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

[Aird25]

13 minutes ago, WestHamCanadianinOxford said:

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, 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. 

For Arfield and Kaye I said they were good at choosing their moments. That means they know when to do it and when to stay put. It may never happen against a strong opposition, and I probably wouldn’t encourage much it as a manager in this formation. 

Edited September 20, 2019 by Aird25

[Obinna]

24 minutes ago, Kadenge said:

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.

This sounds like a 4-3-3 with David as the left forward and Davies providing the width from wingback as David tucks in behind Cavallini.

Could theoretically work, but I would rather Davies play at left forward against the USA. 

May be worth revisting against another opponent though...

Edited September 20, 2019 by Obinna

[Aird25]

13 minutes ago, Obinna said:

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? 

Christ man. You asked for other people’s opinions and then you belittle them. What’s the point?

Of course I’m not sure about that. But I wouldn’t be any more sure if it were Hutch and Piette in those positions either. I’m concerned with every player getting caught out of position. But no, in that lineup, David as an AM would not be my biggest worry in that regards, because he would have 2 holding midfielders behind him protecting the back 4. The lineup you suggested only had one DM. That would worry me far more.

Edited September 20, 2019 by Aird25

[Obinna]

Just now, Aird25 said:

Christ man. You asked for other people’s opinions and then you belittle them. What’s the point?

Of course I’m not sure about that. But I wouldn’t be any more sure if it were Hutch and Piette in those positions either. I’m concerned with every player getting caught out of positions. But no, in that lineup, David as an AM would not be my biggest worry in that regards. 

Didn't intend for it to come off as belittling your point. Apologies that you took it that way. I appreciate the discussion.

So basically your view is that you don't really care that David would likely get caught up field in that position because the benefit of him attacking from deep with a target forward ahead of him is worth the risk, right? 

[WestHamCanadianinOxford]

1 minute ago, Aird25 said:

For Arfield and Kaye I said they were good at choosing their moments. That means they know when to do it and when to stay put. It may never happen against a strong opposition, and I probably wouldn’t encourage much it as a manager in this formation. 

I think we are generally on the same page.  It really is a question of who do you ask to limit what they might be best at for the good of the team.  Arfield and David probably do their best (very different) work in similar areas of the pitch, in my opinion.   

The nice thing about the boring 433 is that a good smart midfield 3 has the ability to do a bunch of different things and the nous and unselfishness to let the other guy make runs and take up scoring positions, while 2 of you have the defensive skills and intelligence to be ready when the ball comes back. I love David but I am not sure he has the last part, or he does not have to show that at Gent at least. 

 

[Obinna]

1 minute ago, WestHamCanadianinOxford said:

I think we are generally on the same page.  It really is a question of who do you ask to limit what they might be best at for the good of the team.  Arfield and David probably do their best (very different) work in similar areas of the pitch, in my opinion.   

The nice thing about the boring 433 is that a good smart midfield 3 has the ability to do a bunch of different things and the nous and unselfishness to let the other guy make runs and take up scoring positions, while 2 of you have the defensive skills and intelligence to be ready when the ball comes back. I love David but I am not sure he has the last part, or he does not have to show that at Gent at least. 

 

Not the same thing, but David did fall asleep defensively early in the last game against Cuba. 

[Aird25]

12 minutes ago, Obinna said:

So basically your view is that you don't really care that David would likely get caught up field in that position because the benefit of him attacking from deep with a target forward ahead of him is worth the risk, right? 

Not really. I get the impression we have very different visions of what that role in this lineup would be. If we called it a secondary striker in a 4411 would that help? It’s not that far off from what I envision. He’s not getting ‘caught up field’ if it’s his job to be there

Edited September 20, 2019 by Aird25

[WestHamCanadianinOxford]

1 minute ago, Aird25 said:

Not really. I get the impression we have very different visions of what his role would be in this lineup. If we called him a secondary striker in a 4411 would that help?

I think that is his best role, whatever you call it. 

However, the reason why 4 in midfield (442 usually) went out of fashion quite a bit is that your wide players would be up attacking and people figured out formations where they would outnumber and overrun your midfield two (often because they were not only defensive players).  Hoillet's not going to hold that middle bank of 4 and I would not want Davies to. 

