| The new shape 13:28 - Aug 9 with 9926 views | dannyblue |
I was interested to see our new shape yesterday.
Without the ball it was 4141 with Burrell on the right and Smyth on the left, and Chair and Vale ahead of Madsen in the middle.
With the ball, Burrell tended to come a bit narrower, leaving space for Mbengue. Chair tended to go to overload the left. Vale tended to stay on the right centre and ahead of Madsen.
Some things worked. Millwall didn't pass through the midfield (except once)...but then perhaps that's not their game. And the fullbacks weren't exposed. We were able to bypass the press pretty well from goal kicks, although Millwall didn't commit many to the press. Once Burrell ran from out to in and was found by a good straight pass from Edwards, reminiscent of a goal we scored last year. There were also some straight forward (but not straightforward) passes from Vale and even Varane which were promising.
Some things didn't work so well. Burrrell was clearly not a winger, and if left one on one with a full back he didn't have much of a plan. This shape diminishes his game. Mbengue wasn't able to take advantage of the space we created for him. Kone was a little isolated. Chair didn't find much space in attacking positions. We didn't get enough good shots away.
I think the aim of the new shape is to learn from last year, and find a way to:
1) Have Kone and Burrell on the pitch together.
2) Have three in midfield.
3) Have Chair central.
I think there would be a better way of achieving this. If you want two strikers and three midfielders the classic approach is 352 which I think would actually better suit our squad.
JCS Dunne Edwards (with Mbengue and Morrison in reserve) would be strong defensively and a good platform for controlling possession, especially as either of the outside centre backs would be able to advance. You could use the work rate of Smyth as a wingback. Your midfield three picked from Madsen, Chair, Vale, Kamara, Varane, Morgan depending on opposition, form and availability.
You could also simply morph it back into the 4141 if the game demanded without making any subs.
And if chasing a game, it could become a 343 with the introduction of Poku, Saito, etc. for one of the midfielders or wing backs.
|  | | |  |
| The new shape on 13:06 - Aug 11 with 2708 views | dannyblue |
(edited for correct number of players!)
I think this is what Stephan's thinking:
Without the ball (obvious and clear to see):
-------------Kone
Smyth--Chair--Vale--Burrell
-------------Madsen
Kemper--Edwards--Dunne--Mbengue
But with the ball (not so obvious, but what I think he's looking for based on the movements being made at the weekend with Vale being more conservative, Chair supporting the left, Burrell coming narrower to give room for Mbengue):
-------------Kone
Smyth------------Burrell
-------Chair-----------------Mbengue
----------Madsen--Vale-----
--Kemper--Edwards--Dunne
All, as I say, to try and get Kone and Burrell in the team AND have 3 in the middle. I think that's the right thing to try and do. I'd just try and do it a different way. I also agree that they're not going to play 352 based on what we've seen so far. [Post edited 11 Aug 15:18]
| | | |
| The new shape on 14:38 - Aug 11 with 2516 views | QPROslo |
| The new shape on 13:06 - Aug 11 by dannyblue |
(edited for correct number of players!)
I think this is what Stephan's thinking:
Without the ball (obvious and clear to see):
-------------Kone
Smyth--Chair--Vale--Burrell
-------------Madsen
Kemper--Edwards--Dunne--Mbengue
But with the ball (not so obvious, but what I think he's looking for based on the movements being made at the weekend with Vale being more conservative, Chair supporting the left, Burrell coming narrower to give room for Mbengue):
-------------Kone
Smyth------------Burrell
-------Chair-----------------Mbengue
----------Madsen--Vale-----
--Kemper--Edwards--Dunne
All, as I say, to try and get Kone and Burrell in the team AND have 3 in the middle. I think that's the right thing to try and do. I'd just try and do it a different way. I also agree that they're not going to play 352 based on what we've seen so far. [Post edited 11 Aug 15:18]
|
You lost me there. Probably because you only have 9 outfield players in your without the ball option -Madsen missing? |  | | |
| The new shape on 15:44 - Aug 11 with 2410 views | TK1 |
Very good quotes from Stephan today about this. Basically, work in progress. Will evolve: read the thread.
