4-3-3

[SmokinFrazier]

Alright, lads? Nice to be on here. I've been reading the forum for years but thought I'd join up after reading a discussion on our team for the Norwich game.

...which brings me, not so neatly, onto the point of this thread. Do you think we should try 4-3-3 instead of 4-4-2?

The main reason for thinking about this change is the lack of quality on each wing. When CYL is fit, there isn't much of an issue here but he's obviously going to be out for a long, long time. Eagles is fine and even though I don't rate Petrov highly, he can be good. However, I do think we'd have a better balance to the team if we decided to play three central midfielders, especially for when Holden returns. I like the look of Pratley, Mavies is a good young player, NRC has been impressive, Pratley should be pretty good and then there is Muamba, who could probably do with a more restricted role. Looking at the depth we have in the centre and lack of depth on each wing, it seems like the obvious choice to go with three midfielders and three strikers. If Eagles or Petrov get a knock, we have very limited cover whereas centre midfield and up front, we have a fair bit of quality.

Speaking of the strikers, even though SKD is getting on, I still think he has a role to play in the team. Working with Tuncay and Ngog, I see no reason why he can't have yet another very good season. He's getting to the age where he will need someone else to do more of the work and Tuncay is more than happy to oblige, I'm sure. Klasnic is a terrific finisher and I think his lack of workrate would be less of an issue with either Tuncay and Davies or Tuncay and Ngog helping him.

So, anyway, a potential formation:

------------Jussi------------
Boyata-Cahill-Knight-Robinson
--Holden--M.Davies--NRC----
--Ngog----Tuncay--K.Davies-

The good thing is, I think there are lots of variations. Certainly more variations than playing a flat 4-4-2. I could see Eagles and Petrov playing high up in this team, Kakuta getting a few games on the wing, lots of swapping in midfield and so on.

I'm sure you're all probably wishing I hadn't registered after reading this marathon of a post! Nice to be here though.

[elfil76]

I would see petrov in for SKD and N'Gog swapping position with Tuncay. Petrov is more of a threat than SKD, he can be used but not starting the game at every match.

[Holden midfielder]

4-2-3-1 will set us up for success.

[martin1877coywm]

I agree with SmokinFrazier. It sounds good because withought Chung Yong, there's no creativity on the right wing and Eagles just doesn't cut it for me. This would be mine(but will never happen)-very similar to Frazier's:
------------Jussi------------
Steinsson-Cahill-Boyata-Ricketts
-------------NRC--------------
------Holden-----Mavies-------
Petrov-------Ngog------Tuncay

[elfil76]

damn right - because SKD will not be dropped and holden is not fit yet. Pratley might be given a run to ease him in with a newly promoted side instead of mavis.

[hisroyalgingerness]

My worry is Coyle as an ex-striker seems to be too much of a striker-lover. Much happier to blame his defenders and midfielders. But the penny simply has to drop on SKD soon. And Ngog was reasonably productive as a lone striker for Liverpool in a similar formation to what Martin has listed above. Incidentally, I'd be perfectly happy with Fab in the NRC role in that particular formation.

[Ianmooreslovechild]

I'd agree with smokin jo here.It seems odd that coyle should want to stick with 442 when the bulk of his squad is more suited to 433 or 451. He's not really earning browny points as a prospective big club manager by showing a complete lack of flexibility and failing to make the best of the resources available.

[BWFC_Insane]

I think we have another system in us. The one shown by the original poster looks horrid though. No width, unbalanced and playes out of position.

[boltonboris]

My worry is Coyle as an ex-striker seems to be too much of a striker-lover. Much happier to blame his defenders and midfielders. But the penny simply has to drop on SKD soon. And Ngog was reasonably productive as a lone striker for Liverpool in a similar formation to what Martin has listed above. Incidentally, I'd be perfectly happy with Fab in the NRC role in that particular formation.

For me, that's the ONLY position for Muamba. He's perfect for that kind of role. It's nice to have a ball player there, but hell, I'll be happy with an athletic destroyer types if it frees up the other players top do the ball work.

