I actually agree with you on Surman, elegant player and intelligent player. Yes he doesn't beat his fullback time and time again but clever at finding space and creating space in midfield. I think he is under rated and I can't see Hughton considering him adequate enough for his counter attacking style of football. Shame really.
I did miss Surman last season. He's a classy player and he isn't too shabby in front of goal. I feel if he stays fit he may get himself well in contention. As for the formation, I quite like the idea of it being unsymetrical. The player would have to be well drilled though and you'd be a bit worried about teams with pace down their left side. Benno would work best in that position but then you lose Snods from his favoured position. He can still play off RvW though. As for the play maker role, you could have Fox in there. If it's meant to be slightly deeper lying than the other attacking positions then he'd be handy. With Fer behind him and any of Surman, Wes, Snods, Redmond, RvW, Bennett or A N Other as his attacking options, I'd be pretty happy. The defence in that formation mostly picks it's self. You need Olsson for his pace and R Martin for his cover across at RB. then it's 2 of Turner, Bass or Ryan. Maybe we should put that call into Hughton. I doubt he'll think this one up without us!
I would be inclined to start with Ryan Bennett ahead of Turner just because of his form at the end of last season. I thought he was brilliant and seems to have developed a lot this season and probably shown why Lambert invested a lot of money into him at the time. Obviously form doesn't generally carry on to the next season but I think he deserves to start the season on his performances whilst covering for Turner.
i like surman. he has to play centrally though, never gets involved from wide areas. i too would advocate starting ryan bennett ahead of turner (we may have to as turner is injured)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but can't what we are talking about here be summed up in one word -- W I G A N? The formation is very adaptable (the back three can easily become a back four or even five, the front two can easily become three or four, the overall shape can shift between 3:5:2, 4:2:4, 4:3:3, and so on. Plenty of scope for entertaining football - and constant struggling against relegation. Why does no consistently successful side nowadays play with three at the back?
Consistently successfully? Italian clubs haven't been setting the football world alight for a decade or so. Maybe that has a lot to do with it. And that is even with the nous and quality of Italian defenders!
Both Milan clubs have won the Champions League in the last ten years. If it wasn't for the match fixing scandal that relegated Juve might have been even more. Serie A might not be the power it once was - but the top clubs remain a match for any in the world IMO. Regarding formation next season - depends on whether we bring in another defender and if Olsson can play more central on the left side perhaps to make up a back three. Certainly with Fer and with an in-form Tettey we have mobile enough central midfielders to mix it up.
The Italian national team often play with 3 central defenders and they haven't done too badly in recent competitions. In fact, sometimes Italy end up playing with Juventus' 'keeper, defenders and deep-lying playmaker.
should explain, i really like three at the back if used correctly. mind you, i prefer any formation to the 4-4-2!! ideally it's a 3-3-3-1 and is all about pressing high up the pitch and keeping as many players in your opponents half as possible using a 'pivot' midfielder for cover. if you fail to press high you will be overrun and probably thumped. all but one of your midfielders need to have attacking instincts and all should possess great ball retention. mancini tried it at citeh last year and it didn't work because they didn't have the right midfield personnel. they failed to press hard or high enough and didn't keep the ball well enough when they did get it. bielsa at bilbao uses it and when it works they are sensational - when a few players aren't quite 'on it' they are a shambles.
Wow, this has moved on since I was last here. As a note for Carrabuh, when I said total football, I wasn't referring to the extreme version used by Michels back in 1974 (had I been doing so, I'd have used capital letters). Instead, I was using the more general use related to every player having both attacking and defensive responsibilities according to possession. I think that player roles will be more flexible this year with the addition of RvW, Fer and Olsson, and more attacking as a result.
Was the pure 1970s version of total football proved to be a failure in the end? I agree with you, in this premier league we need players that are willing to track back and burst forward. I hope RvW is willing as hard as holt did up front with his (from what little evidence I had I don't think he's afraid I put himself about which is good news)
For the masochists among us, there is a live stream of the City v Portland Timbers friendly here, KO 8pm PDT (4am BST) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xwi03D5_T84 The Timbers currently lie 3rd in the MLS, so this should be another worth while work out for our players. By the way, Kansas City currently lie 2nd in the MLS courtesy of the battered KK.
