Contrary to many of the posters above, I think this could actually work against teams that play like Chelsea and functions very well because it allows teams to get the most out of two strikers, while not sacrificing the midfield (I have made one change to your team though - that furthest forward player has to be a midfielder that can pass and keep the ball relatively well and is certainly Howson's best position - with two strikers there is no need for Redmond as well). Yes, it sacrifices on width, but against a team like Chelsea or even Arsenal where they attempt to play quite narrow that will not be a problem defensively. It is also fantastic at stifling a front three because combos of Martin/Whittaker, Bassong/Fer and Bennett/Olsson can cover on each attacker. The perception that there is a hole in midfield is simply because of the diagram - in reality either of the central midfielders sits deep in front of the back three. It actually gives us an extra man everywhere on the pitch except in the wing forward positions. Munky is spot on that Lambert tried it against Chelsea and it failed, but there was a reason Lambert tried it - Liverpool had beaten Chelsea easily with the formation a few months before. The trouble was that (a) Whitbread got injured and (b) it was clear that our team had not had nearly enough training in the formation. This is the principle issue with it - it requires fantastic communication and very good organisation. Now the latter is not a thing I would necessarily associate with a Lambert team. Hughton on the other hand... I also think that all three of Martin, Bennett and Bassong are excellent communicators (captains past and present), so could well fit in nicely with this. My principle concern would be that we would end up keeping the ball very well (! don't worry, I haven't stopped the sentence...) in our own half, but without width we could struggle to get forward. It would require the strikers to work incredibly hard and move constantly, but this should be ok with Hooper and RvW, only a problem if one gets injured (though admittedly that's true of any formation). With good co-ordination, the "back five" should be able to swing round to compensate for whichever wing back is attacking. The wing backs also need to make sure they are offering an option all the time, which is exhausting, but would draw pressure off Howson. So I think it is an excellent formation, and as you can see from Liverpool, one that is very much in vogue. Will we use it? No. But it's a nice thought and I think it gets our best players on the pitch. You could potentially switch Snodgrass on for Tettey, with Snodgrass taking Howson's position and Howson moving back.
Oh and to add(!) to my previous post, the formation: 1. helps us play it out from the back by providing a lot of options (with all three centre backs having options either side and at least two options in front of them). This is ideal given that we (a) hoof it more often than we should (though less often than some fans would think) and (b) we are rubbish at long balls anyway, with our "target" men rarely, if ever, winning the ball and it merely inviting pressure. The likelihood of this formation allowing Chelsea to push high up the pitch and press us in our own half is also reduced because two, relatively quick, strikers, means that the Chelsea centre-backs are preoccupied. 2. helps us to play to the strengths of both Hooper and RvW because we will be able to keep the ball on the floor. 3. doesn't leave out Pilkington as he can also fit into the formation as one of the two strikers, or alternatively it could be moulded into a 3-4-3, with Snodgrass, RvW and Pilkington at the head.
Got away with it sadly, on the BBC today, I hope the ref checks he's trimmed his nails on Sunday! http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/24355751
yes his ban won't count in the champions league. also hazard is injured just oscar and mata to worry about then
I think we'll have to use wingers against Chelsea to hit them on the counter. Counter attacking with Howson, RVW and Hooper is pretty narrow. I would start Redmond on the right and Pilks on the left. I think pace on the counter would be better hence my Snodgrass omission. I'd stick with the same midfield Howson, Fer and Tettey. Same defence unless Bassong is 100% fit.
I think something like that is probably what we'll aim for, but the whole idea of having Howson RvW and Hooper is to keep it narrow - it helps negate Chelsea's dominance in the middle of the park and it helps us retain possession. I think RvW and Hooper's movement are good enough for us to play very narrow, but we've never tried.
I think playing with width, although more risky, is just a way of spreading the midfield and creating more space. When we don't have the ball we can than tighten up into a more narrow formation.
i feel we can always look ahead to games against the top sides nowadays and feel we can get a result. we are a side suited to these kind of games. we'll need to be solid and compact, flood the midfield and when we create a chance (and we will) we'll need to bury it. there is always the possibility of a hiding when facing top players if they are right on it but 9 times out of ten we'll make it incredibly difficult for them and cause them trouble at the other end.