Also interesting...
| | | |
| The new shape on 15:56 - Aug 11 with 2394 views | dannyblue |
| The new shape on 15:44 - Aug 11 by TK1 |
Very good quotes from Stephan today about this. Basically, work in progress. Will evolve: read the thread.
Also interesting...
|
v interesting. Thanks very much | | | |
| The new shape on 16:35 - Aug 11 with 2321 views | PlanetHonneywood |
| The new shape on 15:56 - Aug 11 by dannyblue |
v interesting. Thanks very much |
Once Rodri's situation at City is resolved, the cascade effect will kick in, and we'll be throwing our weight an money around within 24-36 hours.
ITK!!!  |  |
| |
| The new shape on 16:43 - Aug 11 with 2304 views | 7374Ranger |
| The new shape on 10:37 - Aug 10 by Burnleyhoop |
Burrell is no winger and Kone is of no use whatsoever unless he plays in and around the box and has sufficient service to enable a shot or three. Providing he can manage to control the ball sufficiently to get a shot away in the first place.
Trying to shoehorn both into the team in positions they can’t play is pointless.
Play them up top on their own and rotate them. Suits them both and prevents over loading. |
They both managed to play together last season before Burrell contact (hamstring) injury, but given the lack of out and out strikers at the club, it might not be the idea to start them both too frequently. Pair them up with Kolli, Lloyd or Obikwu (if ever he is fit).
Although the system wasn't used in pre season so I doubt Stephan will try out a 3-5-2 unless form dictates a new plan. | | | |
| The new shape on 20:32 - Aug 11 with 2134 views | 1JD |
| The new shape on 10:30 - Aug 11 by Hunterhoop |
Yeah, this is point.
The signings we have made for the last 3 summers is for a 4231. No doubt about that. Tons of wingers, full backs, “10s”. 4231 is the game model. Playing out from the back is the game model. Possession based is the game model.
Kone was signed to the be the starter. I have a lot more faith in him than you, JD, but regardless we spent “starter” money on him.
Burrell was signed to be his cover and bench replacement against tiring legs. It was more of a punt.
The Coventry debacle forced Stephan’s hand. No matter how much people want to gloss over it or talk about the game model being some sort of vibe and nothing more, it’s not; it’s a lot more than that. It’s documented into a massive pack, which was shared with Stephan when he joined. So when Stephan stepped away from it in that moment of strength, it threw the cat amongst the pigeons, especially with his 442 working so well (for a while).
It also really suited Burrell. His goals, and subsequent skyrocketing in value (assuming his hammy is fully recovered), was a blessing for a player trading club (who’d had a few duds the summer before), but it presents a problem this season.
Return to the game model, and what do you do with Burrell (or Kone)? Revert one to back up and you erode their value. Shoehorn both in and your 4231 won’t work as well. 442 actually suits the squad fairly well, IMO, but it means only two of Varane, Kamara, Chair, Vale, Saito (or Smyth) can start. Again, not ideal given the money invested in Saito, the potential of Chair, and the future sale hope on Varane, plus the salaries spent on the others (all arguable starters at this level).
4231/433 solves a lot of this, but it means hurting the value of Burrell or Kone.
Personally, being the philistine I am, I think possession is overrated and football is changing. Pace, power, strength, physicality is on the rise. Burrell and Kone have the highest resale value in this squad, IMO, given how they tick those boxes and their age. They are also strikers, for which there is a premium. I’d set up to their strengths, be direct, and play 442, with one of Chair, Vale or Saito on the left. I’d play Kamara or Varane alongside Madsen (would have preferred us to sign a more progressive player), and have Poku or Smyth on the right.
