Watford - The Verdict.

rikki39 said:
if we did start with 433 or 532 or 541 the players are well drilled to switch to a 442 at any point which gives us a plan b, personally I dont think we have the creative player yet to play a good 5 man midfield the closest might be billing ( untill l cook gets up to speed or Brooks comes back)
Click to expand...
Wilson?
 
Tinpot Club said:
I know it’s a silly comparison...but Liverpool don’t have a creative midfielder in their 4-3-3
Click to expand...
Real Madrid didn’t use a number ten in their glory years either. Modric, Kroos and Casemiro played in a straight line joining the front three one at a time with the other two covering. I actually prefer this to a number ten role.
 
Tinpot Club said:
I know it’s a silly comparison...but Liverpool don’t have a creative midfielder in their 4-3-3
Click to expand...
True but 433 isn't really playing a 3 in midfield in the true sense of the word is it..
.theres every chance we would be as overrun in midfield playing that as in our current system.....Neil will tell us that 433 becomes 451 when the two wide forwards drop when defending but then bizarrely refuses to accept that our 4411 also becomes 451 when the 10 drops in!
 
Topfarrier said:
True but 433 isn't really playing a 3 in midfield in the true sense of the word is it..
.theres every chance we would be as overrun in midfield playing that as in our current system.....Neil will tell us that 433 becomes 451 when the two wide forwards drop when defending but then bizarrely refuses to accept that our 4411 also becomes 451 when the 10 drops in!
Click to expand...
Being overrun in midfield in a 4-4-2 isn’t my main concern. Defensive teams like Burnler, Atletico and Leicester under Ranieri would deliberately allow their 4-4-2 to get overrun in midfield as their strengths lie in other areas.

For me the importance of that 3rd midfielder is giving the person in possession more options. With a flat midfield the options are usually sideways or long. With 3 in the middle you have the option to create different angles for your passing and allowing more freedom to burst forward - something both Phil and Jeff can do IMO
 
rikki39 said:
I'm not a fan, maybe he could do a job there but would prefer increasing billing or Brooks value first lol
Click to expand...
Agree with Brooksy when fit. Billing is playing anyway. I think we haven’t seen the best of Wilson forcing him out wide. He was narrower for Derby but agree jury is out.
 
Neil Dawson said:
It is really difficult to have a credible argument with somebody who paraphrases you incorrectly to make their own point.

I have never said we have fixed our defence. You did. I don’t think we have. I think we have just played the two bottom teams back to back Norwich and a Watford team that has scored five goals in ten games. In both games a lot of fans still thought our keeper was the best player. I still think we need a specialist defensive coach.

I also don’t think we need to rip everything up to score again. We scored six against Everton and Southampton with this formation. I think to get the best balance out of attack and defence we should play a 4-3-3 when attacking and a 4-5–1 without the ball. Like most other teams.

Maybe it helps you to misrepresent me so I’m easier to disagree with? Just seems a bit odd but I have pointed this out before.
Click to expand...

My problem with you Neil, as you know, is that you've been saying the same stuff since we got in this league. Your arguments change depending on what the latest issue you've managed to identify but the theme remains the same - you don't appear to think the management and coaching staff are good enough. I think it's ludicrous, which is why I pick holes in it and exaggerate your points for effect.
 
SlowDownDerek said:
My problem with you Neil, as you know, is that you've been saying the same stuff since we got in this league. Your arguments change depending on what the latest issue you've managed to identify but the theme remains the same - you don't appear to think the management and coaching staff are good enough. I think it's ludicrous, which is why I pick holes in it and exaggerate your points for effect.
Click to expand...

Theres exaggerating for effect which is good bantz then there is just saying stuff I never have ‘our defence is fixed’ ‘we will never score unless we change system’ and arguing back against it yourself.

Which is odd.
 
7
Neil Dawson said:
Theres exaggerating for effect which is good bantz then there is just saying stuff I never have ‘our defence is fixed’ ‘we will never score unless we change system’ and arguing back against it yourself.

Which is odd.
Click to expand...

I'm paraphrasing you. Your long list of complaints seem to change depending on how you can skew the facts.
 
Tinpot Club said:
Being overrun in midfield in a 4-4-2 isn’t my main concern. Defensive teams like Burnler, Atletico and Leicester under Ranieri would deliberately allow their 4-4-2 to get overrun in midfield as their strengths lie in other areas.