You'd see the very best of Holden, Mark Davies and Lee Chung Yong playing that formation

[Armchair Wanderer]

Welcome SF!

I agree with Insane that 433 is narrow, so is 4231. We could play with those systems but we'd need our fullbacks to bomb on.

We could maybe do 451 away from home but that feels like playing for a draw, and is not the OC way, which is fine with me.

442 with gradually replacing players who lose the ball with players who can pass and keep possession seems to be the way to go!

The good thing with the last game was that I made it 6 out of 8 summer signings made it on the pitch and we got some passing going.

[boltonboris]

I agree with Insane that 433 is narrow,

Personally, I couldn't agree less!

The wide forwards provide the width. Plus it's more flexible than a 4-4-2. We never struggled for width when we had Stelios and Diouf in these positions. I'd argue that with Petrov, Lee (when fit) and Tuncay, we actually have more ability than we did back then

[BWFC_Insane]

I agree with Insane that 433 is narrow,

Personally, I couldn't agree less!

The wide forwards provide the width. Plus it's more flexible than a 4-4-2. We never struggled for width when we had Stelios and Diouf in these positions. I'd argue that with Petrov, Lee (when fit) and Tuncay, we actually have more ability than we did back then

We played a totally different way with that system, though. We played off a front man and worked to frustrate teams and our whole play was pinned by a Campo or Hierro in midfield. We don't have that type of player or anything close. Tuncay may approximate a Stelios or Diouf, but Petrov, LCY, certainly do not IMO, completely different sorts of players.

[boltonboris]

So why then, does that equal no width?

If anything, Petrov & Lee would offer far MORE width? Do you not agree?

[Lofthouse Lower]

So why then, does that equal no width?

If anything, Petrov & Lee would offer far MORE width? Do you not agree?

This ^

[BWFC_Insane]

So why then, does that equal no width?

If anything, Petrov & Lee would offer far MORE width? Do you not agree?

I wasn't referring to the system per se, more the way the OP had it set up with NGog and Davies wide!

Can't say I'm a huge fan of going that way as it means playing one up front and for me that one has to have pace and mobility unless you are going back to the Allardyce ways which we know Coyle won't. And if you need pace and mobility it means leaving Davies out, again something that wont happen. I don't think we have the players to fit that system anymore.
Certainly don't have anyone close to approaching the kind of sweeper like central midfield player that was it's pivot!

I would like to see us play with two holding midfield players, two wingers, Tuncay off a striker though if we feel we need to change things, especially away from home. Trouble is again Davies would not be ideal.......

[Lofthouse Lower]

So why then, does that equal no width?

If anything, Petrov & Lee would offer far MORE width? Do you not agree?

I wasn't referring to the system per se, more the way the OP had it set up with NGog and Davies wide!

Can't say I'm a huge fan of going that way as it means playing one up front and for me that one has to have pace and mobility unless you are going back to the Allardyce ways which we know Coyle won't. And if you need pace and mobility it means leaving Davies out, again something that wont happen. I don't think we have the players to fit that system anymore.
Certainly don't have anyone close to approaching the kind of sweeper like central midfield player that was it's pivot!

I would like to see us play with two holding midfield players, two wingers, Tuncay off a striker though if we feel we need to change things, especially away from home. Trouble is again Davies would not be ideal.......

[boltonboris]

I think the players at our disposal fit the billm perfectly and we'd be much better at ball retention.

NRC or Muamba shielding the back 4 with Holden and M.Davies just in front. Any two of Tuncay, Petrov and LCY as advanced wingers / wide forwards and N'Gog up top. The 2 non-holding mids can support and one of the wide men can tuck in when the ball is on the other flank and position himself more centrally, leaving a full back to offer width on the other side (without going mad and thinking they're a winger). This can also drag a full back inside and give us plenty of room to switch the play.

N'Gog looks like he's mobile and hard-working enough to play that role for me

[Armchair Wanderer]

433's tend to be narrow!

I like your silky prose Boris, that could work! I think the numbers I would use for that would be different to what other people would use.

