. Vokes isn't ideal I agree but its all we have, we need to set up to help him and hope he comes good until we get someone in to replace or Fletch is fit enough. We've already signed one winger, Brown is meant to be one, Verliden, McClean and it looks like we have another incoming from spurs (if its true), not to mention Ince (I know I know but he is one), wingers we have, wide forwards we don't and it also completely negates our best players ability to create further up the pitch (Powell).
|
|
|
Post by cheadlestokie on Jan 13, 2021 11:03:28 GMT
I really think that we have wait and see how this window ends before we have any real idea of the system that will suit the squad best.
At the moment i think 4231 but he could decide to go 433 with Powell as a false centre forward and two fast players either side.
Powell is a clever enough player to do it and we now see we are after further pace on the right side with the apparent further interest in Clarke.
No idea whether Matondo can do it but as he has been taken only on a six month loan I assume the decision has been made for him to start games, if not Saturday then shortly.
Whatever system we need a specialist right back who can get up and down with pace.
Possibly some risk to it but we could then play Collins alongside Souttar to see how they go as a partnership.
Plenty of experience in front of them to give a back four decent protection.
|
|
|
Post by mickstupp on Jan 13, 2021 11:17:21 GMT
The one that springs to mind immediately is Ince. 40 appearances, three goals and two assists. How many times have we played 4-2-3-1 with Ince in the side? Under Rowett, when he was effective, we played 4-3-3, under Jones he was at the tip of the diamond more often than not? I don’t know. If you are insistent that we were actually playing 4231 when the manager himself was telling us it was 433 then every game under O’Neill when we didn’t play 3/5 at the back so, at a guess 20 or 25 times?
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Jan 13, 2021 11:21:28 GMT
How many times have we played 4-2-3-1 with Ince in the side? Under Rowett, when he was effective, we played 4-3-3, under Jones he was at the tip of the diamond more often than not? I don’t know. If you are insistent that we were actually playing 4231 when the manager himself was telling us it was 433 then every game under O’Neill when we didn’t play 3/5 at the back so, at a guess 20 or 25 times? I'm not the one arguing that though, you are. When he has played a 4-2-3-1 (which isn't every time he's not played a back three, sometimes he's played a straight 4-3-3), he's generally gone with Campbell and McClean in wide players, one of whom has really blossomed and the other of whom was voted player of the season. According to you though, he's never played 4-2-3-1, so where is your perception of us losing something out wide whenever we play a number 10 coming from?
|
|
|
Post by 11wilkosinateam on Jan 13, 2021 11:26:17 GMT
Pretty obvious we are ditching the back 5 which is only a good thing.
Can see a midfield 3 of
Allen/Clucas - Powell/TOB - Mikel/Cousins
Nots sure where that leaves Thompson but with Mikel/Cousins sitting back and winning the ball, Powell being allowed to get forward and Allen/Clucas being our box to box players it is actually a very balanced midfield.
Our creativity does however rely a lot on Powell feeling up for it as TOB has done nothing to suggest he's championship quality.
|
|
|
Post by mickstupp on Jan 13, 2021 11:30:12 GMT
I don’t know. If you are insistent that we were actually playing 4231 when the manager himself was telling us it was 433 then every game under O’Neill when we didn’t play 3/5 at the back so, at a guess 20 or 25 times? I'm not the one arguing that though, you are. When he has played a 4-2-3-1 (which isn't every time he's not played a back three, sometimes he's played a straight 4-3-3), he's generally gone with Campbell and McClean in wide players, one of whom has really blossomed and the other of whom was voted player of the season. According to you though, he's never played 4-2-3-1, so where is your perception of us losing something out wide whenever we play a number 10 coming from? It’s not necessary Stoke City based. It’s an observation generally. Again, I don’t think the two systems are that far detached. The only difference is the number 10 plays more advanced in a 4231 meaning that the two wide attackers play slightly deeper than they would, or should, in a 433.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Jan 13, 2021 11:32:36 GMT
I'm not the one arguing that though, you are. When he has played a 4-2-3-1 (which isn't every time he's not played a back three, sometimes he's played a straight 4-3-3), he's generally gone with Campbell and McClean in wide players, one of whom has really blossomed and the other of whom was voted player of the season. According to you though, he's never played 4-2-3-1, so where is your perception of us losing something out wide whenever we play a number 10 coming from? It’s not necessary Stoke City based. It’s an observation generally. Again, I don’t think the two systems are that far detached. The only difference is the number 10 plays more advanced in a 4231 meaning that the two wide attackers play slightly deeper than they would, or should, in a 433. I'm just wondering what specifically you're basing that view on, which teams, which games? As it's not something I've seen or read about as a drawback of that system? It wasn't the case with Arnie and Assaidi, or Arnie and Moses, or Arnie and Odemwingie, or Arnie and Walters under Hughes.
