January Transfer Window - Rumours, Links, B*llsh*t and Made-Up Nonsense

[Concrete John]

I think the formations, which are basically 4-4-2 or some variation on 4-5-1, both need the same two players - a 'number 9' and a big DCM.  A DCM to allow the attacking players to get forward with a safety net behind them and the striker to give them a player to play off.  Get those two positions right and both formations work very well.

[Mazrim]

Yes indeed.

[Monty]

Why big? Claude Makelele is the definition of that position and he's 5' 7''. Also, the old-fashioned number 9 can be as much of a burden as a gift: he offers the attack a focal point, but if he's not really, really good (Drogba, basically) he can be marked out of the game just as readily as playmakers or wingers. If you're over-reliant on him being that focal point and he's marked out of the game, you obviously lose a huge amount of your potency going forward.

Another problem is that, even with these two players, 4-4-2 won't work because you'll either have a shortfall in midfield or out wide if you play the diamond. So you either move one wide player inside and it basically becomes 4-3-3, or you bring one of the two forwards back to link with the two central midfielders and you've got 4-2-3-1. 4-4-2 just doesn't work inherently.

The key is always players being comfortable on the ball, tactically aware so they don't leave gaps, always moving to give each other options, interchanging to keep defenders guessing. To do this, even for the most talented players, they have to train very hard indeed at very repetitive exercises designed to make them totally aware of each others' games and how to work in the system. As GH said, "it will take lots of training, lots of repetition". Once they've done this, then we can truly start to judge what is deficient in our team.

[Concrete John]

Why big? Claude Makelele is the definition of that position and he's 5' 7''. Also, the old-fashioned number 9 can be as much of a burden as a gift: he offers the attack a focal point, but if he's not really, really good (Drogba, basically) he can be marked out of the game just as readily as playmakers or wingers. If you're over-reliant on him being that focal point and he's marked out of the game, you obviously lose a huge amount of your potency going forward.

Another problem is that, even with these two players, 4-4-2 won't work because you'll either have a shortfall in midfield or out wide if you play the diamond. So you either move one wide player inside and it basically becomes 4-3-3, or you bring one of the two forwards back to link with the two central midfielders and you've got 4-2-3-1. 4-4-2 just doesn't work inherently.

The key is always players being comfortable on the ball, tactically aware so they don't leave gaps, always moving to give each other options, interchanging to keep defenders guessing. To do this, even for the most talented players, they have to train very hard indeed at very repetitive exercises designed to make them totally aware of each others' games and how to work in the system. As GH said, "it will take lots of training, lots of repetition". Once they've done this, then we can truly start to judge what is deficient in our team.

Why big?  Well, I think we need to dominate games more if we're no longer going to be overly reliant on the counter attack.  That means a player that not only protects the back four, but dictates play and out muscles the oppositions midfield.  I'm think of a Viera in his prime.

I don't see any one player being a focal point as a problem.  When it was Ash and teams were doubling up on him on the left wing, did we decide not to play him?  What we need is player at the head of our side who can lead the line and occupy defenders.  That then allows time for our attacking midfielders and/or Gabby to link with him and get us possession in dangerous areas.  Yes, Drogba is an example, but if you look at hiow good we can be with an on form Carew, then you see it's of benefit.  The PL is a physical league, so having a physical frontman works.  Even the likes of Man U have strikers with height (Berbatov) or power (Rooney) as ability without that and the will to impose yourself makes you Luke Moore.

As for the 4-4-2 thing, I think there is nothing wrong with it.  As I said both systems need these players as they a) are what we lack in the squad and b) would give the freedom/opportunity for the likes of Ash, Albrighton, Ireland and Gabby, were it to be 4-4-2, to have a greater influence and be our match winners.   

[Monty]

I still don't see what big has to do with it. Strong, certainly, is necessary in the type of player you're describing, but you don't have to be particularly big to be strong. For instance, you've cited Rooney as an example of a powerful striker - well, Rooney's 5' 10'', perfectly normal size. Milner is an inch shorter and is the player we're missing in the midfield. Delph, likewise, has plenty about him and is the same height as Milner, and given his age there is more to come from him. I also don't necessarily think that one player is sufficient for midfield domination. Even Vieira at his best, even in a 4-4-2-obsessed Premier League which gave individual midfielders more influence, needed Petit and Parlour alongside him. I think we have Delph, who is an excellent young midfielder with a hell of a lot of drive, but we still need another player to be a sort of quarterback, or tempo-dicatator, if we are going to dominate midfields and games.

