Jump to content

Canada vs. United States (Nations League A) Tuesday, Oct. 15th, 2019 - 7:30pm EST


Ansem

Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, Ansem said:

Hutch is getting his minutes somewhat managed now. Not against splitting Hutch and Piette time but Kaye is just so good not to pair with Kaye.

Controlling the game and pressing the Americans will be key as we arent equip to defend constantly against them. Best to switch it around and pressure them instead.

Dont know how he does in Vancouver but it's hard to argue that he's been good for the National team, better than Henry in my opinion.

Cornelius has been fantastic for the Caps this year. I think next to Max he's been the pleasant surprise. Let's also not forget he made the Gold Cup 11 after the group stage. Very consistent player. I have lots of confidence in him. He's young but seems to have an old head on his shoulders

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SpursFlu said:

Cornelius has been fantastic for the Caps this year. I think next to Max he's been the pleasant surprise. Let's also not forget he made the Gold Cup 11 after the group stage. Very consistent player. I have lots of confidence in him. He's young but seems to have an old head on his shoulders

 

The only problem I have with him and Henry (him more) is neither of them can pass. I thought they played well defensively at the gold cup, but against teams that pressed them (Mexico, Haiti) they couldn’t handle the ball and would give it up. That’s why for me someone like Tomori would be huge. Not just defensively, but offensively have a CB that move the ball out of the press. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, HochelagaFC said:

You forgot the defensive midfielder, in this scenario probably Atiba, Piette or Eustaquio. 

Thanks for the heads up! That's what I get for posting early in the morning, before my brain is fully switched on 

Interestingly, when I plugged Piette in there, the structure is not really that different than our current one. You still have 4 defenders, 3 midfielders and 3 attackers. The balance is the same. So 4-3-3 or 4-3-1-2, it is not so different. These formations are less important than the balance of players.

That's why I am not supportive of the line up @Ansem suggests. With all due respect, I think it is not properly balanced.

Plus, that formation doesn't allow David to be used in a Gent-like way (if that is the idea). Nobody advocated for David to play AM until he played there for Gent, but Gent does not play a 4-2-3-1 (or at least didn't yesterday).

Now, if we wanted David to play high up the field with Davies and Hoilett and Cavallini, we are left with 2 against 3 in the midfield. Sure, Kaye and Arfield can cover a ton of ground, but games are won and lost in the midfield (as the old saying goes).

I noticed a lot of people liked his post and really seem to like the idea of David as an attacking mid for Canada. Would any of you in that camp like to comment on my concerns? 

Perhaps some of you see something I don't, but I have a hard time getting past the concerns I stated above.

Thanks!

Edit: I should add this: I am not saying a 4-2-3-1 does not work. Other teams use it to great success. However, I do have reservations about using it with those players. 

Edited by Obinna
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, TOCanada115 said:

The only problem I have with him and Henry (him more) is neither of them can pass. I thought they played well defensively at the gold cup, but against teams that pressed them (Mexico, Haiti) they couldn’t handle the ball and would give it up. That’s why for me someone like Tomori would be huge. Not just defensively, but offensively have a CB that move the ball out of the press. 

I kinda disagree about that assessment. They're CBs so let's keep it in perspective but I think both are decent on the ball. Henry gets a little adventurous at times and can make mistakes but Cornelius is a keep it simple CB and has a good touch. He's steady. I'm not worried about him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, SpursFlu said:

I kinda disagree about that assessment. They're CBs so let's keep it in perspective but I think both are decent on the ball. Henry gets a little adventurous at times and can make mistakes but Cornelius is a keep it simple CB and has a good touch. He's steady. I'm not worried about him. 

Henry's passing has always been underrated. The guy has always been a good passer out of the back. He developed this reputation for being a poor passer whilst at TFC and it has stuck, though I never quite understood why...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Obinna said:

Thanks for the heads up! That's what I get for posting early in the morning, before my brain is fully switched on 

Interestingly, when I plugged Piette in there, the structure is not really that different than our current one. You still have 4 defenders, 3 midfielders and 3 attackers. The balance is the same. So 4-3-3 or 4-3-1-2, it is not so different. These formations are less important than the balance of players.