Oppo teams, I’m convinced of this, would least like to play against Kone AND Burrell as a front 2, so do that. In a 4231, you leave Kone up against 2, sometimes 3 centre backs. You’re making it harder for him, and he doesn’t have the pace to run the channels.
It’s 4231 and one of Kone/Burrell does not start.
Or it’s 442.
The squad is not built for 352…too few centre halves to get through the season with that shape, only one real wing back who has barely played in years, and way too many wide forwards who’ll never play or play out of position. |
Good post.
I’m not opposed to 4-4-2 or the 4-4-1-1 we saw a lot last season.
But it does require sorting the CM and the full backs out if we are to play the possession-based game model… which I’m a big fan of, but then I’m a football purist.
Kamara potentially solves the CM problem alongside Madsen. But then Varane is benched. Not ideal for the trading model.
Full backs with Kemper (if he is good enough) and hopefully Lamptey (if he is fit enough) is a wait and see. Mbengue is simply not good enough for a club with a stated passing ambition or a club with play off ambition. He is a weak link and a big weak link. Personality does not trump quality.
As for Kone, it’s clear Nourry wants to see him play, since the club / Nourry invested a lot on him. This trend repeats itself. See Saito. See Varane. But there have been many games where he should have been subbed, or was so poor, he shouldn’t have started the next game. See Saito / Varane again. Some players are being given ample opportunities (all those bought for money). Where others have not been afforded the same. Nourrys vested interest is clear.
For the 2-man striker combination and based on overall quality, I actually think a better combination is Kolli at 10, and Burrell at 9. I’d also like to see what Obikwu can offer.
However, I’ve far from written Kone off, but its fair to say he does frustrate the hell out of me, and I’m surprised his obvious deficiencies are not raised more. He has age on his side, which is a big positive, but he isn’t a guaranteed starter for me. 1 goal in 4 was reasonable return, but even Lyndon Dykes was hitting those kind of numbers fairly consistently. A lot rests on an explosive second season, and given his weaknesses, I don’t see that taking place but could be wrong. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| The new shape on 21:28 - Aug 11 with 2080 views | Stainrod |
| The new shape on 20:32 - Aug 11 by 1JD |
Good post.
I’m not opposed to 4-4-2 or the 4-4-1-1 we saw a lot last season.
But it does require sorting the CM and the full backs out if we are to play the possession-based game model… which I’m a big fan of, but then I’m a football purist.
Kamara potentially solves the CM problem alongside Madsen. But then Varane is benched. Not ideal for the trading model.
Full backs with Kemper (if he is good enough) and hopefully Lamptey (if he is fit enough) is a wait and see. Mbengue is simply not good enough for a club with a stated passing ambition or a club with play off ambition. He is a weak link and a big weak link. Personality does not trump quality.
As for Kone, it’s clear Nourry wants to see him play, since the club / Nourry invested a lot on him. This trend repeats itself. See Saito. See Varane. But there have been many games where he should have been subbed, or was so poor, he shouldn’t have started the next game. See Saito / Varane again. Some players are being given ample opportunities (all those bought for money). Where others have not been afforded the same. Nourrys vested interest is clear.
For the 2-man striker combination and based on overall quality, I actually think a better combination is Kolli at 10, and Burrell at 9. I’d also like to see what Obikwu can offer.
However, I’ve far from written Kone off, but its fair to say he does frustrate the hell out of me, and I’m surprised his obvious deficiencies are not raised more. He has age on his side, which is a big positive, but he isn’t a guaranteed starter for me. 1 goal in 4 was reasonable return, but even Lyndon Dykes was hitting those kind of numbers fairly consistently. A lot rests on an explosive second season, and given his weaknesses, I don’t see that taking place but could be wrong. |
A good debate and you make some good points . A couple I would question:
1. The problem of getting our best players on the pitch. Firstly it’s a nice problem to have (and a sign of progress). Secondly all this assumes a full team to select from, all on form. That has been a long way from our experiences the last two seasons. As our squad improves it will get harder to keep everyone happy, but being in a winning squad helps and as Stéphan says in the interview quoted on this site today, he clearly plans on lots of changing of formation and personnel. Most of us would surely agree setting ourselves up for different opponents is surely a long overdue change.