[BWFC_Insane]

I think the players at our disposal fit the billm perfectly and we'd be much better at ball retention.

NRC or Muamba shielding the back 4 with Holden and M.Davies just in front. Any two of Tuncay, Petrov and LCY as advanced wingers / wide forwards and N'Gog up top. The 2 non-holding mids can support and one of the wide men can tuck in when the ball is on the other flank and position himself more centrally, leaving a full back to offer width on the other side (without going mad and thinking they're a winger). This can also drag a full back inside and give us plenty of room to switch the play.

N'Gog looks like he's mobile and hard-working enough to play that role for me

Key point of the system though was Campo or Hierro picking the ball out and spreading the play, controlling the pace of the game and reading it suitably well to protect the back four, their distribution was key to the system IMO. Not too sure how we'd get around that. Even pre Campo we had Warhurst in there who was equally a good distributor.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

That system doesn't have to have a passing pivot. Chelsea waltzed to two titles playing it with Makelele there, in such a defensive role that the position began to be associated with his name. What they had was intelligent movement, two creative midfielders in front of Makelele and a huge desire to effect the transition from defence to attack with urgency - one of Mourinho's great demands. Oh and they scored bags of goals, too, partly thanks to their wide men being flair players like Duff and Cole rather than diligent defenders.

It's far from beyond the realms of reason that we could play a version of 4-3-3 – Petrov and CYL certainly fit that wide-man template, Eagles and arguably Tuncay too. With his energy, yard-chewing coverage and keenness for the tackle, Muamba is as good a Makelele as you'll get for our price range - and like the original, he'd know his limitations about recycling the ball (pass it five yards to a man who can). That would give more scope for offensive damage from the two in front of him, chosen from Holden, Pratley, Mavies and perhaps NRC (although he might rival Muamba for the defensive role).

The main drawbacks in the system are twofold, and both are very pertinent. Firstly, you need shockingly good full-backs, because with the wide men pushed further down the line in front of them, they have to be unflaggingly available up and down at least two-thirds of the pitch, sometimes without defensive help from the 'winger' (no change there for Robbo), yet very capable of picking out a progressive pass down the line or into the midfield. Although Mourinho probably wouldn't have had both full-backs charging forward at once – he's very much from the Italian school of leaving three back by getting the non-attacking full-back to cover over as a third centre – Chelsea lacked an Ashley Cole on the right, and you could argue that this lop-sidedness cost them at the very top level (they only reached one CL final, and that by squeezing past Liverpool and Fenerbahce by single goals).

Secondly, although it's not "one up front" if played correctly, the system places enormous demands on the single central striker. In Drogba, Chelsea happened to have arguably the most complete forward in a generation - pace, power, aerial strength but also superb hold-up play and spatial awareness to bring on-runners into play. I don't think we have a single player anything like this. Davies is too limited; Klasnic has the awareness but not the strength in the air or speed on the grass; Tuncay is much better facing goal than with his back to it. Ngog may have some of the skills – certainly Liverpool fancied him as understudy to Torres when the Spaniard was threatening to become as effective as Drogba - but it's an awfully big ask because such all-rounders are rare as rocking-horse poop.

That might explain why so many fewer teams are now playing the system – that plus the obvious pressure-points on a system which largely centres on two players (Drogba and Makelele) whom opponents can therefore target, by fair means or foul. Most teams have now reverted to the 'double pivot' - two "defensive" midfielders, one of whom may be creator to the other one's destroyer (eg Pirlo to Gattuso). It's not remarkably new – Capello employed it during his first Real Madrid spell – but the new flavour seems to be playing the double pivot with four attacking players in front of it who can interchange almost at will. Methinks that is what OC is striving for.

Absolutely none of which is to say we shouldn't stiffen the midfield with an extra body on occasion when discretion is the better part of valour. There's a country mile of difference between replacing Ivan Klasnic with Mark Davies for the last half-hour of a close away game and starting with Gavin McCann or Joey O'Brien as ersatz 'wingers'.