|
|
|
Post by mickstupp on Jan 13, 2021 11:35:23 GMT
It’s not necessary Stoke City based. It’s an observation generally. Again, I don’t think the two systems are that far detached. The only difference is the number 10 plays more advanced in a 4231 meaning that the two wide attackers play slightly deeper than they would, or should, in a 433. I'm just wondering what specifically you're basing that view on, which teams, which games? As it's not something I've seen or read about as a drawback of that system? It wasn't the case with Arnie and Assaidi, or Arnie and Moses, or Arnie and Odemwingie, or Arnie and Walters under Hughes. What a bizarre analogy. Where has that come from? Sorry, but what have the relative merits of a 433 got to do with Victor Moses and Arnie?
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Jan 13, 2021 11:38:56 GMT
I'm just wondering what specifically you're basing that view on, which teams, which games? As it's not something I've seen or read about as a drawback of that system? It wasn't the case with Arnie and Assaidi, or Arnie and Moses, or Arnie and Odemwingie, or Arnie and Walters under Hughes. What a bizarre analogy. Where has that come from? Sorry, but what have the relative merits of a 433 got to do with Victor Moses and Arnie? In what way is it a bizarre analogy? I'm giving you examples of us playing a 4-2-3-1 when the wingers weren't required in any way to drop deeper? You so far have given me a grand total of zero where they have.
|
|
|
Post by nottsover60 on Jan 13, 2021 11:40:14 GMT
Anyone else really confused about all these formations by number?. When I look at Stoke playing apart from the obvious 3/4/5 at the back and 1/2 up front I can't really tell the midfield formation. The players who are not defenders or forwards seem quite fluid to me and pop up all over the pitch. Does it really matter as long as we improve second half of the season? I'm just excited at the moment about the type of players we are bringing in and really hoping we become difficult to defend against unlike the last few months since Campbell's injury. And even when he was playing we were easy to defend against - stop Campbell and Powell and you stop Stoke. At the moment it's just stop Powell it doesn't matter what formation he's playing in.
|
|
|
Post by mickstupp on Jan 13, 2021 11:51:47 GMT
What a bizarre analogy. Where has that come from? Sorry, but what have the relative merits of a 433 got to do with Victor Moses and Arnie? In what way is it a bizarre analogy? I'm giving you examples of us playing a 4-2-3-1 when the wingers weren't required in any way to drop deeper? You so far have given me a grand total of zero where they have. Haven’t you just posted in another thread purring over Arnies defensive prowess? Can you tell me how his output in terms of goals and assists were in a 433 because to my memory his best performances for Stoke, and indeed some of the very best football I’ve ever seen is play was in a 433 with shaq and bojan.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Jan 13, 2021 12:01:35 GMT
In what way is it a bizarre analogy? I'm giving you examples of us playing a 4-2-3-1 when the wingers weren't required in any way to drop deeper? You so far have given me a grand total of zero where they have. Haven’t you just posted in another thread purring over Arnies defensive prowess? Can you tell me how his output in terms of goals and assists were in a 433 because to my memory his best performances for Stoke, and indeed some of the very best football I’ve ever seen is play was in a 433 with shaq and bojan. We played 433 with a false nine with BMX up front about five times, tops. I'm not sure what goals and assists have got to do with your point, which was specifically about 4-2-3-1 requiring the wingers to play deeper? The bulk of Arnie's games were played in that very system and he was excellent for us. And 'defensive prowess' isn't the same as 'starting deeper' is it? He tracked back well when we didn't have the ball, in what way is that the same was what you're arguing? It seems to me that you've just theorised that playing a number 10 MUST require the wide players to play deeper to cover for him and that this must be why MON doesn't like doing it, without actually having anything to back that up with.
