Too attacking mate, leaves us exposed to couters. Plus not enough cover of the flanks. Although if Cabaye's out, it might work if you have Abeid and Tiote.
The 4-3-3
- Thread starter Smudger
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
- Status
Too attacking mate, leaves us exposed to couters. Plus not enough cover of the flanks. Although if Cabaye's out, it might work if you have Abeid and Tiote.
You're right, the better sides would take us to pieces. I just worry that Guthrie is too similar to Cabaye.
I like this one. Simpson and Santon seem solid enough to work with little tracking back.
It was a 4-5-1 today, nothing close to a 4-3-3. It worked up until the end of the first half then we just got stuck in midfield, our final ball was poor today.
It was a 4-3-3 mate
It was
Best-------Shola---------HBA
--Jonas---Guthrie--Raylor------
That's what we eneded up playing with after Cabaye went off.
How was it "nothing close" to a 4-3-3? Best and HBA played extremely high up the pitch, it was only a 4-5-1 the last 10-15 minutes when we were sitting back and protecting our lead.
We had HBA and Best right next to the midfield. If it was a proper 4-3-3 then they would have been about level with Shola.
They were level with Shola though. Only in the last ten minutes did they drop deep into midfield.
It was definitely a 4-5-1. It annoys me when people try to make out a formation is more attacking than it really is, Liverpool fans took the biscuit yesterday claiming their five defenders were in a 3-5-2 formation. 
Best was brilliant today, he coped brilliantly with being played on the Left. His off the ball movement, his workrate, his touch on the ball, all fantastic. He proved a lot of people wrong. It was amazing the contrast in the Leazes today when he went off to when he was subbed off against West Brom. My motm.
I'd rather not piss about with his position and let him carry on as he is.
If it aint broke dont fix it.
It was definitely a 4-5-1. It annoys me when people try to make out a formation is more attacking than it really is, Liverpool fans took the biscuit yesterday claiming their five defenders were in a 3-5-2 formation.
Depends what you count individual positions as, like whether wide forwards are strikers or midfielders. 3-5-2/5-3-2 are essentially the same anyway, the wing backs are supposed to play both positions anyway.
The ability (or willingness) to play in a formation like this is promising because it allows for more flexibility in the forwards/midfielders we could transfer for. Not that I'm assuming we will get one, but its harder to rule someone out if Alan's willing to play a formation that can accommodate our best XI
It's not only that, it's the intent as well. We only had one shot on target, Liverpool didn't score, there was one goal in the two games. I find it hard to argue that either ourselves or Liverpool played an attacking formation.
The way I saw it, Cabaye went off so Taylor had to be shifted inside to pack the midfield. Gutierrez played on the right and Best on the left to give us width going forward and cover without the ball, i.e. they played the role of a wide midfielder. You could argue Ben Arfa (in front of Guthrie and Taylor and interchanging with Jonas) was playing just off Ameobi, but he was collecting the ball deep and carrying it forward.
Good point about the intent, but the execution of it is just as important. We had Shola leading the line, that means he had to be on the end of crosses and hold up the ball, and he did neither. Pardew mentioned a change of system, but I think it's debateable as to what we actually played as the players clearly werent used to it (when and who they should be covering). Jonas was impressive in the centre I thought.
I thought Shola's hold up play was decent. His lack of anticipation in the box does my head in though. I'd like to know how many crosses we put into the box today, I know that Shola didn't get on the end of a single one, I don't even recall him challenging for one. I think Ba would've had another hatrick today, just through being on his toes in the penalty area.
He was OK but a better striker would have brought us into the game a lot more offensively. It's a shame Best got injured because Shola was the one we needed to sub off. It seriously pisses me off how few bodies we have in the box when in a crossing position, it's as though Ba's the only one with a predatory instinct.
See you got home before me Smudger. Was thinking of going up your way after the game but decided against it. ( bad move.) Nexus need blocked for the rubbish service they run.
Anyway, did you not think that Shola could have done with a bomb up his arse today. Twenty yards behind the defence and making no effort to get back upfield, strolling along as if he hadn't a care in the world. If we'd played the ball forward he'd have been offside and we might have missed a goal scoring opportunity. I'd rather we played a youngster with a bit of enthusiasm than that donkey.
Anyway, did you not think that Shola could have done with a bomb up his arse today. Twenty yards behind the defence and making no effort to get back upfield, strolling along as if he hadn't a care in the world. If we'd played the ball forward he'd have been offside and we might have missed a goal scoring opportunity. I'd rather we played a youngster with a bit of enthusiasm than that donkey.
Aye he needs to get back into position rather than sitting on his arse in the opposition penalty area after a missed shot. We had a great chance to score on the counter attack today and he was 30 yards offside.
This, it makes you wonder if half of these were actually at the match. We played the majority of the second half and the latter stages of the first half in a 4-3-3 with Best left, BenArfa right and Shola central. Guthrie and Raylor were in the midfield alongside Jonas who was given a free role.
- Status