This would cover the main areas but we are still obviously short a backup RB unless we are planning to use Valery. The rest depends on what formation hughes plans on using. If he's playing 1 striker then 3 in the squad would be fine. If 2 then we need a 4th. If we are playing with wingers then another attacking player there would be useful. We've bought somebody for the AM position and a winger but also seem to be using 3 at the back. I'm not really sure on the formation for that so I have a hard time judging what players we need.
Purely my personal preference, but I like two strikers when playing three CBs. For me, it's one of the big advantages of playing a back three: it gives you the ability to play two strikers, whilst continuing to have three players in the middle of the park. More importantly though, Ron in particular showed the value of having a squad which could play multiple formations. There's no reason to pick a formation from the outset, and stick with it all season - unless your squad lacks flexibility, such that your squad is so heavily tailored to that one formation. So regardless of what plans Hughes has right now, formation wise, I would like us to cover as many bases as possible.
I have heard Marlon will not be a (main) rb for us as we rate Valery. Marlon will be our 6th cb as we are planning to play 3 at the back
Out of interest whats your formation then? if you want to play 2 up top then you either need to drop Elyounoussi or shoe horn him in. Ron played with wingers, crosses and fast counter attacking football. (basically the opposite of his successors) He may have changed the formation but the way they played was generally generally the same. 4 3 3, 3 4 3, 4 2 3 1. all played the same so you knew what players you would need for him. combative midfielders. Aerially dominant CB's, fast traditional wingers and fullbacks and a target man. Not saying you shouldn't be able to change things around, just weird we've brought 2 new players who are competing for a place in the team despite not playing in the same position on the pitch, or we've brought a player to play out of position. There may be a formation I'm not seeing so happy to be corrected.
I'm not particularly fussed between 5-3-2, 4-3-3 and 4-2-3-1. If your players are good enough, I think those formations can be very strong. I'd suggest the best two we've played since being back in the PL is Jay and Lallana either side of Rickie (with a back four), and Mane alongside Long (with a back five). Whereas 5-4-1 or 5-2-3 (with one lone striker, and two wide men) - so whichever variation of the formation you want to describe it as - has a lot of elements that I'm not keen on. Unless, that is, the two wide men aren't wide at all, and are instead really quite narrow. Then it becomes more appealing to me (the lone striker has support, you retain bodies in the middle of the park, your wing-backs have fresh grass ahead of them to bomb into, those two attack-minded players are more involved).
“Na na na na na na na na Jannick Vestergaard, Vestergaard “ Not original I know, but boy it fits! (KC and the sunshine band)
I tried to sign Vestergaard on Championship Manager (by coincidence) yesterday amd the board blocked it due to a failed medical... Is that the future?
Pretty good thus far. Still need at least one more creative player, and an RB if Cedric leaves; I think that we could probably make do without another striker if we play in a fashion conducive to making chances for the strikers we do have, but I certainly wouldn't turn one down. We're also going to need to do some serious clearing out (if for no reason other than the fact that we don't have enough roster spots as it stands), so we'll kinda have to wait and see who is departing.