|
|
|
Post by gazzaboy on Jan 13, 2021 12:02:48 GMT
Why not play the false No 9, Vokes is probably one of the worst Centre Forwards i've seen in all my 50 years in watching Stoke, the fact that MON is signing 2 pacy wingers he could do a lot worse than playing Powell in the false No 9 role, he has an eye for goal, as the ability to beat a man, different league granted but Pep played De Bruyne as a false No9 with Foden & Stirling playing out wide they torn Chelsea apart any one bar Vokes
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Jan 13, 2021 12:05:20 GMT
Why not play the false No 9, Vokes is probably one of the worst Centre Forwards i've seen in all my 50 years in watching Stoke, the fact that MON is signing 2 pacy wingers he could do a lot worse than playing Powell in the false No 9 role, he has an eye for goal, as the ability to beat a man, different league granted but Pep played De Bruyne as a false No9 with Foden & Stirling playing out wide they torn Chelsea apart any one bar Vokes He could play false 9 you'd think However I think he could simply play as the 9 i.e. as an out & out centre forward
|
|
|
Post by mickstupp on Jan 13, 2021 12:17:20 GMT
Haven’t you just posted in another thread purring over Arnies defensive prowess? Can you tell me how his output in terms of goals and assists were in a 433 because to my memory his best performances for Stoke, and indeed some of the very best football I’ve ever seen is play was in a 433 with shaq and bojan. We played 433 with a false nine with BMX up front about five times, tops. I'm not sure what goals and assists have got to do with your point, which was specifically about 4-2-3-1 requiring the wingers to play deeper? The bulk of Arnie's games were played in that very system and he was excellent for us. And 'defensive prowess' isn't the same as 'starting deeper' is it? He tracked back well when we didn't have the ball, in what way is that the same was what you're arguing? It seems to me that you've just theorised that playing a number 10 MUST require the wide players to play deeper to cover for him and that this must be why MON doesn't like doing it, without actually having anything to back that up with. Your “not sure what goals and assists have to do your point”? That’s the whole point isnt it? The point is, that Arnie (as one example) had less of an impact on games in a 4231 than he did in a 433. I highlighted you mentioning his tracking back as proof of that because a player of his quality is wasted tracking back and did less of it in a 433. His goals and assists output was greatly improved in 15/16 and 16/17. For all of his promise, in those first two seasons with us he scored 7 goals. In his next two, playing far more often in a 433, he scored 19. All we are actually doing here is highlighting that good players can play in any system. It’s a million miles detached and totally irrelevant to what we have now, in a lower league which is far less tactical and far more physical.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Jan 13, 2021 12:27:39 GMT
We played 433 with a false nine with BMX up front about five times, tops. I'm not sure what goals and assists have got to do with your point, which was specifically about 4-2-3-1 requiring the wingers to play deeper? The bulk of Arnie's games were played in that very system and he was excellent for us. And 'defensive prowess' isn't the same as 'starting deeper' is it? He tracked back well when we didn't have the ball, in what way is that the same was what you're arguing? It seems to me that you've just theorised that playing a number 10 MUST require the wide players to play deeper to cover for him and that this must be why MON doesn't like doing it, without actually having anything to back that up with. Your “not sure what goals and assists have to do your point”? That’s the whole point isnt it? The point is, that Arnie (as one example) had less of an impact on games in a 4231 than he did in a 433. I highlighted you mentioning his tracking back as proof of that because a player of his quality is wasted tracking back and did less of it in a 433. His goals and assists output was greatly improved in 15/16 and 16/17. For all of his promise, in those first two seasons with us he scored 7 goals. In his next two, playing far more often in a 433, he scored 19. All we are actually doing here is highlighting that good players can play in any system. It’s a million miles detached and totally irrelevant to what we have now, in a lower league which is far less tactical and far more physical. You're moving the goalposts now. What you said was that wide players are forced to play deeper in a 4-2-3-1. Now you're twisting all over the place. Arnie didn't have less impact on games in a 4-2-3-1, again, that's entirely baseless isn't it? He had to track back and did track back in both systems. In Arnie's last two seasons Hughes chopped and changed all over the shop, often it was 4-2-3-1, sometimes it was 4-3-3, sometimes it was the wingback monstrosity? Good players can't play in any system though. A winger isn't necessarily going to be as good as wing back. A number 10 isn't necessarily going to work in central midfield. Strikers often perform differently with or without a strike partner.
