Team shape, tactics and personnel

[HKP90]

Just now, duke313 said:

I've suggested this as well.  It wouldn't even be a massive departure from the current 4321, just drop the DM to form a back 3 and push the full backs into wing backs.

We have chambers now as well, who is reasonably mobile, and a decent standard.

[og1874]

21 minutes ago, TRO said:

One player, with the right qualities i.e Leadership ....could very easily have a knock on effect to the rest of the team....I have seen it in the past.

 

Totally agree with this. Sometimes you only need one player to pull everything together, and that player doesn't even necessarily need to be anything special - just someone who can do their job right and let those around them do theirs. Right now we have everyone worrying about everyone else making a balls of something meaning they'll have to cover. One guy who just does what he needs to do can change everything.

[VillaParkAvenue]

3 minutes ago, nick76 said:

We obviously have to ship out players but we don’t have a striker that fits Gerrard’s system, and I’d argue we don’t have midfielders and CB’s that fit Gerrard’s system and style.  Yes he has to work with them but if we are talking about what he needs to fit his system and style then he definitely needs a new striker.

I understand Gerrard’s system is demanding for certain positions, but what does it take to be a Gerrard type of striker? Apart from scoring goals obviously.

[duke313]

2 minutes ago, HKP90 said:

We have chambers now as well, who is reasonably mobile, and a decent standard.

Exactly, he can play as the middle CB and step up to DM when in possession, drop back when not.

[PaulC]

3 minutes ago, og1874 said:

I'm still of the opinion that if we can offload both, we should

I'm of the opinion Watkins can become a 20 goal a season man. 

[og1874]

8 minutes ago, HKP90 said:

I mean, I know I'm going to get toasted for this, but if we do want our fullbacks to provide the width, could we not........go..............3 at the back?

Then we're looking at 5-3-1-1 most likely, which probably won't work with the personnel either. If we were to go 3 at the back, we might be better off not playing a forward at all and going 5-3-2-0 with hybrid 10s

[IrishVilla10]

2 hours ago, Tom13 said:

We don't need three midfielders, nor a number 10.

My thinking as well 

[og1874]

1 minute ago, PaulC said:

I'm of the opinion Watkins can become a 20 goal a season man. 

I don't see it. For him to get 20 goals he'd need a minimum of 4-5 clear cut chances every game, and he neither has the positional awareness for that, nor do we play in a way that would allow for that to happen, sadly. 

[HKP90]

1 minute ago, duke313 said:

Exactly, he can play as the middle CB and step up to DM when in possession, drop back when not.

There we go.... 3 5 2 

Mings, Chambers, Konsa

Digne , McGinn, Buendia, Cout., Cash

Ollie, Ings

[TRO]

2 hours ago, CVByrne said:

I think we've been good in spells in all the games really. Our problem is we don't create enough chances and we have a mental fragility. Players know when they concede first that they've lost as we've never come back from a goal down to win in literal years. So the belief we can come back is non existent. I feel the half time berating from Gerrard is a bigger factor or the fear of berating from him at full time is why we put in a bit of effort rather than a belief we can get a result

Arsenal are a free flowing team and possibly one of the best in the country, with oodles of attacking intent, blissfully going about their business with gay abandon, hence the Rennaissance of their Library of a fan base.....even at our place, they made so noise, such is the belief.

Last night against Palace, they was pressed, closed down and out fought, they lost just about every duel to a physically equipped team who had every intention of spoiling the party....only when Palace had run out of fuel, did Arsenal muster any guile to get back in.

Arsenal were simply rumbled, by a very spirited team.

I looked at palace last night and didn't see any of their spirit, and will, in us.

Sorry, its just not there....and if it is......we just can't find it.

[HKP90]

1 minute ago, og1874 said:

Then we're looking at 5-3-1-1 most likely, which probably won't work with the personnel either. If we were to go 3 at the back, we might be better off not playing a forward at all and going 5-3-2-0 with hybrid 10s

Why not, with a stepping up CB/DM in Chambers, you take some of the defensive work away from the midfield. Maybe drop either luiz or Mcginn, but either way play them further up. Play Cout and/or Buendia a little deeper in Midfield to accommodate the two up top, or alternatively either play one of Cout or Emi2 and have a hybrid midfielder in like Sanson, who is comfortable a bit deeper. 