That's why I am not supportive of the line up @Ansem suggests. With all due respect, I think it is not properly balanced.

Plus, that formation doesn't allow David to be used in a Gent-like way (if that is the idea). Nobody advocated for David to play AM until he played there for Gent, but Gent does not play a 4-2-3-1 (or at least didn't yesterday).

Now, if we wanted David to play high up the field with Davies and Hoilett and Cavallini, we are left with 2 against 3 in the midfield. Sure, Kaye and Arfield can cover a ton of ground, but games are won and lost in the midfield (as the old saying goes).

I noticed a lot of people liked his post and really seem to like the idea of David as an attacking mid for Canada. Would any of you in that camp like to comment on my concerns? 

Perhaps some of you see something I don't, but I have a hard time getting past the concerns I stated above.

Thanks!

Edit: I should add this: I am not saying a 4-2-3-1 does not work. Other teams use it to great success. However, I do have reservations about using it with those players. 

Your lineup and Ansem's are very nearly the same in my eyes.

Things that are more defensively responsible in Ansem's than yours:
Hoilett is on the wing instead of up front, so he would presumably help more with defensive responsibilities.
Adekugbe at LB instead of Davies. No offense to Davies, but he pushes up a lot, Adekugbe I think stays at home more (I would prefer Ansem's lineup but with Miller at LB who is even more stay at home).

Things that are more defensively responsible in your lineup:
Piette is on the field to protect the back line more.

And I feel like your lineup isn't as offensively set up as Ansem's, because Davies is pushed further back. I much prefer him to be up on the wing.

But I'm not a formation geek. I prefer Ansem's lineup with Miller in for Adekugbe (I think someone else already made that change but I forget who) but your lineup is pretty reasonable too. I do know for sure that if Herdman goes with your original lineup of a 4-3-2 I will join the crowd of people saying he is too green for the job :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Obinna said:

That's why I am not supportive of the line up @Ansem suggests. With all due respect, I think it is not properly balanced.

Plus, that formation doesn't allow David to be used in a Gent-like way (if that is the idea). Nobody advocated for David to play AM until he played there for Gent, but Gent does not play a 4-2-3-1 (or at least didn't yesterday).

David is at his most effective when playing AM or CF which are the positions Gent use him most of the time. I dont find him as efficient as a winger as we saw against Cuba in the Caymans Island.

As long as we find a way to maximize everyone's strength while not being terribly defensively is important. This is a must win game.

Is it bad I feel better about the Cornelius-Vitoria duo than Henry? 

Addressing your remark for defensive mid, Kaye is capable. Piette is mostly defensive while Hucthinson & Kaye are more complete in my opinion. 

Against the US, we need all our firepower playing in the right chair which requires a midfielder capable of playing with Arfield on both ends of the pitch...again just my opinion. 

The only way I see 4-3-3 is like this and I'd still start Hutchinson and bring Piette or Kaye depending of how the game's going.

---‐‐---------------------------Cavallini

-----Davies-----------------------------------------Hoillet

 

---------------------Arfield-------------------David

--------------------------------Hutchinson

 

Adekugbe--------Cornelius---------Vitoria-------Laryea

-------‐------------------------------Borjan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David did win the golden boot at the GC playing mostly on the wing, however his ability to read how the play is developing, get into space and away from his marker and strike is better utilized when he is central and behind the striker; not to mention his ability to set up other forwards. He is not a bull like Cav and would not like to see him at CF going up against burly CBs with his back to goal just yet. Cav or Larin would be better suited there. Not an easy decision for JH vs US, but at some point we need to deploy David in a system to max his skill set......he is that good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Obinna said:

Thanks for the heads up! That's what I get for posting early in the morning, before my brain is fully switched on 

Interestingly, when I plugged Piette in there, the structure is not really that different than our current one. You still have 4 defenders, 3 midfielders and 3 attackers. The balance is the same. So 4-3-3 or 4-3-1-2, it is not so different. These formations are less important than the balance of players.