2. “Nourry’s vested interest.” You make it sound like he is getting back handers or pressuring the head coach to play his pet favourites. Whatever your view on Nourry, it clearly makes sense to play (where possible) players who we paid big bucks for where they have good resale potential. Hunter (no Nourry fan boy I think it is safe to say) makes a similar point above. That’s the player trading model and much the same would happen under another CEO. I think the only player I can think of currently being left out arguably unfairly is Kolli. But he is a complex case where the facts are disputed and there are plenty on here (not me on balance for the record) who don’t think he deserves inclusion. | | | |
| The new shape on 21:48 - Aug 11 with 2021 views | 1JD |
| The new shape on 21:28 - Aug 11 by Stainrod |
A good debate and you make some good points . A couple I would question:
1. The problem of getting our best players on the pitch. Firstly it’s a nice problem to have (and a sign of progress). Secondly all this assumes a full team to select from, all on form. That has been a long way from our experiences the last two seasons. As our squad improves it will get harder to keep everyone happy, but being in a winning squad helps and as Stéphan says in the interview quoted on this site today, he clearly plans on lots of changing of formation and personnel. Most of us would surely agree setting ourselves up for different opponents is surely a long overdue change.
2. “Nourry’s vested interest.” You make it sound like he is getting back handers or pressuring the head coach to play his pet favourites. Whatever your view on Nourry, it clearly makes sense to play (where possible) players who we paid big bucks for where they have good resale potential. Hunter (no Nourry fan boy I think it is safe to say) makes a similar point above. That’s the player trading model and much the same would happen under another CEO. I think the only player I can think of currently being left out arguably unfairly is Kolli. But he is a complex case where the facts are disputed and there are plenty on here (not me on balance for the record) who don’t think he deserves inclusion. |
Vested interest is that Nourry *needs* large transfer outlays to work.
Which is why Saito played so much last season, despite not warranting it.
Whether that is good for the club, or not, is up for debate.
I’d sooner want Nourry to admit mistake, and ship a player on, and then re-invest on another bet, than keep playing them and “hoping” they come good.
History says that Madsen is an exception, and not the norm. | | | |
| The new shape on 22:17 - Aug 11 with 1973 views | baz_qpr |
Personally I'm quite happy with the 4-1-4-1 and we have 4-4-2 in the locker as an alternative. Was super impressed with Isak Alleymanu in the pre-season games who I think will break out in the 4-1-4-1. I think if Burrell can adapt and be effective as a wide 10 cutting in and scoring it will put so much more value on him than just being a quick penalty box striker who needs to play in a two. |  | | |
| The new shape on 07:19 - Aug 12 with 1734 views | Burnleyhoop |
| The new shape on 22:13 - Aug 10 by wombat |
Even before we knackered both his hamstrings I’m yet to see anything from poku to excite me and at my age I’m easily exited . Hopefully satwe chuck the extra man in the middle at Portsmouth , and we give Kamara the first half alongside madson
Vale drops to the bench for me with Burrell and kone up front chair and smyth on the wings |
Having a game here and there and the occasional sub appearance isn’t going to get him fit and on form.
Poku needs to get at least 10 full games under his belt before he starts to hit his stride. Form and fitness comes with playing games and feeling confident about your body.
We will not see the best of him until he starts to play regularly, but I have no doubt that he is the answer to our right wing dilemma. | | | |
| The new shape on 10:24 - Aug 12 with 1608 views | Stainrod |
| The new shape on 21:48 - Aug 11 by 1JD |
Vested interest is that Nourry *needs* large transfer outlays to work.
