A rare thread from me, and a serious one too. None of my crude MS Paint creations or anything. After some of the post-game discussion on here, I had a few thoughts regarding the system that we play and the effectiveness of our key players in that system. We all know we play a pretty passing game mixed with relentless pressing, and like I'm sure you all are, I'm very proud of that. Many of us will be aware that Pochettino's tactical know-how is largely inspired by Marcelo Bielsa: a famous advocate of the same style of play, who in the past was Mauricio's manager at Newell's, Espanyol and Argentina. Where I think Mauricio doesn't quite seem to follow from Bielsa, though, is in his choice of formation. Or to be more specific, in his lack of flexibility when it comes to formation. Obviously his style is very fluid and his players are given license roam a lot, but it's roughly always set up in the old 4-2-3-1, with the double pivot and the number 10 and the wide forwards, as has become so common in the game now. Some of the more common grievances (and to be fair there haven't been too many) about our team have been: that we don't have an effective enough number 10, that Lambert gets isolated, that Wanyama lacks some of the attributes necessary for his central midfield role, and that Cork, Schneiderlin and Wanyama can't all play together in this system. So why, then, are we setting up with Lambert up top on his own, with a number 10 who isn't really a number 10, and with Wanyama in that double pivot position, expected to get forward even though it's not really in his repertoire? Could we not: a) line up in a system which puts our best players in their best roles; and b) adjust the formation according to each individual opponent, a la Bielsa? Obviously the current system has its strengths too, and we want to keep those. Lallana and Rodriguez are very effective in their wide forward roles, and the fullbacks are encouraged to play to their attacking strengths as well. Would it not be possible to optimise a formation that suits Wanyama better, doesn't require the number 10 that we don't have, and supports Lambert, while also keeping the above in their best positions? I think it is: please log in to view this image I give you Jorge Sampaoli's signature 3-4-3. Another disciple of Bielsa, and another manager I've previously drivelled about on this forum on many an occasion. Every player in his best position, no? Can fluidly shift from three at the back to four at the back without making any subs, commits seven players in attack, and suits that short-passing-insane-pressing style we love. Should Pochettino perhaps be considering shapes like this, in order to get Wanyama doing what he does best without sacrificing one of Cork and Schneiderlin? Obviously Davis and Ward-Prowse would slip very comfortably into those CM positions as well. Where's the downside to this?
I can't see my goddamn picture now. Those bloody three dots again. Here's a simplified version for those who can't see it: ----------------Lambert------------ ---Rodriguez-----------------Lallana ------------------------------------ ---------Schneiderlin---Cork--------- Shaw---------------------------Clyne ---------------Wanyama------------ -------Lovren-------------Fonte----- ------------------Boruc--------------
I'd prefer a 4-3-3 kinda formation, but with one of the midfield 3 dropping just behind the other two to be more defensive. Lallana and Rodriguez would be wide wingers then push more forward when attacking but then drop back into a 5 man midfield when we are defending. Boruc Shaw Lovren Fonte Clyne Cork Morgan Davis Rodriguez Lambert Lallana
Spot on IMO. Your cited formation appears very similar to the Metodo formation that I've mentioned on here before. I agree, it seems compelling.
I'm not keen on how that shape tends to work with support for the striker. I think it would isolate a player like Lambert.
The formation you put would basically be mine when attacking. The wide wingers pushing more forward and central and our wing backs pushing up.
I'm not gonna compete with the spanish tactics ideas but it's worth remembering that only Vic and Lovren were Poch signings (+ Osvaldo, but never mind). This summer gives a huge opportunity for him to shape the squad how he wants and do some more work with the players who will be here for the long term. Whether we finish 7th 8th or 9th we've taken a huge step this season, and with two more attacking players plus a few more improvements we can match Tottenham and Everton's quality too. I've noticed the bit about not adapting to the opponents, partly we don't have the players to change things when it's 1-1 and they are happy with a point, but we need to add fresh ideas too or we will go backwards. No doubt that it will happen though and Pochettino is capable of it. I don't think we've quite returned to the level of our first ten games yet either, but maybe the injuries didn't help, or we've been found out a bit, or there's not much motivation any more so new things are being tried. I realise this is a useless contribution to the topic but I wanted to get the antidote in first to all the people below who are saying Poch/Liebherr/Shaw/Lallana etc are leaving.
On the wings it'd be similar but the benefit of how the Sampaoli system works with Chile is that the fullbacks and CMs all get right into the box because they're defending with a back three. They deal with wide threats on the counter by pushing a CB wide rather than by requiring the fullbacks to rush back. It's more similar to the way Juventus use Lichtsteiner and Asamoah. They're basically wingers.
That's basically how we do it now, surely? Particularly when Lovren and Fonte were paired at CB, Lovren spent half the time playing at LB covering for Luke. I think the differences are marginal, it's not much of a difference in shape but more of how he instructs the players to go about business with in and without the ball, we pretty much set up like a 3-4-3 with the ball, anyway. Our basic shape in possession is the CBs split wide, one of the two DMs drop deep in between, Davis comes back to partner the other one, the two full-backs push up to the halfway line and Jay and Adam either come inside or combine with the FBs, effectively a 3-4-3. The only discernible difference is that we are flexible with our three centre mids rather than having Vic strictly back to join the CBs, and like I said I think that's more about instruction rather than shape.