That's why I am not supportive of the line up @Ansem suggests. With all due respect, I think it is not properly balanced.

Plus, that formation doesn't allow David to be used in a Gent-like way (if that is the idea). Nobody advocated for David to play AM until he played there for Gent, but Gent does not play a 4-2-3-1 (or at least didn't yesterday).

Now, if we wanted David to play high up the field with Davies and Hoilett and Cavallini, we are left with 2 against 3 in the midfield. Sure, Kaye and Arfield can cover a ton of ground, but games are won and lost in the midfield (as the old saying goes).

I noticed a lot of people liked his post and really seem to like the idea of David as an attacking mid for Canada. Would any of you in that camp like to comment on my concerns? 

Perhaps some of you see something I don't, but I have a hard time getting past the concerns I stated above.

Thanks!

Edit: I should add this: I am not saying a 4-2-3-1 does not work. Other teams use it to great success. However, I do have reservations about using it with those players. 

Is your concern that a middle three of Kaye, Arfield and David isn’t defensive enough?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Aird25 said:

Is your concern that a middle three of Kaye, Arfield and David isn’t defensive enough?

Short answer is yes.

Long answer: 

- Tasking David with the defensive responsibilities of that position is counterproductive, I suspect.

We go 4-4-2 on defense and the CAM is part of the 2. On defense, I see no issue in the attacking third, but my suspicion is that David will be kept unnecessarily preoccupied in the middle and defensive third. I would have to re-watch the recent games to view our defensive shape in those first two-thirds, specifically keeping an eye on the role of the CAM.

I want to emphasize that my concern is not necessairly that David can't or won't do defensive work (though it remains to be seen), but rather I am concerned that his starting position when we transition from defense to attack will be too deep and we will not see the best of David. 

In a game where we will likely play on the counter, I wouldn't change anything. We are already very affective on the counter with David, Davies and Hoilett. 

- I would say that given the way David plays, I can also see there being large gaps in the midfield when we turn over posession. In attack, Osorio or Arfield are not going to find themselves in the high areas David will (as frequently) if they were playing as the CAM. This is probably the biggest negative that I see.

Edited by Obinna
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ansem said:

David is at his most effective when playing AM or CF which are the positions Gent use him most of the time. I dont find him as efficient as a winger as we saw against Cuba in the Caymans Island.

As long as we find a way to maximize everyone's strength while not being terribly defensively is important. This is a must win game.

Is it bad I feel better about the Cornelius-Vitoria duo than Henry? 

Addressing your remark for defensive mid, Kaye is capable. Piette is mostly defensive while Hucthinson & Kaye are more complete in my opinion. 

Against the US, we need all our firepower playing in the right chair which requires a midfielder capable of playing with Arfield on both ends of the pitch...again just my opinion. 

The only way I see 4-3-3 is like this and I'd still start Hutchinson and bring Piette or Kaye depending of how the game's going.

---‐‐---------------------------Cavallini

-----Davies-----------------------------------------Hoillet

 

---------------------Arfield-------------------David

--------------------------------Hutchinson

 

Adekugbe--------Cornelius---------Vitoria-------Laryea

-------‐------------------------------Borjan

You can view my last post for more details, but basically I will say this.

1) Gent don't play the same way we do.

2) Playing him as a CAM in our system doesn't maximize his strengths. It does the opposite (see me other post).

3) Playing David as a CF is his best position in our system and in general.

4) David seems to play as a hybrid CAM/CF for Gent. One of his great strengths is finding space to get on the ball. He can and does do that for us already as a CF. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Aird25 said:

Is your concern that a middle three of Kaye, Arfield and David isn’t defensive enough?