[Obinna]

2 minutes ago, Aird25 said:

Not really. I get the impression we have very different visions of what his role would be in this lineup. If we called him a secondary striker in a 4411 would that help? It’s not that far off from what I envision. 

Yes it does, thanks.

--------Cavallini-----------

----------------David----------

Davies--------------------Hoilett

-----------CM--------CM-----------

LB--------CB-------CB------RB

 

I was going to say something similar to @WestHamCanadianinOxford, but he beat me too it. Basically we would have to play with 2 banks of four on defense and leave Cav and David up high to cause havoc on the counter. 

David might be even better going forward with Cavallini ahead of him like that. We may even see a better, less isolated Cavallini as a result.

But like he mentions, you have a restrained Davies and Hoilett....

[Aird25]

15 minutes ago, WestHamCanadianinOxford said:

I think we are generally on the same page.  It really is a question of who do you ask to limit what they might be best at for the good of the team.  Arfield and David probably do their best (very different) work in similar areas of the pitch, in my opinion.   

True. In this formation you would be asking Kaye and Arfield to sit deeper, and generate less in the final third than they are sometimes asked to. I accept that though because I think we’re most dangerous down the wings and in transition

[WestHamCanadianinOxford]

2 minutes ago, Aird25 said:

True. In this formation you would be asking Kaye and Arfield to sit deeper, and generate less in the final third than they are sometimes asked to. I accept that though because I think we’re most dangerous down the wings and in transition

Some decent problems to have, wish we had the same in defence. Really appreciate the discussion but I need get up early and do real life if I am to spend my afternoon and evening watching more football.  Thanks.

[Obinna]

6 minutes ago, Aird25 said:

True. In this formation you would be asking Kaye and Arfield to sit deeper, and generate less in the final third than they are sometimes asked to. I accept that though because I think we’re most dangerous down the wings and in transition

Might actually be a very interesting way to line up against Mexico (when we get past the USA and face them in the nations league finals 😎 )

[Aird25]

18 minutes ago, WestHamCanadianinOxford said:

I think that is his best role, whatever you call it. 

However, the reason why 4 in midfield (442 usually) went out of fashion quite a bit is that your wide players would be up attacking and people figured out formations where they would outnumber and overrun your midfield two (often because they were not only defensive players).  Hoillet's not going to hold that middle bank of 4 and I would not want Davies to. 

You see, I’d rather play Davies as a wide midfielder than a wide forward. I think he’s better with more field in front of him to stretch his legs. He’s a fine defender. I like Hoilett there too, with a defender on that side that can overlap. I have no problem asking him to defend a little. I’ve watched him do a lot of it in a bad premier league side

Edited September 20, 2019 by Aird25

[Obinna]

6 minutes ago, Aird25 said:

You see, I’d rather play Davies as a wide midfielder than a wide forward. I think he’s better with more field in front of him to stretch his legs. He’s a fine defender. I like Hoilett there too, with a defender on that side that can overlap. I have no problem asking him to defend a little. I’ve watched him do a lot of it in a bad premier league side

That's fair. True about Davies and Hoilett.

I think Millar could be useful if we played that way as well.

[WestHamCanadianinOxford]

13 hours ago, Aird25 said:

You see, I’d rather play Davies as a wide midfielder than a wide forward. I think he’s better with more field in front of him to stretch his legs. He’s a fine defender. I like Hoilett there too, with a defender on that side that can overlap. I have no problem asking him to defend a little. I’ve watched him do a lot of it in a bad premier league side

If Davies played as traditional wide midfielder in a bank of 4, we might not have won the last game against Cuba,  he would have been wider maintaining his position, not coming from a more central one, where he had a perfect body shape to take that shot.

Whether he is a fine defender is up for debate for me, he would need to be tested against good teams more than he has been to this point.   But whether he is or isn't and even if he is willing (I think he has shown he is), you still have the basic problem that he can't be two places at once.  Which is why, as I said, people have been able to exploit the 4 man midfields with attacking wide men.  Early Chelsea under Mourinho were able to overcome good English teams with good wide men and changed a lot of football because of it. 