|
|
|
Post by mickstupp on Jan 13, 2021 12:33:27 GMT
Your “not sure what goals and assists have to do your point”? That’s the whole point isnt it? The point is, that Arnie (as one example) had less of an impact on games in a 4231 than he did in a 433. I highlighted you mentioning his tracking back as proof of that because a player of his quality is wasted tracking back and did less of it in a 433. His goals and assists output was greatly improved in 15/16 and 16/17. For all of his promise, in those first two seasons with us he scored 7 goals. In his next two, playing far more often in a 433, he scored 19. All we are actually doing here is highlighting that good players can play in any system. It’s a million miles detached and totally irrelevant to what we have now, in a lower league which is far less tactical and far more physical. You're moving the goalposts now. What you said was that wide players are forced to play deeper in a 4-2-3-1. Now you're twisting all over the place. Arnie didn't have less impact on games in a 4-2-3-1, again, that's entirely baseless isn't it? He had to track back and did track back in both systems. In Arnie's last two seasons Hughes chopped and changed all over the shop, often it was 4-2-3-1, sometimes it was 4-3-3, sometimes it was the wingback monstrosity? Good players can't play in any system though. A winger isn't necessarily going to be as good as wing back. A number 10 isn't necessarily going to work in central midfield. Strikers often perform differently with or without a strike partner. I think Arnie was far better in a 433. Add Shaq to that aswell. Those types are far better positioned as high up the field as possible. You’ve asked for specific examples and I’ve given you two. I’ll give you more if you like. And yes, as Arnie proved when we played as a number 9 at West Ham, good players will adapt regardless. Again, in a 4231 the wide players have to play slightly deeper, it’s a tactical trade off with a more advanced midfielder otherwise the team runs the risk of getting outnumbered and swamped in midfield. If you don’t agree then fine, but don’t tell me I’m moving goalposts when I give examples to the the questions you have asked.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Jan 13, 2021 12:38:46 GMT
You're moving the goalposts now. What you said was that wide players are forced to play deeper in a 4-2-3-1. Now you're twisting all over the place. Arnie didn't have less impact on games in a 4-2-3-1, again, that's entirely baseless isn't it? He had to track back and did track back in both systems. In Arnie's last two seasons Hughes chopped and changed all over the shop, often it was 4-2-3-1, sometimes it was 4-3-3, sometimes it was the wingback monstrosity? Good players can't play in any system though. A winger isn't necessarily going to be as good as wing back. A number 10 isn't necessarily going to work in central midfield. Strikers often perform differently with or without a strike partner. I think Arnie was far better in a 433. Add Shaq to that aswell. Those types are far better positioned as high up the field as possible. You’ve asked for specific examples and I’ve given you two. I’ll give you more if you like. And yes, as Arnie proved when we played as a number 9 at West Ham, good players will adapt regardless. Again, in a 4231 the wide players have to play slightly deeper, it’s a tactical trade off with a more advanced midfielder otherwise the time gets outnumbered and swamped in midfield. If you don’t agree then fine, but don’t tell me I’m moving goalposts when I give examples to the the questions you have asked. Just because some good players can play in more than one position doesn't mean all good players can though does it? Most players are clearly more effective in one position. Do you think Messi would boss games in central midfield? Gary Lineker's time at Barca came to an end when Cruyff insisted on playing him out wide. There's dozens of examples. We hardly ever played in a 433 with Arnie and Shaq to know one way or the other if they were 'far better in a 433', outside of that handful of false nine games, which games were the other roaring successes of that? Name, say, two after January 2015? And they were both 'positioned high up the field' in both systems, it's just sometimes there was a number 10 in between them?
