This isn't going to be a nostalgia fest, I promise, but we just seem clueless without Emi. Much was made of the contrast between our results in the Championship where he started and games where he didn't, but this season is underlining that in spades. We desperately need someone to offer the same creativity and to get some kind of rapport going with Pukki (and also track back like Emi did). Cantwell seemed the obvious candidate, but he seems more interested in himself than in his club, so could Dowell or Tzolis play that role? Sargent obviously can't because he lacks the technical ability (and if I'm honest, I wonder why we didn't buy a L1 or even L2 player at a fraction of the price if all we wanted was someone who worked hard upfront. I think Sargent will be very good in the Champs if we go back down, but in Prem terms he completely lacks technical skill.) So how are we going to replace what Emi gave us, and do it quickly?
I think that whilst Buendia certainly added a huge amount to our side, with his creativity and tenacity in defence as well - I think the Skipp-sized hole is the bigger issue right now. Farke doesn't have a defensive midfielder he can trust. For all the talk of Gilmour coming here to play in a "double 6", he couldn't do it in the time afforded to him so far, and he doesn't play in that system for Scotland either. We've not seen Normann tried in that system, but I'm not sure he has the defensive positioning either, even if his distribution and tackling can be good. Sorensen can't get a minute to prove whether he can do it either way, and probably has less than 200 minutes in that role in English football anyway. Because we don't have a proper defensive midfielder, we're playing a 3-man central midfield which feels a bit "moneyball". By that, I mean if we can't have one player who can make 9 tackles per game, we'll have three who can all make 3 tackles per game, and reproduce the defensive numbers that way. I think whether Buendia was still at Norwich or not, Farke would have felt forced into the same formation change to protect us defensively. And he's probably glad that Buendia isn't here, because the fan outrage at benching Buendia because he doesn't fit the system would have been crazy. I think Tzolis, Dowell, Rashica, etc could all add creativity and help feed Pukki, I'd dearly like to see another on the pitch, but I think the issue is being caused elsewhere and that's stranging Pukki's output, rather than us not having a player who can create chances for him. The central midfield just isn't working because nobody has a clear role. We're getting killed in the transistions. They're all meant to be pushing on to join attacks through the middle, and they're all meant to be covering defensively. When we were defence, it felt like they all had to be deepest. Regularly we were defending with essentially 4-5 CBs, with one or two of the midfielders joining the last defensive line. They didn't have players or often space to mark, but they felt like they had to be there anyway? That meant Kovacic & Jorginho were under little pressure and could sit unperturbed in the massive gap between our midfield and forwards, dictating play and picking up any deflections, half-clearances, etc. We were at times playing an 8-0-2 formation, with Pukki and Sargent staying up the field together, because otherwise we'd have had even less chance of relieving pressure with a ball out from the back. In attacking transistion, a prime example of the midfield issues today was Norwich winning the ball back and a CB going route one to Pukki. There was no short passing option for the CB because none of the midfielder were open to advance the ball to. So they had to go long. There was no support for Pukki other than Sargent, because all the midfielders were back defending When Rudiger turned the ball over, he could easily bypass our entire midfield with a ball over the top, because they were in a flat line all moving up the pitch a little. If Lees-Melou didn't feel he had to be back defending, he might have been an outball for our CB, or been able to push on faster to join the attack. If Normann was tasked with purely defending, he wouldn't have pushed up and the ball wouldn't have been on for Rudiger. ___ This has gone completely off the original topic now (sorry), but I don't think it's impossible to use the same XI and introduce more creativity and defensive solidity. Normann and McLean get a fully defensive brief, acting as a "double 6" in front of a back 5 rather than last year's back 4. With a brief to defend, contain, and play the ball to the wing backs when they regain possession. There's then the option to slot Gilmour in for McLean, in the role Chelsea want him to be playing. Lee-Melou gets a more attacking brief, stationed ahead of the other two. We were told he can press effectively, so let's use that. Even if he knackers himself out within 60 minutes and ends up needing replacing, that's manageable. He should be on top of the opposing central midfielders, rather than standing off to plug gaps between CBs. When we've got the ball, he's closer to the strikers and can effect play. There's also then the option to replace him with a more attacking/defensive midfielder depending on game state. With that said, I'd much rather see a 3-4-3 at this point, with a central midfielder and Sargent replaced by two from Tzolis, Cantwell and Rashica supporting Pukki. Offensively, it gives us players with pace and creativity to perhaps do something with the limited possession we have. Defensively, they can defend wide areas and allow Giannoulis and Aarons to get closer to the CBs. Currently if the full back is wide, there's acres of space between them and the CB which is getting exploited, and if they're narrow, then we're surrendering the area outside the width of the penalty area to the attacking team, from which to cross or work the ball into the box.
Agree about the Skipp-sized hole. Makes me wonder why we didn't try Sorensen in one of those games against the big boys which we were probably going to lose anyway. Maybe he wouldn't be the answer but at least we'd know that.
