........ so what does the modern City-supporting girl consider to be her best friend? How about an isosceles trapezoid (and no, I'm not talking bling)? The point is that we all want to see RvW and Hooper playing together, so we have to fit a team around them. Chris Hughton presumably has his own ideas on the subject, and we should get some indication of what he has in mind in the next three friendlies. Meanwhile, back to the isosceles trapezoid. A day or two ago someone (Cromer?) referred to Surman as playing in "the old No.10 position", i.e. left inside forward in the old 2:3:5 days. The inside forwards used to work the channels between the out-and-out old fashioned wingers and the centre forward. Those of us old enough will remember Gordon Bolland and Tommy Bryceland doing just that, with Punton and Mannion on the wings and Ron Davies in the centre. In Surman's case though, he was playing on the left side of the diamond, positioned infield rather than wide, but without a winger outside him. The diamond can be represented numerically by 4:1:2:1:2 and we all saw its susceptibilty to counter attacks down the flanks against our exposed full backs. Under CH we have got used to seeing the defence stiffened by the use of two midfielders in front of the back 4, but at the cost of playing with a single striker. So if we want to field both RvW and Hooper, keep our defensively solidity, but also provide effective attacking support for our two strikers, how are we going to do it? My suggestion is that we play a form of 4:2:2:2. So we keep the forward 2 (RvW and Hooper), who play, theoretically, one behind the other so that the least advanced of the two replaces the player at the point of a diamond. That releases a player from the diamond to act as the second DM in front of the back 4. Meanwhile the two wider players in the diamond push up into more advanced "inside forward" positions. In this formation the two DMs make up the corners of the shorter "base" of the trapezoid, and the two attacking midfielders make up the corners of the wider "top". The advantages of this formation (as I see them) are: 1) better cover for the full backs from the 2 DMs working across in front of the back four; 2) better support for the two forward players with the advanced midfielders in closer attendance; 3) an improved channel for playing the ball centrally out of defence with shorter passes. What, though, about out wide when attacking? Where is the wing play going to come from? Answer: largely from the full backs foraging forward, as per e.g. Leighton Baines. As I visualise it, when in possession at the back, one of the two DMs (Howson or Fer) will move ahead of his fellow DM, and if possession is kept, continue forward to augment the attackers. When the deeper DM receives the ball, he will have three players ahead of him in midfield, so greater options to find a possession-retaining forward pass. Something like this setup was used by Man Utd four or five years ago, with Rooney and Tevez, Giggs and Ronaldo, Hargreaves and Scoles/Anderson. I think it could work well for us. E.G. RvW and Hooper, Redmond/Pilkington and Snodgrass, Fer and Howson.
Being mathematically minded I followed your explanation really well Robbie but I wonder how many other people honestly know what an isosceles trapezoid is. Hats off to you for being perhaps the first person to use the terminology on a football forum!
Chris. But I have great belief in the ability of our fellow forum members ............ ......... to use Google!
No. Is that how he sets up his teams? It is just my interpretation of the direction in which CH's revamping of the squad is taking us.
Er, Chris, that's a nice perspectival drawing of a football pitch, but where's this isosceles trapezoid thingy that Robbie was on about?
Good job you're not in my maths set Carrabuh. There are three words banned in my classroom... star - (normally used when an irregular decagon is being represented) diamond - (normally used when a square is shown on its side or a rhombus or an octahedron is being represented) 1p5wich - (an interchangeable word for ultimate crapness but we will not have that kind of attitude in the classroom) I am being 100% truthful when I say that all three words are banned in my class