David has a lot of things in his toolkit but battling as a midfielder has not been one I have seen.  When he has been asked to take on some defensive responsibilities, I think he has given away too many fouls at least in club football. 

I think if you play 4231, your two need to be primarily holding players.  I think you waste Arfield that way.

Bottom line is some good player in the front six is going to be left out or asked to perform a role that is limited or different from what they normally do.  Who is willing and able to do that best?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Obinna said:

Short answer is yes.

Long answer: 

- Tasking David with the defensive responsibilities of that position is counterproductive, I suspect.

We go 4-4-2 on defense and the CAM is part of the 2. On defense, I see no issue in the attacking third, but my suspicion is that David will be kept unnecessarily preoccupied in the middle and defensive third. I would have to re-watch the recent games to view our defensive shape in those first two-thirds, specifically keeping an eye on the role of the CAM.

I want to emphasize that my concern is not necessairly that David can't or won't do defensive work (though it remains to be seen), but rather I am concerned that his starting position when we transition from defense to attack will be too deep and we will not see the best of David. 

In a game where we will likely play on the counter, I wouldn't change anything. We are already very affective on the counter with David, Davies and Hoilett. 

- I would say that given the way David plays, I can also see there being large gaps in the midfield when we turn over posession. In attack, Osorio or Arfield are not going to find themselves in the high areas David will (as frequently) if they were playing as the CAM. This is probably the biggest negative that I see.

I don’t really agree. I’ve seen him drop quite deep with Gent. He’s brilliant at collecting the ball, driving through the middle, and starting the counter. In attack, I think one of his main strengths is finding space as a late/secondary runner. He plays better with someone in front of him occupying the centre backs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, WestHamCanadianinOxford said:

David has a lot of things in his toolkit but battling as a midfielder has not been one I have seen.  When he has been asked to take on some defensive responsibilities, I think he has given away too many fouls at least in club football. 

I think if you play 4231, your two need to be primarily holding players.  I think you waste Arfield that way.

Bottom line is some good player in the front six is going to be left out or asked to perform a role that is limited or different from what they normally do.  Who is willing and able to do that best?

Well put. This is precisely right.

I am less concerned about Kaye, but playing Arfield in that spot does not maximize his strengths.

The CAM spot we are talking about for David should go to Arfield, with Osorio has a very capable back up. Kaye is fine where he is and next to him we want a more defensive-minded partner. Whether that is Piette or Hutchinson, we are in good hands either way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Aird25 said:

I don’t really agree. I’ve seen him drop quite deep with Gent. He’s brilliant at collecting the ball, driving through the middle, and starting the counter. In attack, I think one of his main strengths is finding space as a late/secondary runner. He plays better with someone in front of him occupying the centre backs.

The problem is we do not play in the same way Gent does.

I don't disagree with the merits of David you describe here, but if we want that from David, we would have to change our system, no?

Do you disagree with the defensive concerns I outlined or just David's best position (just curious)?

Edited by Obinna
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, WestHamCanadianinOxford said:

David has a lot of things in his toolkit but battling as a midfielder has not been one I have seen.  When he has been asked to take on some defensive responsibilities, I think he has given away too many fouls at least in club football. 

I think if you play 4231, your two need to be primarily holding players.  I think you waste Arfield that way.

Bottom line is some good player in the front six is going to be left out or asked to perform a role that is limited or different from what they normally do.  Who is willing and able to do that best?

David would have two players behind him protecting the back four. He’ll be expected to help out defensively against the US, regardless of where he lines up, but I see him as primarily an attacking player in that lineup.

Considering this squads strengths and weaknesses, I wouldn’t consider Arfield wasted as a holding midfielder. We’ll need players that are strong in transition against the US, and I think Kaye and Arfield are our best options to transition from defence to attack. They’re also both quite good at choosing the right time to get forward

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Obinna said:

The problem is we do not play in the same way Gent does.

I don't disagree with the merits of David you describe here, but if we want that from David, we would have to change our system, no?