For me the importance of that 3rd midfielder is giving the person in possession more options. With a flat midfield the options are usually sideways or long. With 3 in the middle you have the option to create different angles for your passing and allowing more freedom to burst forward - something both Phil and Jeff can do IMO
Click to expand...
Being overrun isn't a concern of mine either but it does seem to be a bone of contention for the majority on here tbf.....i take your point about options but i just cant see the point of Lerma or Billing 'bursting forward'....to do what exactly?..... Lerma ...Cook or Billing are no more suited to an attacking midfield role as King is to being a traditional 10.....plenty of posters on here call for us to play with 451 as if it would totally transform us but cant see that for a large portion of games thats exactly what we are playing.... even if it's not by design......what any system needs is the right personal.
 
Last edited:
Topfarrier said:
Being overrun isn't a concern of mine either but it does seem to be a bone of contention for the majority on here tbf.....i take your point about options but i just cant see the point of Lerma or Billing 'bursting forward'....to do what exactly?..... Lerma ...Cook or Billing are no more suited to an attacking midfield role as King is to being a traditional 10.....plenty of posters on here call for us to play with 451 as if it would totally transform us but cant see that for a large portion of games thats exactly what we are playing that.... even if it's not by design......what any system needs is the right personal.
Click to expand...
I would disagree about Billing. He can make some powerful runs and doesn't mind attacking, unlike Lerma.
Think he had a fantastic run and nice assist a few games ago, didn't he?
 
canadiancherry said:
unlike Lerma.
Click to expand...

It’s mainly a hunch of mine but I actually think Lerma does offer something going forward. Often late in home games, when his shackles are removed, he’s the one getting in and around the edge the box. His shooting is rubbish but he is capable of forcing a pass forward.

To be fair you are correct it’s mainly been Billing doing it this season. With a 3, they could alternate which I think would pose more difficulties for the opposition.
 
Tinpot Club said:
I know you don’t mean Plan B as lumping it forward and I don’t think Eddie does either. I do think we miss a trick when trying to force the game. Sometimes less is more and the solution is counter intuitive. By that I mean maybe taking off a forward, slow the tempo down and draw the opposition out of position.
Click to expand...

If the opposition refuse to fall for it then usually labelled as “aimless side to side passing”

:toot:
 
Waz afcb said:
You can have as many forwards on the pitch as you want but if you don’t have any way of working the ball to them then it becomes pretty pointless having them there. The gap between the midfield and the forwards is so huge that we’d benefit from having another midfielder playing further forward to link play.
Click to expand...
But this is the reason that Eddie like to play one of the forwards deeper.
 
West Moors Cherry said:
Neil - I'm still genuinely interested in your Leicester v AFCB squad from our discussion yesterday???
Click to expand...

Chilwell for Rico. Vardy for Wilson. Tielemans for Danjuma and Maddison for Fraser. (And like you say a formation change

Ask me the same question about Liverpool and ours are all gone.

This to me shows that when on form we should be as good as Leicester. If we were on form we would have beaten Norwich, West Ham and Watford and held on to beat Sheff U. Then we would have had the same points as Leicester. Reality is you have an off day I agree but we definitely should have beaten the bottom two in our last two outings.



That’s my point.
 
Neil Dawson said:
Chilwell for Rico. Vardy for Wilson. Tielemans for Danjuma and Maddison for Fraser. (And like you say a formation change

Ask me the same question about Liverpool and ours are all gone.

This to me shows that when on form we should be as good as Leicester. If we were on form we would have beaten Norwich, West Ham and Watford and held on to beat Sheff U. Then we would have had the same points as Leicester. Reality is you have an off day I agree but we definitely should have beaten the bottom two in our last two outings.



That’s my point.
Click to expand...
So change 4 out of 11, swap formations and thats 'proof' we should be as good as Leicester!
 
Neil Dawson said:
Chilwell for Rico. Vardy for Wilson. Tielemans for Danjuma and Maddison for Fraser. (And like you say a formation change

Ask me the same question about Liverpool and ours are all gone.

That is an incredibly rose tinted squad comparison. Ndidi and their entire back 4 are a level above what we have got.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

;