I see most of Huddlestone's lack of impact coming from the 352 shape. Most of the time when he gets the ball there's no one in dangerous positions out wide to thread a ball to, as our wide players start deep and make later runs which is why we often work the ball to the edge of the box before passing it sideways/backwards for Elmo to float a cross in. They obviously can't start attacking moves too high up the pitch or we'd have big holes on our flanks. When we use a back four and then more advanced wide players (whether 442 or 4231) we have people out wide higher up the pitch in dangerous positions when attacks begin, so Tom can use his passing ability to send the ball into those areas while there's still space before other teams get men back to defend. We can then attack quickly and get in behind fullbacks. please log in to view this image It's one of the most dangerous areas of the pitch to get attacking moves into quickly but it's an area that's mostly vacant with a 352, and we have to pass the ball around slowly and patiently to work our way into those positions. When teams then close us down quickly we don't have the time to build up those slow attacks and end up giving the ball away. Huddlestone just needs a better attacking shape ahead of him to shine, so he can look up and actually have players up the pitch to send the ball to. Most of the time with our current shape he gets the ball and then has a lack of options. Our central midfielders (and forwards) end up congested in the middle of the pitch where even if they get the ball they usually have no choice but to pass it backwards again. I really like to see players in advanced wide areas.
You should get yourself to the training ground and offer your services there. With such knowledge and understanding of the game they'd be foolish not to listen.
Are you disagreeing with the impact of our shape (particularly out wide) on Huddlestone or trying to be witty because I illustrated my point with a picture? The 352 is generally ok defensively but it's not a shape that allows a team to really control the game in an attacking sense. We won against QPR but that was a 1-0 where both teams played quite poorly and we grabbed a goal from a corner, where shape was irrelevant for that set piece. Against Villa we were appalling before switching our shape to utilise a back four and advanced wide players in the second half. Has there been a Premier League game we've really looked in control with a back three? Just about every game we used it last season we lost, or snatched a draw. I hoped from pre-season games we'd be more attacking with it, playing Snodgrass behind the two forwards, but since his injury we've looked a lot flatter again in the shape. Man Utd have had the same issue. Look at the last game against Burnley... Valencia, Young, Di Maria, Mata, Rooney and van Persie playing together and they barely created anything. Watching that game their midfield was pretty much bypassed most of the time, defence hoofing the ball up to forwards who struggled to get hold of it. Their two wingbacks never got in behind Burnley's defence and often got doubled up. All those attacking players and they looked as creative as a burnt sausage. Before that they struggled to a draw against Sunderland and got beaten by Swansea. QPR looked dire against us playing a back 3, got taken to pieces by Spurs and then switch to a back four to beat Sunderland. There are examples of a 352 winning games but they're the exception. Most of the time with the shape ends up in a draw or 1-0 loss. It just doesn't trouble teams enough, they know that shutting down the wingbacks cuts out any threat from wide positions and leaves the middle of the attacking third congested with very little space to exploit. Someone like Huddlestone getting the ball then has very little choice - either pass backwards to the defence, forwards through the middle where the recipient will get closed asap and have to pass it straight back or hoof it in the hope that a forward can run onto the end of it. Maybe the new signings will make the 352 more effective in an attacking sense but it's still rather one dimensional; neutralise the wingbacks and we don't have much to trouble teams.
Thanks, but I don't play Fifa. Try re-watching the first half against Villa and look at our attacking third, tell me if you see any hint of sustained threat against their fullbacks. What you'll see is us having a lack of players in those areas, which A) Gave Huddlestone no real forward diagonal options to get us forward and B) Allowed their Fullbacks to push up a bit higher and help squeeze us into our own half, knowing they weren't letting wingers into space behind them. Occasionally we play a team that doesn't pressure our wingbacks, and lets them spend a lot of time in the attacking half, but that's not often and happened more in our promotion season than it has in this league. It's a recurring issue when we play a back three and has an impact on the passing options for our midfield but sure, I'm imagining things, I must play Fifa because I drew some arrows (which I don't) and Huddlestone is clearly terrible and to blame for our first half performance. It couldn't possibly be that the substitution coincided with a change in formation that --SURPRISE-- led to us switching from wingbacks to a back four and getting wide midfielders (Brady/Elmo) further up the pitch. Bruce called the second half right and the change in shape worked. We looked a lot more threatening and likely would've scored another had the game continued longer, but it was a bit late by then for us to get 2 goals back. If only we'd played that way from the start. The square balls have mainly been due to our shape and him having limited options. He can't pass forwards if we don't have players in forward positions, and a couple of strikers ahead of him being man-marked aren't enough. He dominated the game against Fulham when we won 6-0 because he was able to pass in all directions; we provided him with options. Against Villa and QPR we didn't. Do you want him to pass forwards for the sake of it even though we have no one there and give the ball away? At least that wouldn't be sideways for you.
I'm just one of those people who are eternally amazed at the way some supporters profess to know better than Steve Bruce and his coaching staff.
Livermore (Not Huddlestone) is the weak link in our midfield at the moment. Can anyone recall when he was last nominated by anyone in the MOM?
Livermore and Huddlestone not compatible? Congratulations on your first season pass, hope you stay if we get relegated.
http://www.not606.com/showthread.php/273662-Mom-123-qpr-(a)/page1 A grand total of 2 people voted him 2nd, and 1 person 3rd. Hardly conclusive.
It seems you need to be reminded of your own question: "Can anyone recall when he was last nominated by anyone in the MOM?"
I stick to my point that neither Huddlestone nor Livermore are the weak link in our midfield, but that the way we've played the 352 system has not provided the movement and passing options for our midfielders to get attacks moving quickly. Too many times they've collected the ball from a defender, looked up to get things moving and found no one in an advanced position open to pass to. That's caused them to have to hold the ball and pass it sideways or back again while waiting for someone to provide an option to pass it 15 yards further. It can keep possession, and might be good when we've already gone 1-0 up to slow the game down, but it stifles our ability to attack quickly and if our midfield/defence get closed down quickly when passing it around there we can lose the ball in dangerous areas as happened with McShane, Livermore and Chester against Stoke.