The focal point of an attack isn't necessarily a problem, but it isn't necessarily the only answer either. You mention Berbatov and Rooney - people think they're plaing 4-4-2, but they're not, as both Berbatov and Rooney are support strikers, effectively attacking midfielders, so United play without an out-and-out striker, relying instead on movement into space from their attacking players. Chelsea play with a focal point, feeding off Drogba and the team moving aroudn him. Different ways of playing, and neither is necessarily wrong, but we could do without the number 9 if we choose to develop a different style, and Gabby could be useful for this. I'm not denying physicality - Gabby, after all, is an all-round physical phenomenon - just the necessity of 'focal point' tactics.

As for 4-4-2, I just don't see how it can possibly work in this day and age. Whenever it appears to be working, like at Man Utd, scratch the surface and you find that actually a midfielder's come inside to make 4-3-3, or a striker's dropped deep to make 4-2-3-1, and so on. Out-and-out 4-4-2 is either defensive and counter-attacking or leaves you hopelessly open - as various parts of MON's reign will testify.

[Concrete John]

Well, the taller the player the more imposing he can be - I certainly wouldn't want someone short in there.  Plus, we also need to start winning headers in the midfield as we haven't had anyone who can do that for a while.

With the Berbatov/Rooney thing both can play as a 'number 9', so when they're swapping around thay are also still maintaining that basic principle of having a player spearheading the attack.  Barring have to excellent and versatile striker like that ourselves, I think we need that Drogba kind of player.

People will tell you 4-4-2 is to rigid, and maybe they're right, but 4-5-1 can have the same problem as it's more about the players than it is the formation.  My basic principle was to have some structure to the side by playing an anchor man and a leader of the line, then whatever you call it the other midfielders getting forward or striker dropping deep/wide has the ability to do so in a less rigid way.  These two players would allow the fluidity you want and whatever formation the the media label it as won't really matter. 

[Monty]

Like I said, the player who defined the position, Makelele, is Bannan's height. The difference is obviously that Makelele's so much stronger than Bannan you wonder if they're operating in different gravitational fields. Strength is important for this position, but I don't think you have to be tall to be imposing or strong - have you ever, for instance, seen a midfielder who imposes himself on the midfield more than Xavi, or one who does so less than Isaiah Osbourne? It's about ability, first, second and third. Height is a side issue. Even for headers, the difference between having a midfielder who's 5' 10'' and one who's 6' 1'' can be overcome with good leaping and heading technique. Ability will out, even if strength is important (and actually, players like Xavi are deceptively strong because of the way the use their frames and balance).

I don't think Man Utd have a striker 'spearhead', I think it's more that one makes the runs beyond. They play with their backs to goal on the edge of the area, but so do midfielders in that position so I don't think that defines them as a spearhead. They just move particularly well and know each others' games and movements now really well - which is what good training can do.

And yes, I see what you mean. What you're talking about, though, is effectively a kind of 4-1-4-1 - not the out-and-out 4-4-2 by anyone's standards hopefully. I think the team who did this best was the Flamengo team of the early '80s, the one which annihilated Liverpool in the Intercontinental Cup. Holding player Andrade, Nunes as the attacking focal point and Lico, Tito, Adilio and Zico as the attacking four (Zico obviously being the best player). If we can play like them I certainly won't be complaining!

[Concrete John]

Makelale isn't the kind of player I'm thinking of.  His prime asset was that of protecting the defense - he was a true DCM and although I used the phrase, what we need is more of a midfield general who not only does that, but can dictate and boss a game for us from a deeper position.  Yes, height is not everything for that player, but some physicality is necessary and being a 6 footer would help.

Well, I think Man U play differently to that.  Last season they had Rooney as the striker more often than not and if you remember how he occuopied our back 4 at Villa Park, granted without scoring, it give freedom and space to attacking midfielders.  One benefit is you know he'll be in the box should they beat their man for a pull back or cross, and that is because he is leading the line.  A fluid interchanging of positions is all well and good, but it does need to have some structure behind it and these 2 players would give that. 

I'm not talking about 4-1-4-1, although that is always an option.  In the same way we should think more in terms of squad than team, we should not think of one formation and abandon all others.  In some games we could play 4-4-2 with say Ireland box to box, Gabby pulling wide and two wingers, which is really speaking 4-4-2.  It's about options and bar having the 'total football' superstars of the game both players I am after would be needed to allow these formations to work properly.