The problem with this is that Lallana and Rodriguez are not wingers and will play the way they always have. Lambert has to be either a target man or a false nine, which is also pretty much what we are already asking him to do. So the net effect is that positionally, you are placing an attacking mid with a defensive/central mid. And mentality/skills in terms of personnel wise it comes down to replacing the Steven Davis with Jack Cork, which is also less attacking. I do agree with the mentality that we need Clyne and Shaw to push further up and provide us with width and attacking options. That's the major change I see. I just don't see why they can't push up further in the setup we already have. They should have license to go and get to the byline or inside the penalty box and Wanyama can cover back if needed.
The problem with the way we do it now is that Wanyama is often one of those who must push up, and he is clearly not capable of doing so. You give Wanyama that anchor man position and it allows you to play two CMs who are more capable in attack. Flexibility with CMs is good in some ways, but as I've mentioned before, it often results in them being required to do things they're not good at. This suggestion may be a bit more rigid in some respects but what it does is it says "right, you're good at that side of the game so you'll just do that". It gives us the option to play Vic, Cork and Morgan all at the same time, which is something that just wouldn't work in the current system. A more rigid back three might just give a little more attacking freedom to everyone else. Vic is not a flexible player anyway.
Joe/Bing/Hermes All well and good with some excellent tactical opinion, but sheds our problem really? Wanyama is just back and not up to full pace from a 2 moth injury, Lambert is not himself due to injury/back issue (and I wrongly believe we are making do there at present and our bet defender is out injured. For 10 games we looked good. The last few we looked pretty good. I think our style and tactics are great, we are just not strong enough outside our starting 12, 13, 14 or 15, whoever they maybe. Our start to the season made us a bit expectant and suddenly thinking we should be pushing even further forward. We will finish at worst 5 places higher than last year and maybe even push 7th place that's great. The only thing missing is better quality in the squad.
Some interesting points made in this thread for sure. But for me, I will keep saying what I've been saying for a long time; We really don't need to change. We need to let this (very young) team have another season getting used to this style and perfecting it, gradually replace the older guys (Lambert), and by the summer of next year I think we will be one of the best five teams in the country. Re: Wanyama. IMO he should be a fringe player. We should not try to accommodate him into the first team. He should only be utilised in games where we will be on the defensive. He is not the right man for when we are trying to play fast, attacking football. His link up play between defence and attack is slow and seemingly clueless. This effects the whole team, as we saw yesterday (although JWP was equally uninspiring). Having said that, he is young, and hopefully he will improve. (However I can't really see it. His control and passing is just not good enough.)
I don't have too many problems with the tactics we use, like flt I think our problem is a lack of quality in depth. We have one (half fit?) striker available at the moment and little back up for the three attacking midfielders in the 4-2-3-1. If Lambert, Lallana and Rodriguez have a poor game then we don't really have players who can come on and create something. Wanyama is coming back from injury and I don't think the technical side of the game comes as naturally to him as it does to others so it may take him longer than most to get sharp again but even if you only consider his time at Saints he's shown he can be part of a successful side.
Black, have a look a page back on the match thread. I ask a couple of questions on Vic. For instance, why were we so good with him in the team for the first 10 games? Why did opposition managers talk about this really strong, hard to beat Southampton team? Why, soon after Vic was injured, did we lose a lot of games and concede a lot of goals? Maybe, just maybe our team needs someone like him in there for something. You said on another thread about what he doesn't do, well maybe you should think about what he does do, why that is good and what players don't do what he does. I find amazing and a little naive that you have a sweeping damning of his abilities that only focuses in what he isn't as good at as others, when this seasons games suggest that he must be important somehow.
And how my suggested formation would cut out the things he can't do and just leave us with his very useful strengths.
I agree he had bad game yesterday and I think we really missed him while he was out injured. Yes you loose the passing Abilities of cork when you play Vic but he on top form he protects the back four so well. The best think we did in the first 10 games was not conceding goals. I'd happily sacrifice our attacking threat if it means we only have to score 1 goal to win!
It is interesting to see the various tactical suggestions. Good ones too no doubt....but......do we really have the quality to move to the next stage of development? I suggest not.....we do have some good players, but do we have any spectacular players? The answer is yes we do but not enough to match the United's, City's, or Chelsea's of this world. I would offer we have only one spectacular player with 3/4 could be's. No I'm not going to offer up who I consider the one spectacular, as that is a matter of debate. I truly believe we are still maybe 3 years away from being anywhere near the top 5/6 clubs in the league. Can we get there with our existing group? No, those 3/4 possibles mentioned earlier would have to hit form and become spectacular with the addition of another 3/4 replacements plus. I fear Pochettino will go in the summer so the dear Frauline is going to have to make some mighty big decisions and spend at least another £100 mil if she wants to get to the top 5/6. (Or the new owners of course) Food for thought?