|
|
|
Post by mickstupp on Jan 13, 2021 13:01:01 GMT
I think Arnie was far better in a 433. Add Shaq to that aswell. Those types are far better positioned as high up the field as possible. You’ve asked for specific examples and I’ve given you two. I’ll give you more if you like. And yes, as Arnie proved when we played as a number 9 at West Ham, good players will adapt regardless. Again, in a 4231 the wide players have to play slightly deeper, it’s a tactical trade off with a more advanced midfielder otherwise the time gets outnumbered and swamped in midfield. If you don’t agree then fine, but don’t tell me I’m moving goalposts when I give examples to the the questions you have asked. Just because some good players can play in more than one position doesn't mean all good players can though does it? Most players are clearly more effective in one position. Do you think Messi would boss games in central midfield? Gary Lineker's time at Barca came to an end when Cruyff insisted on playing him out wide. There's dozens of examples. We hardly ever played in a 433 with Arnie and Shaq to know one way or the other if they were 'far better in a 433', outside of that handful of false nine games, which games were the other roaring successes of that? Name, say, two after January 2015? And they were both 'positioned high up the field' in both systems, it's just sometimes there was a number 10 in between them? So you want more examples, but I’m not allowed to give the obvious examples? Ok since January 2016 (I assume you mean that and not 2015) I can, off the top of my head, give you four. Sunderland away Bournemouth away Liverpool away (league cup semi) Hull away All came playing 433 with the wide forwards pushed high up the pitch and giving support to one forward.
|
|
|
Post by Championship Potter on Jan 13, 2021 13:49:28 GMT
Not sure he does. Smith was never his signing and he’s been happy to play Collins there at times. I reckon he’d take an upgrade if he could - just difficult as Edwards is on decent wages and would then become 3rd choice right back (possibly 4th given Collins can play there). Has he played Collins as a wingback? Genuine question btw I can't actually remember. I think the Leicester game showed me he sees Smith as more a wing back taking him off to put Collins at RB, I'm still clinging to the hope Smith was getting a bit of a rest. Not sure he has to my memory, although I take the fact that he’s willing to play Collins at times as the right back that he isn’t the biggest fan of Smith. Think it’s just a case of Smith being the best of a bad bunch as our RWB option.
|
|
|
Post by themistocles on Jan 13, 2021 14:30:13 GMT
If the reports are true with Doherty back to Charlton on loan then RND for the remainder of the season make sense .
Doherty our LB next season
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Jan 13, 2021 15:11:46 GMT
Just because some good players can play in more than one position doesn't mean all good players can though does it? Most players are clearly more effective in one position. Do you think Messi would boss games in central midfield? Gary Lineker's time at Barca came to an end when Cruyff insisted on playing him out wide. There's dozens of examples. We hardly ever played in a 433 with Arnie and Shaq to know one way or the other if they were 'far better in a 433', outside of that handful of false nine games, which games were the other roaring successes of that? Name, say, two after January 2015? And they were both 'positioned high up the field' in both systems, it's just sometimes there was a number 10 in between them? So you want more examples, but I’m not allowed to give the obvious examples? Ok since January 2016 (I assume you mean that and not 2015) I can, off the top of my head, give you four. Sunderland away Bournemouth away Liverpool away (league cup semi) Hull away All came playing 433 with the wide forwards pushed high up the pitch and giving support to one forward. We played on the counter attack at Anfield, we absolutely did not have the wide forwards 'pushed high up the pitch'. It was 4-5-1 and we defended magnificently. Hull and Sunderland was during the ill-fated 'Allen in the hole' spell wasn't it? It was still 4-2-3-1. Bournemouth was 4-3-3 but again I wouldn't say Diouf and Shaqiri were any further forward than in a 4-2-3-1, we scored early and picked them off. Diouf in particular was often almost a full back even when playing in front of a back four?
|
|
|
Post by bolders on Jan 13, 2021 15:25:35 GMT
If the reports are true with Doherty back to Charlton on loan then RND for the remainder of the season make sense . Doherty our LB next season He will be McCleans replacement and a LWB at a push if we need to go to a back 3 again
|
|
|
Post by hardcastle on Jan 13, 2021 16:07:57 GMT
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. Number 8? That's a new one on me. A 10 (like Powell) I understand. But an 8 - what's that? Do DMs (e.g. Cousins) and 'all-rounders' (e.g. Allen) have recognised numbers now?
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Jan 13, 2021 16:39:36 GMT
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. Number 8? That's a new one on me. A 10 (like Powell) I understand. But an 8 - what's that? Do DMs (e.g. Cousins) and 'all-rounders' (e.g. Allen) have recognised numbers now? I thought they always did? Number 8 is a central midfielder with a bit of guile about them - a Gazza, or an Adam, or a Barkley Allen is a 4 - your Paul Ince, your scrapper or terrier.
|
|