What happened to three at the back? -- SW6.doc

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Thursday, May 07, 05:21:49pm [ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: Monday, May 04, 12:13:58pm
Author: eganonoa
Author Host/IP: NoHost / 195.222.49.31
Subject: What happened to three at the back?

Saturday was always likely to head to a defeat. Even absent the virus, we've a record away to Arsenal worse even than our record at Man City. We've been terrible away from home all season. And we had a ton of players out (Iwobi, Kevin, Berge, Sess, Tete (albeit on the bench)) or not firing on all cylinders after returning from injury (Robinson, Muniz). But, to me, all of this made Saturday's team selection all the more baffling.

Over the past three seasons we've spent heavily in two areas: center back and attacking midfield. Our bench was made very thin by all the absences, except in one place: central defence. In addition, for most of the season we've played with three at the back in possession, with Tete tucking in. And we've even been asking Castagne, who is not suited to that, to do it. That often leaves Wilson playing an almost wing-back role, which he really isn't suited to, and which negates his biggest strengths by moving him away from the striker.

On top of all of that that, last season, when we were having good results against bigger clubs, we were often switching to a proper three at the back with wingbacks.

So why, with all of that said, did we not go into the match on Saturday with either Diop or Cuenca in the team alongside Bassey and Andersen? Had we played Diop, for instance, we could have had Bassey pushed further left, to support an out-of-form Robinson against a marauding Saka. Diop could have been the third center back in possession, allowing Castagne to provide width, and allowing Wilson to tuck in closer to the striker, perhaps with Chuckwaeze on the right and ESR on the bench.

The whole thing would have maximized what quality we had available in the squad, and not left high-quality, presumably full-fit, pieces sitting on the bench twiddling their thumbs. It would also have added a bit more physical presence against a team that is large and strong. Ultimately, I don't think Saturday was a lost opportunity. We would have struggled to get anything out of the match irrespective. But the team selection just seemed not very well thought-out given everything we were likely to face.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Absolutely spot on.Not sure even those selected thought it would work.Already beaten in th e tunnel.God knows what he says to them these days. (NT) -- HemelRog, Monday, May 04, 12:47:36pm (NoHost/109.181.143.211)
- Yes, it was so strange. Harrison Reed's first Premier League start in TWO years. ESR left out there to trot passively about until he somehow cramped up. Can't imagine what Diop must be thinking. Basically doesn't put a foot wrong whenever called upon. Can't even get on the pitch in a match ideally designed for him. (NT) -- eganonoa, Monday, May 04, 02:37:31pm (NoHost/195.222.49.31)
We all know that Silva has his own set up and will not change regardless of the personnel available to him. I was surprised to see Reed taking preference over Cairney in the midfield, but Silva is Silva and he knows best. (NT) -- FF43, Monday, May 04, 01:28:55pm (host-80-46-1-168.as13285.net/80.46.1.168)
- But that's my point. He has actually been fairly flexible in approach, switching between systems to adjust to the opponents. He's been so prone to tinkering that I've thought he'd gone too far with it and wanted to see some consistency. What's strange is that this is the one type of game I wouldn't expect to see that consistency. It made very little sense. (NT) -- eganonoa, Monday, May 04, 02:27:27pm (NoHost/195.222.49.31)
I think tactics/selection was almost irrelevant, like Liv game, if you go with that passive mentality. Everyone is ok with losing away to Ars, but again we are playing a team who have just come off c.league, with MLS starting first senior game in mid, who got turned over by B.mouth, who got at them and pressed 1v1. We just beat a c.league team by being aggressive, condensing the pitch and having a go, but we just reverted to drop deep at every moment and give them all the time to settle in. (NT) -- Henry1879, Monday, May 04, 02:00:47pm (cpc113818-lea23-2-0-cust423.6-3.cable.virginm.net/86.27.157.168)
- But "tactics/selection" can dictate approach and "mentality", so I can't see them as "irrelevant," even if we were much more likely to lose than not irrespective. He had to have been expecting something different from how Arsenal set up, otherwise I can't make sense of it. Maybe he expected them to do a Villa and play a weakened side, or to sit back cautiously, or not play Saka? The whole setup seemed so passive, like he was surrendering to the inevitable. (NT) -- eganonoa, Monday, May 04, 02:34:10pm (NoHost/195.222.49.31)
  - He seems to have got into his head that we aren’t very good away from home so we should sit deep, really rigid 2 banks of 4 and try and counter, with a team with very little pace in it. You need to stick to your principles at times, but it’s a fine line to becoming stubborn and that’s what we are at times, this is how we set up, doesn’t matter what B.mouth did v Arsenal or they played in midweek. Saints manager said same, we were v.easy to predict and set up against. (NT) -- Henry1879, Monday, May 04, 05:08:19pm (customer.lndngbr1.isp.starlink.com/150.228.39.21)
    - It wasn't even clear that's what we were trying to do. If it was, where were the quick balls out from the back? Who was feeding off the striker or making runs into space? I'm all for sitting deep and trying to hit on the counter away vs Arsenal. But how's it meant to work with Wilson and Chuckwaeze pushed far out wide, Raul desperately dropping into midfield to get the ball, ESR ambling about, and two full-backs being supported by two wingers who really can't defend all that well? Bizarre (NT) -- eganonoa, Monday, May 04, 09:11:34pm (cable-146-255-156-96.dynamic.telemach.ba/146.255.156.96)

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT+0
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums^(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.