 

[Pez1974]

1 minute ago, og1874 said:

I don't see it. For him to get 20 goals he'd need a minimum of 4-5 clear cut chances every game, and he neither has the positional awareness for that, nor do we play in a way that would allow for that to happen, sadly. 

On current form, I agree.

For a lot of last season he looked much better, and hit the bar/post, got VAR'd or something cost him quite a few goals. 
I think he's got a higher ceiling than he's showing right now - he needs serious coaching.

But the things you can't coach - pace, stamina, attitude - are all very good in my opinion.

[og1874]

Just now, HKP90 said:

Why not, with a stepping up CB/DM in Chambers, you take some of the defensive work away from the midfield. Maybe drop either luiz or Mcginn, but either way play them further up. Play Cout and/or Buendia a little deeper in Midfield to accommodate the two up top, or alternatively either play one of Cout or Emi2 and have a hybrid midfielder in like Sanson, who is comfortable a bit deeper. 

 

I think you lose a lot from Coutinho if he's dropped deeper, and Buendia just isn't that player for me. 

[HKP90]

1 minute ago, og1874 said:

I think you lose a lot from Coutinho if he's dropped deeper, and Buendia just isn't that player for me. 

Fair. Just thought I'd start a discussion. I've said it before, but it would mitigate the defensive issues we have in midfield. Might screw our attack up, but just throwing it out there

[og1874]

2 minutes ago, Pez1974 said:

On current form, I agree.

For a lot of last season he looked much better, and hit the bar/post, got VAR'd or something cost him quite a few goals. 
I think he's got a higher ceiling than he's showing right now - he needs serious coaching.

But the things you can't coach - pace, stamina, attitude - are all very good in my opinion.

My biggest concern with Ollie has always been his decision making - it's abysmal almost across the board. Wrong pass, wrong shot placement, shooting too hard, shooting too soft, taking up the wrong position. That can be coached, but it's probably the hardest thing to coach. He just does the wrong thing too frequently, and that's his biggest weakness. No good running around a lot if you're not running in the right places.

[og1874]

1 minute ago, HKP90 said:

Fair. Just thought I'd start a discussion. I've said it before, but it would mitigate the defensive issues we have in midfield. Might screw our attack up, but just throwing it out there

I think there might be benefit to it to be honest, but if we were to do it I'd honestly go for no striker

[TRO]

15 minutes ago, og1874 said:

Totally agree with this. Sometimes you only need one player to pull everything together, and that player doesn't even necessarily need to be anything special - just someone who can do their job right and let those around them do theirs. Right now we have everyone worrying about everyone else making a balls of something meaning they'll have to cover. One guy who just does what he needs to do can change everything.

your comments are refreshing and apt.

[duke313]

7 minutes ago, og1874 said:

Then we're looking at 5-3-1-1 most likely, which probably won't work with the personnel either. If we were to go 3 at the back, we might be better off not playing a forward at all and going 5-3-2-0 with hybrid 10s

With the DM dropping to CB you wouldn't need 3 in midfield, 5221 or 5212 if playing with two strikers:

---------------------------Martinez-------------------------------

----------Konsa-------Chambers---------Mings---------

Cash-------------MC---------------MC----------------Digne

---------------Buendia------------Coutinho------------------

----------------------------Watkins--------------------------------

[og1874]

1 minute ago, TRO said:

your comments are refreshing and apt.

I just try to avoid hyperbole and look at the facts at any given point in time. We have a squad of decent players individually, but it's frustratingly unbalanced and there's not really anything we can do about it until the transfer window opens. At that point we might get it right, we might not.

[HKP90]

Just now, duke313 said:

With the DM dropping to CB you wouldn't need 3 in midfield, 5221 or 5212 if playing with two strikers:

---------------------------Martinez-------------------------------

----------Konsa-------Chambers---------Mings---------

Cash-------------MC---------------MC----------------Digne

---------------Buendia------------Coutinho------------------

----------------------------Watkins--------------------------------

I thought of that but in the light of everyone having a minor fit at the use of two No. 10's I thought I'd leave it.