On Hoilett, I do disagree. I think how bad Cardiff were works against your point not for it. We want to be better against good teams than Cardiff were last year and Junior Hoilett's inconsistency in performing defensive duties were part of why they struggled and why he has played less for Colin, I believe.  He is amazing when he does what he did to us (West Ham us) in Cardiff or to Wolves but I watched him live at the London Stadium last December (so crowded even that much before Christmas).  There is not a better example of give-up one-on-one defending than him on the right-back Antonio for the corner that led to the third goal.  We were actually able to play a 442 that day and get away with it. 

If there is one player I think we need to play to his strengths and keep him happy and engaged, it is Junior Hoilett.  He has so much to give, which he doesn't show that often or is not able to show under Colin's system, which involves a lot of defensive work.  

( http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/rules_and_equipment/4197518.stm

Fun article on formations from the past - mid 00s from the fact Giuly seems to be at Barcelona - someone who is more tech savvy could tell me when exactly.  442 is the most common still but it says 451/433 is coming on.  Don't click on the "Introduction" tab though - forbidden content.  Compare that to a more recent one https://www.fourfourtwo.com/features/football-tactics-formations-explained-442-433-451-4231-most-common-how-beat-them )

Edited September 21, 2019 by WestHamCanadianinOxford

[Obinna]

2 hours ago, WestHamCanadianinOxford said:

If Davies played as traditional wide midfielder in a bank of 4, we might not have won the last game against Cuba,  he would have been wider maintaining his position, not coming from a more central one, where he had a perfect body shape to take that shot.

Whether he is a fine defender is up for debate for me, he would need to be tested against good teams more than he has been to this point.   But whether he is or isn't and even if he is willing (I think he has shown he is), you still have the basic problem that he can't be two places at once.  Which is why, as I said, people have been able to exploit the 4 man midfields with attacking wide men.  Early Chelsea under Mourinho were able to overcome good English teams with good wide men and changed a lot of football because of it. 

On Hoilett, I do disagree. I think how bad Cardiff were works against your point not for it. We want to be better against good teams than Cardiff were last year and Junior Hoilett's inconsistency in performing defensive duties were part of why they struggled and why he has played less for Colin, I believe.  He is amazing when he does what he did to us (West Ham us) in Cardiff or to Wolves but I watched him live at the London Stadium last December (so crowded even that much before Christmas).  There is not a better example of give-up one-on-one defending than him on the right-back Antonio for the corner that led to the third goal.  We were actually able to play a 442 that day and get away with it. 

If there is one player I think we need to play to his strengths and keep him happy and engaged, it is Junior Hoilett.  He has so much to give, which he doesn't show that often or is not able to show under Colin's system, which involves a lot of defensive work.  

( http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/rules_and_equipment/4197518.stm

Fun article on formations from the past - mid 00s from the fact Giuly seems to be at Barcelona - someone who is more tech savvy could tell me when exactly.  442 is the most common still but it says 451/433 is coming on.  Don't click on the "Introduction" tab though - forbidden content.  Compare that to a more recent one https://www.fourfourtwo.com/features/football-tactics-formations-explained-442-433-451-4231-most-common-how-beat-them )

In general, consistency has been an issue for Hoilett his whole career. Not just on the defensive end, but just his all around game. He is capable of brilliant moments, but he is not consistently brilliant (unfortunately). What a player he would be if he could find more consistency in his game.

That said, he is probably more consistent for Canada than he has been for any of his clubs, so that is good for us at least.

[Aird25]

3 hours ago, WestHamCanadianinOxford said:

If Davies played as traditional wide midfielder in a bank of 4, we might not have won the last game against Cuba,  he would have been wider maintaining his position, not coming from a more central one, where he had a perfect body shape to take that shot.

There was no need for Davies to stay wide on that play. It was a break that developed in their own half and there was no width to the attack. If he had found himself in the same situation as an outside back, I would still expect him to make that same run. Regardless, I haven’t suggested a traditional bank of 4. I only used a 4411 formation as a way of explaining David’s role in my squad

[WestHamCanadianinOxford]

4 minutes ago, Aird25 said:

There was no need for Davies to stay wide on that play. It was a break that developed in their own half and there was no width to the attack. If he had found himself in the same situation as an outside back, I would still expect him to make that same run. Regardless, I haven’t suggested a traditional bank of 4. I only used a 4411 formation as a way of explaining David’s role in my squad

I am a little confused what you were saying then.  Every player's role is partly determined by what their team mates are doing, not sure looking at his role and asking to ignore the rest of the formation would be that helpful.  You talked about Davies and Hoilett being wide midfielders, what formation were you imagining if not a 4411?