Do you disagree with the defensive concerns I outlined or just David's best position (just curious)?

My concerns about Canada’s defence don’t relate to our holding midfielders, regardless of which of the options are selected. We’re quite strong in that position imo. I think those three could win the middle of the pitch against the US.

Edited by Aird25
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Aird25 said:

I don’t really agree. I’ve seen him drop quite deep with Gent. He’s brilliant at collecting the ball, driving through the middle, and starting the counter. In attack, I think one of his main strengths is finding space as a late/secondary runner. He plays better with someone in front of him occupying the centre backs.

Dropping to deep to collect in attack different from having defensive responsibilities.  We are not going play like Gent with three players attacking centrally with little responsibility when the ball is coming the other way.  There is always space in their central midfield, they just score more goals than the opposition a lot of the time.  (You could see that last night with Khazri's goal, incredible strike but freedom get it perfect.)   

I would also say that if you really look at David's goals over the course of the dozen or so games, more have come when he was on the break or one of the forwards than really finding space in a more settled formation as an AMC. 

I am still not sure, I floated a 4321 before these last two games against Cuba, because of his work in the middle of the park.  But again who do you want to limit Arfield, David, Davies (putting him at LB); do you need the big centre forward willing to chase as well?

Edited by WestHamCanadianinOxford
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, WestHamCanadianinOxford said:

Dropping to deep to collect in attack different from having defensive responsibilities.  We are not going play like Gent with three players attacking centrally with little responsibility when the ball is coming the other way.  There is always space in their central midfield, they just score more goals than the opposition a lot of the time.  (You could see that last night with Khazri's goal, incredible strike but freedom get it perfect.)   

I would also say that if you really look at David goals over the course of the dozen or so games, more have come when he was on the break or one of the forwards than really finding space in a more settled formation as an AMC. 

I am still not sure, I floated a 4321 before these last two games against Cuba, because of his work in the middle of the park.  But again who do you want to limit Arfield, David, Davies (putting him at LB); do you need the big centre forward willing to chase as well?

I thought we were talking about a 4-2-3-1 with Davies and Hoilett on the wings and David behind a loan striker? Which is virtually a 4411 when defending. I want David free to find the space, not battling with the CBs. We have strikers that are good at that. The formation isn’t really as important to me as the roles and responsibilities are though

Edited by Aird25
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some very good and valid points being raised by all. We did play Osorio in our 3 midfield in the GC and while he has upped his defensive positioning the past 2 years, he plays much higher up the field? I  dont think he has been relied on to defend as such. Now the US is by far the highest ranked team we have faced in almost 2 years and our back 4 is still our Achilles heel. I agree that much of the lineups are driven by trying to get David in a central role. Perhaps if David drifts in behind Cav in transition and the FB on that side pushes up wide we get what we want? I would  start Atiba as the #6 at BMO and Piette in Florida. This assumes Eustaquio is not match fit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Aird25 said:

I thought we were talking about a 4-2-3-1 with Davies and Hoilett on the wings and David behind a loan striker? Which is virtually a 4411 when defending 

You have talked about Arfield getting forward and Hoilett is not always the best getting back, for instance, so if a good opposition team picks its moments your middle 4 in defending can be awful ragged.  Remember when the ball comes back, it is usually not when you planned it.

Unless one of your 2 is pretty world class, most teams have made them sit in a 4231.  Pellegrini used that with Man City and gave Toure freedom to get forward and it worked.  He tried it with us (West Ham), last year and not so much. 

Edited by WestHamCanadianinOxford
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Aird25 said:

My concerns about Canada’s defence don’t relate to our holding midfielders, regardless of which of the options are selected. We’re quite strong in that position imo. I think those three could win the middle of the pitch against the US.

Are you sure about that?

If we are playing 3-aside...David-Arfield-Kaye versus Mckennie-Bradley-Adams...no problem.

The problem is that in 11-aside spaces open up in midfield as players get caught in transition. Are you not concerned with David being caught up field? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...