At the moment we seem to be playing a 4-2-3-1 with Diakite and Granero more holding and Mackie, Tarbs and Hoilett the advanced three. Obviously this doesnt really allow for another CM so I was thinking how we could manage to fit Faurlin into the starting XI without changing the formation again as to have a player of his quality on the bench is such a waste. So much like Yaya Toures transition from CDM to CAM could we replicate it with Diakite? Faurlin------Granero Hoilett----Diakite-----Taarabt Week after week now we are witnessing him gliding past opponents and generally causing havoc in the defence. The problem seems to be when he's jumping into needless tackles at our end. So why not push him forward where he has a greater licence to run free and take out that constant worry of him getting his traditional two yellows within 15 minutes of each other? (Not to mention he'd bulk up our attacking line which seems at best physically flimsy (Mackie the exception)). Obviously it wouldn't be a seemless transition but defensively Faurlin is the superior player and to have Faurlin and Granero in the side would greatly improve our ball retention. Any thoughts or opinions? Personally I think this could work!
Yes I have thought exactly the same. He goes past players, so easy. We do have some great players don't we.
We werent playing 4231 but ive been saying we should do but swap Granero and Diakite in your formation.
I think Diakite can be even better than Toure. Hopefully he will continue to develop with us and get better and better.
If only mate!! Today we lined up with the familiar old fashioned Hughes favourite of 4-4-2. Mackie was up top with Cisse and Hoilett and Taarabt were either side of Granero and Diakite. Diakite does the majority of the sitting which makes it basically 4-1-3-2. I have come to the conclusion that Diakite could play further forward too. Your midfield 5 is spot on but unfortunately it would be a massive change as Hughes never looks likely to play this system.
hmmm. In all honesty I've been trying to work out what we're playing and was pretty set on 4-2-3-1 but you've rocked the boat a bit. The reason I thought it was such is because today and recently the likes of Mackie, Tarbs and Hoilett seemed to have roamed about a bit like in our promotion season when Smith Tarbs and Routledge would fluidly chop and change positions. I really dont believe that Mackie was up top today though. If so the link up play between him and Cisse would have at least been sporadic when it was pretty much non existent. Also aside from the debate over what formation we're playing do we agree on the general idea?
I get in trouble for my anal attention to formations mate so let's just agree to differ on today's line up. We were totally outnumbered in midfield which we wouldn't have been had Mackie been genuinely in midfield imo. Anyway......yes I think I do agree with trying Diakite further forward in the formation you suggested.
By jove! I think you've got it Scotty. I was pondering this very thought during the game. We could even have a revolving 3 of Granero, Faurlin and Samba. Mackie would be the one to make way as he isn't as effective starting a game as he is when he comes off the bench. Good stuff mate. Great post.
All good, flowing, flexible stuff eh? Oh....hang on....Hughes likes 4-4-2..................we're ****ed!
9s agrees! With that stamp of approval Ill get on the phone to Sparky! Also Col MOTD said we were playing a 4-5-1 with Hoilett slightly advanced just to further confuse things.
I saw the way they had us lining up mate....they hardly ever get it right. Hoilett started on the right. We were not playing 4-5-1.