(If you continue my historical example and give David a very flattering comparison to Bergkamp, the Arsenal Invincibles in 2003/2004 were really a 4411 and similar to what I though you were saying.  They had two good wide players in Pires and Ljungberg/Wiltord but Chelsea came along the next couple years and showed how to play them and at least neutralized them to win back to back titles.  Arsenal were still good in 2004/2005 but lost key games to teams like Allardyce's Bolton who were playing 451.  Then Arsenal were 24 points behind Chelsea in 2005/2006)

[Aird25]

13 minutes ago, WestHamCanadianinOxford said:

I am a little confused what you were saying then.  Every player's role is partly determined by what their team mates are doing, not sure looking at his role and asking to ignore the rest of the formation would be that helpful.  You talked about Davies and Hoilett being wide midfielders, what formation were you imagining if not a 4411?

(If you continue my historical example and give David a very flattering comparison to Bergkamp, the Arsenal Invincibles in 2003/2004 were really a 4411 and similar to what I though you were saying.  They had two good wide players in Pires and Ljungberg/Wiltord but Chelsea came along the next couple years and showed how to play them and at least neutralized them to win back to back titles.  Arsenal were still good in 2004/2005 but lost key games to teams like Allardyce's Bolton who were playing 451.  Then Arsenal were 24 points behind Chelsea in 2005/2006)

Sorry mate. We’re now well beyond the discussion I was looking to get into. I was just responding to Obinna’s concerns about the balance of that particular midfield. Interesting stuff though!

[WestHamCanadianinOxford]

Just now, Aird25 said:

Sorry mate. We’re now well beyond the discussion I was looking to get into. I was just responding to Obinna’s concerns about the balance of that particular midfield. Interesting stuff though!

Which discussion was that?

[Aird25]

On 9/20/2019 at 9:10 AM, 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. 

@WestHamCanadianinOxford

[WestHamCanadianinOxford]

18 minutes ago, Aird25 said:

@WestHamCanadianinOxford

Yeah I think I understood that discussion.  After reading all this I think the safest and most standard solution would be the now basic 4231 on offence and 4321 on defence switch with Arfield being the switching central midfielder.  He has shown me he can do both. David has yet to show that he could be that player on the defensive side for me, way too many fouls when he has tried to come close.  This of course means big decisions about sitting, limiting or moving one of our better players though. 

If I understood, I think you were suggesting he have little defensive responsibly, like a player in a 4411? I would agree with that.  And would really like him there. It just means big questions and problems elsewhere for me. A lot of which has been written about already.

Edited September 21, 2019 by WestHamCanadianinOxford

[Aird25]

11 minutes ago, WestHamCanadianinOxford said:

Yeah I think I understood that discussion.  After reading all this I think the safest and most standard solution to would be the now basic 4231 on offence and 4321 on defence switch with Arfield being the switching central midfielder.  He has shown me he can do both. David has yet to show that he could be that player on the defensive side for me, way too many fouled when he has tried to come close.  This of course means big decisions about sitting, limiting or moving one of our better players though. 

If I understood, I think you were suggesting he have little defensive responsibly, like a player in a 4411? I would agree with that.  And would really like him there. It just means big questions and problems elsewhere for me. A lot of which has been written about already.

What formation/lineup would you suggest?

[WestHamCanadianinOxford]

10 minutes ago, Aird25 said:

What formation/lineup would you suggest?

As I mentioned but maybe did not make clear, 4321 that Arfield can make 4231 in attack. 

David being  there is outweighed by the problems it would cause elsewhere. 

If we had a stronger defence maybe I would think differently.

 

[Aird25]

4 minutes ago, WestHamCanadianinOxford said:

As I mentioned but maybe did not make clear, 4321 that Arfield can make 4231 in attack. 

David being  there is outweighed by the problems it would cause elsewhere. 

If we had a stronger defence maybe I would think differently.

 

With David relegated to the bench for another midfielder? Or something else

Edited September 21, 2019 by Aird25