Which is why Saito played so much last season, despite not warranting it.
Whether that is good for the club, or not, is up for debate.
I’d sooner want Nourry to admit mistake, and ship a player on, and then re-invest on another bet, than keep playing them and “hoping” they come good.
History says that Madsen is an exception, and not the norm. |
So what you are saying, then, is the club has a vested interest in making these transfers work, not just Nourry.
I agree we should ship players out when they are obvious duds where possible - Celar a clear example.
But doing so depends on a club willing to buy them for a half decent fee. You could make a case for Saito, Dembele and Poku all being failed signings to date but we simply can’t afford to write off transfer fees (and potentially pay up contracts) for everyone who has underperformed.
Re Saito agree he was overplayed and it seemed counter productive to me because he was loosing more and more confidence. But without trawling thru old match reports etc I can’t recall who else was so obviously knocking on the door to replace him? Of our supposed abundance of nippy wingers only Smyth was consistently available last season.
I haven’t written Saito off BTW: this is clearly a make or break season for him, as for Dembele and Poku you would think. We need at least one to really make an impression. | | | |
| The new shape on 10:50 - Aug 12 with 1577 views | JamesB1979 |
| The new shape on 21:48 - Aug 11 by 1JD |
Vested interest is that Nourry *needs* large transfer outlays to work.
Which is why Saito played so much last season, despite not warranting it.
Whether that is good for the club, or not, is up for debate.
I’d sooner want Nourry to admit mistake, and ship a player on, and then re-invest on another bet, than keep playing them and “hoping” they come good.
History says that Madsen is an exception, and not the norm. |
Saito played a lot last season when out of form (or just not good depending on how you look at it) because Dembele, Poku and Chair were all injured. Who else did we have?
Let’s just play the players in their correct positions. If Stephan wants to play 4231 or some variation with 1 striker in a game, don’t pick Kone and Burrell because 1 of them will be playing in a position they are not comfortable in. And let’s not just stick to 2 up from no matter who we play…..likes of Boro killed us last season with no midfield. | | | |
| The new shape on 11:36 - Aug 16 with 1137 views | dannyblue |
Looked to me much more like last season's shape yesterday. Inverted wingers (Saito, Poku), a 10 (Chair) off the striker (Burrell), two sitting midfielders (Edwards, Vale).
May be a little more flexibility in our approach depending on opposition, home and away etc. | | | |
| The new shape on 13:28 - Aug 16 with 894 views | 1JD |
| The new shape on 11:36 - Aug 16 by dannyblue |
Looked to me much more like last season's shape yesterday. Inverted wingers (Saito, Poku), a 10 (Chair) off the striker (Burrell), two sitting midfielders (Edwards, Vale).
May be a little more flexibility in our approach depending on opposition, home and away etc. |
Agreed. Looked 4-4-1-1, same as last season. | | | |
| The new shape on 15:37 - Aug 16 with 691 views | 1JD |
| The new shape on 10:50 - Aug 12 by JamesB1979 |
Saito played a lot last season when out of form (or just not good depending on how you look at it) because Dembele, Poku and Chair were all injured. Who else did we have?
Let’s just play the players in their correct positions. If Stephan wants to play 4231 or some variation with 1 striker in a game, don’t pick Kone and Burrell because 1 of them will be playing in a position they are not comfortable in. And let’s not just stick to 2 up from no matter who we play…..likes of Boro killed us last season with no midfield. |
Not going to go back through every line up, but Saito played multiple times when there were other options even if it true that those said players were injured at different times.
The bigger picture and bigger trend, is that like Madsen in season 1, Varane, Saito and Kone all played regardless if they put in a series of bad games in a row. That was clearly intentional. And not exactly ideal for squad morale when you see that happening in front of your eyes when you are itching for a chance. Players should be picked on form. 1-2 games bad fine, keep getting selected. 5-6 in a row, or more, or just erratic form in general, not good. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.