[Monty]

To address two debates with one point, I think it was Ferguson who said that formations should only really apply when you don't have the ball, that ideally in an attacking sense the players should organise themselves on the pitch with two main points in mind: first, where their own personal games are most effective (it's up to the manager to select the right players, of course); and second, to keep moving to make sure the opposition keep guessing. Arrigo Sacchi always maintained that players positioning and interchanging should have three reference points: the positions of the ball, the space, and the team-mates. I think these sorts of things are what GH is driving at, and like I say, it takes a hell of a lot of work and practice in training. As far as there are formations when we have the ball, though, I think it is impossible to play two out-and-out strikers. Two support strikers works for United, because as you say, one goes on and the other drops deep in any given situation, but two Defoes, for example, just leaves the midfield and attack shorn of links.

Just a small word about 'total football superstars': I think it's actually easier to achieve total football without superstars, because this sort of football requires the most amazing amount of hard work both in training and during games, and superstar egos aren't necessarily the best equipped to handle this sort of strain. Ideally, of course, you train players together from youth level, and combine this with supreme talent you get Barcelona.

[Concrete John]

When I say 'total football superstar', I don't necessarily mean the big egos, just the great players.  Man U, as you rightly point out, have two strikers who can play up top or more withdrawn, an excellent talent to have and why they cost £60m between them.  The Spain side is another great example with the likes of Villa, Xavi and Iniesta, but these sort of players we simply won't get, whether they are willing work hard or not.  Yet at all times there will be a man upfront, leading the line and linking play with these deeper creative players.  We need that.  So unless we can find a (few) players like Berbatov and Rooney, then we need to have a more traditional number 9 to provide the focal point of the attack and allow others to play off him. 

"Arrigo Sacchi always maintained that players positioning and interchanging should have three reference points: the positions of the ball, the space, and the team-mates"

This point does illustrate what I'm getting at.  If you're striker in a 4-5-1 drops deep or wide, someone should have awareness of that and fill his position.  Therefore would Ash or Ireland be able to go up against a CB with their back to goal or beat him for a header if the striker get a cross in?  No, but a Berbatov/Rooney in that role would.  So unless we get better players all round, we have a more traditional centre forward to help get the best out of the attacking midfielders we already have.

[Monty]

Frankly I don't mind Young or Ireland with their backs to goal with a defender on them, because they're both excellent at guarding the ball. You'd also hope that we wouldn't just cross it if it were one of them currently up against the centre-back, and I'd also say that, in the event of a pull-back to the penalty spot or so they're the two players we currently have I'd prefer to be on the end of it.

Villa, Xavi, Iniesta are all footballers who don't just play this style, they play it better than anyone. But while we can't aspire to that level just yet, I think we'd win more - and entertain more - by playing as close as we can get to this style. It requires a combination of ability, hard work and intelligence - and we've not only got some players capable of this already, we've got talented young players who can be moulded in this style so it's second nature to them, as well as complementing them with new signings. Why not aspire?

[Matt C]

Possible Carew replacement?

From The Daily Mail

Bolton manager Owen Coyle is to hold talks with Johan Elmander about a new contract, with the striker available on a free transfer at the end of this season.

Always thought he was decent, like Carew, he's bulit like a brick shithouse.

Would rather his strike partner but then as the search will no longer be restricted to the PL only then I expect we'll be looking further afield.

[KevinGage]

Davies and Elmander would be the type of notions I'd entertain if the last guy was still in charge.

Hopefully we can do much, much better.

[Concrete John]

Why not aspire?

We can aspire, but we also need to win football matches in the mean time.

Arsenal are a better side than us, but they have the balance wrong and are lacking a dominant DCM and a number 9.  You add those two players, of the right quality, and they'd be right up there with Chelsea.  So if we try to do the same thing in the PL with, let's be honest, inferior players we'll get similar yet inferior results.  Play better football and have players interchanging?  I'm all for that.  But we'd win more matches if that was combined with a bit of PL practicality that a physical presence upfront would bring.

[barrysleftfoot]

  I'll say it again, if fully fit Delph will be a superstar.For me hes a better player than Wilshire.

  And on the right hand side , as a defensive midfielder, i would break the bank to get Henderson from Sland.

  Failing that , it would'nt surprise me if Mr Milner might struggle at Citeh.